This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Wine, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.WineWikipedia:WikiProject WineTemplate:WikiProject WineWine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
food and
drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review
WP:Trivia and
WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects,
select here.
Consider joining this project's
Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section
Note: These lists are
transcluded from the project's tasks pages.
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.
AgneCheese/
Wine04:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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, CCC04:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)tanner-christopherreply
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.
AgneCheese/
Wine04:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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, CCC04:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)tanner-christopherreply
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.
AgneCheese/
Wine05:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
Guavas04:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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, CCC11:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)tanner-christopherreply
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.
VanTucky04:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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:LEADGuavas14:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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".
VanTucky17:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
AgneCheese/
Wine19:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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?
Guavas01:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
VanTucky01:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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).--
Limegreen01:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
Guavas01:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
VanTucky05:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
AgneCheese/
Wine19:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
Guavas04:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
AgneCheese/
Wine19:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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?
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.
AgneCheese/
Wine03:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
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?
Alvie306:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)reply
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. --
Limegreen11:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.
AgneCheese/
Wine09:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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. :)
AgneCheese/
Wine10:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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:
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.
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Wine, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.WineWikipedia:WikiProject WineTemplate:WikiProject WineWine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
food and
drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review
WP:Trivia and
WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects,
select here.
Consider joining this project's
Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section
Note: These lists are
transcluded from the project's tasks pages.
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.
AgneCheese/
Wine04:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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, CCC04:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)tanner-christopherreply
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.
AgneCheese/
Wine04:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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, CCC04:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)tanner-christopherreply
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.
AgneCheese/
Wine05:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
Guavas04:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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, CCC11:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)tanner-christopherreply
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.
VanTucky04:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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:LEADGuavas14:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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".
VanTucky17:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
AgneCheese/
Wine19:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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?
Guavas01:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
VanTucky01:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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).--
Limegreen01:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
Guavas01:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
VanTucky05:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
AgneCheese/
Wine19:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
Guavas04:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
AgneCheese/
Wine19:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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?
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.
AgneCheese/
Wine03:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
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?
Alvie306:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)reply
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. --
Limegreen11:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.
AgneCheese/
Wine09:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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. :)
AgneCheese/
Wine10:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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:
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.