WikiProject iconWine NA‑class (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Wine, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
NAThis article has been rated as NA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template cluttered[edit]

It seems like there have been a lot of information that has added recently that makes the template unwieldily. It's at the point where even as an interested user, my eyes glaze over. I think more than 10-12 items in any category is overkill. Just looking at the list of varieties, I'd personally eliminate anything that isn't commonly sold as a single varietal wine, along with the non-vinifera varieties (I like them, and occasionally even make a Concord and a sparkling Niagra, but they're not major varietals).

I'd also limit the number of countries listed to the top 7-9 wine producing countries, and drop a lot of the "wine styles". I think the information overload has just made this template less friendly to readers.

The only change I'm making right now is to remove Spatlese from the list of styles. It's not style, just a designation regarding the ripeness/condition of the grapes (much like Kabinett,Auslese, BA and TBA) -- The Bethling(Talk) 06:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some templates are large, but their focus isn't necessarily only to provide a few of the best known aspects of a subject. Our project is to bring knowledge to people, and this template allows them to explore styles they may not have heard about before. I wouldn't advocate limiting Template:Ethnic groups in Myanmar, for example, only to the "major" ethnic groups. Badagnani 07:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A possibility is to have separate templates 1) for wine-growing countries, and 2) for wine styles and grape varieties. Badagnani 07:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would get rid of some of the more obscure grape varieties that have been added recently. I have always taken the view that a template such as this should not be an exhaustive list. That job belongs to the List of grape varieties page. On another note, please could Badagnani learn to use the Show preview button. Saving every individual edit clutters up the page history and also imposes more load on the hard-pressed Wikipedia servers. --Portnadler 09:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To avoid edit wars, I think that we should discuss and choose the varieties in this page, and when we have a nearly "definitive" lists, we should modify the template. On OIV I don't see statistic about varieties, so how to find the most important grapes in an objective manner? Cate 12:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Funny, recent films have brought out some biases among various populations, either "for" or "against" the predominant varieties, or those that are considered to be "legitimate" or not. Whatever the case, I don't think any of the wines or grapes listed in the template are particularly obscure, and many are the primary styles in their nations of origin. Again, most people already know something about chardonnay, merlot, cabernet so it's the slightly lesser known varieties that could really benefit from being here, by exposing more people to them. Badagnani 12:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I agree that the template should not be exhaustive, I think that it is not too large or comprehensive at its current size. A template that includes only terms with with I am familiar is of limited value to me since I could easily type those terms into the search box to get to the page. A detailed template like it is now encourages exploration and learning. Many users will not bother to follow the link to the category page from a page on a particular varietal or region, but they are much more likely to notice this template at the bottom of the page. Seeing unfamiliar terms in the list can prompt some people (eg, me) to click on those terms. I've learned quite a lot in the last few days based on the links in the template. --Mikebrand 17:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oooooh no, no, no. A template is not meant to replace a list or a category. It is a navigational tool and needs to be focused in its scope. This one has sprung out of control. As a wine shop owner, I think of what the value the template would be to my average customer. Sure they know of Cabernet, Merlot and Chardonnay but the typical wine drinker (and Wiki reader) won't know all the details that a good article about these major varietals would have. I think of a template like part of a good wine book. The first chapters always covers the Major varieties first and then later go into detail of the more obscure. You don't want to overwhelm the novice with too much info in the beginning--which is what this template it currently doing. The average reader is going to look at a wine bottle and come here searching for the variety that is listed on that bottle and then want to read about terms they are familiar with. Then they will go to a category or a list to get a more exhaustive knowledge. We need to get this template back under control. Agne 20:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's clear that the lists and categories are much longer than the template, and that a lot of things were left out. Badagnani 20:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But the point is that more things should be left out in order to keep the template more focused. The varietal list shouldn't exceed (between red & white) 10-12 of the major varieties. The wine producing Regions and Countries should be merged to the top 5-10 major producers.Agne 20:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said before, some of them might not be major to *you*, but many of them are the most prominent representative styles for nations or regions that don't sell as well in your store. Badagnani 21:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just like my sister's boyfriend's garage band is notable to the folks in my home town but not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry. Part of the problem is the ill-advised removal of the word "Major" from the template. It was an open invitation for the template to lose its focus. The term "major" should be on as large of a scale of notability as possible and shouldn't have obscure varieties tucked under the umbrella when they are served well in as part of a list page and categories. We are aiming towards the novice, piquing their curiosity with wines that they see around (like in wine shops or grocery stores) and then curios enough to come to Wikipedia to read about. That is where the template is the most useful as a navigational tool. But it's usefulness goes only as far as it remains focus. If you overwhelm the reader it becomes uninviting (or worse turns them off from reading more). That is the major problem with the current template. Agne 21:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This doesn't address the fact that many of the varieties purported to be "non-notable" are in fact the most notable exponents of winemaking in their nations or regions, and deserving of coverage here. Badagnani 21:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course they deserve coverage--as an article, as a wiki-link, as a part of a list of grape varieties and as a category. The fact that they are notable components in their nation or region doesn't discount the fact that they are beyond the scope and usefulness of a template--amply useful for a list or category but not a template. The current template overwhelms the reader and needs to be re-tighten in focus. Again, our readership is aimed towards the novice and the casual drinker. Their curiosity is guided by what they see and are familiar with. A template deals with the familiar. A list and category introduces the new.Agne 21:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that if a grape is tied to a