Wikipedia

Talk:History of Champagne/Archive 1

< Talk:History of Champagne
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Zaldax in topic Re-opening
Archive 1

Comments

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The lead paragraph seems a little thick. Also, it would be nice to see a time line graphic. Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration or Philip Greenspun illustration project might be able to create one for the article. -- Suntag ☼ 13:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The Greenspun project is a bit backed up. I haven't looked at the Wikiproject though but I'll have to figure out what exactly a timeline graphic would show since the evolution of Champagne hasn't really had momentous dates but has rather been a long slow progression. As for the lead, I was being mindful that a lot of readers will only read the lead of an article of this size so I tried to make it an adequate summary of this lengthy topic per WP:LEAD. I also tried to take a cue from some of FAs like Great Fire of London, King Arthur, Stephen Crane which have lengthy leads as well. AgneCheese/Wine 17:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Dom Perignon

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Given the prevalence of the myths surrounding Dom Perignon's involvement in the "invention" of Champagne, I think that the Dom Perignon section should explicitly mention them, to clarify what Dom Perignon's contribution actually was, and what is apocryphal. -- 75.42.233.82 (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the article gives due mention to Dom Perignon's actual contribution to Champagne. The myths are explained in the Dom Perignon person article anyways. There is little need to duplicate them. AgneCheese/Wine 03:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. If you ask most people what they know about the "History of Champagne", if they know anything at all, they are likely to say something like "Um ... there was this French monk guy ... what's his name, same as a expensive champagne ... Dom Perignon, that's it, he made a mistake when brewing his wine, see, and it got all fizzy. So when he tastes it, it tastes real good, and he goes to his monk buddies "I'm tasting stars!"" While experts know the truth, non-experts probably are only familiar with the myth. That's where I was when I started reading this article - I only knew the myth and thought it was accurate, so I was scratching my head throughout, saying to myself "wait - wasn't it Dom Perignon who invented Champagne? Where's the story about the "tasting stars"?" I realize you're apprehensive about spreading the myth, but I'd wager that the myth is widespread enough that most people have heard of it, rather than the truth, and omitting it will just leave them confused (like I was). While true that it's covered in the Dom Perignon (person) article (where I learned about it), it's a myth about the History of Champagne (that is, it's origin) in addition to a myth about Dom Perignon, and as such warrants mention here. Additionally, the Dom Perignon section only adequately describes his contributions if you are already intimately familiar with the production of Champagne. If you're not, it reads like a list of Dom Perignon's personal wine making preferences, with no explicit mention of how important those practices are in modern or historical Champagne production. The Dom Pérignon (person) article credits him with the invention of Méthode champenoise, but no mention of it is given in this article. Indeed, I'm still scratching my head as to why Dom Perignon is seen as such an important person in the history of Champagne production, when it appears he was actively involved in trying to limit the production of carbonation. -- 75.42.233.82 (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, the statement that he invented the Méthode champenoise in any 19th/20th century meaning of the term is just plain wrong, so I'll remove it. Perhaps this article could state more clearly that (reliably mass-produced) sparkling Champagne of the style we know today was the result of several innovations, and that it as such does not have a single inventor, despite popular myths? Tomas e (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move: Lower casing "champagne"

Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: closed as premature. There does not appear to be any consensus in the current debate on Talk:Champagne with respect to capitalization, and it is inappropriate to propose renames of related articles during a contentious discussion on the subject. Initiate a new page move request in the event that a consensus for lowercase 'champagne' emerges on Talk:Champagne. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC) ~~~~

