Talk:Crêpe/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Move?

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: page moved per discussion. In particular, Noetica's excellent and thorough analysis of the sources behind the Google searches establishes that the use of the circumflex is significantly more common in reliable sources addressing this topic, so the COMMONNAME argument is turned right around. This discussion is where I'll probably point people in the future as an example of how Google searches should be treated; that's good work.

I'd also like to give props to ErikHaugen for his grace in fielding quite a lot of criticism in this discussion. I'm grateful for the work you do in closing move requests, Erik. - GTBacchus^(talk) 05:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

---

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)

discussion

• 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)

• Oppose Support—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)

  I'm withdrawing my opposition, in light of the new evidence shown in this discussion, in particular Noetica's book searches, etc. I can't really support though; much of the rationale for supporting hinges on a philosophy of favoring books and the OED over newspapers and other dictionaries. I understand the rationale for wanting to do this, and fully embrace it with respect to questions about punctuation and related questions where we can derive general guidelines, but I don't think it should be done to such an extent with respect to particular words. I've elaborated on this below. Additionally, many books, dictionaries from reputable publishers, EB, etc write "crepe" without a circumflex. But it does appear that a significant majority of books do use the circumflex, and the rebuttal to ENGVAR here seems a tad weak to me, suggesting that it might be the case that we should keep it as the British styling of crêpe anyway.

  Several editors have asked me to reverse my original move closure, fearing (I think) that a "no consensus" here might suggest that we ought to leave the article where it is, at crepe. I have two responses. First, as I said above, I am not convinced that it should be back at crêpe. (To ask someone who has maintained support for a closure to undo it for this reason is quite odd, to say the least; I am now withdrawing that support, but again I am still not fully convinced that it was wrong.) Second, I think such a closure on my part would be way out of line, considering all the editors that have participated in this discussion who oppose this move request. But, to address the concerns of those who have asked, I think WP:TITLECHANGES is pretty clear that it should be back at crêpe if there is no consensus. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

  Erik, thank you for doing something toward fixing the problem raised by ill-advised closure of the first RM. Thank you for attending to my searches based on correct use of Google, as opposed to the totally misleading uses in other posts here. You write:

  "... much of the rationale for supporting hinges on a philosophy of favoring books and the OED over newspapers and other dictionaries. I understand the rationale for wanting to do this, and fully embrace it with respect to questions about punctuation and related questions where we can derive general guidelines, but I don't think it should be done to such an extent with respect to particular words."

  Much of the rationale, but by no means all. First, with regard to books, I don't know why you are against favouring book evidence for "particular words". The experts on crêpes are surely those committed enough to write books about them. Their expert usage will usually trump the preferences of those who publish and edit their work. Second, with regard to newspapers, the evidence on which you based your closure decision is deeply flawed. It is simply not true that Montreal Gazette and New York Times, for example, avoid "crêpe" except in business names. Look at some real evidence: for Montreal Gazette, and for New York Times. Both teeming with crêpes! Born2cycle is soundly refuted on his own terms, and ought to acknowledge his error. Others should not persist in appealing to it. It is more than intellectually dishonest to do that; it is plain vanilla standard-issue dishonest. It takes a great deal of time to counter such sloppy use of evidence – and then, one's efforts are met with silence by the perpetrators.

  Noetica^Tea? 22:12, 15 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: [Superseded by my evidence, posted later, that "crêpe" is favoured far more than "crepe" in relevant books.–N] 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": [1]. 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)

"You have not responded"—what of this have I not responded to? As a procedural matter, I don't think there's much I can do anyway. There is considerable opposition here in this discussion, I don't think I can just move it back and close all discussion unilaterally. I'll say this: I think whoever closes this discussion should feel more than free to move the article back to crêpe, if consensus/policy/etc indicates that that is best. My feelings will not be hurt. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

What you could do is admit something like "Yes, it looks like I was misled by bogus evidence; sorry; I now support moving it back." Dicklyon (talk) 05:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Seriously Erik, what Dicklyon says is exactly right. Through carelessness you have put several highly competent editors and skilled language researchers (some professional) in an impossible situation, because you hastily accepted the appallingly flawed evidence of editors who are demonstrably not competent. You compound the situation by opposing this reversal of your error. The least you could do is withdraw that oppose. You have had the nerve to declare a consensus where there clearly was none. If this present RM is not successful in overturning your error, I think we need an RFC with community-wide involvement to reassess the way these things are managed. The present RM will serve as exhibit A, as far as I'm concerned. I say this with conviction but with deep regret, since I know you have acted in good faith. Please have the courage and good will to follow through, and remedy what you can in this flawed process. See further evidence I am about to post below, for a further example of how the evidence in the first RM was completely misleading. Noetica^Tea? 06:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

"An impossible situation"? Noetica, you're being very dramatic. I disagree with how flawed the evidence is, although what you wrote below looks pretty compelling; I'll look over it more later, I don't have much time right now. I guess I didn't respond to "elementary confusion concerning the world-leading OED" earler, pardon: I realize the OED is a much more sophisticated product than Oxford University Press' other dictionaries, but I don't think this matters a whole lot for answering the particular question at hand. What the publisher thinks is the typical/standard way of writing it in the US seems orthogonal to how "high-end" a particular product is. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 02:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, Erik. I appreciate that. One other thing I would like you to reconsider: "Noetica, you're being very dramatic." That was thoughtless, and I would ask you to retract it. There is an editor posting in this RM who quotes such incautious aspersions in his personal attacks against me. Stick to the facts: I am not being "dramatic", but reporting the truth. Seeking to remedy a situation that you brought about by spending too little precious time, I have spent many hours. The "impossible situation" I speak of is this: it may well be that no matter what evidence I or anyone else now posts here, nothing can be done to reverse your action. Your faulty opinion that there was "consensus" in the last RM establishes a precedent that is extremely difficult to dislodge.