region/style of wine, and really isn't used on its own it doesn't belong listed on the grape variety list. The problem that at least some of us had was that the old template intermingled "styles" and "varietals" in the same list. Placing a large number of grapes that are important to regional styles, that are not typically sold as single varietals gives the same problem. I love Cinsault, but it's essentially unheard of outside of blends, Lambrusco may also be the name of the grape, but it's not often used outside the named region/style, Nero d'Avola is (in my mind at least) not really notable outside of its blends. I think that having grapes like this do little more than make the template more confusing to a "typical reader" The grapes deserve mentions (and prominent ones) in the styles that they make, but they're not ones that are going to be entry points for a reader. And those are the ones that I think the grape types should be limited to. --- The Bethling(Talk) 22:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think Bethling has it spot on. We should keep the grape varieties that are used to make wines that are principally marketed as the varietals, and remove those that are used principally to make one style of wine. On this basis, I have done some pruning and removed Furmint, Palamino, Lambrusco, etc. --Portnadler 09:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's spelled "Palomino." Badagnani 09:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)#Reply[reply]
I agree that this was getting quite cluttered, especially the grapes section. The grape varieties section has no criteria within its title to exclude the clutter, so how about restricting it to those grapes that are used to denote a varietal wine and changing the title to make that clear - e.g. Varietal grapes, but link grapes to the full list. I agree with Portnadler's pruning.
As well as being a navigational tool, the template is a useful way to ensure people's understanding of wine categorisation and nomenclature. I think it would be confusing to mix countries with regions, although we do already have non-regional wines (e.g. Liebfraumilch) mixed in with the regions. I think it's useful to have all the countries as no full list exists elsewhere (that I know of), they don't take up too much space, and the the Wikipedia regional pages are organised by region as the top category.
There are a number of wines/regions in the well known list that I would argue are not well-known (primarily because I haven't heard of them). I feel that as a minimum Dao, Egri Bikaver should go, but four or five others are only marginal. --The Sage of Brouhaha 11:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are a number of wines/regions in the well known list that I would argue are not well-known (primarily because I haven't heard of them). Is this a joke? These are major styles in their nations of origin, as are some of those that have been removed. The comment above about Nero d'Avola is similarly ignorant, as a varietal wine made from this grape is probably the most prominent red from Sicily. I had assumed the people here were experts. Badagnani 11:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you've may have missed my point on the well-known wines/regions comment. They may be important examples for their region, but those regions will be covered by the countries selection. I think the regions/wines should be well known globally so that no regional bias is introduced. The wines/regions section is partly to ensure that links that would be expected by any user to appear in a wines navigational template (e.g. Bordeaux and Burgundy) will appear. However, I feel the regions are most sensibly organised and navigated by country and that way we can also achieve something near completeness of coverage. In my view, calling 'Egri Bikaver' 'Bulls Blood' instead would enhance the argument for including it. This is a discussion we should have so that we can ensure the titles in the table match the intended inclusions and that the purpose of the table is understood and in line with what we think most users needs would be.
I agree that Nero d'Avola should be included in the grapes as it is marketed widely as a varietal.--The Sage of Brouhaha 12:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good points. I agree that there are an astronomical number of obscure grapes that are used primarily as blending grapes, but, as has been emerging in recent years, some of these "obscure" grapes such as Malbec and Viognier can operate as excellent varietals on their own. Thankfully those haven't been removed (yet). I feel that the template can allow some of these lesser known grapes to stand with the bigger names and bring them to wider knowledge, but some editors seem quite afraid of scaring off "entry level" wine consumers with too many choices. I don't share that worry, as even when presented with a wide variety of wines people quickly discover which wines fit their palate. Badagnani 12:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had also suggested splitting the template into one for countries and one for grapes and styles. These templates could be used for specific purposes, and would cut down on the size while allowing some of the lesser known grapes to remain. Badagnani 12:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Badagnani. The template is already cluttered and will only become more so. I see no reason to include so much information within the one template. Invidual templates such as ((Wine by country)) etc kept things much more simple and relevant to the article content. My vote would be to split the template. §ĉҺɑʀκs 08:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For what my vote is worth, I think that with the pruning by Portnadler the template currently strikes a good balance between inclusiveness and conciseness. I do not see a need to add or remove more than one or two more items from any one category. I think that the template benefits from having the countries listed and vote against spliting the template. --Mikebrand 12:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A template for countries does exist and is still on the Wine page as I felt adding the wines template might be overkill as there is a beverages one there already. It also appears above on this page.
I agree on the Viognier and Malbec grapes. My views on this are that these are currently fashionable grapes and since Wikipedia is a living encyclopedia it can take account of fashion. The only concern is if they are only fashionable to a small group, but I do not think that applies for these.--The Sage of Brouhaha 12:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also agree on Malbec and Viognier, which is why I left them in. On another note, I think we have now got to a point where we have too many in the Styles/Regionals section. This is not the place to display ones erudition and knowledge of the world's wines. It's meant to be a handy template to guide the interested layman around. At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseam, it should not be an exhaustive list of everything we can think of. There are list pages for that. --Portnadler 14:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe the whole list is wrong. It will be incomplete and there is not way to choose what should be in and what should be out. So I propose to re-think the list, and i.e. to transform in a more generic list: Red grapes, White grapes, table grapes, hybrids, others (rootstock). But we need the relevant articles! Or with with classical, minor and rare. And provide a template for such types with lists all varieties Cate 15:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a list that sets out grapes in this way, but I don't think there is a place for table grapes, hybrids, etc. in a wine navigational template. --The Sage of Brouhaha 15:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template out of control[edit]

