Talk:Sauvignon blanc

References

Um, I would definitely prefer the fuller reference cites, with ISBN numbers and the like. As a reader, it makes it infinitely easier to find the relevant book. I am going to fix the cites that I did and put it back in that style. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I always use Chicago formatting for articles because people in "education" always complain about improper citation on wikipedia. I won't change it, but I think Notes and Works Cited are more appropriate with alphabetical listings for Works Cited with perhaps the ISBN numbers included with them for web referencing it gives a more detailed description of the writing book and the dates when the website was referenced. This particularly becomes an issue when a website no longer exists, where citation gives a retrieval date and would give credential to the hard work one has gone through in researching an article..--Christopher Tanner, CCC 04:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)tanner-christopher

I understand and I see that is the style that you are using on New York State Wine and in any manner that I contribute to that page, I will certainly follow your lead and use Chicago style. While I am a strong advocate of thorough referencing, I don't think we need to make this "educational standard" because our articles are not written for College instructors but rather the average reader looking for info. I would be leery in making our articles seem too much like a college enology paper. I, personally, favor this style because an interest reader can click on the inline cite and be taken right to the reference versus seeing the note section and then scrolling down further to match up the note with the "work cited". It is an extra step that I don't feel is needed. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand, I write extensively and it is the way I write and its the format I see many other articles on Wikipedia. I dunno, what if we put the ISBN in the note as well then? I really do think the "retrieved date" needs to be on the websites even if it is just on the notes, only because I so often go through articles and the web links do not work. There are quite a few wine students that come on here for information as well. I won't press the issue any further though, I'll be honest as with the California Wine/ Wine Country thing, I come to a point where this is just a hobby I enjoy as I like to share the knowledge I have with others which is why I am becoming a college professor and eventually staring a wine education business. I will start adding the ISBN's to books I have on my works cited on articles in the future, it is a good idea. By the way, the author is wrong for the KISS Guide to Wine book, it is Robert Joseph and Margaret Rand.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 04:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)tanner-christopher

I'm not a big fan of web base references (for many of the reasons you mentioned with dead links), so I actively try to avoid using them. I have no problem with adding retrieve on dates and would encourage others to do so. In regards to the KISS book, I don't own that one so I am not familiar with the authors but feel free to correct it if that is wrong. And congrats on your goals. I do have to say that I greatly appreciate your contribution to the project. You are a considerable asset and the work that you are doing with the New York State wine is great. Thank you. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Cat's Pee

I don't think a flavor description such as "cat's pee" belongs in the first paragraph. Or in the article at all. Will look over more of the article, but this really sticks out and sours the rest of my reading. Guavas 04:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

heh, the funny thing is that it is actually a positive descriptor of the wine. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I didn't think of it at the time because of the "normalcy" of that as a wine comment to me, Guavas brings up a good point. Those who are new to wine or have never heard of this descriptor may be disgusted by this statement. Perhaps it is better suited in a latter part of the article? I could see it shocking people in disgust.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 11:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)tanner-christopher

very interesting. this phrase should be in the article. perhaps the cat's pee should be a hyperlink to an article about wine tasting notes? that way searchers can learn that this is advanced lingo for a "green herbaceous aroma". This article was pretty good: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/03/24/WIG80BRKHC1.DTL Guavas 04:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isnt censored for decency or tastefulness. the "cat's pee on a gooseberry bush" descriptor is included because it is a unique and vivid part of the history of sauv blanc. VanTucky 04:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. It's very interesting and unique. It should be included. I would argue, however, that because it is not "self-contained" and "accessible" to most readers it doesn't jive with WP:LEAD Guavas 14:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

