Talk:Crêpe

comparision to injeera

it said crepes are comparable to african injeera, however, it is more comparable to pancakes then crepes. the african equvilent would be Malawah http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7zno7aAE-rs/SQoSK-alQ8I/AAAAAAAAAFg/NFQ9h-1jmJk/s320/DSCF1663.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.25.219 (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

naming

I don't see the link with rocks that is drawn into the article. "Crêpe", in French, is homonymous/homographous with the name of a fabric (crape). I do not know whether they have different etymologies, but the fabric is ultimately from latin crispus "curled", so I am deleting the etymologic reference unless a more sure one can be found. Circeus 19:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Different picture

This article needs a picture of a crepe being made in France - next time I go to France I will take one. Benjaminstewart05 12:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Crêpe in Germany

Crêpe is called Crepe or Crepes (pronounced IPA /krep/, just like in French) in Germany. We don't have our own word for it.

Eierkuchen (lit. egg-cake) would be the most fitting term but usually Eierkuchen describes pancakes (much thicker dann Crêpe).

German Pfannkuchen (lit. pancake) are quite different from Crêpe (and Pancake) since they're made with potatoe.

Crêpe is rarely made at home but rather bought from booths at a fair (with filling of choice).

The fundamental distinction between Pancakes and Crêpes in spite of the elaborate explanations can’t be found anywhere.

Pancakes are a lot heavier [on the stomach] than Crêpes for several reasons.

For Pancakes the egg white isn’t whipped to snow and spatulated into the batter, for instance, the main contributing factor to the airy texture of Crêpes.

In Pancakes milk is sometimes replaced by condensed milk to make them even richer, the water replaced by dark ale.

Crêpes use half [semi-skimmed] milk, half water.

Real Pancakes are served with brown sugar.

Dark ale and dark sugar, the whole dark secret .. .. and very heavy on the stomach.

---

In German, the word 'Crepe' refers to the French way of making a pancake, namely very thinly. A German pancake is smaller and thicker, apart from that there is no difference between the two. The description of pancakes (Pfannkuchen) that was given earlier in this discussion, it is not true. Pfannkuchen are not made from potatoes. 'Pfannkuchen' ist just a synonym for a German crepe just as 'Eierkuchen', 'Plins' or 'Plinse'. There is, however, a pancake made from potatoes called 'Reibekuchen' in German(or 'Roesti' in Switzerland).

Spanish Tortilla

The last sentence of the first paragraph under Description states "Crepes can be compared to the African injera and the Spanish tortilla." A Spanish tortilla is a kind of omelet; it bears no resemblance to a crepe. A Latin American tortilla is comparable to a crepe.

Japanese Crêpes

Crêpes are very popular in Japan. Some of these varieties have a uniquely Japanese style, such as teriyaki chicken and mayonnaise or egg, ham, and tuna. If anyone has a good source of information, perhaps this would be worth including. alhead

plăcintă is not the root of the Central & Eastern European name

In areas of Central Europe, the meal is called palačinka (Serbian, Czech, Slovak, Croatian and Slovenian), Palatschinken (in Austria), palacsinta (Hungarian), all these terms being derived from Romanian plăcintă (Latin placenta meaning "cake").

This makes no sense. If the word was derived from Latin placenta, then it is not derived from Romanian. The Southern Slavic tribes, and specially Germanic (Austrians) would had ample and better opportunity to interact with Latin speakers. Furthermore, there are evidence that crêpes or placenta was made in Roman times, which would predate Romanian claim. Oxford Companion to Food, Alan Davidson [Oxford University Press:Oxford] 1999 (p. 571)

I also believe it is mentioned in the De Re Coquinaria written int he 1st century by Marcus Gavius Apicius, as placenta.

There are no such historic references for plăcintă.

I would like clarification or change. --Libertate 20:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

To quote the OED on palacsinta: Etymology: < Hungarian palacsinta pancake < Romanian plăcintă pie, pancake < classical Latin placenta small flat cake (see placenta n.). Compare earlier [in English] palacinka n., Palatschinken n. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

English Crêpes

How does the Crêpe vary from the traditional English pancake? from the description they sound very similar

They are prepared the same except english ones are rolled, the french ones are not (someone should correct that in the main article) i have no evidence other than vast experience with fried thin batter in both contries

pronunciation

no proper pronunciation is given for the word "Crêpe" and thus i am reading the word as being read as "creep"

It's French : IPA /krep/ --Rodhullandemu 17:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a pronunciation is given now, but it is misleading. The English pronunciation IPA is given as /ˈkrɛp/, however the source for that (Merriam-Webster) provides a pronunciation whose IPA would be /kɹeɪp/. I think that either the IPA should be changed, or else a source should be found that justifies the given IPA. M-W is certainly correct that a lot of English speakers use the pronunciation they provide, but I think there are also many who use the pronunciation given in this article, even though M-W does not list that one. Maybe it would be better to refer to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/crêpe Mazzula 16:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Should this be "Europe"??

Buckwheat came to North America from Southwest Asia and also spread to Eastern Europe, where a similar meal called blintz also developed.

