Jump to content

Talk:Carménère

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCarménère has been listed as one of the Agriculture, food and drink good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 5, 2007Good article nomineeListed
January 29, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Grape Name

[edit]

I think it would be best to have the article's name be the grape's proper name Carmenère with the "English" spelling being the redirect, not the otherway around as it is currently. Agne 02:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to comment about suggesting a move. Since no one has commented negatively with your suggestion, I'm going to be bold and do it. --- The Bethling(Talk) 00:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no: it looks like the spelling is actually Carménère [1]. But many websites have Carmenère or spell it with no accents at all. I suppose we should go with the absolutely most correct spelling. Which? Badagnani 04:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Badagnani: Carmenère is fine. At least, that's the name that all Chilean winemakers producing the wine print on their labels, as if by common agreement. I can supply you with plenty of (scanned) bottle labels, if you like. Just write to aka_ef@yahoo.com | Regards, AVM 22:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed all of the article's Carmenère to Carménère. 2 reasons - both Spanish and French wikipedias have their title in with the Carménère heading. Since the grape and the grapes name comes from France, it should be Carménère. The biggest producer of Carménère is Chile and Spanish wiki's heading is Carménère. Further, I checked the wineries that produce it in Chile and they have written Carménère. Although some do only use Carmenère and CARMENERE (capitalized and adding no accents), the correct spelling is Carménère. Therefore the article title should be changed and there should be a redirect from Carmenere and Carmenère to Carménère. --Charleenmerced Talk 04:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced[reply]
  • I suggest an editor takes charge over the spelling - I don't want to get involved in changing the spelling myself when it has been discussed before and has been stable for 6 years. But all the evidence suggests to me that this article has it wrong. As it is a French grape, INAO is probably the most authoritative source, and it uses "carmenère". I cannot work out how to link to it, but INAO specifies for red Bordeaux: "Les vins rouges et rosés sont issus exclusivement des cépages suivants : cabernet-sauvignon N, cabernet franc N, merlot N, cot N (ou malbec), carmenère N, petit verdot N." Also, numerous authoritative sources consistently use the "carmenère" spelling: Jancis Robinson, Hugh Johnson, Tom Stevenson, the established wine merchant Berry Brothers and Rudd, Chilean wine labels. The only mention of "carménère" that I would describe as authoritative is in the Carmenère article in "Wine Grapes" by Jancis Robinson, Julia Harding and José Vouillamoz, where "carménère" is listed as a synonym, along with many other synonyms. I would suggest that the many references to "carménère" in magazine and newspaper articles you can find on the web are largely due to the spelling used in this article.

Picture

[edit]
  • Does anyone have a picture of Carmenere grapes? Or a way to get one?Charleenmerced Talk 20:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced[reply]
  • Made some changes to the order of the pictures and added one that compares both Merlot and Carmenere. I still think the Merlot one should stay since it gives the reader an idea of how a real merlot grape looks v. Carmenere grape. Also, it shoes the leaves, which are a bit different. It is still nice to compare both side by side. Finally, as to The Casillero del Diablo wine label picture, I put it with the wine producers. I am hoping to get, in the future, samples of some or most of the wine producers and make a scrolling image gallery. ANother user has volunteered to do this.Charleenmerced Talk 06:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced[reply]
I love the side by side illustration but it looks like the image has been tagged for speedy deletion because of the the license tag. I'm curious if there are any GNU or Public Domain version out there, like in the old French ampelography text that have lapse copy right. I'll do some digging. AgneCheese/Wine 08:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! I really didn't want to lose that. It is such a neat illustration. I think the absence of a free version coupled with the owner's permission should qualify for Fair Use. However, I would definitely keep an eye on it. I've had picture "mysteriously" disappear on me due to licensing issues before. AgneCheese/Wine 19:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now the only picture that I think we really need is one of the wine in the glass so that the reader can get an idea of the color of the wine. Where would be a good place to put such a picture?AgneCheese/Wine 19:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced your label pic with one which includes a glass - except it's such a dark wine, it's almost impossible to see the colour! I do have a method of photographing wines for colour which I didn't have time for on this occasion, but maybe I can find another bottle... or maybe two... --mikaul 12:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wine color, no matter what grape variety, is so variable (affected by geographic origin, vintage weather, phenolic ripeness, production treatment, bottle age and condition, etc. and even the color temperature of the illumination used in the original photo) as to be impossible to photograph wine to demonstrate color that is primarily attributable to grape variety in any specifically meaningful way. All such images are massive generalities at best and mostly misleading in general. These particular images [File:Chilean_Carmenere.jpg|left|thumb|A Carmenere from the Cachapoal Valley of Chile.], etc. favor the producers (as free advertising for the brands), rather than enlightening the reader. I strongly advocate that these not be replaced.Son of RML (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last week of Wine Improvement Drive

