Talk:List of Oregon wineries and vineyards

AFD and cleanup

If this article passes the july 2010 afd, i have stated i will clean it up. if you come here and it has excessive uncited redlinks, remind me and ill do the cleanup.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Even though I proposed the AfD, I'm willing to help with cleanup too. What I've seen happen on other articles (for example, List of twelve-step groups and Biblical software, to name a couple), is that all the redlinks are removed, all the external links are removed, and only those entities notable enough to merit their own Wikipedia articles are included in the list. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much what i've done as well. sometimes i do a little research on list items that i may have heard of, or sound important. But, wow, when i went to edit this, check out the hidden text:

This list is intended to be comprehensive, and doesn't discriminate based on size or reputation. However, this list should only include bonded wineries, vineyards owned by bonded wineries (including out of state wineries) if separate, and independent vineyards with documented and verifiable sales of grapes. OK to list vineyards which sell grapes to other than wineries, or grow other than V. viniferas, but those should be noted. If the date of operation or the location is known, list those. Grapes grown in someone's backyard don't count.

This is wrong on so many levels. its obviously created by someone with a commercial interest in maintaining this list. I dont care if it is someone growing grapes in their backyard, i dont care about bonded or not. as long as they meet WP notability. ive removed this hidden text and will write some better material.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, that text shouldn't be there. Notability should be the criterion for inclusion, not merely existence. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm coming into this discussion really late, but I'd encourge all editors to look through an article's edit history before jumping to conclusions. The objectionable hidden text was contributed by article creator EngineerScotty, a well-respected editor. (diff) The list he created grew, became tabulated, etc. But as far as I know, he just likes wine and has no interest in promoting the wine industry. In the past I removed many many self-promotional edits from wineries, though I had little interest in filling in the redlinks. I have to say this now looks like crap and should probably be deleted. (I pretty much agree with Aboutmovies' comments below. Valfontis (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing all the redlinks should not have been done. Without the redlinks, there becomes little point in having the list as it becomes almost completely redundant with the category (which was one of the arguments for deleting the list). That's one reason why we have lists, as notability only controls whether or not we have a stand-alone article, it does not directly impact whether or not we should still have coverage somewhere within Wikipedia (read the opening to WP:NOTE). Did sources needed to be added, certainly, but we could have eliminated the redlinks by simply un-linking them. Aboutmovies (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

They can always be added back. Even without the redlinks, the list serves a useful purpose beyond the category by sorting the wineries into their respective regions. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I direct your attention to WP:WTAF. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

And I direct you to WP:NOTE and WP:REDLINK, which are actual guidelines, and not a freaking essay that has no weight what so ever - which is what WTAF is. Or I direct you to the article's history where I believe the only winery I've added, is none. However, I did write the article for Oak Knoll, along with close to 500 articles in total on Wikipedia, but keep trying! Aboutmovies (talk) 03:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of wineries in a comprehensive list are not notable, and likely will never be. Regardless of WP:REDLINK, I do see several other list articles following WP:WTAF as if it were a guideline. That doesn't mean we should do so on this article; I'm just pointing out an apparently established practice. I suspect other list articles follow WP:WTAF probably because it makes the list easier to maintain.

I won't object, however, if some redlinks are added back in, but I'd insist that they be included based on their likelihood of meeting the WP:NOTABILITY criteria for inclusion if article were written about them, rather than adding them all back indiscriminately. Wikipedia is not a directory after all (and that's a policy, not just a guideline). ~Amatulić (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You insist do you? And I love how people always throw around NOTDIRECTORY for list articles, but if one actually takes the time to go through and read, analyze, and understand what not directory is, people would better understand what it is actually getting at. As in, lists like these should be encyclopedic, such as providing information such as location and date of establishment (maybe even volume in dollar amounts or I think wine goes by cases in order to provide some context of size). Where we draw the line is providing the company's website, contact info, and hours of operation for a tasting room. And how do we get at that, follow the core policy of WP:V. Again, notability only controls if we have a stand-alone article, but V otherwise controls. So we could have entries for wineries that do not pass WP:CORP, but there is enough from WP:RS to provide an entry on a list article. For instance, Helvatia Winery has enough RS coverage that I know of to allow for a mention on a list such as this, as it is owned by a former Congressperson, but I don't think I've seen enough coverage for a stand-alone article.

