Talk:Coffee production

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2021 and 16 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pgeisen13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Process summary

I don't have the energy to try right now, but it looks like it would be a good idea to have a short summary paragraph leading off the processing section to summarize the differences between different processing techniques. Pengortm (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

As a non technical coffee lover interested in the processing process, I would find that very useful. Looking forward to your energy levels rising - perhaps some strong coffee? Camerojo (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Coffee-reference as a citation

The use of the specific page https://www.coffeereview.com/coffee-reference/ is not an acceptable source for attribution, as the page is merely a collection of links to other pages. It lacks any content and it alone supports no facts. It is merely an aggregation of links to other pages.

Furthermore, the number of topics covered by the page are many and varied and therefore any citation pointing to this page is not helpful to readers searching for a deeper understanding of sourced material.

If you are responsible for citing "coffee-reference," please update the citations with a more accurate citation.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright: Can you please clarify? This seems like an industry trade journal. Some of that information through those links looks like general reference information which might be appropriate for Wikipedia. The information seems like it comes from the journal itself, so it is original content from that publication.

Is your objection that the link was to the landing page for all those subpages, rather than a citation to the specific relevant subpage? If so, that makes sense, people should link directly to the correct subpage.

What do you think of this source otherwise? Acceptable? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, people should link directly to the correct subpage. The page at /coffee-reference/ is just an aggregation of links to other pages (often which are themselves links to other pages), like you said; landing pages, but with no content.

For example, if I write a coffee article about the story of Kaldi's goat and I reference only /coffee-reference/, that page has no mention of the word 'goat' at all. If an interested reader goes to /coffee-reference/, and then follows the /history/ link, they get closer to source material, but even that page is just an aggregation of links to other pages. It isn't until one has followed the links from Coffee-Reference → History → Goat Stories that they get to a page that contains citable, source material: https://www.coffeereview.com/coffee-reference/coffee-basics/coffee-history/goat-stories/.

I think CoffeeReview.com in general is fine as a source for wiki and it has been accepted in other articles.

Thanks for taking a look! Michael.C.Wright (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Honey dried

Halfway through the semi-wet processing section; the term "honey" appears.

This isn't explained anywhere and it's difficult to parse what in means in the context of coffee production. 185.127.157.154 (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Color sorting

While sourcing the color-sorting paragraph in Cleaning and sorting I compared it with the Coffee Review page it draws on, https://www.coffeereview.com/coffee-reference/from-crop-to-cup/processing/cleaning-and-sorting/ , and found that the paragraph was reproduced from that page word for word. I have rewritten that one paragraph (now two) in original wording, citing the specific Coffee Review subpage, Brando's chapter in Wintgens (2012), and two peer-reviewed papers, and removed the dubious tag from it since the tag concerned the landing-page citation. The problem is wider than one paragraph: the Milling introduction, Hulling, the size-and-density sorting paragraph, the hand-sorting paragraph, and parts of Wet process closely match the corresponding Coffee Review pages (https://www.coffeereview.com/coffee-reference/from-crop-to-cup/processing/fruit-removal-and-drying/ and the Cleaning and Sorting page above). The copied text is already present in the revision of 16 January 2008 (oldid 184693322), which cites coffeereview.com, so this appears to date from late 2007. The Coffee Review reference pages reproduce Kenneth Davids's book Coffee: A Guide to Buying, Brewing, and Enjoying, so the copied text is from a published book. The 2021 discussion above (#Coffee-reference as a citation) dealt with the citation format but did not pick this up. I am a relatively new editor and have not handled a copyright problem of this size before, so I am flagging it here rather than attempting a mass rewrite. Could someone more experienced with WP:COPYVIO advise on the right course? I am happy to help rewrite sections. Omer EVREY (talk) 07:08, 3 September 2026 (UTC)