[edit]

At the end of the week, we'll submit for GA status and see what get. If you've had any good Carmenere lately, be sure to swing by the talk page on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine/Newsletter/Wine Improvement Drive and give your thoughts and recommendation for you fellow Wine Project members. AgneCheese/Wine 20:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a thorough look at the structure of the article and changed quite a few things. Amongst others:
  • switched the "Carmenère & Merlot" and "Growth in Chile" paras around to help things 'flow' a little better
  • re-jigged a few paras here and there
  • fixed typos, grammar, etc
  • fixed links
  • added a new image for Casillero del Diablo

Hope you agree it reads a little better & you like the pic - *very* nice wine, thanks for the tip!

Good luck with the submission. --mikaul 12:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am sooooo done. Honestly, there is nothing else to add. Maybe a few (very few) things here and there, but nothing major. I think this article is pretty much done!!!! Can someone please check the Characteristics section to see whether it is ok? It may be a little off on the POV. --Charleenmerced Talk 04:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced[reply]

GA ??

[edit]

First congratulations on producing what is turning out to be a very nice article. I do, however, have a couple of comments:

  • I think the GA submission is premature. One of the requirements is stability, and there's no way the article can pass that criterion. There are new things being added faster than I can keep up. There's a whole page of changes just today.
  • Regarding the long list of wineries that produce Carmenère. While it may be a fine piece of research, I think it detracts from the structure and flow of the article, making it cumbersome, and I wonder if it should even be there.

I think this will settle down into a nice GA article soon, but not yet. -- With best regards Steve.Moulding 23:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Steve, I agree in part. Regarding the constant adding of info - all my fault, I just found all this info that I had to add and I also restructured the page a bit. Regarding the wineries - well, the thing is that when I started I didn't know there were sooo many considering that Carmenere was thought to be extinct. I think some wineries should be there cuz some are the major producers of the grape (e.g. Casillero del Diablo). So, I guess I'll take votes. Remove or keep the wineries? I will def take out whether it is reserve or estate or etc. As a side note, I think these are pretty much all the wineries that produce Carmenere, a pretty exhaustive list, save 4-5 I may have missed. Charleenmerced Talk 00:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced[reply]

As a past GA reviewer, there is no need for stability concerns. Charleen's changes have been adding some interesting tidbits and stylistic tweaking. The stability concern in WP:WIAGA is primarily aimed at drastic changes, with substantial deletion of materials and edit warring. Further improvements and tweaks (especially during a GA review) are actually expected and even encouraged. More importantly, these are organic improvements and there is no present edit warring. Now in regards to the winery list, I am not a fan of them mostly for the reasons I espouse in WP:WINEGUIDE. I think at their core, a list of winery is inherently POV due to the fact that no matter how exhaustive you try to be, there will some wineries included and some not-which can be seen as endorsements or rejection of these Wineries by the article. If the winery has done something particularly notable and unique (like the first to do this or the largest to do) then that would merit inclusion. Any type of general listing should be avoided. AgneCheese/Wine 05:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • ok, list removed. Final copyedit needed. I would do it but I have read this thing so much that I just can't do it anymore nor would I be as efficient. I tink some tweaking may be needed in the opening paragraph (very little) jsut to make it flow better. The characs also need revising and re-discovering the grape. --Charleenmerced Talk 06:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced[reply]
  • I tried really hard to get the 'flow' going again and it was stalling, basically (I think) because of the Chilean section. I realise this is more than a tweak but I've removed the section dedicated to Chile and merged that info into the relevant parts and it seems (to me) to read much better, without diminishing the influence of the Chilean growers. There are a few extra phrases here and there but otherwise the content is much the same as before. --mikaul 17:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Passed

[edit]

This article has passed the GA noms. The following are bot-generated suggestions for improvement.