Next, it is rather interesting that you insist anything new now requires a source, but the article in its current state has zero. It is a fallacy of logic if you think that the current ones all pass some notability guideline just because they are currently a blue link. They all may be notable, but a blue link does not equal notability, it equals someone wrote an article. For example a few months ago several of us went through something like four very related AFDs over a band/members because the writer created all of the articles at once. Now, because that created blue linked bands and members, admins declined speedies on them because the fact that they were members of notable bands or the bands had notable members, that these articles met the music notability guidelines. Well, none of the articles passed any notability guidelines, so each was in turn deleted. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you even read my comment?

Yes, I insist. This has nothing to do with WP:OWN which you linked (and which is pretty funny since I proposed this article for AfD). I insist that this article follow established policies. WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies to all articles whether you like it or not. There is no encyclopedic value in listing every mom and pop winery that have no more secondary-source coverage than any other mom and pop winery in the wine industry. A list of wineries need not include external links to violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Once it starts listing irrelevant cruft, then yes. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a wine guide after all (and yes, that's an essay).

Next, it is rather interesting how you put words in my mouth. Where did I say that any new addition requires sources? I didn't. Rather, any redlink added should be added with the expectation that an article written on it meet criteria for inclusion. Where did I say blue links imply notability? I didn't. And that's an irrelevant point, amounting to an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument.

Again I say: add back some redlinks, judiciously. Check the blue links for notability. I am not convinced that all the redlinks that were previously listed need to be listed. 19:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, since you said it, did you even read my comment? Did I say every winery should be listed, no. I said those that pass WP:V could be listed, as notability (for the upteenth time since you appear to not have read WP:NOTE) only controls if we have a stand-alone article "On Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article" (to help you, that's the very first sentence of NOTE).

Next, I never said all the redlinks should be added back, they should just have all been removed wholesale.

As to own, it doesn't matter if you improperly nominated this for deletion (yes, improper as if you read the deletion policy it states: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." and also see WP:DEL#REASON and this as part of your NOTDIRECTORY rationale for the AfD nom), the fact that you insist others follow your interpretations of various policies/guidelines (or in some case essays that carry no weight) demonstrates you are attempting to own the page. Honestly, it comes across as a bit of sour grapes after the failed AfD.

As to NOTDIRECTORY, I do actually think it applies to this and all articles. We simply disagree on what that policy states and means. I've read and analyzed it many times over the nearly fours years I've been on Wikipedia and understand why it exists and what it is try to control. ELs alone are not a determining factor for when NOTDIR is violated, and while I did mention websites, it was one of three examples of content that would transform a list into an actual directory vs. an encyclopedic list. The actual problem with the ELs before on this article is that they violated WP:EL for a variety of reasons, including being in the body of the text.

As to blue links and notability, then why is that only the blue links remain from I am assuming is your edit as an IP that has been involved with this thread, complete with the addition of "notable" to the lead-though you removed it later as redundant, which further proves the point.

Lastly, yes I guess I made an assumption that you would want citations to prove notability. Guess I can just add some back then and you won't mind. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I won't mind. Looks like we had a misunderstanding and we're generally in agreement in the end. And no, that anon edit wasn't mine. I use DSL, that's a cable IP. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

thanks for getting around to removing unreferenced redlinks so quickly. i was put off initially by the formatting. i often mess up articles when i try to trim out heavily formatted lines from lists. i remove one little character and its messed up. my understanding of such lists is: each item needs some indication, either thru a blue link or a reliable source, that the winery is notable. we can have lots of redlinks and nonlinked names, as long as each name has a little ref tag and some reliable source on the page here. all the non linked names could have the same ref if applicable, for instance, a wine producers cooperative website listing major wineries, an oregon state ag site, etc.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The links themselves don't need to be cited, even the redlinks. A non-link should be a link, red or blue, if the non-link subject looks notable. A red link need not be referenced, but if a red link exists, it should exist because the winery would meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Sometimes a winery is clearly notable (say, their wine won a famous international competition) but an article hasn't been written on it yet. In obvious cases no references are needed on redlinked list items. There's no problem with adding references, though. I don't see it as necessary in all cases, and one can always add hidden comments in the article source <!-- like this --> explaining why the listed winery would meet the inclusion criteria. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)