Jump to content

Talk:Cork (material)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV dispute

[edit]

User Grick says: (NPOV, at least the 3rd paragraph)

Actually, the cork industry harvests a completely renewable, non-toxic resource, and wastes essentially none of it. What doesn't go into corks gets turned into flooring and cork boards. The processing of corks (unlike for example the paper industry) is also environmentally friendly. Seriously, you don't get much more environmentally friendly than the cork industry. Environmentally, they're unimpeachable.
I made a minor revision to the wording in an attempt to make the statement a little less glowing, but either way, it seems pretty honest and neutral to me. I suggest leaving the NPOV header in place for another 24 hours (Grick's edit + 48hrs) to give others a chance to consider the current wording. Gregmg 21:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few additional pieces of information to help balance some environmental statements that were essentially repeats of cork industry marketing statements to include both sides of the claims, including Ucdwino (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made one change, but its late and will make a couple more tomorrow - there are a few more areas where there are slight non-NPOV wordings. I dont think it is too bad though at the moment. Justinc 23:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I cut most of the paragraph saying cork related cork taint barely exists. I think the cork taint article is much better on discussing this and there is no need to duplicate it here.

When you guys get done gnashing about that, maybe somebody can attend to this cryptic wording: "sulfur dioxide (SO2) need to be different" ;Bear 05:48, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

sorry a word fell off into space. Justinc 09:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a link between Cork City and the material? Julien Tuerlinckx 23:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for source regarding synthetic stoppers "downside"

[edit]

The line "However, on the down side, both synthetic stoppers and screwcaps require different winemaking methods to some extent, as sulfur dioxide (SO2) levels need to be different, and there may be different wine faults due to oxidation or reduction." struck me as a little POV (neg. synthetic) and all around in need of some source citation. To my knowledge, the "change" in winemaking methods when using a synthetic stopper versus cork is quite minor. Also, the labeling of this as a "downside" is somewhat misleading. For instance, in the case of screw caps (which are less "breathable") you don't need as high of a level of sulfur dioxide to function as an anti-oxident. For people who are sulfite sensitive (wine headaches, etc) this can actually be an "upside". Agne 06:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic word

[edit]

This entry is in the category "Arabic words". While dictionary.com supports this, it would be nice if there were elaboration in the entry. --RealGrouchy 01:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

I hope I've gotten the forms filled out right on this; it's a little complicated following the steps, especially for multiple moves. Also, note two previous discussions at Talk:Cork (disambiguation). ENeville 04:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus. I think that a fairly strong case is made for making Cork a dab page (rather than related with material only), but I'm reluctant to proclaim that a consensus per its definition of "the solution that all sides equally disagree with". There are precedents and NCs on all sides, and it's unclear which should apply. Since incoming links (another issue to take car of) now also seem sorted out, I'll apply the "don't fix if ain't broken principle" for now. Duja► 15:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cork (material) → Cork — The material is the the first meaning that comes to mind for most people, if they're even aware of more than one meaning. Furthermore, even in the confines of the Cork (city) talk page, people already use the disambiguation "Cork City" to distinguish this meaning from County Cork. ENeville 04:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