History of Champagne → History of champagne – This is an article about the wine. According to every major dictionary, the rule is to lower case the wine, upper case the region. See Merriam Webster, American Heritage, Oxford, and MacMillan Dictionary. That's two American dictionaries, and two British. Champagne: How the World's Most Glamorous Wine Triumphed Over War and Hard Times, a top seller on the history of the wine, follows this convention. See also Culinaria France (edited by wine expert Andre Domine), CNN, Britannica, and this ngram. European Union WP:TRADEMARK usage seems particularly inappropriate for an article that focuses on events that occurred centuries ago. Kauffner (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Support per comprehensive nomination. I think most readers would expect "History of Champagne" to be about the region, so this move would add clarity. Jenks24 (talk) 06:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
    • In response to Agne's comments below and on my talk page: though he raises some valid points, I'm still sticking with support, but it wouldn't be the end of the world if the article remains at the current title. Firstly, although the article does of course have some detail about the region, my reading of the article (which is excellent, btw) is that it is predominantly about the wine, and as such, we should focus on whether or not the wine is capitalised. I agree many reliable sources do capitalise it, but as can be seen by Noetica's ngram, it is more common to leave it uncapitalised. Most importantly, though, I think the proposed title better suits the principal of least surprise – a reader would be unlikely to think "History of champagne" refers to anything but the wine, but a reader looking at "History of Champagne" could easily think it would be about the region. Jenks24 (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
One huge problem with the ngram is that it undoubtedly include a lot of slang and generic usage of "champagne" to refer to any wine with bubbles and not necessarily the French wine that comes from the Champagne region that this article refers to. As reliable sources like The New York Times notes, that when people usually talk about the wine, wine region and industry that this article refers to, then they are talking about Champagne With a Capital 'C'. AgneCheese/Wine 16:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Sure. I agree with the proposer, even if that ngram is utterly useless (try this instead) and the evidence at the CNN article is "corked" by uncertainties of reference at a couple of points. NoeticaTea? 08:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Um...this article is about the region and the wine. Look at the Early History and World War I & II sections for starters. Also, the OP's contention about common use is incorrect since there is an abundance of reliable sources using the standard capitalization of Champagne (noted below). Heck even the 2nd link that the OP references from the Freedictionary.com notes in the 2nd entry on that page from the Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged that 1. (Miscellaneous Technologies / Brewing) (sometimes capital) a white sparkling wine produced around Reims and Epernay, France. AgneCheese/Wine 21:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I looked at the article and, except for sentences here and there establishing context, the article is largely about the history of the wine although I'm not sure how some information on the wine region won't necessarily be included. (Anyway, at least information on the history of the historic Champagne province exclusively of wine-related content does not seem to be in this article.) —  AjaxSmack  02:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Note Also, that this discussion seems a bit premature. The OP has been waging an agenda to lowercase Champagne in the main Champagne article and even tried to unilaterally cram his desires into the article when he encountered opposition and concern on the talk page. The discussion on that page is still ongoing yet unfortunately the OP still seems to want to use some heavy-handed tactics to use the RM process to try and create "precedence" to support his position on the main Champagne article. I apologize to the well-meaning RM editors who are unfortunately being dragged into this mess but it would be nice if this move for a secondary topic article could be put on hold till we get consensus for the primary topic article? AgneCheese/Wine 17:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW

For those wondering about the common usage of Champagne, you can start with the New York Times article Champagne with a Capital 'C'. But beyond that, there is a ridiculous number of reliable sources that use the standard convention of capitalizing Champagne (much like we do Barolo, Bordeaux, Rioja and every other wine named after a wine region). Here is but a short list for those curious. If you want even more you can check out the laundry over on the Champagne Talk page. AgneCheese/Wine 22:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RM contested again at ANI

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I sent the titling issue back to ANI. Please comment. Kauffner (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move: Try again

Latest comment: 12 years ago20 comments10 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus.

As there was no consensus in the related discussion on Talk:Champagne a few weeks ago, there continues to be no consensus here. Both sides are able to present reliable sources supporting their respective positions. It is hardly surprising that a lack of consensus on capitalization in the reliable sources would be reflected by a similar lack of consensus among Wikipedia editors. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC) ~~~~

History of Champagne → History of champagne – Every major dictionary and reference says to capitalize "Champagne" when it refers to the region, lower case it for the wine. On Google Books, spelling the wine with a capital C is so rare that you can view it as a typo, as you can see from the ngrams here, here, and here. This is an article is about the wine, so how can lower casing the word be a "common lexical error" that is "without merit", as claimed above? I say we try this again. Kauffner (talk) 04:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Encyclopedias: Britannica lower cases, both in the current and in the 1911 editions. So does Columbia.