Given that crepes are French, should not this sentence talk about how it got to France or Western Europe? Is the North America part even relevant? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Comparison to the sope

How is the crêpe comparable to the sope? Crêpes are thin and usually folded, whilst the sope is thick and not foldable.72.130.190.175 (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. They are not comprable. A sope is formed by hand from dough and fried or grilled, and eaten flat with toppings. This is like saying a pizza is an italian crepe, because it's circular. The only comprable thing in Mexican cooking would be a traditionally prepared, Chihuahua-style wheat tortilla. Removing. 70.19.171.37 (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Panqueque =/= Crepe

I've been living in South America for over 15 years,have been to Chile,Argentina,Brasil,Paraguay and Uruguay,and believe me,its no the same "Panqueque" (which is a Baking Dough Puff Pastry rolled with Dulce De Leche) than Crepes (which is usally called here in South America "Canelones"). I suggest removing the re-direction from Panqueque to Crepe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.190.143.127 (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Crepe

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus here is that while "crêpe" is absolutely valid and in use, "crepe" is much more common in reliable English sources. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Crêpe → Crepe – The spelling in the article is not the predominant spelling in English - by a factor of more than 50:1 at Google Books. Most English print dictionaries don't even have this spelling. Compare [1] and [2] to confirm. I don't know what the OED says on the spelling. DCDuring (talk) 02:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I suspect that ignoring the diacritic is an Americanism, although I could be wrong. But I don't regard the two options as different (opposed) spellings. Srnec (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Wikipedia should use the common name and use English. Quigley (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think the use of the circumflex is much commoner these days. I would say that there does appear to be a general difference in the use of diacritics between the United Kingdom and the United States. The former now generally seems to use them, the latter seems to generally hold out against them. The OED, incidentally, gives "crêpe" and only "crêpe" - "crepe" is not even given as an alternative and the French spelling is recorded in English back to the 19th century. Ergo, the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH arguments do not hold water, since the assumption that "crepe" is the common name and that English spellings never have diacritics is simply wrong. This is the English spelling and is the common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per Necrothesp. The accentless (mis-)spelling is not mentioned in other, lesser, standard dictionaries such as Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary, Collins New Dictionary and the Little Oxford Dictionary either. The anglicised spelling crape may be used for the cloth. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support per EB. Flamarande (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME (Given nom's links and EB) and WP:UE. As far as the claim that diacritics are more common in British English, the first British English source I could find online gives crepe as the primary, crêpe only as secondary [3]. Incidentally, I see no links to any sources supporting the Oppose argument - I trust the closing admin will take that into account and discount their arguments accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Really. So you don't think the Oxford English Dictionary is a valid source? How odd. Or maybe you're one of those editors who mistakenly believe that only publicly-available online sources are valid? OED Online is a subscription-only service, so providing a link to it would be pointless. But in any case, it's clearly a valid print source. To labour the point once more (sigh) for those who can't be bothered to read guidelines and imperiously claim that only "their" sources are valid, print sources are perfectly valid on Wikipedia. If you'd like to quote the guideline that says arguments without links should be discounted, please feel free. Otherwise kindly do not take it upon yourself to tell the closing admin what he or she should discount. Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Pardon me. Allow me to correct myself. The only source cited by those in opposition (so far) as supporting their position happens to not be available online for free. I don't doubt that the OE supports your position, nor that there are some online sources accessible for free which do support your position, but they are apparently so obscure that no one has been able to even find one yet, which is the point I hope the closing admin takes into account (as opposed to simply counting JDLI !votes).

      The main issue here isn't about whether either usage is acceptable in English, or whether the only source which supports your position is a valid one - it's about whether one of the uses is clearly in more common use. To that point, again, searching for actual usage in books at books.google.com shows an overwhelming preference for the plain usage. Here are a few more in major English papers from around the world: The London Times, The NY Times (usage with diacritics only in names that use that spelling, not as common nouns in articles in reference to the topic of this article), The Sydney Morning Herald and (drum roll) The Montreal Gazette. The Montreal Gazette - you know, from French speaking Quebec! Really. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support I can confirm Oxford does indeed give it as "crêpe". But everyone else is going chapeau-less: Merriam-Webster, Britannica, not to mention the list of dictionaries the nominator links to. Here is an ngram. You can use the ngram to compare British and American usage. There is not much difference. Kauffner (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Surely all that ngram (above) proves is that google has transcribed it without the circumflex. The issue here is whether or not the existing title is a common form of the word. OED agrees. The fact that online sources are being used by nom to support an argument about a print dictionary leads me to believe that there isn't a case to consider here. By the way, in case anyone wanted an OED online link, here it is [4]. Cloudz679 (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is obviously some problem with ngram. I get 881 examples for "crêpe" eggs OR tablespoons -crepe vs 23,100 for crepe eggs OR tablespoons, or 4 percent usage for the diacritic. (I throw in some random English words to keep out French usage.) Kauffner (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the issue here is NOT whether or not the existing title is a common form of the word; there is no dispute about that. The issue here is about whether crepe or crêpe is the most common form. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move?

Crepe → Crêpe –

• Crêpe is the correct way to write it, and the page's name should be the same.Relisting -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC) SalfEnergy 17:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Sorry, but this name was reached by a consensus in a discussion less then a month ago. So clearly a controversial move request. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. I make the following argument with some reluctance, believing on the whole that language variants should co-exist rather than conflict; but make it nevertheless:

• the article clearly established British English usage from its creation ("savoury", if nothing else)
• British usage does not permit the accentless spelling, which is not even listed as an alternative in reference dictionaries
• the accented spelling should thus be replaced throughout the article where it has been removed
• reasons of WP:CONSISTENCY suggest, but in my view do not absolutely demand, that the article then be moved back to the same spelling, Crêpe.
  Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Does MOS:ENGVAR/etc ever apply to titles? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• I believe it does. A number of articles, such as Humour or Rumor, have titles in one or other English variant. If Engvar didn't apply, there might be the temptation of editors to war to move it to their country's preferred way of spelling it. I believe that's why WP:RETAIN exists. This article seems to have occupied the namespace with diacritics since 2005. The term is a rather special culinary term, to the extent that the BBC, that bastion of British English conservatism, also employs it on its specialist web pages. I believe these arguments are sufficient that it stayed in the original namespace by the first [major] contributor. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Just adding that ENGVAR definitely does apply to article titles, but I don't believe this RM to be an ENGVAR issue. Jenks24 (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

    Sorry, of course ENGVAR applies to titles; not sure what I was thinking. But a UK dictionary was given in the last discussion that did not use a circumflex. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nothing has changed in the fortnight since this has been moved. "Crepe" is the clear common name in English sources, as evidenced in the previous RM (see Born2cycle's comments, in particular). Jenks24 (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Not true. What has changed is that we looked at the evidence that Kauffner presented that convinced ErikHaugen that the non-circumflex form was much more common. Now that a few people has actually followed the Google links that Kauffner gave, it's clear that that was simply a misinterpretation. Nobody has yet presented evidence that the circumflex is uncommon; all the "oppose" votes say look at the evidence from last time, so that's what we've done, and it's totally bogus. Dicklyon (talk) 04:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I missed this one. How is it that an article, which has since its creation been under the namespace with diacritics, could have been moved so swiftly and so recently on COMMONNAME grounds when the diacritcs form is so prevalent? That seems to me to be a clear violation of WP:RETAIN. Also, I would state my view that the above discussion seems to have been incorrectly closed. It was a 'no consensus' at best, and should be moved back forthwith. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

  Mark my words, an attempt will soon be made to move 'Coup d'état'. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I don't believe that the prevalence tests being used can take account of people who simply don't know how to type accents. Most of these people would see the accentless form as something to be tolerated, certainly not preferred. Like User:Ohconfucius, I'm surprised that anyone thought the above discussion resembled anything like consensus. Nick (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

  My claim was that there was consensus that the unadorned form is more common in RS; not that it should be moved. See wp:LOCALCONSENSUS. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• OpposeSupport—I stand by my close above; the evidence there is pretty compelling that the unadorned form is the common name. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

  Wouldn't that be an oppose then, as the proposal is to move it back to the diacritic? oknazevad (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)>

  Yes, thank you. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Twenty-six dictionaries say "crepe," including Merriam Webster and American Heritage. So does Britannica. If you think this is just an American spelling, here is Cambridge. The Times of London explains how to make, "Fine crepes with lemon and sugar". Kauffner (talk) 04:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Just because the Oxford English Dictionary uses z-words like 'industrialize' doesn't mean it's commonly used in Britain according to our own definition. In the same vein, just because Cambridge spells it without diacritics, doesn't mean it's not a British English word variant. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you that saying that the majority of published British writers spell the word "crêpe"? There are many contexts in which all diacritics are routinely dropped, so that strikes me as highly unlikely. Compare the Google Book hits for crepe and crêpe (21 to 1). WP:Retain encourages "Opportunities for commonality", and certainly there are writers on both sides of the Atlantic who drop off the diacritic. Kauffner (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not only is the move less than a month old, but the evidence that Kauffner brings here is pretty compelling: the non-diacritic version is more common in English. oknazevad (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - The common name in English does not use the accent. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Justlettersandnumbers. The common name in English is 'pancake'. " 'Crepe' is a thin fabric made of cotton, silk or wool . . ." (Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary). --Kleinzach 05:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

  No, pancake is a catch-all term that is used for a variety of similar dishes (with the default being a fluffy type). "Crepe" is used to describe this variety in particular, including in the English language. oknazevad (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per all above. --Bob247 (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support Chambers [compact] Dictionary: crêpe or crepe [...] then crêpe rubber and crêpe paper; we also have Crêpe Suzette. Alvar☮ 09:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above - especially comments regarding the recent close of a previous discussion on this proposal. Absconded Northerner (talk) 10:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. As I said in the last debate, the accented version is given in the OED, with the unaccented version not even given as an alternative. It may well be an ENGVAR issue. I do not believe this should ever have been moved, as I believe the previous debate was a clear no consensus and there was no mandate to move. The closer was mistaken in moving the article. Arguments that more online sources use the unaccented spelling and that this proves something do not, as usual, hold water, as print sources are just as valid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support for two independent reasons:
  1. Procedural reason: The previous move request was closed incorrectly.
     5 editors supported it (if we count the nominator). The nomination was faulty in that it was based on a Google Books count (extremely unreliable for diacritics issues due to OCR problems) and a theory about English dictionaries that turned out to be false. If you try to look up "crepe" in the free version of the OED, you get an article about "crêpe" which offers "crape" as an alternative spelling for the cloth-related meaning and no alternative spelling for the food-related meaning. (IMO the reason is not that "crepe" is not an acceptable spelling in British English; the reason is that "crepe" is an ersatz spelling for those occasions when it is impractical to use the proper spelling, and as everybody knows how to form these – by just stripping off diacritics – there is no need to list them in a reference work.) The faultiness of the argument was pointed out during the discussion, so the nominator's voice should not have been counted. Quigley's support should have been discounted because per overwhelming precedent WP:UCN and WP:UE cannot trump WP:ENGVAR. (American spellings dominate internationally, yet articles written in British English are always under British English titles.) Therefore vague handwaving towards these rules was not a reasonably high-quality contribution to the discussion. Flamarande's "per EB" argument has some weight, but we do not have a policy of simply copying Britannica. The support !votes by Born2cycle and Kauffner were based on the same misconception that WP:UCN is about using the most common spellings, rather than just the most common names.
     On the other hand there were 4 oppose !votes: Srnec pointed out that "crepe" and "crêpe" are variants of the same spelling, rather than different spellings. (As I explained above. It follows from this that we pick the variant that is most appropriate in our context, in which we generally use diacritics that are part of the most pedantically correct spelling, because we have no technical issues with them.) Necrotesp agreed with Srnec's other point that "crêpe" is the most correct British spelling. After research in other dictionaries, Justlettersandnumbers agreed with them as well. And so did Cloudz679.
     If there was a consensus, then it was to not move. Maybe there was no consensus. But there was certainly no consensus for the move. We had the typical situation with a strong argument on one side, which everybody on that side agreed with, and the other side frantically bringing up a variety of weak arguments because they realised that reason did not support their desired result.
  2. "Crêpe" is the correct spelling for this title. Nobody has contradicted that this article is written in British English and must remain so per WP:RETAIN. Per overwhelming practice, ENGVAR extends to article titles – as it must for internal consistency because the title is printed at the top of the article. (Example: equaliser (mathematics) and coequalizer discuss two dual mathematical concepts in two different variants of English. The spellings equalizer and coequaliser are just as correct.) The most authoritative source for the (British) English language is the Oxford English Dictionary, and it clearly promotes "crêpe" as the primary, if not exclusive, spelling. As Justlettersandnumbers pointed out above, Chambers and Collins agree. In this light, the fact that the relatively insignificant Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary disagrees doesn't really change anything. Therefore this article should be titled "crêpe", or in case of technical difficulties, "crepe". We do not have such technical difficulties, so "crêpe" it is. Hans Adler 16:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

  I think you seriously misrepresent the evidence from the last discussion. Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary is not the only British source shown to use the unadorned form by any means. And I don't think that was Srnec's point. You're right, though, that a simple count of votes does not justify my closure. I do not close move discussions by counting votes. Pile-on "per so-and-sos" mean very little when so-and-so's case is weak. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

  In this case the case for opposing was extremely strong, not weak. You seem to be one of those with a vague feeling that the diacritic is undesirable or looks wrong, but who are unable to give a valid argument why it should be removed. The right thing to do in that situation is to participate in the discussion and to look for proper arguments, or maybe to change one's opinion. Closing the discussion based simply on one's own bias is definitely not OK in that situation.

  A lot of British sources don't use diacritics simply because they are near the sloppiness/convenience/hurry end of the spectrum, not near the pedantry/accuracy/precision end where dictionaries and encyclopedias are located. We can't ignore such matters, or we would have to move posterior (anatomy) to bum or ass (depending on which variant of English the article is written in). Hans Adler 18:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

  "You seem to be one of those with a vague feeling that the diacritic is undesirable or looks wrong" Absolutely not true. This kind of patronizing adhominem has no place here; shame on you. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

  Wait, are you saying here that we should not look to what reliable sources say—not even British ones? Is this a "follow the sources that *I* like" argument? I hardly think "crepe" is analogous to "bum". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

  The Tomáš Divíšek move discussion could easily have been closed as consensus not to move. You closed it as no consensus to move. The discussion above was no consensus or consensus not to move. You closed it as move. I think that speaks for itself. That you closed a clear no consensus discussion as no consensus and protected an accented title against move warring just suggests that you don't feel very strongly about it.

  Wow! Your attempts to divine my motives and underlying opinions and goals have failed again! I suspect your earlier try (ie. "the other side frantically bringing up a variety of weak arguments because they realised that reason did not support their desired result") was an equally spectacular failure. I suggest you stop trying; you aren't good at it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  A shouting match between the two of us is not going to lead anywhere. Just be more careful in the future when you try to evaluate consensus, or don't do it at all if you don't understand what you did wrong and so don't know how to correct your behaviour, and everything will be fine. Hans Adler 11:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  Ok hans ;) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

