This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wine, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.WineWikipedia:WikiProject WineTemplate:WikiProject WineWine articles
This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
A fact from Trevisana nera appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 December 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the Trevisana nera grape variety was first documented in viticulture in the middle of the 20th century?
I'm not the one being silly here. "Example pictured" is a) not needed - that is DYK hook style, not article style, and b) CLEARLY MISLEADING, and did indeed mislead the person who nominated this at Template:Did you know nominations/Trevisana nera. I'll settle for just removing it, but please don't waste my time reverting further. Johnbod (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't aware that the picture was a general example when I nominated it. Matty.007 20:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really your fault, which is my point. Johnbod (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Matty, it's not your fault. I'm fine with the parenthetical note on the caption being removed. Mostly what I objected to was the absurd "...though it is not depicted here." attached to a picture of table grapes which is obviously depicting table grapes in a basket just as they would be on an Italian table. In grape articles, the point of an illustration in the Wine regions section is often to demonstrate or give an example of how the grape is used in its major regions which may not always be as a wine. Sometimes they are used to make jellies, elixirs or, yes, even as table grapes. So, again, it is rather silly to say "Here's a picture of a table grapes but we're not depicting table grapes here!". If you misunderstood the caption, that is fine, but to make a rather WP:POINTy addition to the caption that makes it not only misleading but also absurd is well...absurd. AgneCheese/Wine 16:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was much better than what it replaced, and it's not exactly "fine" if he misunderstood it, as that was because you had written it in an obviously misleading way. The image and caption are still potentially misleading, but there are some people it is fruitless to prolong discussions with. Johnbod (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