I've been doing a lot of work on the grape articles in terms of setting up redirects for alternative names and I have to say this template is a huge eye sore and utterly defeats any practical purpose and use. Something needs to be done.

  1. First and foremost there should be a split between the grape/wines and the wine regions. Obviously on the grape article you would use the grape template and on articles about AOC or wine regions you would use the region template.
  2. Second, we need to limit the number of grapes. My personal scale would be grapes that are normally made into varietal wines. My reasoning is simple. Templates benefit more the novice wine drinker then they would an expert and the majority of our readership on these articles will be wine novice. A wine novice is going to pick up a bottle of wine (that most likely they got at a supermarket) and type that name into the search engine. Most likely, (at least in the beginning) they are going to want to read about other wines that they are going to find listed on the front of a bottle at their favorite store. Somehow, someway we need to limit the template to 15-20 grapes instead of the 30 or so it had now (with more to come, I'm sure)
  3. For compromise we can add a link to List_of_grape_varieties or other lists for those who want to read about the more obscure grapes/hybrids/rootsocks or blending grapes.
  4. Finally, we need to change the black/white designation to red wine grapes/white wine grapes. Again, this is for the benefit of the novice wine drinkers that we are trying to guide with this template. When you think of wine grapes, it is natural to think of the types of wine that those grapes produce and we should keep it in that simple frame of references. For the purpose of a template, we do not need to get technical and scientific. We can leave that to the actual wine articles.

Let's see what kind of teamwork and compromise we can get. Out of the 4 items listed above, discuss which ones you may want to work with and what ones that would need to be ironed out and discussed more. Agne 07:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've mentioned it before, and I still agree. There's just too much information in the template to make it useful to the typical user. -- The Bethling(Talk) 08:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wine by country

I am unsure why the ((Wine by country)) template was merged into this one, and feel it should be split back.

Support as per above. §ĉҺɑʀκs 07:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Case in Point

Re: "clutter" See Chancellor (grape) Agne 06:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I agree with Agne27 on points 2, 3 and 4. Fourth point is easy and logical: use red instead of black. Third point is a good way to include the more obscure varieties. Second point sounds very reasonable: limit to wine names found on front of bottle is favorite store in an English speaking country. The language limit is because this is the English version of Wikipedia and it limits the number of wines with limited distribution. I disagree with the first point for the reason that I agree with the second point: wine name found on front of the label. Some labels say "Rioja" others say "Tempranillo" some say "Chianti" others say "Merlot". The novice does not know that Rioja and Chianti are regions or that Tempranillo and Merlot are varietals. The novice should be presented with a single template that includes all the names the novice might encounter. --Mikebrand 02:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well if someone searches for Rioja they should be lead to that article with a wine region template on the bottom and mention of the grapes within the article. But you do make a good point about #1. There are regions that are the primary label on a bottle. I could live with a pared down section on regions with the disclaimer that only regions who listed as the primary label (i.e. no varietal grape or style label). Though I still worry about future (and maybe present) debates over what can go through. Ideally, I would love to see the regions shaved down to 7-10. My gut still tells me that a separate wine region template is most ideal but I can see a workable solution either way. Agne 07:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To keep the list from again springing out of control, it would probably be helpful to use a listing of wines by production volume. We could then find a logical top grouping and make a cutoff. I was not able to find such a list with a quick Google search. Anyone else know of such a list? --Mikebrand 18:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know how easy it would be to find that list but I know that nearly ever wine book has an "expert's list" of what the major grape varieties are. Why don't we review those list and see what common grapes overlaps and maybe discuss some of the borderline ones? Agne 20:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I was bold and trimmed the countries producing wine section. Nearly every country produces wine and the ((Wine by country)) template is useful for those articles but not for the grape articles. I was amazed at how well that simple action already improved the article. Still needs a little more trimming but it's a start. Agne 09:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that this version is much better. With the Wine by country template, having all the countries that produce wine is just redundant and unnecessary. --- The Bethling(Talk) 09:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The wine by country template is useful to our readers. Before blanking that segment of this template (which I do not agree with), content must be merged into the original "Wines by country" template. Not to do so robs our users of important information. Badagnani 09:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added the country (Georgia) that seemed to be missing from the wines by country template, and as far as I can tell, it now has all the countries that had been listed here. In the cases where it makes sense to have a list of countries I think both templates could be included. To have a large list of countries on the page of most grapes seems like overkill. If I'm interested in reading about a grape type, the fact that China produces wine isn't likely going to interest me. On the other hand, if I'm reading about French wines, I can see that being useful. --- The Bethling(Talk) 09:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The compromise is acceptable to me. However, that repair should have been taken care of before the delete. Badagnani 09:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Text from the User page of User:Agne27:
Wiki Pet Peeves
Major delete edits without discussion talk pages. I understand the wiki motto of Be bold but I think that benefits Wikipedia more when it applies to additions to articles rather then encouraging major deletions. A better motto for deletions is to Be Discerning--especially when the edits fundamentally alter the article. I'm a huge advocate of growth and evolution in article and I think editors benefit in the experience of taking part in the discussion and crafting of a quality article. It is more mutually beneficial to all involved when particular issues that need to be tweaked, clean up or re-worded within an article is brought up to the editors already working on the article versus doing a major delete and expecting the editors to just deal with the pieces left behind. Badagnani 09:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Honestly, to me it looks like he was discussing this delete before doing it. There have been a couple of editors (myself included) who really thought that the template needed to be cleaned. --- The Bethling(Talk) 09:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As per the discussion above, I don't agree that only "supermarket wines" be included in the template, or that it must be tailored only, or primarily for "entry-level" wine drinkers. The selection of grapes we worked out seems a good one. Some of the former blending grapes are now used to produce excellent single-grape wines and we have included some of the major ones. Badagnani 09:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict) Um....yeah. That's why we've been talking about it on this talk page. Not counting the discussion that started in October and the continued discussion that have been going on for nearly a week. It clear that a majority of users that have been on this talk page think the template needs some clean up. There are still two more sections that need some cleaning, now let's get down to work and hammer out some details. Agne 09:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No "cleaning" is necessary other than the removal of the three or four obscure grapes that were added in the past week or so. Much productive work is needed elsewhere in our subject without "reductive" work that limits our users to seeing only wines that are extremely well known. I don't agree with the reasoning that only "supermarket" varieties be included. Badagnani 09:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Varietal Grapes[edit]

