Talk:Languedoc-Roussillon wine

I made some big changes because the article didn't cite directly, and a lot of the internal links didn't make much sense. Geographic areas of France are pretty confounding on wikipedia between the intermittent use of the colloquial term region, the French legal term région, and the historic versus presentday use of names like the Languedoc. The way I rewrote the article assumes that the Languedoc is usually viewed as part of the Languedoc-Roussillon région in the south of France. If there are significant objections, let me know. I live in l'Aude and it certainly seems this way to me. The entries for Languedoc and Roussillon are actually about historic provinces that have somewhat similar borders to the contemporary région.

I also don't know if this article should be standing on its own so I put it up for suggested merger into the Languedoc-Roussillon... At the same time, I wanted to give it a fighting chance, so I gave it some structure and fleshed it out a tad more. I could potentially add a section on climate and geography and this might be big enough of a topic to merit its own entry. --mroconnell 13:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to see what the Wine Project can do with this article. I certainly think there is enough information to merit its own article like Burgundy wine, California wine, etc. Let's see what we can do and if not much changes after 2 weeks, we can put back on the merge tag. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 09:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like a good plan. Thanks ahead of time for all the help getting this article up to speed. It'll be good to have people around to keep it neutral. :) I hope we make it as good as the Carmenère article.

This is so exciting! Agne is doing a great job so far. I just read a great article from the Oxford libaries about the Wine Growers' Revolt of 1907. I'm probably going to work on that in the next couple of days. It could be a significant chunk of the Languedoc Wine history section. The entire revolt which actually spans over a period of several years culminating in the mass demonstration of a few hundred thousand French citizens (the majority of whom weren't even wine growers but were simply showing solidarity) and Clemenceau's military occupation of the bas Languedoc. It'll be about as exciting as encyclopedia entries on wine can get.  :)--mroconnell 10:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's always fun to get an article going. After going through some of my favorite refs, I can definitely see this article growing. In the beginning I say put whatever you can find in the article. Later we can think about trimming down. We may even have enough for some splinter articles like Roussillon wines or History of Languedoc wine. Maybe a Growers' Revolt of 1907 article? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 11:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oppose merge Languedoc-Roussillon is about the geography of this région of France, while Languedoc wine is specifically about the regional wines of the region. These are two different (albeit related) subjects. It seems to me that the article "Languedoc wine" is large enough to stand on its own, and would constitute undue weight if all of that content was simply dumped in a larger article on Languedoc-Roussillon geography. Would you also propose to merge French wine with France???? Peter G Werner 19:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I see the Joseph book got moved to "further reading" even though I used parenthetical citations in a few spots in the body of the article. Is this normally how Harvard referencing gets treated on wikipedia? Should I convert to the endnotes like Agne's using? --mroconnell 21:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Eeep! Ryan, I'm sorry. I didn't realize those were your citations. Harvard referencing is accepted but the <ref></ref> footnote style is preferred due to its versatility and ease of page navigation. WP:CITE has more info but again, Harvard is fine. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've corrected the geo location to "south of France" - because that's where it is! - but reading this and other Languedoc articles, I'm still unclear as to the actual boundaries of the wine-producing region. In these WPR articles we should provide a map, I think. Thing is, I'm not sure which map to use...--mikaul 08:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

