Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink/Wines task force/Template grape article

Headings

I have a suggestion, but not enough time to try to implement it, so take this for what it is. In a previous project where I played a bigger role we were in a simmilar, situation as the wine project is now, i.e. there were very few articles with little facts when we started, we had one GA/ almost FA article. To structure the project the first thing I did was to nominate that article as the template for all future articles. In the wine case that would mean that Riesling would be the structure (i.e. header structure that all grape articles would be built from) and we would try to reformat/refactor other grape articles to that style. This would not mean that we MUST have all headings that the riesling article have, shorter articles could have none, but what I mean is that there would be a template with things that should go into a good grape article, like for reisling, Regions, productions, with food, labelling (should be naming?), longevity (should be cellaring potential??). Now I do not really like the riesling example, so we could build one from scratch, better would be, description (describing the grape and the wine (plant)), Regions (where is it grown), blending and wine types ( to describe how wine is blended from this grape ), history (where is it from, how has it spread), taste (not sure about this but must be here??), popularity (how much is this grape used in comparison to other grapes). Comments. Stefan 03:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I updated riesling a bit after I adeed this comment to refelect more what I say above. Stefan 03:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a basic template order would helpful, especially one that accommodates a degree of flexibility since it seems that every wine grape, style and region have some unique flair to them. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 06:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea as it promotes consistency in article presentation. The key is to ensure that everyone is happy with the "template" to start with as changes later would be messy. ◄scharks► 01:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Agne27, of course, it can not be a 100% strict template, more a general idea with guidelines of what should be included and what can be included depending on grape, OK I will create a template and start working on it and post here for comments when I have a first version. Stefan 03:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This is do-able simply because all grapes should have description, history, region and blending sections (in that order) but most or all of the other headers need some scrutiny: I'd say food, cellaring, taste, etc are (a) more wine-related and (b) too open to NPOV violations. I assume we all agree that each article should have an Infobox for grape variety? mikaul 12:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean? Can you please clarify. Stefan 14:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

First draft is here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wine/Template_grape_article, please add and change. Stefan 15:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• I would say Regions instead - and Regional production can also work. Charleenmerced ^Talk 15:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced

No need to explain, Stefan, that's exactly what I was suggesting - nice work :) although I'd agree with Charleenmerced: "regions" is better for grapes, as there aren't many which exist only in one (geog) region. It sounds a *little* clumsy though - wouldn't "Distribution" be more appropriate? mikaul 15:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Well, I think the word distribution might refer more to where a thing is distributed to (where it is taken, exported, etc), not where it grows or where wine is produce. I guess that's why I like "Regional Production" (at least for where wine is produce.--Charleenmerced ^Talk 16:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced

I do not like regional production, since you produce wine, but not grapes, I want to talk about where the GRAPES grow, in a wine article we can say regional production but not for grapes. Distribution, not sure, I prefere regions, but have not good reson why. Stefan 04:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Second comment, instead of blending (because grapes are not always blended) we can use Viticulture and uses (or something like that) or put the blending area into the Regions since blending practices it is somewhat consistent within regions.--Charleenmerced ^Talk 04:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced

OK, so in line with my comment above, I guess Viticulture makes more sense. I update the template. Stefan 04:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• No offence Charleenmerced, 'Regional production' may make sense in American, but it sounds horrible in British English, it sounds like you are 'making regions' only not quite. As long as it's not 'regional production', I'm not too fussed. I quite like Distribution - I accept there is a little confusion with distribution of the wine where wine and grape are the same, but not that much. Biogeography literally means the geographical distribution of living things, and hence could not be confused with the wine - but I suspect we actually mean to include the wine (blends etc) within each region. There's another word on the tip of my tongue, that is similar but broader - argggh, I can't think :-((. Regions is OK though.

Viticulture is literally the growing of vines, the plants, so is nothing to do with wine. Oenology might be more appropriate, but gets a bit controversial as the first O gets dropped or added on different sides of the Atlantic. Shame vinology isn't a word, Wine making would do?

Another option would be to replace "Regions" with "Biogeography and wines" or "Distribution and wines" (which cleverly avoids confusion with "distribution of wines") and then just bang out Bordeaux, Italy, Western Australia etc out underneath that heading.

I really hate long introductions on Wiki articles, and I like the 'Description', but I'm wondering whether the best thing to do isn't to have a slightly longer preamble, then ditch the Description, and put most of the stuff about the vine into the 'Viticulture' section (perhaps Vine and Viticulture]. I imagine that most Wikipedians won't be that interested in learning how to grow the vines, so it might make sense to concentrate all that stuff into one section that can be put fairly low down the pecking order.

History is good, although technically with things like Chasselas and Pinot you're having to go back into pre-history, when things weren't written down.

Finally - how about moving this section to the Talk section of the template, and just leave a pointer on this page? FlagSteward 22:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Images

My preference would be for the main Infobox image to be a botanical drawing from an ampelography book, as they are designed to show off the distinguishing features of the berries and leaves. Photos of the grapes are probably less helpful in that regard, but are obviously useful as well - to be spread through the article? The Viticulture section could be illustrated with a photo of the vine/leaves. Photos of wine labels are a poor substitute for the above in an article about the grapes.

I was thinking, most of the great ampelography books must be out of copyright by now, and would represent a great source of images for the grape articles. For instance : [1] has some images from Victor Rendu's Ampelographie francaise of 1857 - the first two images are general ones of vines, [2] and following are of different varieties. It's not that easy to identify some of them, but you could cross-check with the thumbnails on http://www.winelit.slsa.sa.gov.au/grapeswines.htm Another factor in suggesting these are that I just think they are beautiful images that deserve a wider audience. I think they should be OK for copyright, can anyone confirm? An Aussie reader might want to talk to the State Library of South Australia - they seem fairly OK about giving permission for use of images in return for an acknowledgement. Does anyone else have access to a library with some of these old books? FlagSteward 18:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)