Survey

Note to all: Before commenting, please review the recently closed RM discussion on the same topic above. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Why? It was closed as premature. If that one was technically incorrect (which I don't believe it was), then this one should stand on its own. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Obviously, so that participants can review points already made. The discussion above also contains a link to Talk:Champagne which has a much more lengthy debate on the same topic. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support; the legal protections on the commercial use of the term champagne on wine labels should not keep us from correctly capitalizing (or not) the term in article titles and running text. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose For a litany of reasons, namely that it is very common for reliable sources to use the legally, registered WP:COMMONNAME of the wine--see the book Champagne for Dummies and The New York Times article "Champagne With a Capital 'C'" for starters. There is no evidence that the common capitalization of Champagne is uncommon that would warrant this article to deviate from this standard usage. Also note that this request is even more odd because this article is about both the wine and the history of wine production in the Champagne (wine region) (which, of course, should be capitalized), as sections such World War I and II make abundantly clear. The wine in question is unique to this region and distinguished from semi-generic sparkling wines that are produced outside the region and often referenced by the slang usage of "champagne" (not capitalized). This article is not a history about these semi-generic "champagnes" but rather about the Champagne wine produced from the Champagne region of France. AgneCheese/Wine 06:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
    Evidence that the capitalized version is uncommon is not needed; while capital-C is common, lowercase-C appears to be more common. The difference is greater especially in general references and media (and note that Wikipedia is a general reference). Wikipedia can (and should, and does) use "sparkling wine" to distinguish the not-champagne sparkling wines from champagnes. (Final note: other sources using "champagne" for other sparkling wines is also not slang.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2012
To justify this move and create inconsistency in how Champagne is capitalized, the burden should definitely require showing that the standard usage of capitalizing Champagne is uncommon. Otherwise, why change it? Especially when so many reliable sources--the European Union, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, MSNBC, The LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle, The Wine Bible, Encyclopedia of Wine, Champagne for Dummies, Wine for Dummies, Idiot's Guide to Wine, The Wine Spectator, etc, etc, etc use the standard capitalization to distinguish Champagne made from the Champagne region. AgneCheese/Wine 15:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • You should keep the current capitalization. The Champenois worked very hard to get the European Union to protect the name Champagne and in all official documentation we have the name capitalized because that is how Champagne should be. It is unfortunate that the United States still uses champagne for non-Champagne wine but we are definetly working with your government to change that! We apologize for the confusion that the incorrect usage of champagne causes. It has confused many consumers to see a bottle say champagne when it is not really Champagne! It would be best for the Encyclopedia to use the official name since that makes the most sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Champagne is from Champagne (talk • contribs)
  • Support Current capitalization suggests a history of the region. Capitalization is a handy form of disambiguation in this case, as the nominator has noted. --BDD (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose as this non-insightful suggestion indicates and legitimizes that there is a justification to ever use the word in its non-cap form in a dictionary –regardless of what might be found out there in random more fast paced sources. There simply isn't any (in a dictionary one just don't get to casually call a sparkling wine "champagne") and this whole concept ought to be rethought a bit more deeply. Also we cannot invent a disambiguation tool just because it would be practical. deMURGH talk 20:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Which part? You contest everything I wrote, –like that there is cause to apply the word "champagne" to generic sparkling wine regardless of place of origin in a dictionary? Please bother to be more specific. The samples appear only to illustrate online branches of dictionaries that do not capitalize the entry. If you think this disproves what I am stating, I was either insufficiently precise or you have misunderstood. deMURGH talk 20:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Are you saying that Champagne is not a place? MakeSense64 (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Champagne is a place and it is exceedingly common for wines to be named after the place they are produced (and capitalized accordingly). See Barolo and Chianti for example. Champagne is no different and, if anything, it is probably more important to capitalize Champagne to signify that we are talking about the particular wine that comes from the Champagne region as opposed to the semi-generic slang usages of "champagne" that people use to refer to any wine with bubbles. That's why both the European Union and many reliable sources (such as The New York Times) follow the standard convention of distinguishing "Champagne With a Capital 'C'. AgneCheese/Wine 15:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Right. My comment was not meant to imply that I think both the Champagne and the Bordeaux history articles should use lower caps, just saying that we should look for consistency with other articles about wine. So if this RM is accepted then we should probably also move the Bordeaux article to non-capitalized spelling, because both are equally places. From the arguments that have been brought so far it looks like there is mixed usage, but if "Champagne" is the official and registered name for the real stuff, while "champagne" is also used in similar wines being produced in other regions (or even continents), then we should be questioning the precision of the title. "History of Champagne" would be the best title if the article is solely about the history of the real stuff being produced in the Champagne region, while "History of champagne" would be the best title if the article covers the history of all "champagne" wines, also those produced elsewhere. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


I think a writer needs to look at the English section. The article seems to imply that Merritt influenced the Champenois but really the Champenois never even heard of his London paper or see it till many centuries later! While his discoveries were important they didn't influence the Champenois or how Champagne was being made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Champagne is from Champagne (talk • contribs) 03:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re-opening