• I meant to mention that I have some nice shots of this part of France, just over the Spanish border west of Perpignan; one in particular of a large vinyard with the Pyrennees in the background would be nice to use. I'll dig out a copy, assuming this is the right region! --mikaul 08:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh a map would be very nice as would the pictures. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's pretty confusing. When I ask my neighbors (in the Languedoc) where the region starts and ends, they all give me different answers. The Languedoc is the northern part of the Languedoc-Roussillon department of today's France. But a lot of the literature mentions the Languedoc as a historical region which is JUST Pays d'Oc / Occitania. The pictures you have of the swath of coastal land near the Spanish border are technically of the Roussillon half of the Languedoc-Roussillon (I think). However, when people use the term Roussillon by itself, they're usually referring to the historic region of Roussillon which is actually more westward and now referred to as the Pyrénées-Orientales department or somesuch. But Languedoc-Roussillon wines are really closely related in the language these days because it's one region and separating them is sort of unnecessary, as far as I can tell. If you put in a picture of a Perpignan vineyard in the Languedoc-Roussillon (like you did), it would be swell for this article. I'll also upload a picture of my vineyard, but I don't know if it's okay to post my own stuff like that. I can post pictures of my wine bottles too. Is that okay? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mroconnell (talk • contribs) 13:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC). Forgot to sign.--mroconnell 13:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'd say yes, go ahead and post some up, were a bit short of pics here. It's non-NPOV which would be a problem, rather than vested interests...just don't caption them with "Languedoc's most fab wine (producer)" and I for one will turn a blind eye ;) I should re-caption that pic with the mountains, as it wasn't strictly speaking near Perpignan - that was just the nearest major city. It was taken in the west of the region on the outskirts of a village called Forques, which seems more like the "Pyrénées-Orientales department" you refer to. mikaul 18:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Three more days are left in the Wine Improvement Drive on this article. The biggest need that I see is the loving attention of a copy editor's touch. I also think some work could be done on eliminating the red links in the article with hopefully "start level" articles. While not a GA-requirement per se, the absence of red links does help in the overall informativeness of the article since the reader will be able to click on any link that they don't know about and get at least a basic amount of information on that. Some pictures of the actual wine are always helpful. I snapped a few of the bottles that I recently tried but my photography skills are far from stellar. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've been too busy to find a bottle, let alone photograph one, but I'll make an effort this weekend. Copyedit shouldn't be a problem though, you've made a great job of it. I'll leave it another day in case there's a last minute rush of contributions! I think some of the red links might just need re-wikifying, btw. Check the French wine page. --mikaul 19:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Update: failed to find a bottle to try/shoot, which is just typical of round here... it can be sooo parochial when it comes to wine. I live 1.5 hours south of the region and not a sniff of it. Sorry :/ mikaul 18:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

There are some statements at odds with each other here. I've done what I can but it still doesn't ring true. Can someone check this over?

• Is it true that the Languedoc-Roussillon vinyards extend to 6.7million acres?
• Can the article's (previous) claim that Languedoc individually has 700,000 acres be correct?
• The same website claims L-R produces 2 billion bottles annually. If the statement of "one-third of all French production" is correct, it can't total more than US production (2005 figures: France 5.3million tonnes, US 2.3 million) so I've gone with the 'almost half', at least for now.
• If it does produce almost half of French wine, and as the Languedoc seems to provide at least half of total L-R production, then the total Languedoc acreage must be nearer 3 million.

Or am I missing something? mikaul 22:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

These were the sources I was going off

• H. Johnson & J. Robinson "World Atlas of Wine" 2005 pg 138- 736,000 acres planted & responsible for a third of France's production
• K. MacNeil "The Wine Bible" 2001 pg 293- 700,000 acres of vines. Single largest wine producing region. Responsible for a third of France's production.
• "The Wine Bible" pg 294- More wine produced here then in the entire United States

I would be the most partial to the Johnson & Robinson quotes since they are relatively up to date and the World Atlas of Wine is a pretty respectable ref. At least there are two Masters of Wine and the Mitchell Beazley fact checkers to attribute to while it is hard to trace the source of the exploringwine weblink. Could the weblink be noting the entire landmass of 6.7 million acres, not all of which are undervines?

• As for the the volume, "The Wine Bible" is an older ref (2001) so I can see the US increasing production in recent years to where that ref is probably outdated. The World Atlas doesn't give a volume count for either the Languedoc or all of France, they just toss out the "third of total production" quote. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that the 6.7 Million acre number is correct. The website cited seems to have a consistency issue, stating that it's nearly 10 times larger than the 68,000 acres in Provence. Also, according to this site the Languedoc is 10600 square miles - 6.7 million acres, so that could also be what is meant.

2 billion bottles of wine is about 1.5 million tonnes, which seems to be in line with the "third of France's production" comment. I think that old sources that Agne cited are probably correct and should probably be used (with the exception of the "more wine than the United States" comment, which is probably outdated information.) --- The Bethling^(Talk) 04:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

• On re-editing, I came back to something I'd not quite resolved - the Languedoc region is one thing, but the intro talks mostly of the Languedoc-Rousillon, correct? It's important to be clear that we are referring to the whole area here, as the article is not titled this way. Hence the part which reads' "...primarily referred to the northern part of the Languedoc-Roussillon région of France, an area which spans the Mediterranean coastline from the French border with Spain to the region of Provence. The area (ie, the L-R area) has around 700,000 acres under vines..."