How about starting with the most "obvious" major grapes

Now the "iffy" ones

The "iffies" are ones that very rarely made into single bottle varietals and would be best served as a link to the List_of_grape_varieties. Any thoughts? Agne 09:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we had a good selection, worked out by consensus here (extensive discussion above), until about 1-2 weeks ago when a few more obscure blending grapes were added (I believe Négrette and Petit verdot were among them). Otherwise, I think the list in the template as it stands is a good one. Badagnani 09:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have to think of the use and benefit of the template. This template is of no benefit to "veteran" wine drinkers who already have a strong grasp of what grapes are out there. A "veteran" is going to be more interested in the link to the lists of grape varieties and wine producing regions. A novice will be interested in wines and names that they will actually find on a label in a store. I see this all the time with my customers. Agne 09:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speaking from my own experience, I drink many of these and refer to the template often, following its links to find out more about each grape/style. Thus, the template is far from being of "no benefit" to me. In fact, I'm quite happy with it and was fine with the compromise of leaving out the extremely obscure grapes (though Nero d'Avola is a favorite and I was sorry to see it go). I disagree that this template be tailored primarily for the "entry level" wine drinker. If they learn about a new grape with an unfamiliar name such as Gewurztraminer, Viogner, or Malbec, however, all the better; they'll know something they didn't before and perhaps they'll try that one out and be pleasantly surprised. Badagnani 10:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Badagnani, judging from yoru contributions I would consider you a "wine veteran" will a strong base of knowledge about wines. You are the type of customer that I absolutely love walking into my shop because they are the ones that are going to ask for my nice Duca Enrico. However, unfortunately those customers are few and far between the type of drinkers that walk into a typical wine shop. Those customers are the novice and very casual wine drinkers who tend to buy a fair amount of their wines also from the supermarkets. In fact, supermarkets and Costco are BY FAR my biggest competition for what is arguably the largest chunk of business in this market. For these customers, the template is of little use to them if it is jam packed with too much information. It loses its approachability and overwhelms them with unfamilar grapes and regions that they'll never see. For most wine drinkers, the extent of their wine reading is the label of the bottle. Agne 10:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, personally I prefer the more unusual grapes though I of course haven't tried them all. But there's no evidence as to the drinking preferences or habits of our users. Further, as you know, a wine store owner can evaluate the flavor characteristics a customer likes and often suggest a rarer wine that the customer might like even more. That is definitely true of beers. I always listen to the recommendations of my wine store workers regarding both, and appreciate their expertise very much. I reiterate my support for preserving the list as we have it (with the exception of the few obscure ones that were added over the past week or so). Badagnani 10:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep in mind also that we have readers everywhere in the world, including nations with grapes that are famous in those countries. Hence the inclusion of one or other of the most prominent Spanish, Hungarian, South American, etc. grapes. It's a very good idea, one which I don't think is at all excessive. Badagnani 10:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the recent edit in which some obscure grapes were added. Badagnani 10:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is a very worthwhile point to be mindful of but also the fact that this is the English language version and so our scope doesn't need to be quite so broad. I'm sure those grapes are very amply covered in the Spanish, Hungarian, Portuguese, etc wikipedias. I also appreciate the need to introduce drinkers to new wines and new experiences but there is a limit to the useful and extent that a template can do. A template is a navigational tool and the usefulness of that tool is intimately tied into how focused and clear it is. Too much info is distracting and discouraging.Agne 10:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now in trying to steer towards a compromise, I've added a "See Also" section and made more clear and direct the links to the very valuable information in the List of grape varieties and List of wine-producing regions. I think having these links will help tighten the template and still provide a service for the curious reader and to help introduce novices to new grapes and regions. I think that covers a lot of bases and a lot of the concerns that have been addressed. Agne 10:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that Carmenere (and one I'd added earlier, Tannat) are rarely encountered as single-grape wines thought one does see such from time to time. Similarly, I'm not sure Albariño needs to be there as we already have Vinho Verde listed. These would be near the bottom end of a continuum from "most prevalent" to "least commonly found." Badagnani 11:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have tidied up list of grape varieties, and changed grouping names to "Top 20 by acreage" and "Top 21-50 by acreage", reducing varieties listed to 50 per colour. Also added a "See full list" link for each colour. Top 50 varieties based on Anderson, K. and N. Aryal, Database of Regional, National and Global Winegrape Bearing Areas by Variety, 2000 and 2010, Wine Economics Research Centre, University of Adelaide, December 2013, revised July 2014. Fpr155 (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Potential Wine Regions[edit]