  We can of course look at reliable sources, but we must keep in mind that most reliable sources are not encyclopedias and therefore don't use language in the same way that encyclopedias do. Elsewhere I have quoted extensively from the style guides of various newspapers. Some of them explain why they drop accents in certain situations: The newswires drop all accents for technical reasons (they cannot even deal with % signs and some other very common ASCII symbols). Therefore names typically reach newspapers in a butchered state. Not even the New York Times manages to restore accents in French and Spanish names consistently, although their style guide says they should do so. To ensure consistency, many newspapers and other sources use diacritics very sparingly. A typical rule for diacritics in English words is to use them only if they give an important hint for pronunciation or disambiguate a word. (Both criteria apply for exposé and resumé, for example, but admittedly not for crêpe.) Another typical rule is to follow a specific dictionary – in British English that would presumably be the OED in most cases. But in practice, diacritics are often not restored when a story comes from a newswire, even when required by the style gudie.
  The language use by encyclopedias or dictionaries is quite different to that by newspapers, novels etc., and this is particularly true for the titles of entries. Our context requires pedantry, and we can't determine the most common pedantic spelling through a usage survey of mostly sloppy sources. Following sources in an unthinking, mechanical way is actually the worst form of original research, and it's surprising how many supporters this fundamentalist approach has.
  I maintain that the bum analogy is valid (or would be, if posterior (anatomy) were an article rather than a redirect; I found it via a dab page and didn't check this further; I am sure there are many similar examples where a separate article exists). The point is that it's totally wrong to let our usage depend on the most common usage in all sources rather than in all sources that are subject to similar constraints as we are. Hans Adler 21:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

  This is not what is keeping us from moving buttocks to bum, Hans. But you make a good point about style guides and technical limitations of the media in question. We discussed a similar argument in the debate about dashes, and you and I even had a similar conversation a little over a month ago. But this technique doesn't seem to be used, generally, here at Wikipedia to answer these debates about whether to use diacritics, is it? A style guide discusses style, but can't have a comprehensive list of words which ought to be spelled with circumflexes or whatever. If you're going to abandon quality newspapers when answering these questions, you need some kind of methodology that we can use rather than just "these newspapers don't do it how I like it". How can you tell the difference between sloppiness and an intent to write it a certain way? I suppose here you're appealing to sources that are both British and don't have these typographical limitations; you seem to want to only look to the OED where possible, completely marginalizing other British dictionaries? In any case, if, as it seems is the case here, a large portion of British sources can't be bothered to get it right, then perhaps WP:COMMONALITY comes into play, and since, as was the consensus at the last move request, crepe is the most common way the subject is written in reliable sources (globally), we should write it that way here? I realize that consensus might end up being different in this discussion. I'll note that a quick glance at French news sources indicates that they have no trouble getting it right, so if British ones really cared... although i can guess what your retort will be to that. But still, the British usage seems to lie inbetween the French and the American; the engvar issue is not as clear-cut as you suggest. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

  COMMONALITY is an excellent point. I wish it were used in such situations, but I don't think we normally do this. Maybe we should make a proper survey of British dictionaries. I now see I was misled by something that was written above. Apparently Collins COBUILD has "crepe", while an unrelated other Collins dictionary has "crêpe". Thus, roughly in order of importance:

  • OED: "crêpe"
  • Collins COBUILD: "crepe"
  • Chambers: "crêpe"
  • Cambridge: "crepe".

  A clear pattern here is that the more recent dictionaries seem to be dropping the diacritic, suggesting that the accented spelling may be old-fashioned. (Of course this might also be a symptom of the same simplistic word counting without regard to technical restrictions that is so popular on Wikipedia, but that's just my private speculation.) Hans Adler 23:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

  Excuse me, but I must interject here. There was no consensus in the last debate. It was four against four. Calling it a consensus is pure misrepresentation. It was clearly no consensus and therefore, by longstanding precedent, the article should have been left where it was. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

  Necrothesp, I've tried to say this a number of places. There was consensus that globally it is usually written without the circumflex. Do you agree that there was consensus about that particular claim? That's all I ever said there was consensus about in that discussion. Nobody really brought up these ENGVAR arguments explicitly (although it was pointed out that this might be a regionalism) and several British sources were shown to eschew the circumflex. I took that evidence, and considering the longstanding consensus at WP:COMMONNAME, closed as "move". Consensus does not mean to count votes (although it was 5-4, not 4-4.) Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, WP:COMMONNAME is applied even though there wasn't overwhelming enthusiasm for it during the discussion. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

  No, I'm afraid I do not agree with that claim. I accept it was five-four if you include the nominator, but that is still not a consensus. I'm also aware that consensus is not just about vote-counting, but there must be strong evidence to ignore the numbers of votes. I do not accept there was such evidence. For the OED, one of the most (if not the most) respected English-language dictionaries, not to even list "crepe" as an alternative form speaks volumes. I accept that "crepe" is a common name, but not that it is the common name (a vital difference). And as such the status quo should have been maintained. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, my copy of the 1982 Harrap's list it as crêpe. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 07:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

And a French dictionary has any bearing how? WP:UE seems to say it has none. It seems to me that both versions are attested in British English, so ENGVAR is out as a determiner, while COMMONALITY would lead to picking the un-circumflexed version, as the circumflex is rare in American English. (But, for all we know is the most common form in Canadian English.)oknazevad (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I was obviously refering to the English part of the English/French dictionary ;) Actually, p.188 of the English part, it says that crêpe [kreɪp] means 4 thing in English, the 4th being a crêpe suzette; and p. 186 of the French part, it says that crêpe [krɛp] means 2 things in French, the first one being a pancake. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:UE. Flamarande (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:UE has already been discredited in this discussion. If the Oxford English Dictionary says it's English then it's English. English words can have accents you know! -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
    • UE doesn't just mean "use english" with the implication that we should move Café to Cafe also; it talks about following usage in sources. So considering that UE Is more than just the phrase "use English" I don't know if it has been discredited, but we are certainly beyond just linking to wp:UE at this point. And there's ENGVAR to consider. Flamarande, do you feel like there's something to add to the survey of usage in reliable sources here in this discussion? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I wish to point out that Hans Adler mentioned that Crêpe is common enough in British English ("The most authoritative source for the (British) English language is the Oxford English Dictionary [which uses Crêpe]"). He seems to have forgotten that A) certain British sources seem use Crepe, B) the English-speaking world is way larger than the UK and Canada and C) This article isn't tagged as using British English (so IF it gets moved to Crêpe "because it's the most common British English spelling" please include a 'BE tag' for the sake of the future requests)

IMHO the arguments of Kauffner are simply more convincing: Twenty-six dictionaries say "crepe," including Merriam Webster and American Heritage. So does Britannica. If you think this is just an American spelling, here is Cambridge. The Times of London explains how to make, "Fine crepes with lemon and sugar".

Is anyone going to convince the other that "this version of the name is better than yours"? I gave my vote according to the best of my knowledge. Flamarande (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I see. If you read Hans' latest entries, you'll essentially see he acknowledges (A), I think. (B) is sort of beside the point independent of (A), because of wp:ENGVAR, I think. But, as you allude to, (A) allows for a wp:COMMONALITY argument to be made, as Hans also noted. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose First, this should have been speedily closed due to the very short time since the last discussion. Second, I see no compelling arguments in favor of this move based on policy or usage in WP:RS. The point I made last time - relying on multiple sources including many British, and the dearth of evidence support the claim that the French spelling is more common (supported by one source - the OED) - has not been refuted. Yes, WP:COMMONAME is technically about names not spellings, but the underlying principle is still to follow usage in sources.

  Regarding this point: "We can of course look at reliable sources, but we must keep in mind that most reliable sources are not encyclopedias and therefore don't use language in the same way that encyclopedias do". Do we really want to go down that path? What a guaranteed quagmire that would be - because how do we decide what is more encyclopedic. Besides, we frequently take a different course than traditional encyclopedias, precisely because we are governed by usage in all reliable sources, not just reference books.

  There is no such thing as a "correct" spelling in a vacuum - "correct" has to be specified... relative to what? In WP, our arbiter of "correctness" is usage in reliable sources. That's all that matters. Not our opinions of what is "correct". --Born2cycle (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Relisting - Since this discussion is still active, I'm relisting the request to allow another week. I'll also comment that I'm not closing the discussion for "procedural reasons", because that doesn't really have anything to do with what the title of the article should be. There's an active discussion, so we should see where it leads.

  This is an interesting case, because we're feeling out the boundary between WP:ENGVAR and WP:COMMONNAME, or at least that's what I think we're seeing here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Besides the OED entry, is there any evidence that the accented spelling is the British English variety? I don't think it's clear at all that ENGVAR even applies here. The evidence regarding usage in sources indicates the accented spelling is in minority usage in every significant English speaking country (Britain, Canada, Australia, US). --Born2cycle (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't know if there's evidence that it's British. Certainly nobody has shown evidence that it is in minority usage in England, or in any other country for that matter; or have I missed something? Actually, using Google Book Search, I haven't been able to find yet even a single example of a book published in England that uses the version without the circumflex for the pancake thing (they do so more for the cloth). Dicklyon (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support – it's too bad we have these move wars, but in this case it's hard to imagine how ErikHaugen closed a 4-4 dispute as a consensus to move. His observation that "crepe is much more common in reliable English sources" wasn't even backed up by sensible counts, since most of the Google book hits for it actually had the circumflex; as others point out they don't usually catch that in the OCR. What's next, creme fraiche? Do we really want to turn all editorial decisions over to Born2countGoogleHits? Dicklyon (talk) 01:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

  I didn't. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

  The part I'm attributing to you is just the close that moved it. The rest is just me trying to make a point, not accusing you of anything. I appreciate your good efforts in these things. Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

  But now you've got me wondering what you meant above by "My claim was that there was consensus that the unadorned form is more common in RS; not that it should be moved." Are you saying that didn't close it as consensus to move? That it was just a mistake of some kind? That should be fixable. Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

  I closed it as move because I thought there was consensus about what the common name is. I did not close it just because 5 > 4. I feel this is becoming quite a distraction here, if there are any questions about my closure that I haven't addressed here or in my response to Necrothesp and others above, please let me know on my talk page or perhaps below the move discussion in question. The arguments for procedural close from both sides have already been rejected. This discussion can stand on its own, and I think interesting points on both sides have been raised that were not raised in the earlier discussion. It would be a shame if this discussion were prejudiced either way by how the earlier one was closed. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks; that's all I'm asking, that we consider it without prejudice based on the previous case, which got insufficient input. Though you do say above that "the evidence there is pretty compelling." You still believe that? Dicklyon (talk) 06:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

  Even the nominator's statement in the first RM was deeply flawed. He said "Most English print dictionaries don't even have this spelling," and then backed that up by links to a cheesy online dictionary search. If you look at dictionaries in Google book search, it's hard to find one that doesn't list the version with the circumflex at least as one spelling (the only one I found was one fabric dictionary). And if you look through the book hits for "crepe", nearly half of them actually have the circumflex. If you buy B2C's assertion that all that matters is which one is more common, then the case still wasn't made. But I don't buy that, in general; a discussion based on the real situation rather than errors about sources and trivialized policy interpretations is in order, is it not? Dicklyon (talk) 06:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

  All of the oppose votes seem to be believing the flakiest of evidence, and calling it compelling. The link to the online dictionary search is in no way representative of what's in real dictionaries; the circumflex gets dropped in a lot of those, while in print dictionaries it's always there. The Google book searches, same problem. It's clear that both forms are very widely used, perhaps about equally. It's clear that English writers tend to drop diacriticals, and more so over time as loan words become familiar. Does this mean that high-quality sources will drop the circumflex as soon as a majority do? No, not at all. If we had a good way to count usage in high-quality sources, that is, the ones that would go to a tiny bit of trouble to use diacriticals when it's the right thing to do, we'd probably find that most of them would use the diacritical on this word. For sources by people who wouldn't know how to make diacritical marks, of course they use the version without. Dicklyon (talk) 06:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• ENGVAR issue – It should never have been moved from Crêpe. It's clear from the second edit (which changed spelt to spelled) that the original author was using British English. And no credible evidence has been presented to back up the claim that the circumflex is less common even in Britain; my perusal of sources suggests the opposite, as the few British books I find do all use the circumflex. I don't think anyone has pointed out a single British book that does not (I have asked Born2cycle to back up his claim that it's uncommon even in BE; I think that was just a misinterpretation of Google hits as several have pointed out). Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe the British language variant was established by the spelling of 'savoury' in the creation of the article.

Google is a laughably inadequate tool for a topic such as this. Compare the top hit here with the logo and façade of the restaurant.

This is a term in cookery, so the place to look for it is in cookery books. I have some hundreds of them, and am certainly not going to go through them all to confirm that they use the expected spelling. However: the most obvious reliable source is the Davidson Oxford Companion to Food, which curiously does not have an entry under this header; in a quick survey of other famous names, as fully expected, Elizabeth David, Marcella Hazan, Hume and Downes, Jane Grigson, Boulestin, Robert Carrier, Julia Child and Delia Smith all use crêpe. Jamie doesn't seem to have a recipe. Not one of them uses crepe. All of these books, even those by American authors, are in UK editions, so their unanimity may be more a reflection of UK editorial policy than of real unanimity among the cooks themselves. That does not reduce its validity here.

Eric Haugen has graciously recognised that he did not take the language variant issue into account when making the previous move. Since the UK variant is fully established, and the UK spelling is fully established, is there now any obstacle to returning the article to its proper name?
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Kauffner brought up WP:COMMONALITY above: "Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English." And there was some evidence that this is more common to all varieties. However, you could argue that this isn't really what COMMONALITY is designed for, since "crêpe" is not as strange to the American as "Aeroplane" is. And as noetica and Hans have pointed out, you might disagree with the claim that "crepe" is more common even globally, although I still think it is, as I have explained above. (Noetica, don't worry, I will not be closing this RM, of course.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. With respect to ErikHaugen (who closed it, and whose work I admire, and who must now technically be considered "involved"), I have to say that the original RM is one of the most ill-considered I have seen in a while. The numbers were small and evenly divided (4 support and 4 oppose?); but of course that's not what matters. Far more serious is the quality of the evidence and arguments, and these were woeful. Google searching 101: Don't believe the initial count that you see on the first page of hits; it's an estimate, usually far too high. You have to go through the pages successively till Google finally reports what it actually does find. If you're going to bring Google evidence here, learn how to use it, OK? Below I will present some real Google evidence, correctly treated. Note first that this article concerns usage in cookery, not usage in crepe rubber, crepe paper, and others. Some dictionaries highlight the circumflex in the word when it is used in cookery (as in crêpes Suzette, of course). We need to narrow the search accordingly; and to search for pages in English; and to check the hits, because Google reports erratically on "e" versus "ê" (sometimes substituting either for the other); and to note that some headings, especially in caps or small caps, lose the diacritic even though the text itself retains it. And it's wise to restrict the search to actual books, rather than periodicals, over the last twenty years.

So here are two Googlebook searches using the restrictions "Preview and full view›Books›Jan 1, 1990–Aug 12, 2011›Search English pages", with results:

• crepe (intitle:cuisine OR intitle:cook)
  • 85 actual works found
  • in a random sample of 22 from those works, 11 in fact used "crêpe" in the text
• crêpe (intitle:cuisine OR intitle:cook)
  • 103 actual works found
  • in a random sample of 22 from those works, 12 in fact used "crepe" in the text

There. That's how it's done – or rather, that's one way. Those two searches overlap; I wanted to show how slippery these things can be. A possible alternative search would have been (using the same restrictions as the two I show above):

• (crepe OR crêpe) (intitle:cuisine OR intitle:cook)
  • 95 actual works found

Summary of Googlebook evidence: In English-language cookery books published in the past two decades, crêpe is used in the text practically as often as crepe, with any difference being lost in the statistical "noise".

Some of the dictionary evidence produced above is as flawed as the earlier useless Google evidence, failing to track down the fine detail and to observe the distinctions between usage in cookery and elsewhere; but I have spent enough time on this, and will not take it further. OED's firm preference for crêpe ought to tip the balance, if we are unprejudiced. That, and the need for Wikipedia to serve as an authoritative encyclopedic resource, respecting the highest international standards of usage.

