Talk:Madeleine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Madeline 2 Dab link 3 Are you sure? 4 Image in article 5 Trivia

[edit] Madeline

Excuse me, but where is the article about the cartoon and movie?

"Twelve girls in two straight lines, the smallest one was Madeleine..." They lived in a boarding school of sorts, the headmistress was Miss Clavel. Pepito, an ambassador's son, was a next-door neighbor. I'm having trouble finding articles about them all. Can anyone help? --Shultz IV 13:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You're having trouble finding articles about them because you're spelling her name incorrectly. It's Madeline not Madeleine. Guermantes 14:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dab link

User:Guermantes has removed or altered the dab link at the article's top numerous times. It currently reads (after my revert of the last edit):

If you're looking for the 12 little girls in two straight lines, the smallest one was Madeline.

I'm not sure why this link is inadequate, but I'd like to see a discussion before we throw out a valid edit. The current version, while perhaps a little cute, is clearly referring to the character Madeline. Either way, there must be a dab link at the article's top; this is the standard Wikipedia method of disambiguating two articles with similar titles. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not delete it a second time; I made it more informative by listing the author of the book. (The one you reverted to is not in the proper tone for an encyclopedia entry and will confuse people unfamiliar with the subject.) Did you even look at my edit? I suggest you do so before accusing someone unjustly. I deleted it the first time because the names are spelled and pronounced differently, and did not think the issue was "ambiguous". Guermantes 21:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we've reached a compromise; this may work for all three of us- If you're looking for the 12 little girls in two straight lines, the smallest one was Madeline, the children's book by Ludwig Bemelmans. --Shultz IV 23:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This is fine with me, but should it say something like "character" instead of "children's book," since there are film/TV adaptations as well? | Mr. Darcy talk 02:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are you sure?

"Madeleines are perhaps most famous outside France for their association with involuntary memory in Marcel Proust's". Could we get a citation for this? Cuz, um, I think madeleines are most famous outside France in bakeries not in some obscure French novel. Is someone just trying to push Marcel Proust recently?

Your ignorance is showing. Try reading the external link - or even google the words Proust and Madeleine - to see that Proust's connection to madeleines pervades the international psyche. 70.17.161.243

Of course if you google both Proust and Madeleine together, pages containing both Proust and Madeleine will come up. But Proust didn't introduce the madeleine to the world! He just simply mentions it. That's all. Who cares except for people who like Proust. It has no meaning for anybody else who don't know Proust but enjoys pastries. It is like taking a quote from one of your favorite author/celebrity/personality about any subject and saying that it is "the most famous association" for that subject.

Um... Proust and his madeleines are very famous. Very very very famous. It's not a case of someone plugging their favorite obscure author, it's arguably one of the most famous scenes in modern literature. (It is taking every bit of my strength to refrain from quoting the Peter Cook Proust/miners sketch.) An analogy: James Joyce fans call June 16 "Bloomsday". Would you argue that the Wiki pedia entry for June 16 has no business mentioning that, because no one cares except Joyce fans? Nightsky 20:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You can mention it all you want. The objection is that you claim "the world" associates madeleines with Proust. Which "world" are you talking about? Joyce fans don't say "June 16 is best known to the world all over as Bloomsday".

[edit] Image in article

The items pictured in the image captioned "Madeleines" are not madeleines but plain cupcakes. I have (with an embedded explanatory remark) commented the image out of the article and left a note on the image talk page. The remaining image is indeed a madeleine pan. Athænara ✉ 02:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

In Spain, cupcakes are said "magdalenas" (sg. magdalena) and madeleines aren't easily found and haven't any special name. Perhaps this is the reason someone has included the image of a cupcake. Sergio Macías ✉ 10:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. In Switzerland, these sweets (with lemon taste, paper shells, etc., as pictured and described) are indeed called Magdalenas (German) or madeleines (French). The photographer of the image (from Brazil, I believe) also tagged it with "madeleine" and "madalenas". Too, they don't look like the other images of cupcakes that Commons has to me - more like the madeleines that the article describes. But maybe there is some language problem here? Sandstein 19:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Madeleines as described in the article are pictured here. The pattern on the surface, resembling the grooves in the shell of a scallop, shows that these madeleines have been turned over, bottom side up, while still resting on the pan in which they were baked. –Æ. ✉ 00:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a lovely photograph of small cakes but, whatever they are called, whether outside of France they are called magdalenas or even madeleines (which they are not), fairy cakes as in the United Kingdom, or cupcakes as in the United States, they are not the classic smaller, thinner, shell-shaped cakes documented in the Madeleines article.

I brought the image here to the talk page after it was reintroduced into the article. Here are two photographs for comparison: one of Madeleines on a plate and another of commercially packaged Madeleines.

Classic French Madeleines are much smaller than cupcakes or magdalenas. They are not baked in fluted paper cups. They have a cake-like texture, but in size and appearance they are like what are called cookies in the United States and biscuits in the United Kingdom. Here are two additional photos: one showing them both in and out of the special pan, and another showing them plated in a more formal presentation. Athænara ✉ 13:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

An image of the real thing, Image:Madeleines de Commercy.jpg from Wikipedia Commons, was contributed today. — Athænara ✉ 19:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

An encyclopedia article should not list every single minor pop-culture reference to the article's subject. Most of the trivia section is totally irrelevant and uninteresting and in no way belongs in an encyclopedia, which is what this is. Unless someone can present a good argument as to why an encyclopedia should include all these pop-culture references, I will once again delete them from the article. For God's sake, one of the items is just that a fictional character mentions madeleines as being one of the things sold by the bakery. Who the hell cares? Should an article on cheese list every single mention of cheese in any TV show? CGameProgrammer 22:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia in and of itself is by definition of minor importance. It is quite possible, however, that encyclopedia readers who previously had little knowledge of or interest in the Madeleines-Proust connection, which inhabits a small corner among iconic international high culture references, benefit from the inclusion of trivia in that their intellectual interest in the deeper cultural roots of such items is stimulated.

It would be excellent if you would both respect Wikipedia:Civility and refrain from exaggerating. Please also eschew disruptive and tendentious editing, and please refrain from threatening to pursue that line of action. — Athænara ✉ 23:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to improve the quality of Wikipedia, and I am not exaggerating about anything. If you think my deletions are undeserved, argue why; don't attack me (ironically). My edit was an improvement of the article, not disruptive. Fanboyism does not belong here, and the people that inserted such obscure pop-culture references are obviously fans of the respective TV shows, for I do not believe anyone else would think to include such things. Yes, trivia is by definition unimportant or meaningless, and unimportant or meaningless things do not belong in an encyclopedia. The trivia items #1 and #4 are relevant and of some (slight) importance, which is why I welcome them and never deleted them, but the others are simply irrelevant.

I brought up the point that if an article on madeleines should mention every single pop-culture reference to them, why doesn't the article on cheese mention every single pop-culture reference to it? You failed to address this very valid point. If you feel I'm exaggerating when I say "every single reference" then please explain to me the significance of the Stranger Than Fiction reference that elevates it in importance above other pop-culture references to Madeleines.

Simply put, it is very unprofessional. CGameProgrammer 07:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)