Latest comment: 12 years ago12 comments8 people in discussion

An RM is supposed to left open for a minimum of seven days. Wiki is a big place, and related discussions will always be occurring somewhere. Unless someone can come up with a better reason for closure than this, I'll re-open the RM. Kauffner (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I advise against that. There is currently contention on the subject of whether 'champagne' should be uppercase or lowercase. Your unwillingness to wait for resolution on that point, and instead propose similar contentious changes on related articles strikes me as somewhat tendentious. There is no urgency on this matter, so why the rush? ~Amatulić (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The RM is supposed to get a minimum seven-day voting period. Someone who doesn't like a proposal can always find some excuse to close it early. There is no formal process going on at Talk:Champagne. Some editors have posted their opinions regarding capitalization, and why should that stop the voting here? This is just handwaving. Kauffner (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Personally I have no opinion on how 'champagne' should be capitalized, since I'm in California and the word is commonly bandied about around here. Therefore it isn't a matter of not liking a proposal. Rather, from an administrator perspective, I see a WP:POINT issue here. An editor deeply involved in an ongoing dispute on one page deliberately carries it over to another page. That is disruptive, and not conducive to dispute resolution. That is why I closed it early. You are, of course, free to re-open it. I don't claim my judgment is flawless, so you may want to get a second opinion from another admin prior to re-opening it. (Edit: Ah, I see you've done that on WP:ANI. Good.) ~Amatulić (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
This RM was not without merrit since there seem to be sources on both side of the argument. But I did find this article History of Bordeaux wine, which suggests that we may also consider a possible move to History of Champagne wine. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
RM is completely without merit. Just as Bordeaux (the region) becomes bordelaise (small b) as an adjective, Champagne became champagnoise (small c). "Champagne" is a proper noun, and it was only through decades of error - that led eventually to wineries from outside of the Champagne Region being forced to rename their product "sparkling wine" - that the name was minisculized. Just like "Kleenex" became a very generic "kleenex" inappropriately. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Interesting point. So the question seems to be, should Wikipedia promulgate a common lexical error? This may be analagous to how acronyms evolve; nobody capitalizes 'scuba' or 'radar' anymore, for example. In any case, that question is best addressed somewhere else, not in a RM discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Oic. So you have no opinion on the merits of the proposal. This closure was strictly personal, all about blaming me. Is someone seriously claiming that all the dictionaries I listed in the nomination are committing a "lexical error"? Lower case has been the overwhelming usage for well over century, as you can see here. The reason certain authors have started capitalizing this word recently has to do with EU trademark promotion. If we let the EU Trade Commission dictate capitalization, we end up with "Parma Ham" and "Roquefort Cheese".[1] Kauffner (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Nobody is saying that dictionary editors are making "lexical errors." Dictionaries are only part of the puzzle. And as they are out of context and cannot possibly account for every single use of a word, dictionaries cannot serve as the 'sole' source for capitalization. From products to ruling dynasties, we write and spell according to meaning, common sense, and necessity. Without these, a dictionary would be a straightjacket.
As for the EU Trade Commission, European producers, and Parma Ham, if that is the name of the product, then that is what we call it. After all, we have Cadbury Creme Egg. Or is that next? Encycloshave (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Trademarks are capitalized for very strong legal reasons (vide the "Cadbury Creme Egg" which is trademarked). The question should be reduced to "Is Champagne a trademark?" If it is, it ought to be capitalized, if not, it should not. The applicable reasons should apply to the United States, as that is where the servers are located. I would also suggest that the article include "wine" as since Champagne is a genuine geographic name, the title should endeavour to be accurate. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
While trademarks are for individual products made by individual producers, Champagne is, indeed, a legally protected named of the European Union with a geographical indication being essentially a trademark. As for the suggestion of adding wine to the title, I wouldn't be 100% oppose to that idea as it would be much better than lower casing Champagne and would be consistent with articles like History of Bordeaux wine and History of Rioja wine. My only concern is that so much of this article does deal with the history of winemaking in the region as well, much like History of Chianti so there is reason to keep them together. AgneCheese/Wine 15:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's a thought: why don't we sidestep the entire issue by titling the respective articles "History of Champagne (wine)" and "History of Champagne (region)." Don't think of the capitalization as anything other than capitalizing the article title. I think that's a perfect solution, personally. Zaldax (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Zaldax

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Champagne/Archive_1&oldid=1136796669"