Talk:Alternative wine closure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"Notable" producers are being laundry lists[edit]

Anons keep adding to these lists of "notable" producers using each type of closure. I think these lists should be removed entirely for two reasons:

  1. They attract a lot of attention from people who want to promote their winery, diluting their overall significance.
  2. As time goes on and synthetic closures become more and more common, this information will be less and less interesting or notable. We are encouraged to avoid putting information into articles that is liable to change significantly with time, and I think these lists are examples of this because their notability is only relevant until synthetic closures become the norm (which is rapidly happening).

Any objections to me going ahead and deleting all the lists from the article? — Saxifrage 00:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. I would be for the removal. Agne 07:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Took 2 months but that area is cleaned. Agne 06:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
If user JBWM stops vandalizing the ZORK section then it would be really clean! I'm sorry I'm not familiar with wikipedia procedures, but can something be done about this user whose only "contributions" ever have been to blatantly advertise ZORK on this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandal JBWM here. I am sorry if the edited content is perceived as advertorial, however having been involved with the ZORK project in early 2003 to late 2005 and again in 2007 I believe that I have some idea about what I am posting to Wiki. I too am unfamiliar with the technical platform but don't see why the fact I have, to date, only contributed to the ZORK area to be a compelling reason to 'have something done' about my edits. When ZORK 'advertises' its product it is through a targeted and carefully managed campaign. The contribution to Wiki is, I believe in the spirit of the site and as ZORK is a relatively young product an opportunity to correct a number of myths surrounding it's inception and development in the market. Should anyone wish to contact me directly you are welcome to contact my hotmail account [JBWM January 14th 3.50pm Australian CST] —Preceding unsigned comment added by JBWM (talkcontribs) 05:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Zork entry[edit]

There have been a wide range of concerns about the advert tone of the Zork section and considering JBWM admitted conflict of interest, it would probably be best to hammer out the details of the section here on the talk page rather than edit the article directly. I think first and foremost we should keep Wikipedia's policy of using reliable, independent, third party sources for the edit and to also be mindful of WP:NPOV and to avoid sounding like an WP:ADVERT. We should all be encouraged to assume good faith and not label others editors as "vandals". AgneCheese/Wine 01:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with Agne. Since alternative closures is an interesting topic to all us "wine nuts", it seems the Zork merits a place in the article, but we do not detail each place of production or send people to producer's sites for additional advertisments for other types of wine closures. Therefore, the level of treatment the Zork gets right now, after Agne's revert seems about right, although I wouldn't mind a reliable reference or two, or a free image. Tomas e (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with all the above, but I do not assume good faith when someone marks a section as possible adv. for editing by someone who is a specialist in the area, then the section is being edited and then the user who first contributed that section keeps reverting it back to what it was without any discussion. Anyway, the matter is now closed I assume, and in good faith now, I agree that the article sounds right. Reliable third-party references would be nice as well, but this is where I assume good faith. Thanks, Anthony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

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 careful 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) 05:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Advertising in "Synthetic corks" section[edit]

This is in the "Synthetic corks" section: "...and the Vinova type production, which combines the advantages of both injection molding and extrusion molding."

From what I can see, vinova is a registered trademark manufacturer of synthetic corks and frankly, I feel this is nothing but blunt advertising, since this statement is neither educating nor well supported by any evidence at all. I will edit this section to exclude this statement until someone can fully and neutrally argue that the Vinova-method is somehow distinct from the other two mentioned and in what way.

Einaraxel (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


HCNAPA (talk · contribs) added the following comment as a subpage to this talk page: "This article is very out of date. The alternative closure industry has changed dramatically in the last five to ten years and the references and quotes here are old. The vendors have narrowed, the wine use has expanded and the practical side for using these closures has certainly been effected. I suggest a complete discussion were all closures and their effect on OTR and wine chemistry can be discussed."

If quotes are old or not is not an issue, what matters is if statements are correct and are sourced from reliable sources. This article has been a spam magnet for editors with a conflict of interest and those who try to use Wikipedia as an advertising space. Therefore, it is being closely watched. Feel free to add to it, as long as you realise that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written with a neutral point of view and not an advertising space. Tomas e (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Tomas e: What matters are the reliable sources, not the date. Any editor can update the article with new information as long as it complies with the all the Wikipedia guidelines, especially WP:CORP, WP:COI and WP:SPAM in the case of this article. A quick look at the article's history shows constant attempts by people connected with Nomacork, Zork, Vinova, and other alternative closure manufacturers, etc attempting to promote their companies and/or products by inserting non-notable, self-promoting advertising material. --BodegasAmbite (talk) 11:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy to make edits you all feel comfortable with. Having said that, this was a debate between two prominent writers. Why have only one side? This comment by Laube was not complete. Suckling, also a prominent writer counters his "claim". This is a flavor opinion by an editor - this is not fact - I'm the moderator for the North America Closure Council. These facts about alternative closures are short sided and bias. Worse then advertising, they are just misleading. I'm a new user admittedly, Suggestions? I sourced the rebuttal?HCNAPA (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Well you do have a WP:COI in regards to this article (Its content effects you in a professional/personal matter) so I would recommend reading the conflict of interest policy. That said, we do encourage efforts to improve our articles. The other policies that you should be familiar with is how to WP:CITE reliable sources in a WP:NPOV manner. I would recommend using this talk page to list your proposed changes and referencing rather than edit the article directly given your COI. AgneCheese/Wine 16:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I admit working for the industry, however with my background as the Director of the North American Closure Council I see statements as those listed in this article as not helpful and certainly bias WP:COI & WP:NPOV. I on the other hand am completely unbiased as I represent all closures not just natural cork synthetics or screw caps. This quote is an editorial quote - the opinion of an editor of a wine magazine. There are no facts behind his claim. If we allow editorials as fact then Wiki is in big trouble.HCNAPA (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Non-bias discussions about all closures can be found here. Alternative - Wine and Vines 2008 Please have a read and see what I mean. There is a lot going on in this industry right now.
Well as one of the primarily editors in this article, I can ensure that I have no COI or BIAS. I have no financial ties or interests with the closure industry and no preference for closures with my personal drinking. My only interest lies in insuring that this article is written in a neutral tone and is WP:CITEd to reliable, independent third party sources. The Wines & Vines link is a perfect example and would be a fine inclusion in the article. Do you have a draft content proposal, using sources such as that link, to improve the article? AgneCheese/Wine 02:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC). I will draft a small paragraph for you input. Note I added a recyclable statement to the second paragraph of the synthetic article.

Vino-Seal and Vinolok -- same thing?[edit]

The main page implies that Vinolok is a product distinct from the Vino-Seal, and that Vinolok was developed "by a Czech crystal glass producer Preciosa."

The vinolok and vino-seal webpages are very clearly co-owned in that they appear exactly alike, and the two are frequently mentioned together in the same articles online. I believe this section should remove the implication that the two are distinct when they don't appear to be. "Vinolok" is simply the European name for the Alcoa(?) Vino-Seal product. Examine vs , and See treatment of the two as synonymous in (for example): and

Mcvoorhis (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Alternative wine closure. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 23:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)