I can see Mike's point about a novice seeing a bottle with Rioja or Chianti and not realizing those aren't grapes. So let's talk about some of the wine regions that are commonly (key word) seeing on wine bottles that a novice wine drinker would likely find. I think a key frame of reference would be what is available at a grocery store more so then a specialize wine shop. Agne 09:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My thoughts and experiences at what I can easily find at a Safeway, Publix, Albertson, Dierbergs, Schnucks, etc.
Asti | Barolo | Beaujolais | Bordeaux | Burgundy | Chablis | Champagne | Chianti |Madeira | Marsala | Port | Rioja | Rhône | Sancerre | Sauternes | Sherry | Tokaji | Vouvray
Again for the more "specialized" wines that you would have to look for at a wine shop we could have a link to List of wine-producing regions and cover all the bases. Agne 09:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with your list of regionaly named wines. It covers all that I had though of (with one exception) and only a few I had not thought of. The groceries in my area consistently carry Liebfraumilch, though it is not especially important to me that it be included. --Mikebrand 18:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well that one is a tricky one. I agree that Liebfraumilch is a common grocery store wine but it is not really a style or a region. It's a branding name like Fume Blanc and Meritage. I don't know if it's worth making a separate category for them. A wine drinker can find it pretty easily with typing the name into the search engine and it is wiki-linked from several wine pages. Agne 22:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Vin de Pays d'Oc" doesn't have an article although it could point to "Languedoc wine" or the wine section of "Languedoc-Roussillon"
It might deserve a spot in the template since it produces soooo much wine, and wikipedia isn't supposed to focus on prestige alone. We might want to include this infamously voluminous wine in the template once the articles get spiffed up a bit. mroconnell 11:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very nice[edit]

The recent edits to the design and colors of the template are very nice, and elegant, befitting the subject. Badagnani 17:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is Kakheti a very notable wine region, when the WP article doesn't mention wine at all?

On another subject, the template is looking better and better. To the editor who figured out how to split the middle part into two columns, that's great--I never would have figured out how to do that, and it looks wonderful. Badagnani 01:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed, I also believe there are other regions in the template with similar issues. It may be time for a cleanup of the "notable" regions section. I suggest that this template only links to "wine-region specific" articles similar to how the ((Wine by country)) template only links to "country specific" wine articles. If the wine region article does not exist it is not included. Thanks for the feedback regarding my template update too. scharks 13:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I removed Kakheti. Per extensive previous discussions, the point of the regions section (which used to be named regionals) is for wines whose primarly descriptor on the label is the region name.--Mikebrand 01:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Napa Valley (wine)[edit]

Why isn't it listed? -- Fyslee/talk 08:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would support its listing. You certainly see the region printed on wine bottles. AgneCheese/Wine 08:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per previous discussions, a region such as Napa would not be listed because Napa is not a wine's *primary* designation. That is, a wine is not known as a Napa in the sense that a wine would be known as a Chianti or a Chablis. The primary designation for a wine from Napa will be its varietal: Merlot, Chardonnay, etc. The current list is in need of a cleanup as some regions (not regionals) have made their way into the list.--Mikebrand 11:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually Mike, for wines that are blends and not 75% of more of a single varietal, you will see the regional designation of "Napa Valley Red Wine" or "Napa Valley White Wine". AgneCheese/Wine 19:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, good point. Then Napa Valley would seem to fit the criteria for the regionals section. --Mikebrand 01:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would support Napa's listing as well. Overly strict adherence to such a rule (which leaves out extremely major wine-growing regions) is something only a few editors support. Badagnani 16:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To make our discussion easier, I have placed the template at the bottom. The text says "regionals" (which I hadn't noticed), but links to List of wine producing regions. That is confusing, since that list is already linked at the bottom of the template. So what is it? It sounds like we're talking about a blend of two different lists, which is confusing. My suggestion was obviously about "regions". Is there even an article or list for "regionals"? If not, maybe it should be started, instead of just using a template. -- Fyslee/talk 19:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is confusing and mostly because many people over many months have made small changes that were not all coordinated. I have de-linked the "regionals" term from the "regions" page because, as you point out, the link is already at the bottom of the page in a clear manner. That wasn't the only confusing link as "wine styles" linked to an article on winemaking (which I moved to a separate link at the bottom of the page). --Mikebrand 01:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Definitely improvements. -- Fyslee/talk 07:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just FYI: Napa Valley (wine) is now a redirect to Napa Valley AVA (instead of the other way around). This has brought the article title in conformance with the other articles on American Viticultural Areas.--Kharker 18:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template Issue[edit]