Do you see what I mean? Is it ok this way? mikaul 11:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is there a wine region infobox we could use here? I'm also wondering if the map, currently in the Geography section, should maybe be at the top of the page, though it's reasonably ok where it is. mikaul 11:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have assessed this article according to the GA criteria. There are a few things that need to be fixed before I'll pass it.

1. "Languedoc wine (often labeled Vin de Pays d'Oc) is produced in the south of France." Do you mean it is produced south of France or in the southern part of France? You may want to clarify to not confuse some readers into thinking grapes are grown in the ocean.
2. (done)"During the advent of the Industrial Age in the late 19th century, production shifted towards mass produced le gros rouge-cheap red wine that could satisfy the growing work force." I think a larger hyphen should be used in between rouge and cheap (use —).
3. (done)In the Climate and geography section, the image's caption should be vineyard not vinyard. Also, add a description underneath the image of France.
4. (done)"In Dec 2006, the French government responded to global warming concerns and relaxed some of the irrigation regulations.[8]" Don't abbreviate, just write out December.
5. (done)According to the Method of Style, the heading should only have the first main word capitalized, so "Wines and Taxonomy" should be "Wines and taxonomy".

Add inline citations for:

1. '(done-MacNeil ref)Despite the general reputation as a mass producer and a consensus that the region is in the midst of an economic crisis, parts of the Languedoc wine industry are experiencing commercial success due to outside investment and an increased focus on quality.
2. '(done)Sales have been improved by many vineyards that concentrate on creating a good brand name rather than relying on the sometimes infamous regional designations.
3. '(done-MacNeil ref)"Younger appellations like the Cabardes and subregions like Minervois la Liviniere are much smaller in scope (Joseph 2005:191)." Convert this into a similar reference tag like the others on the article. Look to WP:CITET if you need a better citation template.

Altogether, a well-written article with plenty of information and free images. Fix the above suggestions within seven days and I'll pass the article. Let me know if you have any questions or when you're done on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 22:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Regarding 1, I think the term the south of France is used quite a bit and that it's ok.--Charleenmerced ^Talk 23:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)CharleenmercedReply

I would second this. This is quite a common descriptor. I'm not sure this is much confusion with "THE south of France" to mean "south OF France". Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I figured it might be less confusing to call it "southern France", if that's not too vague. mikaul 07:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have passed this article according to the GA criteria. Concerning the first point about the south aspect, I was kidding more than seriously suggesting it should be changed. If you guys think it should remain as it was, then go ahead and change it. I just thought a small margin or readers might get confused (possibly younger readers, but then again, why are they reading about a wine article?). Also, with the new references you just added, be sure to fix the spacing so it goes directly after the punctuation, just like it is throughout the rest of the article. Anyway, good job on completing all of these so quickly, the article looks very good. I see that you're currently getting a peer review, which will help you to see if there are other things that could be improved or expanded upon before taking it to FAC. I read one of your WP newsletters, so I congratulate you on getting a new GA for your project. If you have the time, please consider reviewing an article or two at GAC to help with the large backlog. Again, good job, and keep nominating articles! --Nehrams2020 20:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I must remind whoever who wrote

"The area has around 700,000 acres..."

...that in France just there is no such thing as acres. The suitable measurement unit complying with the SI, or Système international d'unités, in force in France, is the Hectare (or ha), and not the acre (sorry about that). In fact, the use of acres will be banned in France and in the European Community from Jan 1, 2010 onwards. --AVM 20:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

My apologies. Acres is what my source listed them as. I am not familiar with the conversion but if any is, I'm sure it wouldn't be pushing the original research envelop to include the hectare conversion in parenthesis next to acres. I would still keep acres in though since, again, that is how the source citation list them. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

1) intro: Languedoc and vin de pays d'oc are not the same. The Languedoc spans a larger area as it also contains AOC regulated wines (Coteaux du Languedoc, Corbières, Pic-St-Loup, Coteaux de Gers, ...)
2) vin de pays allows for a good deal of experimentation (irrigation, varietalwines, alcohol-reduced wines,...) and it is exactly that what some younger winegrowers are doing with more or less success
3) 'vin ordinaire' does not exist, it is 'vin de table'. But then again, I'm quite sure that most of the wines are 'vin de pays'.