Noetica^Tea? 12:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The OED prefers "crêpe", but with "?region=us" it seems to prefer "crepe": [5]. It allows for both spellings in both regions. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Again suggests that it should have been left at Crêpe per ENGVAR. Dicklyon (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not the OED, Eric; it is the online version of the Oxford American Dictionary, which Mac users get in app form as a freebie with the operating system. The OED is a subscription service, and a considerably more serious work. Anyway, try 'Crepe Suzette' in the same dictionary. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Same publisher, different product. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Erik, a number of editors have set out to show how the original RM was closed on the basis of shoddy evidence. You have not responded to the refutation of such evidence that I show in my post, above. Will you respond to the following?

• Born2cycle adduces this Googlesearch as evidence above: {site:nytimes.com crepe}. By itself, this is useless. Compare it with this Googlesearch: {site:nytimes.com "crêpes"}. Still swayed by such "overwhelming" evidence as Born2cycle presented? Well, now try making the context definitely culinary: {site:nytimes.com ("crêpes suzette" OR "crepes suzette")}, and survey the results on the screen. Still think that's a "reliable source"? Now do the same for the Montreal Gazette: {site:www.montrealgazette.com ("crêpes suzette" OR "crepes suzette")}. A source on which to base decisions for Wikipedia articles? And these are newspapers, dammit. We need to look at books, as I point out above.

More could be said. But I will not waste time saying it if you are not interested in correcting your original closing remark: " 'crepe' is much more common in reliable English sources". Add to this your elementary confusion concerning the world-leading OED (accepted, if any dictionary is, as the premier authority throughout the English-speaking world), and I think you might consider a retraction – and some attempt to undo the damage you have caused, unintentionally and in good faith. You have set in place a spurious status quo that no one should consider consensual, with the result that no one can now displace it without prodigious effort, if at all. Such are the absurd ways in which these RMs are conducted.

Noetica^Tea? 23:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose. All the discussion, this time and last, shows that there is no one correct way to write this word in English, any more than there is one correct way to write naive; French, which has an Academy, is a different matter - and a different wikipedia. In general, words (like this one) which are actually adopted into English, lose their accents and are respelt; see role and morale; this is as true of British English as of American. If a correct spelling exists, therefore, this article now expresses it; if not, there is no reason to move. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Strongly bogus – the previous spelling was also correct, so there was no reason to move it before; the move was closed based on an un-checked misrepresentation of usage, and should simply be reverted. And why are all your opinions strongly? Dicklyon (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

As often, the strengh of my preference is determined by the vacuity of the arguments on the other side. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

So whose ways with Google do you prefer, PMAnderson? Mine or Born2cycle's and Kauffner's? And why? Tell all.

What you seek to besmirch as "vacuous" seems to track your preformed opinions. Nothing else. Noetica^Tea? 01:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The claim that there is "one correct way to write this word in English" is a straw man. The general point about loss of diacritics in English is just that: a general point. Whether it determines things in the case of "crêpe" (the culinary term) is a specific point. That specific point is resolved in the negative by OED, and by about half of modern book sources, without even any restriction to scholarly books. "Role" is much longer established in English (OED: 1606) than "crêpe" (1797). As for "morale", what is the point supposed to be? It has never borne any diacritic. PMAnderson has presented no useful evidence for his closing assertion. Noetica^Tea? 00:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• The French for morale, in the current sense of "group emotional state", is moral; see the OED. Anglophones have reformed this distinction to what is useful in English, which is what this encyclopedia is written in. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, understood. It was not clear from what you wrote. Compare the nouns locale and chorale to distinguish from the adjective and noun local, and the adjective choral, with learnèd influence from Latin neuter -ale endings. Peripherally relevant, at best. Noetica^Tea? 01:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. As so often, this comes down to the fact that WP, where possible, writes for a wider readership than is the pitch of specialist publications. Specialists often drop punctuation and diacritics because they see the items every day and identify them easily. It's less appropriate for WP's pitch. Tony (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

  Please spare us. Specialists are more likely to use diacritics; in this case, they are more likely to have been reading French cookbooks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I too wondered about Tony's application of that idea to the present case. But he has a point. Who are the "specialists" in this situation? The writers of cookbooks are not uniformly well versed in linguistic niceties. Some are (hence their preservation of the circumflex), and some are not at all up to it. "Crepes", so named, seem to be a popular dish in America. In Australia we see far less of them in everyday dining, and anyway they are still more often called "pancakes" here (so names like "Pancake Parlour" are seen; I've never seen a business name with "crêpe" or "crepe" in it, here). The story is complicated by the implacable incursion of American usage: the big chains like McDonald's speak of "fries", but we don't.

Wikipedia is for international use, and should preserve forms that are recognised everywhere. Outside America, "crepe" is not much used for the thing you eat. Many would not know what is meant. But "crêpe" is used and understood immediately everywhere – including the US, where (as my Google searches show) it is widely used alongside "crepe". "Crêpe" therefore meets the requirements of policy at WP:TITLE better than "crepe" does. It is rational to restore "crêpe" for this article. I and others have demonstrated that the original RM was bungled; and the summary showing a "consensus" for the move is simply laughable.

Noetica^Tea? 01:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)