  1. Support Cork City already redirects to the article about the city named Cork, and should be the article name. It is often referred to as Cork City (much like New York City). But the material certainly is the most common use of the term. --Serge 05:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - this is more notable than the city. --Yath 07:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Outside of Ireland, how many people know that Cork exists as a place? It's not fair on the rest of the world, if yanks had a city called Glass, I'd be pissed off to see it there ahead of the material. Pauric 17:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The proper title for the city is "Cork (city)". Please read Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Specific_topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yath (talk • contribs) . 00:30, October 25, 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support (though I would somewhat prefer the city to be at Cork (city) since "Cork City" is rather unofficial. The alternate forms can be explained within the article.) --Dystopos 14:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Cork → Cork (city) version of this multimove. -- nae'blis 15:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I think you'd find there are many more people who know about the material but not the city compared to those who know about the city but not the material. --Polaron | Talk 23:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. On a world wide basis, I don't see more people thinking of the city before the material. It seems that some of the oppose votes may have to do with the name to be used for the city article rather then the proposal itself. If Cork City or Cork (city) are not acceptable, how about Cork, Ireland? Vegaswikian 07:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per Polaron. Kirjtc2 19:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - it seems redundant for me to be saying so, but for the sake of the tally I do. Also, I'm not invested in Cork City over Cork (city) or Cork, Ireland. ENeville 02:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Oppose. I think of the city first. Proteus (Talk) 09:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. I think of the city first. Vote: "leave as is". (Discussion points in related section below) Guliolopez 10:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. as per Guliolopez Frelke 11:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. the city comes first. ww2censor 12:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - City far more notable than the material. There's already a disambig page quoted on both anyway - Alison✍ 13:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Guliolopez's points below. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - a term like "Cork City" is for the manifest illiterate. Djegan 18:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose- I also think of the city first. Calling it "Cork City" would lead to inaccurate usage. --Kathryn NicDhàna 18:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose the move as indicated. I might support placing a disambiguation page at "Cork", but I don't see any basis for giving the material primary topic status over the city. older ≠ wiser 12:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose, like BKonrad, I would be amenable to moving the article on the city to Cork (city) and having a disambiguation page at Cork, but I don't see how the material is clearly a primary topic. john k 13:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Oppose rename. Neither the material or the tissue should be the "primary topic". THEre is possibly a case that the city should also not be the primary topic. However probably best left as it is. IsaacAsv 21:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Although I would support a recommendation to have a disambiguation page instead of the city or the material Irlchrism 13:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Neither the material for bulletin boards nor the name of a bottle-stopper is "more notable" than a city. (Some people have peculiar notions about what "notable" means. It does not mean "I heard of this but not that".) I might support a disambiguation page at "Cork" as does older≠wiser above. -- Evertype·✆ 08:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To the question "what article should be at Cork" I estimate the tally (and indexes of respective voters) so far:
      • material 8 (1,2,9,14,15,16,17,18)
      • city 9-11 (3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12?,13?,19)
      • disambig 2-4 (12?,13?,20,21) [21 is me: see my comment below. I don't want to label my vote an "Oppose" as it's not a vote for the status quo] jnestorius(talk) 20:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Add any additional comments:

  • Points to support Oppose votes above:
  1. I think of the city first. (Over the material and the county as argued by proposer)
  2. Existing naming is not without precedence: Limerick (links to IE city and not Limerick (poetry)), Bath (links to UK city and not the plumbing fixture or anything else), Wells (precedence for UK city and not anything else). Manta (links to city in Ecuador and not anything else), Nice (links to FR city and not others), etc, etc.
  3. Even if this were to be redirected, I don't agree with argument that it should be redirected to Cork (material). Cork (tissue) (that which Cork is made from) is just as valid.
Guliolopez 10:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Points to support Support votes above:
  1. What any one of us thinks of "first" when we hear some word is irrelevant to deciding what the name of a Wikipedia article should be; there is no precedent for using the "what I think of first" basis. --Serge 17:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The percentage of English speakers who are familiar with the use of the term cork to refer to the material used to seal wine bottles is close to 100%. The percentage of English speakers who are familiar with the city named Cork is vanishingly tiny, almost certainly less than 50%. Thus, the term belongs to the material per WP:NC(CN). --Serge 17:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Serge. Without wishing to get into a raging debate about it, I would offer a few comments on your notes above.
First off, while I voted oppositely to you, I agree with your point #1 above. It is true that "I think of meaning X first" is a weak statement and therefore a weak argument. However, that is the argument/vote/discussion topic that was put forward by the proposer: "(That) The material is the the first meaning that comes to mind for most people".
Regardless, there's no point in getting too caught up in debating etiquette, as I think that most contributors will recognise that the intent of the vote is to confirm a consensus on whether it is expected that visitors were more likely to have linked to the "Cork" page because their interpretation of the term "Cork" related to the bottle stopper, and not the city.
With regard to your point #2. I'm afraid I don't agree with your interpretation. WP:NC(CN) does not prescribe any "percentage of speakers" which must use the term to decide on the best common name use. Rather, it suggests that Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. Personally I think the first part of this is key, as another "accepted Wikipedia naming convention" (namely Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names)) suggests that "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it". Now I accept obviously that (probably because we're dealing with two meanings that fall under 2 different naming convention guidelines) these two naming convention guidelines don't mesh very well. They might even conflict. However, (and I hate to do this because I hate when people do this), in these cases it is suggested that you use a Google test to resolve. And in the case of a google test for cork, the use in relation to the city wins out.
Guliolopez 18:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Let's agree that the most common name use to refer to the city is, Cork, and the most common name used to refer to the material, is cork. In that sense, WP:NC(CN) does not help us here. I agree the google test might be helpful here, but I don't understand how you determine how many of the references are for the city rather than the material, and vice versa. --Serge 19:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I think we've established that the google test for this is inconclusive below. That leaves us with my earlier point: take any random group of 1,000 adult English speakers from around the world and virtually all will know of the material named cork, and much fewer will know of the city in Ireland. Putting aside the relevance of this point, will you agree that it is true? Related to this is the fact that anyone searching for "cork" is probably looking for the city or the material, and almost certainly knows of the material. If he's looking for the city and since he knows of the material, is he not likely to enter "cork city" for his search? --Serge 19:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word "cork" to refer to a city is far less prominent than the material. Those voters who live near the city, many of whom seem to have turned out for this vote, should consider more widespread English usage instead of making selfish choices that degrade the encyclopedia. --Yath 00:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from ad hominem attacks, Yath. It's rather much for you to assume everyone who opposes the move is "selfish" and lives near Cork (or that living near Cork would somehow disqualify someon's points in the discussion. Where someone lives is irrelevant). --Kathryn NicDhàna 01:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since they are incorrect on the facts of the matter, the assumptions I have made are reasonable. And while "attacks" are inappropriate, the ad hominem argument is not. Like it or not, wikipedians often distort articles to suit their regional preferences, of which they are often unaware. It is wholly appropriate to remind people that that isn't good for the encyclopedia. --Yath 01:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google test

[edit]

Pages that refer to cork and Ireland: 

Results 1 - 10 of about 11,000,000 English pages for cork +Ireland.

Page that refer to cork but not Ireland: 

Results 1 - 10 of about 27,900,000 English pages for cork -Ireland

Pages that refer to "Cork, Ireland": 

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,370,000 English pages for "Cork, Ireland"

I don't see how the google test shows that there are more references to the city in Ireland than to the material. --Serge 19:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm afraid your method is just as flawed as mine.
Taking your method first. If I read your results your expectation is that "cork -Ireland" will return results that are unrelated to the city. Unfortunately however - if you look at the first 20 results of your search, you will note that 8 return sites related to the city and environs. So, "cork -ireland" and "cork +ireland" are not valid tests for a google count.
I admit that my own test is possibly also flawed and not entirely "to form". However, because I failed (as you did) to find a means to otherwise differentiate the terms, I simply took the first 100 results of a search for "cork" (small "c") and confirmed that (excluding wikipedia entries) >80 of the results were sites/pages related to the city/county, ~10 were related to the material, and <10 were related to topics not covering either. This gave me a pretty clear indication that the most common returned use (in Google RANKING terms) was in reference to the geographical term. Guliolopez 19:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd that google returns pages with Ireland in them when the search criteria clearly excludes references to Ireland. Anyway, I think the google results are inconclusive at best. Which takes us back to my original argument, the discussion of which does not belong here. --Serge 19:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to mention, and this is probably obvious, that I'm not familiar with the process of contested moves such as this. I hope my handling of the proposal hasn't brought offense; and I think the merits of the move shouldn't be constrained by the ideas I offered in proposing the move. Regarding discussion thus far, specifically the anologs of other city names, I think that they happen to avoid direct language conflicts, eg "nice" is a descriptor and more likely to find its way into Wikipedia under Niceness, Kindness, or some such. Alternatively, with Limerick, I was under the impression that limerick derived from Limerick, so the logic of the city's primacy in nomenclature seems comparatively intuitive. ENeville 01:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples supporting the logic of Cork being for the material, or at least a disambiguation page:
  • "Tamale" is a city of 300,000; however, Tamale is an article on the food item
  • "Saga" is city of 200,000; however, Saga is a dab page, first listing the story meaning
  • "Man" is a city of 150,000; however, Man is an article on the human male