Re. points 1 & 2: maybe these distinctions should be a little clearer in the lead section, but they are clarified to an extent here, further down the page, if not in so much detail. It's more important to get the "gist" of the article across in the lead than be unequivocal on specific details.
Your third point is true of French (and (Spanish, and Italian) wines in general, since the introduction of EU-wide QWPSR classification. Again, it could do with clarifying further. Maybe someone else could comment? I'd certainly be inclined to add in any missing AOCs (Pic-St-Loup, Coteaux de Gers) and more, if you have them and can reference them. mikaul^talk 07:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
ps. don't forget to sign your posts (~~~~)

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, OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Although this article is called "Languedoc wine" it is quite obvious that it in fact is an article on the entire Languedoc-Roussillon wine region, since it refers to the List of appellations in Languedoc-Roussillon and discusses appellations such as Banyuls AOC, which is situated in Roussillon rather than Languedoc. Perhaps some people refers to Languedoc-Roussillon wine colloquially as "Languedoc wine" because the full name is a bit long, but it is not a correct name for the region. (Compare this widely used website about French wine, as an example.) Slightly interesting to see that the article is a WP:GA despite this lack of consistency. I therefore propose to rename the article, either to Languedoc-Roussillon wine or Languedoc-Roussillon (wine region) and to rewrite the intro. Tomas e (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, when I first worked on this article I went with the more colloquial "Languedoc wine" as Roussillon is often (probably unfairly) grouped together. However, I would not object to the name change since it is technically more proper. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

While I agree that this section can be updated, the recent edits to that section had some significant issues that need to be addressed. I reverted back to the sourced version. Feel free to update but please....1.) Use a verifiable source. If it is a magazine, we need publisher information. If it is a website we need links. If it is a book, ISBN numbers, etc. While not an absolute requirement, English language sources would be a huge plus. Despite several searches, I could not find a reference to the "InterRhone Communication" much less to the particular issue date 2.) The entire section needs to be sourced and avoid POV/weasel words. Following the "InterRhone" source there was some POV interjection and weasel wording about people (who?) ignoring facts and spreading unreliable information etc. The next preceding footnote was Karen MacNeil's Wine Bible which certainly doesn't source that. 3.) The blanket removal of the World Atlas of Wine link also caused a fracture ref link for the preceding usages of that ref. Some refs are used to support multiple claims in the article so they should be removed with caution. Again, I have no problem with this section being updated with current and verifiable reliable sources and I applaud the initiative to do so. However, especially with a GA-listed article, there needs to be care taken to make sure that our revisions do not violate Wikipedia policies and cause disruption to other references. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Check out a discussion about source I had with the editor at User talk:Kudpung#AOC additions to the Rhône wine region and User talk:Tomas_e#CdN, we now have the source. The editor really made an effort to locate a source for when and how the change took place, which is not found in the OCW article. I then found additional publications from INAO. My attempt at understanding how authorative decisions are made on how AOCs are moved between wine regions is reflected in the current version of Costières de Nîmes AOC#Change of name and regional affiliation. As you can see, I judged that the date of INAO's offical publication was more correct than claims from a growers' organisation. I'll try bring the text here more in line with the Costières de Nîmes article. Tomas e (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

...and with a 2004 formal change, it makes it logical that my 2001 edition of World Atlas of Wine shows Costières de Nîmes as Eastern Languedoc, while my 2006 edition of OCW says that it's now in Rhône. Presumably, the 2005 edition of World Atlas of Wine (used as a source in the article, but which I don't have) was not updated in time. Tomas e (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The new edits look good. Thanks for the leg work. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Correction...we still have the broken ref link due to the blanket deletion of the World Atlas of wine. But I will take a look at this. Again, I urge caution when deleting references like this. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Languedoc-Roussillon wine. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070509033707/http://www.bkwine.com:80/bkwine_brief/brief-046-e.htm to http://www.bkwine.com/bkwine_brief/brief-046-e.htm

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Languedoc-Roussillon wine. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.winespectator.com/Wine/Archives/Show_Article/0%2C1275%2C2580%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130518031954/http://www.france.fr/en/wines-spirits/wines-languedoc-roussillon to http://www.france.fr/en/wines-spirits/wines-languedoc-roussillon

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) 12:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply