| Revision as of 02:01, 8 June 2013 editMiszaBot I (talk | contribs)234,552 editsm Robot: Archiving 1 thread (older than 365d) to Talk:History of Champagne/Archive 1.← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:34, 22 September 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,587,555 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Food and drink}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) |
| Line 9: |
Line 9: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Talkheader}} |
|
{{Talkheader}} |
|
{{wine|class=b|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{dyktalk|2 January|2009|entry=... that for most of its ''']''', ] ''(pictured)'' was ] and non-]?|views=1637}} |
|
{{dyktalk|2 January|2009|entry=... that for most of its ''']''', ] ''(pictured)'' was ] and non-]?|views=1637}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| |
|
|
{{WikiProject Food and drink|wine=yes|importance=low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
{{archive box|bot=MiszaBot I|age=3|units=months|auto=long|search=yes}} |
|
{{archive box|bot=MiszaBot I|age=3|units=months|auto=long|search=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{onlinesource | year=2010 | author=Josh Wade | title=Let’s Get It Poppin’ Champagne Day on October 28 | org= Drink Nectar, Spokane Wine Magazine | url=http://drinknectar.com/2010/10/21/lets-get-it-poppin-champagne-day-on-october-28/ | date=October 21st, 2010 }} |
|
{{onlinesource | year=2010 | author=Josh Wade | title=Let’s Get It Poppin’ Champagne Day on October 28 | org= Drink Nectar, Spokane Wine Magazine | url=http://drinknectar.com/2010/10/21/lets-get-it-poppin-champagne-day-on-october-28/ | date=October 21st, 2010 }} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Re-opening == |
|
== Extremely-Strange Paragraph == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The paragraph beginning with 'In 1917 Russia, the October Revolution' is extremely-strangely-written, contains zero references, and is largely non-sequitur. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
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. ] (]) 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? ~] <small>(])</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 ]. Some editors have posted their opinions regarding capitalization, and why should that stop the voting here? This is just handwaving. ] (]) 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 ] 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 ]. Good.) ~] <small>(])</small> 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 ], which suggests that we may also consider a possible move to ]. ] (]) 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. (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' ] '''</span>]) 18:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Interesting point. So the question seems to be, should Misplaced Pages 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. ~] <small>(])</small> 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 . 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". ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 12:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::While trademarks are for individual products made by individual producers, Champagne is, indeed, ] with a geographical indication . 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 ] and ]. My only concern is that so much of this article does deal with the history of winemaking in ''the region'' as well, much like ] so there is reason to keep them together. ]]/] 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. ] (]) 18:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Zaldax |
|
The paragraph beginning with 'In 1917 Russia, the October Revolution' is extremely-strangely-written, contains zero references, and is largely non-sequitur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.10.125 (talk) 06:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
