Talk:Adelaida Cellars


Regarding the incorrect copyrights of the graphics: please advise on which are the correct options considering the following: the label is the intellectual property of Adelaida Cellars while all of the photos are my property since I was the photographer.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeg101 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Joeg101. It looks like you've uploaded those pictures to Wikipedia with a note "© Joe A Gargiulo, JAG Public Relations" but under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, which says "You are free: to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work; to Remix — to adapt the work; Under the following conditions: Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)." I guess the next questions are: what are the incorrect copyrights on the graphics? and how do you want them attributed? -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, perhaps it's the label in question. I made this edit to provide the requested rationale. Perhaps we could drop the label, though, and use just the logo, like the one on pasowine.com? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup

@Leslie Love Stone, so the first thing I'd suggest is going through and placing any tags you think are necessary. Those could include Wikipedia:Citation needed or Wikipedia:puffery tags.

As you can see this has been tagged for over three years for COI, so since you are an industry insider who works in this geographical location, I wanted to give you a heads up that if you have any guesses who a COI editor is in real life, do not out them. There's information at WP:OUTING, but the nutshell is that for editors working in some subject areas, being outed can mean doxxing, actual physical danger, and death threats about their children, so while that's obviously unlikely in a subject area like CA winemaking areas, WP draws a very hard line and is unforgiving of outing people in any subject area. That doesn't mean you can't say things like, "this was added by a likely COI editor". It just means not saying, "Oh, Marnie17 is probably Marnie Thomas, she worked in marketing for Adelaida in the 2010s." If they've already outed themselves, like you did, it's not a problem, but we need to see the post in which they did that. Valereee (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the head's up. If I cite an issue, who actually fixes it? Leslie Love Stone (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I read the citation needed article. It talks about not backlogging the system with unnecessary "citation needed" markers. Wondering if (a) I can provide a citation and (b) do either of these sites work:
https://pasowine.com/paso-robles/
https://winehistoryproject.org/
The first one is cited in the Adelaida District AVA#cite note-Wine Country-2 article. Does that mean it's a viable reference? The second, I haven't investigated, but my question would be, Do they use standard research methods or is the museum a winery-funded endeavor. Leslie Love Stone (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leslie, usually editors tag articles because they 1. don't have time or 2. don't know the sources/aren't familiar with/aren't interested in the subject matter or 3. just don't feel like it. The reason I suggested you tag first was so you and I could discuss which tags you felt were needed and where. Purely a way to facilitate the learning process. But after that discussion, if you can fix something instead of dropping a tag, and you have the time/interest/knowledge, absolutely fix it!
Re: the sources. As an affiliated source, PWRCA could be used with caution for certain noncontroversial facts. Year of founding, acres in vineyard, stuff like that. Stuff no one would come along and say, "that's not right" or "that's puffery".
Wine History Project...hm. Started in 2015. It looks like it might be a museum-like thing? I'd say the answer is maybe. I don't see any evidence of editorial oversight, but that's not uncommon with small museums that are publishing. I'd say it can be used again with caution, but it's possible someone might come along and tag anything controversial with 'better source needed'. Valereee (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome—thank you! I marked multiple places where I think citations are needed and two places where the language seems extreme. Do you agree? Have I marked too many? Are the puffery tags correct? Leslie Love Stone (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The two puffery tags are actually the kind that go at the top of the article. You only need one, and it goes above everything else. But yes, you identified the puffery and trivia, which is mostly in that section. Why don't you go through that section with the idea in mind of "what is this doing for the reader? Is it actually helping the reader understand the subject better, or is is basically just trivia?" And just remove anything you think doesn't actually contribute to reader understanding of the winery.
The citations needed -- all of them are correct, but you could have dropped a few more (if there weren't already a banner at the top of the page). Every sentence needs to be cited to some source. That doesn't mean every sentence needs a tag, but any paragraph that doesn't end with a citation (which is signalling to readers/other editors that the entire para is sourced to that reference) needs one.
Yes, a lot of people would object to tagging every para and would just put a 'more citations' banner. My personal opinion is that para-end work better to encourage people to try to fix even just one. But it's totally a personal choice, and if someone objected and switched from para-end to a banner, I wouldn't argue. Valereee (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great!
Step 1, delete trivia.
Step 2, correct extreme language? Can/may I?
Step 3, find citations and correct if necessary? Leslie Love Stone (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see how much of that you can do. Don't worry too much about whether it's perfect, nothing on WP can't be undone. Valereee (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, thank you—and yes, "always in progress." Leslie Love Stone (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adelaida_Cellars&oldid=1198005066"