Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink/Wines task force

HomeAssessmentCleanupParticipantsGuidelinesTo do listTalkpageTemplatesTranslators

Requested move at Talk:Pinot noir#Requested move 31 January 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pinot noir#Requested move 31 January 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Incipit of Chianti is potentially misleading

See this discussion. Have a nice wiki. Alexmar983 (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 18 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine → Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Wines task force – I propose that this inactive drinks wikiproject be merged into WP:FOOD as a task force, same as how Cheese TF and Beverage TF are, and how other inactive wikiprojects have been converted into taskforces over time. -- 65.92.244.127 (talk) 08:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support. This probably should have been a regular discussion and not a move discussion as it's about the scope (changing from a project to a task force), but since this project is inactive and since the RM discussion is anyways on the same page, I guess the RM will bring more eyes to this and provide for a better consensus. Gonnym (talk) 09:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, I think that it could be an active WikiProject again... It wasn't all that dead when pronounced dead after all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Would it not be better as a taskforce instead of as a separate WikiProject? (many WikiProjects have active taskforces) -- 65.92.244.127 (talk) 06:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
    • IMO task forces aren't all that useful for topics which span different areas... For example in this one many of the questions that the Wine Wikiproject has resolved have been agricultural as grape varietals are at the core of the project area along with the beverage made from those grapes. The same can be said for vinicultural areas, wine regions, etc... Those are inherently geographical in nature and would be poorly covered under Project Food and drink. So we'd be looking at three different taskforces at three different wikiprojects... IMO thats not sustainable and again I remain unconvinced that the wikiproject was/is actually inactive... The talk page wasn't super active but editors do appear to have been directed to active discussions from here even if they didn't reply to the post on this page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• I came too late. I would have opposed this. Whatever move took place seems to have been undone. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• @Estar8806: "Argument in opposition was successfully countered." Can you explain this part? My argument wasn't countered at all, thats clearly a question not a statement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  That's fair. I felt that the oppose !vote needed to be addressed, clearly I was wrong in how I addressed it. Looking at this compared to the related RMs more closely, it's more reasonable to oppose here, so I'm going to go ahead and relist this as I think a little more discussion is warranted. estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Relisting comment - Relisting in hopes of further consensus as to whether this WikiProject could be revived. Also as a note I corrected the proposed title to be in the [[Wikipedia:]] namespace.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The underlying premise of this proposal is false. It isn't inactive, it's still being monitored. A task force is too narrow in scope. This wine project covers (or has covered) a lot more ground than food and drink, such as geographic regions, grape varieties, history, tourism, companies, and biographies. There is also a draft notability guideline at WP:WINETOPICS that got stalled but should probably move forward. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• NOTE, the project was Marked Inactive in August 2022, in the section above #Inactive? it was discussed. And, it was so marked [1]. If project members have watchlisted this project talk page (and the project banner), then it should have shown up in the discussion to mark this project as inactive. I was just following the result of the discussion, and the statement from the project banner, stating it is an inactive project. It certainly was discussed at this wikiproject, a year ago, and the steps to update the project banner were taken to make the project inactive by UnitedStatesian (talk · contribs). The state of the project has been so ("inactive") for over a year. It is somewhat of a surprise that members did not dispute the inactivation last year, as an "active" project, with members monitoring the wikiproject, where the project banner was deactivated, and all subsequent tagged articles indicating it so. If this is an active project, the wikiproject banner {{WikiProject Wine}} needs to be reverted to prior to August 2022. -- 65.92.244.127 (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Since that discussion there have been two conversations on the talk page... Meaning that the project has been active since 31 January 2023, no? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Calling them "conversations" is a stretch. Gonnym (talk) 11:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