I also think Hue, Vietnam (pop. 350,000), is an example unless one knows how to type ế. ENeville 02:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the google rankings, I don't see how you can divorce the "Cork City" hits from the "Cork County" hits. Which is a very relevant distinction. On whatlinkshere, there are 1100 inlinks to city and 800 to county; pretty close. If there were no other convention, then Cork would already be a disambiguation page even without cork (material) to contend with. However, the overriding convention appears to be (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)#Disambiguation of locations in Ireland): Where a town and county have the same name, the county article should be named as County Countyname, and the town should be located at County/townname (if no further disambiguation is needed). For example, Sligo and County Sligo. It's only a talk-page suggestion, but absent anything stronger it's unexceptionable. However, throw cork (material) back into the mix and it's clear that it's not a contest between material and city; it's a contest between material, city and county. To me is a clear case where disambiguation is required, as the only reason city is preferred to county is a very obscure and largely arbiitratry Wikipedia convention. jnestorius(talk) 02:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To prefer a city over a subnational division named for it is fairly standard practice. We do it also with Spanish and Italian provinces, for instance, with German districts, with Russian oblasts, with Brazilian and Argentine states, and in many other instances. john k 12:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another point worth noting is just because more people are familiar with a word than a city named for that word does not make the word a more important topic for an encyclopedia article. Probably more English-speakers know someone whose name is "Kent" (Clark Kent, for instance), than know about the English county of Kent - that doesn't make the latter stop being a primary topic. It seems, at any rate, that the clear thing to do here is to make Cork a disambiguation page and move the current article on the city to Cork (city). john k 12:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cork -> Cork City; Cork (disambiguation) -> Cork

[edit]

I have requested at WP:RM that Cork (currently the article about the city) be moved to Cork City so that the disambiguation page, currently at Cork (disambiguation), could be moved to Cork. See Talk:Cork. --Serge 06:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Serge, I think this is going back over territory that was already covered above. There was no consensus, and only a few people wanted to make changes to the disambig page. --Kathryn NicDhàna 06:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I think the voting indicates there is likely to be a consensus to move the dab page to Cork as all 13 oppose votes indicated opposition to making the material be the primary page, but 5 indicated support for the dab page. In fact, it is arguable that that consensus is already established by this vote, but I'm suggesting we have a separate survey to confirm. Hence Talk:Cork#Requested move. Thanks. --Serge 07:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uses for cork

[edit]

Please add to the cork usage also aviation components, since Airbus will start to replace some plastic and rubber components with cork from Corticeira Amorim.[1] Cheers, Anonymous 18:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone may also want to dig up the citations to include the use of cork for gaskets. Although synthetic materials are more common today, up until thirty years ago cork was the most commonly used material for engine gaskets. It may still be the most common material for some uses, such as in water pumps. Kid Bugs (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cork is also used to make bags and wallets. --Kingdc11 (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

As per subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.75.222.76 (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


link in footnote 4 unavailable, and the factoid seemed dubious, so i took it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.245.71.162 (talk) 07:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cork as a flooring material

[edit]

Hey folks - this page is the #1 item on the list of "Useful links relevant to cork flooring" on www.construction-index.com/usa-cork-flooring.asp - yet the only mention of cork as a flooring material in the article is one lousy photo! Please - you've been given prime visibility, someone who is taking care of this page please add something about this! (I'm in the learning stages on the topic, but for starters, the construction-index page has a number of articles that would probably be helpful, and many of the other sites I've checked for places that sell cork flooring have links to useful-sounding articles.) - Martha (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 05:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cork in aerospace

[edit]

"Cork has been used in rocket technology due to its fire resistance."

Cork is not renowned in "rocket technology" for its fire resistance. It is used in ablative materials, often in heatshields. T.Neo (talk contribs review me ) 16:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

APCOR edits

[edit]

I've removed a series of edits made by User:Apcor that had a clear WP:COI to them. That said, I don't think the net value or all the edits were bad but there was enough overall WP:POV, WP:OR and some twinge of WP:ADVERT appeal mixed among them that made it easier to just remove them all wholesale and discuss them here. I definitely encourage the editor to review our conflict of interest policy before editing the article again. It will be more worthwhile for APCOR to post suggested improvements on the talk page here and let other, non-bias editors insert the text and referencing into the article. AgneCheese/Wine 14:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wine

[edit]

"Natural cork closures are used for about 80% of the 20 billion bottles of wine produced each year. After a decline in use as wine-stoppers due to the increase in the use of cheaper synthetic alternatives, cork wine-stoppers are making a comeback and currently represent approximately 60% of wine-stoppers today." - which is it? 67.255.0.230 (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drying

[edit]
"Finally, the cork is stacked and, traditionally, left to dry, after which it can be loaded onto a truck and shipped to a processor."