A description of the most common flavor descriptors seems like it should be included in the lead. It seems pretty self-contained to me; i.e. These are most common flavor descriptors, this one is the oddball. end of story. It doesnt beg further explanation. Please explain how you think the phrase is inaccessible to most readers. It's not academic-speak or a word like terroir. Most people get an obvious, self-contained idea from the phrase "cat's pee on a gooseberry bush". VanTucky 17:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As an FYI, one of the pictures I'm planning to take will be of a NZ Sauvignon blanc that is actually called "Cat pee on a Gooseberry bush" and include the bottle in the pic. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

it reads more like a gimmick than an encyclopedia. It also sounds highly subjective that cat's pee on a gooseberry bush "is also the smell of fresh guava fruit." According to whom? This is simply a point of view that will wrinkle the noses of I'd guess 95% of the readers of this article. Yes, perhaps after a lifetime of wine connoisseurship one arrives at this level of smell awareness, but this is the lead paragraph of an encyclopedia article. The fact stands: I didn't know what this means and have been educated by you guys and then by my own google searching. Shouldn't the WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE itself serve this function? no magazine is the end-all and be-all of wine descriptions, but if this description is so common then why doesn't my latest issue of Wine Spectator include one instance of the words "Cat's pee" in the 20 descriptions of new Sauvignon Blancs from New Zealand?Guavas 01:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

All descriptors are highly subjective. We use some because they have become established traditions realting to certain grapes, so when we talk about "cat's pee on a gooseberry bush" tasting like guava, we dont quite mean it literally and never absolutely. It's about that fact that the phrase has become more than what it says literally for sauv blanc. About the Wine Spectator, one issue doesnt mean diddely-squat. its not a measure of how common this term is. Besides there are two factors at work there; some reviewers have a canon of favorite terms that may not include all of the famous descriptors. Second, it is a magazine, and that is a rather long phrase that draws more attention than it is worth unless you really really mean to make that point. VanTucky 01:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I would got almost as far as to say that *all* reviewers have a favourite cannon of descriptors. There is a nice paper (Dubordieu and Brochet?) that found that some terms were more commonly used by the same reviewer on different wines than different reviewers on the same wine. (Which is not to say that descriptors are rubbish, but that there is a strong memory component). Thus, assuming Wine Spectator has maybe a single reviewer looking at Sb, it's not surprising that there's no mention of Cat's Pee. Also, I think strictly speaking "cat's pee" and "gooseberry" are separate descriptors, which have been cunningly combined as a marketing gimmick. I don't think there is much evidence that the two are related. Cat's pee I think falls in with a group of other borderline unsavoury descriptors such as "sweaty", "armpit", and "boxwood" (all relatively common for Sb).--Limegreen 01:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Right. So since this is an attempt to educate people, not turn them away, I propose a wording change to this: "Depending on climate, its flavors can range from aggressively grassy to sweetly tropical while even the memorable descriptor "cat's pee" has become surprisingly common." Here the link would go the sfgate.com article that I pasted a few lines above. The article it's linking to now mentions the cat's pee aroma only once, while the sfgate article is all about the cat pee. I also think that putting the full "cat's pee on a gooseberry bush" descriptor reeks of promotion because of how a wine company has coopted this phrase and named a wine after it.Guavas 01:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with that solution. the descriptor only makes real sense as a whole. breaking it down dounds silly of course, but cats pee and gooseberry together means balanced flavors, separarte it is a negative. You're spot on about it sounding like spam now though. And truth be told, it is a rare term in contemporary American wine circles. So I guess its all or nothing. VanTucky 05:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Katherine McNeil uses it quite prominent to describe Sauvignon blanc in her wine bible. It even has a index section to her usage on pg 4 and 268. It is a well established term. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be more interested in debating an opinion I have already moved away from than improving the article. I'm telling you: 99% of the people who read this article will not know that "cat's pee" is a useful description for a wine. The "Although" that leads into the "cat's pee" clause is also a wikipedia "word to avoid" WP:WTA. Because of this the article lead has a weird tone to it. People in the world are ignorant of certain wine aroma descriptors but this is an encyclopedia whose mission is to educate. Read the lead to Barolo. I think this is well written. I'm am having fun learning and debating about this, but I also want to move towards an agreement of sorts. Christopher Tanner's first response to stands: "Those who are new to wine or have never heard of this descriptor may be disgusted by this statement." Don't delete it. Don't censor it. Educate.Guavas 04:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

not sure what youre proposing as a compromise... VanTucky 04:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the cat pee....