They don't need to be extensive, they just have to exist. Even if they were just comments which hadn't been responded to they would be activity. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Not really showing activity, dead wikiprojects sometimes receive update notices, dead and marked historical internal processes also receive such. And a single user does not make a wikiproject (why many single user wikiprojects get deleted), so an update message and a single reply does not truly indicate activity. The fact that the inactivity conversion was not disputed and that the project banner still says it is inactive shows that no one is keeping track of the project status or article assessment. So... the project banner still says the project is inactive, despite the few users in this discussion who say the project isn't inactive. Just why is that? If the project is active the project banner needs reversion. As it is now, the project banner indicates the project is still inactive. If the members of this wikiproject claiming it is active do not dispute the status of the project banner, do not attempt to change the project banner, which says it is inactive, then is the project active? It advises to all Wikipedians that the project is inactive, informing others that this is not a place to go to discuss things. -- 65.92.244.127 (talk) 11:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

You are currently involved in activity on this page. Its a single user project? Which user? Note that the status of the project banner has been disputed and changed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

It is a transfer from Project to Taskforce proposal, which doesn't properly indicate activity, as it is a proposal for conversion, and not activity concerning the topic area of WPWINE (ie. wine, viticulture, sommeliers, AOC), nor other management aspects other than the direct topic of conversion of project to taskforce. And the project banner still shows that this project is inactive, and no one has as yet done anything for that. The last activity at the banner was WPP management of the meta template in its conversion to a different module; which was an activity carried out on all banners for inactive wikiprojects, not just WPWINE, as part of general WPP maintenance. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 05:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support. We should be merging as many limping-along wikprojects as is practical to do. Having micro-topical and largely moribund projects bleeds collaborators away from broader and more productive wikiprojects while over the long term dooming most of the small ones to becoming inactive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support - clearly in scope of WP Food and drink, and we do not need a separate project just for wine. Would be better to consolidate and get one active project rather than lots of inactive ones.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MSGJ (talk • contribs) 08:46, November 3, 2023 (UTC)

@MSGJ: American viticultural areas and other bits of agricultural geography are not within the scope of WP Food and drink at all but are within the scope of this wikiproject. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Anything within the scope of wine should be within the scope of food and drink — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Agriculture is not within the scope of food and drink. Its a separate wikiproject. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support, SMcCandlish said exactly what I was gonna say. DFlhb (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC) Withdrawing vote, after finding Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council/FAQ. While no one here has indicated whether they're active in articles within the scopes of either project, Anachronist has posted on this talk page page before, and has opposed here. DFlhb (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I am active within the scope of both projects. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: I'm seeing consensus to move. But additional inputs needed. Reading Beans (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A note on the revert of the requested move

The bundle move of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine and its subpages has been reverted per WP:PMRC#3, as the target's title is unambiguously erroneous and in the wrong namespace. Under the correct title Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Wines task force, the outcome of this closed discussion may still be valid, but please leave it for a further discussion. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@NmWTfs85lXusaybq: The closer has reopened the discussion above. And I have corrected the proposed move target by removing the superfluous colon. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

How to Capitalize Wines

WP:MOSCAPS: "...only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia."

1. How to Capitalize Wines
2. Grape varieties: to capitalize or not to capitalize?
3. WINES WITHOUT CAPS
4. Chaos reigns on capitalization style for wine
5. Capitalising Wine Names: Part 2

...for the record. —  AjaxSmack  01:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Renaming CIVC to Comité Champagne ..?

I edited a bit on the Clos_(vineyard) page (added a few, officially recognised, to the Champagne section). The edits raised a question, on Good Form on W'pedia: The above page, and a number of others, refer to the Comité Interprofessionel du Vin de Champagne, CIVC with its own page. But at its own page (the only External Link on the CIVC wiki page), all their publicity materials, and anywhere that I met their official representatives (and talked to / emailed with them in person), they refer to themselves as 'Comité Champagne'. There is no CIVC web site anymore. Now, would we do better to use the short name e.g., in wiki texts, or do we stick with naming them something they don't seem to want to talk about anymore at all themselves ..? And/or, how would we bulk update all references to the CIVC on all sorts of wiki pages (possibly with reference to the "CIVC" as previous designator), without collaterally destroying the proper links to the TV channel or the private investment firm of the same name? A friendly editor pointed me to this talk page for definitive answers ... Jvdvlugt (talk) 10:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)