Jump to content

Talk:Champagne

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

created accidentally?

[edit]

What is the sense of this sentence? "In France the first sparkling Champagne was created accidentally" The "oldest recorded sparkling wine" is mentioned a few sentences earlier - nothing is said there of accidents. If this "sparkling wine" is meant to be not Champagne, why is it mentioned? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American Champagne Producers

[edit]

I was under the impression there were several regions and producers of Champagne outside of France that were allowed to produce Champagne due to old treaties and loopholes in the law, granted the most major one I am vaguely aware of went under during the 2007 recession. Should these be added somewhere?

Jyggalypuff (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of champagne

[edit]

When (about) did the word “champagne” (mostly) mean sparkling wine. Was there a few-hundred-years of “brisk” champagne; or some other 2-word term to distinguish it from non-bubbly?

And, I mean in English; I expect it was different in French.

MBG02 (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Giggle water" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Giggle water and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 12#Giggle water until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

" The United States bans the use of all new U.S.-produced wine brands. " From my reading of the reference give, this is not the case. Given the convoluted language of the regulations, I will not change this sentence, but I hope someone more knowledgeable in the language of alcohol and law could check and, at least, reformulate this sentence. 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:51E1:B692:C2D9:D61E (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serving: poorly sourced nonsense-statement

[edit]

From this section: "When it comes to the coupe glass, with its short stem and shallow, wide-brimmed bowl, the only possible glass hold is by the bowl. The top-heavy nature of the glass makes holding by the base or stem impossible, while the large diameter of the top makes grabbing the glass by the rim difficult."

This is sourced to a blog (a definite "no" there!), and is ridiculous on the face - anyone who has handled a coupe glass can easily conclude that holding it by either the stem or the base poses no problems whatsoever, especially considering the minute weight. This absurd claim has to go! 213.184.113.113 (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]