We have one-two more days of Sauvignon blanc being the Wine Project's "Wine Improvement Drive" article with the hopes of then nominating it for GA status. I encourage everyone to take a look at the Good Article Criteria and see what they can do to help improve the article further. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think the discussion has died down so I'm going to submit it for GA consideration. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 08:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

GA comments

Very nice general coverage, I'd say. I must admit that I'm not a wine aficionado, but I'll still do what I can, because the article clearly deserves some attention. Here are the things I think need to be fixed before passing it as a GA:

• The prose needs a little work here and there. I did some minor adjustment, but I'd like to see fewer one-sentence paragraphs.
• There's a lot of wine-specific vocabulary in the article; "varietal", "phylloxera", "appelations", "marl", "noble rot", etc. No need to remove them, but I think some of them deserve to be supplemented by circumlocutions. Just something hinting at their meaning so one doesn't need to follow too many links just to understand the article.
• Is there really nothing to say about the history of Sauvignon blanc before the 18th century?

Again, though, a very nice effort. It's only only a few minor touch-ups from promotion. Peter ^Isotalo 11:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Reply On point 1, Thank you for help in this regard. Copy editing is certainly not my strong point and I appreciate the assistance. On point 2, I've tried to work a little on this regard but it would still be in the readers best interest to follow the wiki-link to the related article. Some of these concepts can be picked up in context but other do require more background understanding.

On point 3, there really is no significant history that found in reliable sources about the grape prior to the 18th century. For the most part the grape lead a very nondescript existence (like actually quite a few vinifera) and has only relatively recently came into fashion. I can insert some commentary to that affect but that would be just that-commentary and synthesis on the lack of interest and info in provided by the reliable sources. I'm not sure that would be needed. Thank you again for your help in this review. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. I believe the demands have been met and I'm passing the article. For future improvement, I can recommend including maybe a few more details on history and some figures concerning how much of the grape is grown, its share of the market, stuff like that. But then we're approaching FA status. Good work, Agne.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Aging

The article mentions that sauvignon blanc in general does not benefit from aging. Can anyone tell me is there an age at which one might expect the quality of the wine to start to decay? Alvie3 06:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Generally after two years (at least in NZ). General wisdom is that you don't gain anything by waiting even a year, so just drink the stuff. There is the occasional one that is designed for a bit more longevity, but they're usually well flagged. --Limegreen 11:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

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) 19:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review

This article passes GA Sweeps review, though someone should watchlist it as it is a constant target of vandals. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization of "sauvignon"