I know the template issue has been discussed thouroughly, but I do find it odd that grapes such as Durif (Petite Sirah), Dolcetto and Carménère are deemed appropriate for listing but Nebbiolo is not. It really is the most highly regarded red grape in Piedmont. Shouldn't it be included and these three dropped? Just a thought.Ee60640 03:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If Nebbiolo is very prominent you should add it. I just got a bottle of Dolcetto and it's not the best known, but I don't think it's extremely obscure. I don't know who added Durif or when; do you regard it as extremely obscure. Carmenere is a blending grape but does show up these days as a single-grape wine. Badagnani 03:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Between Petite Sirah (a much more common name then Durif) and Nebbiolo, I would say the two are darn close to the same in terms of prominence and familarity with the average wine drinker (and presumably the average wikipedia reader). Look at Wine Spectator's hits 359 Petite Sirah ratings to 303 Nebbiolo ratings-including blends and 569 article mentions of Petite Sirah to 504 article mentions of Nebbiolo. This doesn't even count the additional hits on the alternative name "Durif" and the misspelling "Petite Syrah". Considering that the grape is one of the oldest in California (second only to Zinfindel) and is also quickly emerging as the premier grape in the growing Mexican wine industry, I just can not see how one could argue for its exclusion when its "notability" is arguable on par with the grape you are adding. Now, as I said before, if we want to do a wholesale condensing of the template (which I have supported before), I can see removing it along with Nebbiolo and others to leave just 10-12 truly "major" grapes in place. But if we are not doing that wholesale condensing then I don't see a justification for its exclusion. AgneCheese/Wine 07:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why not just rename the article, then (is "Durif" not the original name?), and re-add it to the template. The template looks very fine and well-balanced since the reorganization a few weeks back. Badagnani 07:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm actually thinking of creating a separate Petite Sirah article since there are actually three grapes that are made as wines as Petite Sirah and some of the California's vines are actually not Durif. I think a full article could be written on both Durif and Petite Sirah. But until I (or someone else) get time to write those articles I think the template should include Durif/Petite Sirah AgneCheese/Wine 07:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no real interest in debating this, leave Petite Sirah/Durif in if you want. I was simply trying to avoid cluttering up the template due to the discussion that took place above. I will take issue with the idea that if it is dropped then Nebbiolo should be as well. While you found roughly equivilant numbers in the Wine Specator wine rating search function and article search for the two grapes, if you had run Barolo or Barbaresco you would have gotten 2172 and 970 hits respectively for wine ratings. For the article search Barolo had 1430 mentions and Barbaresco had 780. Since both wines are 100% Nebbiolo it seems to me a stonger case can be made for including Nebbiolo than Petite Sirah, using your own method to determine the importance of a grape. I think Nebbiolo and Sangiovese are without doubt two major red grapes from Italy that would need to be included if this list were cut down to 10-12 major wines. Don't get me wrong, there are many wines made from Petite Sirah that are superb. I just thought the entire idea here was to keep the template from getting cluttered. Ee60640 23:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought about that when I was doing the search but then I realized that wouldn't be a valid comparison since Barolo and Barbaresco are two separate articles with Barolo already noted in the template in the Regions area. The average wikipedia reader interested in information on Barolo will most likely search for that article rather then the Nebbiolo one (and would then thusly be wiki-linked to the grape article). One looking for information on Petite Sirah are going to be looking for Petite Sirah. Keep in mind that a template is meant to be a navigational tool and to compare the two grapes (for purpose of this template) you need to compare them as the grape articles rather then the separate wine. In that vein, the two are on quite the same level. Barolo and Barbaresco would be more on par to compare with a Bordeaux or Rhone.AgneCheese/Wine 05:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, I will respectfully disagree with you. Bordeaux and Rhone wines are not an apt comparison because they are made from a blend of several grapes while both Barolo and Barbaresco are 100% Nebbiolo. Go to Wine Geeks[1], Wine Pros [2] or Epicurious[3] and you will see reference to Nebbiolo as possibly the most important red grape in Italy. As I already stated, Nebbiolo and Sangiovese are the two major red grapes in Italy in terms of the notariety of the wines they are used to produce. Would you exclude Sangiovese being listed in the template because it is more commonly sold as a Chianti, Brunello, Rosso di Montalcino, etc? Petite Sirah is largely grown in California and the Pacific Northwest and this is the primary region of its popularity. It is a clone created in the 1920's. Wines made from Nebbiolo have been highly prized since at least the 14th century. As for the template being a navigational tool I understand that. The Barolo article would interest someone seeking information about the wine. I think it likely that someone interested in the wine would also have an interest in finding out more information about the grape just as someone reading the article about Bordeaux would have an interest in reading about Cab Sauv, Cab Franc, etc. Additionally there are increasing numbers of winemakers working to grow Nebbiolo in areas outside Piedmont, California being one of the major regions where this is being done. I think that is another reason a Wiki user would have an interest in information about the grape seperately from Barolo, etc. Ee60640 16:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with this. The template exists to get users to the right place, whether it be a discrete grape or wine. The two are not always mutually exclusive and that's fine. That's why we have the "notable wines" and "notable grapes" in separate areas. Badagnani 17:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Someone just removed lots of things from the template, and from the edit summary I assume s/he found the template on the Beaujolais wine page and assumed the template was just for Beaujolais wines--and removed non-Beaujolais things accordingly. Badagnani 00:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, it looks like that. Good call. AgneCheese/Wine 02:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion on wine styles in template[edit]

