m →Re-opening: sp |
Anachronist (talk | contribs) m →Re-opening: on ANI, good |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
: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? ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 15:15, 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? ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 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. [[User:Kauffner|Kauffner]] ([[User talk:Kauffner|talk]]) 15:42, 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. [[User:Kauffner|Kauffner]] ([[User talk: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.) ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 16:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:01, 8 May 2012
![]() | Wine B‑class (inactive) | ||||||
|
Comments
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
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)
- 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)
Requested move: Lower casing "champagne"
- 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)
- Champagne for Dummies
- Oz Clarke's Encyclopedia of Wine
- The Wine Bible
- French Wine for Dummies
- The Idiot's Guide to Wine
- Williams-Sonoma Wine Guide
- Wine-The 8000 Year Old History of the Wine Trade
- Educating Peter-How Anyone Can Become An (Almost) Instant Wine Expert
- General Viticulture
- Investing in Liquid Assets
- The Art and Science of Wine
- Perfect Pairings-A Master Sommelier's guide to Food and Wine Pairing
- Sales and Service Guide for Wine Professionals
Re-opening
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)
- 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)