Can someone clarify this? Is there some situation in which the cork would not be dried, or would be dried by some other means? Heavenlyblue (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

80% or 60%?

[edit]
"Natural cork closures are used for about 80% of the 20 billion bottles of wine produced each year. After a decline in use as wine-stoppers due to the increase in the use of cheaper synthetic alternatives, cork wine-stoppers are making a comeback and currently represent approximately 60% of wine-stoppers today."

This seems to be a contradiction. Which is true? Heavenlyblue (talk) 04:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Here is what seems to be a fairly solid source from 2008:
http://www.wine-pages.com/features/amorim-cork.htm
""Market share has fallen from 95% to 72%," Carlos de Jesus reminds me, "We've paid the price for our past mistakes.""
Heavenlyblue (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Cork (material). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 13:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Cork (material). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 20:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Cork (material)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I have an issue where the article states that some inexpensive wines use screw caps as closures instead of cork. It would be more accurate to say that both some inexpensive and high end wines are beginning to use screw caps as a less expensive and more effective closure than cork.71.104.144.57 (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)James Dwan[reply]

Last edited at 22:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 12:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cork (material). 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cork (material). 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources section - carbon footprint

[edit]

The information in the "Sources" section of the article has unclear citations for the paragraph about CO2 emissions of wine stopper products. Checking the cited paper, it is not stated how the figures are arrived at. The statement in question: "For example, to produce 1000 cork stoppers 1.5 kg CO2 are emitted, but to produce the same amount of plastic stoppers 14 kg of CO2 are emitted and for the same amount of aluminium screw caps 37 kg CO2 are emitted." is a near-direct paraphrasing from the cited Frontiers in Chemistry paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3990040/, but this paper has nothing to say about how the figures were derived. The beginning of the paragraph cites the Amorim paper https://web.archive.org/web/20090913143609/http://www.corkfacts.com/pdffiles/Amorim_LCA_Final_Report.pdf, a cork industry paper with a financial interest in supporting cork production, then seems to cite the Frontiers in Chemistry paper as a supporting paper, but this paper cites the Amorim paper as its own reference. Specifically, the figure on page 46 of the Amorim PDF shows the precise CO2 figures quoted on Wikipedia and listed in the Frontiers in Chemistry paper, making the reference to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3990040/ redundant and potentially misleading by inflating the number of sources supporting the content. I'm not qualified to judge the quality of the Amorim paper and whether or not it does fall prey to its own conflicts of interest in its analysis, but its authors acknowledge it was written without feedback from aluminum industry experts, which is certainly a potential shortcoming, and in general an industry-sponsored paper is hardly the gold standard for science. The figures are also likely out of date from what I can tell even if they are unbiased, as global average aluminum recycling is now generally cited closer to 50-60% when I google it, rather than the 35% figure used in the Amorim study, which would have a significant impact on the CO2 figures since it takes about 20 times as much energy to produce virgin aluminum. I don't really have any suggestions here besides removing the Frontiers in Chemistry paper citation, since it's basically equivalent to a sockpuppet for the Amorim paper, but I thought it was worth mentioning the lack of clarity in this paragraph and its potential bias for further consideration since it left me with more questions than answers after reading it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.240.175 (talk) 08:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cork importance during the second world war

[edit]

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAcuPEzgOTc and https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/title/cork-wars . Could it be included in the article? --Pier4r (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cork harvesting

[edit]

"To free the cork from the tree, the extractor pushes the handle of the axe into the rulers."

However, the image above shows the extractor not using his axe (it's in fact on his belt), but rather a crowbar-like lever tool. I'm no expert at this, but it seems to me that the quoted statement it either incomplete or incorrect. Should we mention that crowbar-like tool? Nic-obert (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cork_(material)&oldid=1246896605"