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 9 additive terms, a bit too much.
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Tarret 22:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Citation (6) needs repairing and retitling: the correct link is http://www.winepros.org/wine101/grape_profiles/carmenere.htm (the current link brings up an Error 404 page. Also, as owner-creator of the site, I would prefer the title be "Professional Friends of Wine / Carmenet" rather than "winepros.org" since there is some history of confusion with the Australian commercial site "winepros.COM". Thank you. Jim LaMar 19:01, 5 May 2007

No article should cite itself

[edit]

Reference [5] simply cites the Spanish version of the same article (Wikipedia en Español: Carménère). The Spanish version of the article makes no citations at all.

A citation may not even be necessary just to say that the wine is medium bodied.

GA Sweeps (Pass)

[edit]

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noble grape?

[edit]

Hi, this goes out to any wine experts editing this page. The carménère grape is stated in this article to be one of the six "noble grapes", however, that article does not list it as such, instead it lists the white grapes Sauvignon Blanc, Riesling, and Chardonnay, and the red grapes Pinot Noir, Cabernet Sauvignon, and Merlot. This seems to be a contradiction, which one is right? Thanks, 86.14.229.187 (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm still confused. The noble grapes article makes no mention of this grape, is there a separate list of "noble grapes of Bordeaux", or is the other article wrong? The fact that "6 noble grapes" is mentioned in both articles would lead one to believe that those 6 grapes are more or less universally agreed on, but that doesn't seem to be the case? Was the carménère grape replaced with another when it was thought lost? 86.14.229.187 (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm extremely surprised to see Carmenère referred to as a "noble grape"! It seems that the two articles referred to for that statement seems to make the connection "noble grape" = "all grape varieties allowed in red Bordeaux". If Carmenère, Malbec and Petit Verdot are supposed to be noble, how long would the total list of noble varieties be? 30? 50? In any instance, too long to be a very useful definition, I would say. Tomas e (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is with our noble grape article which really needs a lot of work and is a difficult article already as it rather a subjective and vague phrase. The classic noble grapes from a worldwide perspective is historically Cab Sauv, Merlot, Pinot, Riesling, Sauv. Blanc and Chardonnay. The noble grapes of Bordeaux is done in a different usage than the classic terminology and includes the grapes that Charleen has mentioned-including Carmenere. There is also discussion in some wine resources of the noble grapes of Burgundy-Chard & Pinot and the noble grapes of Alsace-Gertie, Riesling, Pinot gris, etc. And probably many more "noble grapes" in different areas of the world. There is enough sources out there to write our noble grape article with this diverse spectrum of usage but I'm not sure who has the time or motivation to do that. Till then, the best solution for now is to remove the wiki link to the noble phrase article since it currently is more about the classic noble grapes rather then the Bordeaux ones. AgneCheese/Wine 03:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or keep the wikilink and add a short mention in the other article? Surely a little information is better than none. 86.14.229.187 (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have always been taught that THE Noble Grapes were the three red and three white that are referred to in the Wiki article. As it states these are the International Grapes. The article about Carmenere refers to it as one of the original noble grapes of bordeaux - which should have a separate Wiki article. Any of the grapes contained within that title would be red grapes. Merlot, Cab, Malbec, etc. I think the solution here then is to create an article that is only about these grapes that were deemed the "noble grapes" found within blends made in Bordeaux. The "noble grapes" (Int'l grapes) article is probably more appropriately linked within the Carmenere article at the bottom where reference boxes typically list related items. Ryan Reichert 14:58, 28 March 2008 (EST)

I agree with Agne's solution and will implement it. rone (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the Pneumo Valley?

[edit]

There is no such thing in Chile... The closest thing is a small town called Peumo in the Rapel Valley. Google-earth it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.161.217.43 (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Carménère. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Carménère. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carménère&oldid=1246895849"