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wine#Vegan_wine.2C_Organic_wine.2C_Natural_wine_and_Kosher_wine to share your views on the wine styles listed in the template. AgneCheese/Wine 19:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have re-inserted the (notable regionals) links removed recently from this template. I would suggest a discussion of what is notable and what is not before readjusting this. Georgeg 17:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I support any attempts to clean up the template and make it more manageable. A listing of 33 region is a bit overbearing. Ideally it would be nice to get that down to 15-20. AgneCheese/Wine 17:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support that too. Shall I remove a few of my picking?! Georgeg 17:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well the problem that I find with the template (and looking at the history is easy confirmation) is that everyone has an opinion on what constitute a "notable" wine region and attempts to stay more mainstream can always be countered (and somewhat correctly) as systematic bias. My personal preference would be to do away with the section in favor of moving the List of wine-producing regions and List of wine-producing countries from the See Also section to its own areas. In my opinion those two links more then cover the subject matter and can direct the "curious reader" to any notable region they would like to see. That is my first choice. Second choice would be modifying the list below. AgneCheese/Wine 18:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Current listing[edit]

Amarone • Asti • Barbaresco • Barbera d'Asti • Barolo • Barossa • Beaujolais • Bordeaux • Burgundy • Chablis • Champagne • Chianti • Commandaria • Dão • Egri Bikavér • Madeira • Marsala • Mosel • Muscadet • Port • Retsina • Rheingau • Rheinhessen • Rhône • Rioja • Sancerre • Sauternes • Sherry • Tokaji • Valpolicella • Vermouth • Vinho Verde • Vouvray

  • Again I would have to agree with you. Either an article subject (and in this case a wine, grape blah blah blah) is notable (and as such deserves its own article) or it is not notable and consequently should not feature on wikipedia altogether. There are no articles that are “more notable” than others.
Which brings me back to my original reason for reverting the adjustment made by Winetype The articles dropped by that user were probably ones she’d not heard of and as such perhaps a result of systemic bias (note not one French wine was dropped). Something we from smaller countries come up against quite often. But had I mentioned this at the very beginning, people might have taken offence…
On a more constructive note, I would suggest that if the template is considered too cluttered, it gets split into smaller ones. Say one for grapes and one for regions. Another consideration would be to rename/redefine what is included (say swap the word notable to highest annual sales by volume, or highest annual sales by monetary value). That way the issue of notability is bypassed. Georgeg 19:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those are some very reasonable ideas. Though we do get into some trouble marks with the using the highest sales because that it is naturally more bias towards the more international varieties sold in the larger markets.AgneCheese/Wine 19:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fetească -- disambiguation required[edit]

In this template you refer to the region Fetească and it wikilinks to the word. Problem ...

  1. This is a disambiguation page
  2. Your region is not defined on the page

Action required: Please develop the region page by that name, and fix this template to point to that page. Thanks. -- billinghurst (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ugh....looks like more "link creep" has occurred. This templates needs to be paired back down to the essentials. I'll take a look. AgneCheese/Wine 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since I can't fix this without messing up the code[edit]

Could someone more code savvy merge the two grape sections into a title called "Major grapes" and include: Whites Chardonnay · Chenin blanc · Gewürztraminer · Muscat · Pinot blanc · Pinot gris · Riesling · Sauvignon blanc · Sémillon ({·)) Viognier Reds Cabernet Franc · Cabernet Sauvignon · Gamay · Grenache · Malbec · Nebbiolo · Merlot · Pinot noir · Pinotage · Sangiovese · Syrah/Shiraz  · Tempranillo · Zinfandel
We already have a link to all grape varieties so we need to try and keep this as focused as possible. AgneCheese/Wine 02:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will work on it tonite. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 02:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Portugal, with three regions listed (Madeira, Port, and Vinho Verde), gets relegated to the "Other" section, while New Zealand, with a single region, gets it own section. What is that about? --Nricardo (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I've said many times before, this template needs a significant overhaul. Unfortunately I'm not "code savvy" enough to figure out how to do this. AgneCheese/Wine 20:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can hack at it, but some editorial decisions need to be made since ATM, "Major wine regions" is a confusing soup of wine styles, major wine regions and subregions. My opinion is that such a template shouldn't try too much, ie suffice to let Amarone, Soave, Valpolicella be Veneto, let Muscadet, Pouilly-Fumé, Vouvray, Sancerre be Loire, etc.. I can pluck at a version of how I would prefer it. MURGH disc. 10:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Definitely agree, and ditto for several other project-wide templates. Tomas e (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is a draft. Some chopping and more clinincal on the regions, rather than "list of famous wine styles", right now with some omissions where region article don't exist and some links where there is no regional article :^/ Please suggest where to go next. MURGH disc. 12:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Old draft of ((User:Murgh/Templatebox3))