Since "sauvignon" does not come from a place name or other proper noun, I think there are many instances of improper capitalization of the word in this article, and it should generally appear as "sauvignon blanc". Comments? Robert K S (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I remember there was a discussion about capitalization some time ago here at WikiWineProject, but I'm afraid I can't remember exactly when it was, so as to fish out the relevant threads from the archive. I'm not sure but I think the conclusion was that we should capitalize the first word but not the second, especially when it was an adjective (eg, Pinot noir). But as I say, I can't recall exactly - sorry! --BodegasAmbite (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you can recall the conclusion but not the rationale is not encouraging! :-) Robert K S (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wine/Archive_4#Naming conventions for grape varieties read for yourself it is a bit complicated :-) --Stefan ^talk 09:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well the long and short of it is that in the context of the world of wine grape varieties are proper nouns. It is the context in which all reliable sources (i.e. the wine references we are using for these articles) refer to them and therefore it is only proper that Wikipedia follows suit in using the WP:COMMONAME and capitalization. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 09:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I just read over the archived discussion Stefan posted and I can't find anything resembling consensus or definitive sourcing. Sauvignon blanc is simply (evolved) French for "wild white (grape)". It's not a species name and doesn't come from a person or a place. It would seem reasonable to me to lowercase both words. A Google search shows the most-followed convention in English is to capitalize both words, but a more selective sampling that looks to more refined writers and commentators reveals that they prefer it decapitalized. See, for example, this recent New York Times wine review. Food for thought, and I'll leave it up to you wine experts. Whatever is arrived at, the chosen convention should have some firm rationale. Robert K S (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually the etymology for "Sauvignon" is one that is still a matter of scholarship among ampelographers with the simple "wild" translation being more or less discredited. :) Besides that, part of the confusion lies in how the wine world uses the grape varieties and wine varietals almost interchangeably. As a specific and unique cultivar of the Vitis Vinifera family, Sauvignon blanc (as is any other grape variety) is considered its own "species". Each cultivar produces its own unique wine-which therefore has it own unique name. With wine, the name of the varietal is taken from the name of the grape variety. The context of the two (wine & grape) flow naturally together and in some rare context writers will use proper capitalization when talking about the grape and lowercase when talking about the wine in order to make some distinction. This, I believe, is the habit of Frank Prial/Eric Asminov the wine writers for the NYT. I also think the MOS for the NYT is different than the scientifically accurate MOS that is more relative to the wine world. Journalist MOS tend to put value on names that trace back to historical people and places like the wine Chianti or the grape Mueller-Thurgau, etc and if they can't "verify" the origins (like "Sauvignon") they err on lowercase etc. This is not wrong per se but it is certainly not the neat and clean nomenclature that science likes. While wine is certainly romantic at its base there is more botany and science than literature and journalism, hence the side that we err on. :) Agne^Cheese/^Wine 10:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As I stated over 2 years ago, "Both Jancis Robinson in The Oxford companion to Wine and Oz Clarke in Grapes and Wines call it Pinot Gris.", both VERY 'refined wine writes', not sure about Sauvignon blanc though. --Stefan ^talk 10:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It has been discussed in the project two times more recently than at the reference given by Stefan, most recently in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine/Archive 9#Capitalization revisited. Unfortunately, no consensus was reached between 1) Sauvignon Blanc and 2) Sauvignon blanc. 1) would be the short form for a cultivar following the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants, and is used by Oxford Companion, as noted above, although they don't quote ICNCP as their reason. (The full form from ICNCP would be Vitis vinifera 'Sauvignon Blanc'.) 2) is supposed to be common in viticultural circles, and is probably inspired from botanical species names. No capitalisation at all is sometimes seen in French (although ICNCP should reasonably apply there as well), but I've never seen it advocated by any professional English-language source. Tomas e (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Dessert grape

Perhaps understandably, the article is almost exclusively concerned with SB as a grape used in winemaking. However I think it would be improved by some information on the grape as grown for eating rather than for fermenting. CS is widely grown in gardens and on allotments, at least here in Britain, and I don't think many people make wine from the fruit. --87.114.100.131 (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Most people I know who grow grapes for eating grow seedless grapes or grapes considered to be table grapes; a popular one around here is Sultana, better known as Thompson Seedless. Table grapes are generally lower in sugar than wine grapes. Sauvignon Blanc is a seedy grape, fairly high in sugar, but perhaps not in cold climates like the UK. What is "CS"? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, "CS" was a typo for "SB". It's true that many seedless table grapes don't grow well outdoors in the British climate, while SB grows like a weed once established and fruits well. --87.114.100.131 (talk) 09:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you know of any reliable sources that say Sauvignon Blanc is grown as a table grape in the UK? If so, there's no problem adding this fact to the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sauternes

I find this section somewhat misleading: "Conversely, the grape is also a component of the famous dessert wines from Sauternes and Barsac. " This implies that SB is the primary component of Sauternes, when it's actually Sémillon that is the dominant varietal in those blends. SB is used for balance and complexity, but Sauternes and Barsac are mostly about Sémillon. Pinchworm (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sauvignon blanc. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20070503071718/http://www.winesofnz.com/Vintage.aspx to http://www.winesofnz.com/vintage.aspx

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) 21:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)