Nice first draft. Excellent idea grouping all the sub regions of France & Italy into the main regions. As for other improvements, I think you could group Chile & Argentina into one South America heading and just list the countries--not too many people are familiar with the sub-regions of those countries. I think we may have too many regions listed for Spain. Are Bizkaiko Txakolina, Toro, Campo de Borja, Navarra and Reuda really on par with Rioja, Penedes, Priorat and Ribera del Duero? Also, I would trim Portugal down to remove the more minor region of Estremadura and Swartland from South Africa. While they makes significant bulk wines, they are not regions that people are likely to see on many wine labels. AgneCheese/Wine 20:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Yes I agree with the line drawn for 'major regions', and though Mendoza, Central Valley, Maipo and such aren't obscure, we should keep it as tight as possible. In the case of South Africa I'm in doubt since Stellenbosch, Paarl (+Franschhoek) in another context would be in the same Cape winelands region, more distinguished as belonging to different "pockets". Swartland (mind, home to Sadie, Lammerschoek, Allesverloren etc.) would have some merit to stand apart, but I'm more inclined to squeeze SA in with "other". Any other ideas, cuts or inclusions? MURGH disc. 22:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If no objections then I'll insert this code for the old one and further modifications bemade to it. MURGH disc. 10:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

International vs. Regional[edit]

On what basis is the division of grape varieties made? Chenin Blanc, for example, is listed as a regional variety, despite accounting for a fifth of all South African plantings, and also having a major presence in California. Does there exist a consensus among wine authorities what the criteria for designating a variety as regional versus international are?

If we feel the need to separate varieties into two tiers, and can't rely on an external consensus to do so, then it seems we should simply look at worldwide production and see if there's a natural place to draw a line, and then classify the varieties as "major" and "minor". Otherwise we have to come up with an yet more arbitrary criterion such as "accounts for >5% of plantings in at least three countries or >5% of plantings in at least five regions or >20% of plantings in at least three regions not all in the same country", or something like that. --Atemperman (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMO, the "regional varieties" should just be cut as well as a substantial trimming of the wine region section as part of a general overhaul of this horrendous template. This template just has major issues all around with the foremost being the desire to cram entirely too much info in. AgneCheese/Wine 21:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've never liked this template - it's too big, and it uses some vaguely defined terms with unclear inclusion criteria. As to Chenin Blanc, I wouldn't call it a true international variety, because it plays an important role "only" in Loire and South Africa, while the truly international ones (Chardonnay, Merlot, ...) are found almost all over. But "regional" isn't a the obvious only term for "important grapes not found everywhere". While Nebbiolo could probably be called regional, Tempranillo is found all over Spain, Pinot Blanc are found in several European countries, Grenache probably is international, and on it goes. Sigh. Tomas e (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like the layout of this template, it is a little cluttered, but there's a lot to know about wine and I appreciate the information density, I think it achieves a middle ground between the exhaustive 'list of varietals' and the top 5. The regional/international distinction is a bit fuzzy, but I think the difference could be quantified by some combination of # of acres globally, and # continents where there are significant plantings. CabSav or Chardonnay have a major presence on 6 continents, and account for a huge volume of varietal wine. Chenin blanc has significant acreage on 3 continents, but I doubt the volume of production globally is even close to Chardonnay or Pinot Grigio. Replacing the term "International" with "Global" might be more accurate, but I think International/Regional is more common parlance. Inclusion in the Regional list seems the most arbitrary to me, Bobal? Mencia? I love learning about new varietals, but these are pretty minor to put next to Zinfandel and Chenin Blanc. Perhaps the regional list could include a link to an expanded sub-template of national varietals? (talk) 02:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)StarcastleReply[reply]

Major regions[edit]

The list is not neutral (why Alsace, Oregon but not China, Russia etc.). The entries there should strictly reflect List of wine-producing regions or be deleted. I think the latter option makes more sense since there is already a ((Wine by country)) navbox. Zach (Talk) 18:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replaced the list with old vs new world wine. Zach (Talk) 11:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2023[edit]

The "Template" for "Wine" is not the same as the "Portal" for "Wine". Why not homogenize the knowledge? Mahurel (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: Navigation templates and Portals serve different purposes on Wikipedia. Navigation templates are simple collections of related articles that are placed at the bottom of relevant pages to aid in navigation between articles. Portals are more elaborate collections that serve as "main pages" for topics, including many more related articles and also trivia, images, and project pages.
Additionally, please don't copy the entire contents of the template page onto the talk page; this interferes with the header system and may confuse bots that are archiving talk pages. I've removed the sections for you. Liu1126 (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]