Among your options would be to close this RM in favour of "crêpe". Far from that being the action of an involved and therefore prejudiced admin, it would show that the system can in fact work. Against all appearances so far.

Noetica^Tea? 03:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Noetica, I did not mean it as an attack, and I certainly retract any attack or any aspersion. But I think you are overstating the difficulty of overturning. And no, I don't think it's an option for me to close this, any more than it would be for Necrothesp to close it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Erik. I know you did not mean it as an attack; but such talk feeds opportunists who do attack. I am not overstating the difficulty of overturning the decision in the first RM. Even if this RM will succeed in reverting to "crêpe", the amount of time and effort already expended is ridiculous, and hugely inflated by that first faulty decision – taken in good faith, I stress once more.

Noetica^Tea? 22:27, 15 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)

• Support as per Noetica and others. Displaying the correct French form doesn't stop anyone reverting to "crepe" (in their everyday use), and I'm sure all the redirects are in place to make the use of "crêpe" seamless on WP. The main point is that WP does an even better job of informing its readership by being accurate with "crêpe"—so everyone's a winner. GFHandel ♬  07:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: adding three major points of evidence. I have already voted to support the present RM, and given my reasons above: the evidence in the first RM is demonstrably flawed, and it should never have been accepted. Certainly there was no consensus on the issue, though that was claimed in the closing summary. I have given alternative evidence; and no one whose evidence is challenged by mine has so far responded with any rejoinder or attempt at refutation. I now present three further items of evidence and argument, to show the case for acceptance of "crêpe" as the usual form in truly reliable sources.

1. From the current OED, the full text of that part of the entry "crêpe" (there is none for "crepe") that has any bearing on the usage in this article (OED being the most reliable of reliable sources for the English language wherever it is used):

3. A small, thin pancake. (Cf. crisp n. 3) So crêpe Suzette n. (usu. in pl.) a pancake served in a hot sauce, often containing a liqueur.
[1877 E. S. Dallas Kettner's Bk. of Table 143 Crêpe.—The French for pancake.]
1907 G. A. Escoffier Guide Mod. Cookery ii. xx. 723 Suzette Pancakes. Make these from preparation A [i.e. basic recipe], flavoured with curaçoa and tangerine juice. Coat them‥with softened butter, flavoured with curaçao and tangerine juice.
1922 C. H. Senn Luncheon & Dinner Sweets 63 Pancakes à la Suzette. (Crêpes Suzette.)
1924 A. E. M. Foster London Restaurants 87 Crêpe Suzette is another special dish.
1928 Vanity Fair Sept. 31/1 Crêpes Suzettes are pancakes raised by Cunard to a remarkable point of perfection.
1951 Good Housek. Cookery Bk. (1957) 304/2 Add the liqueur and brandy to the sauce, and replace the folded crêpes in the pan.
1961 Guardian 27 Dec. 2/4 Henri Charpentier, creator of Crêpes Suzette‥, died at Redondo Beach, California, on Sunday, aged 81.

2. A Googlebooks search, on books only, published in English from 1990 to the present, with either "crêpes" or "crepes" in the title. (That is, I used {intitle:"crêpes" OR intitle:"crepes"}, with these restrictions: Books›Jan 1, 1990–Aug 13, 2011›Search English pages; see the search itself.)

Analysis of the search
There where initially 31 hits, of which two were in fact in Spanish; so there were 29 genuine hits.
Of these 29:
 9 used "crêpe" according to Google
 9 additional hits used "crêpe" in their title, or at least in text beyond the capitalised or otherwise styled title, though Google failed to show this
 4 verifiably did not use "crêpe" (by investigation at Amazon, etc.)
 7 could not be investigated beyond the Google evidence
Excluding those 7 that could not be investigated, we have a total of 22 that we know about.
18 (82%) of those 22 use "crêpes"; 4 (18%) use "crepes" instead. [Corrected to singular; updated and qualified below:]

Update: Further more cautious investigations – using eBay, image searches on Google, and closer inspection at Amazon – show a greater percentage for "crêpe" than I had thought, and fewer that undoubtedly use "crepe" in their text. Turns out that there are several similar titles by the same author in a few cases. Conservatively (in favour of "crepe"), to the best of my knowledge the breakdown is this:
Excluding 9 that could not be investigated, we have a total of 20 that we know about.
18 (90%) of those 20 are confirmed to use "crêpe"; 2 (10%) are confirmed to use only "crepe".

3. This incapacity of Google, completely ignored in evidence presented in the first RM and subsequently, is shared by many producers of web content. To illustrate, here are results of a web-wide unrestricted Googlesearch on one of the hits from the search reported in 2, above: {"Crêpes: sweet & savory recipes for the home cook" Pappas} (see page 2 of the search itself). There were 142 genuine hits; of these, just 15 reported "crêpes" accurately in the lines that Google showed, and the remainder substituted "crepes". Now, some substitutions are due to Google; but many are the result of the source not knowing or not caring that the title in fact has "crêpes" (see the title and the cover). This is a very pervasive tendency on the web, and it seriously skews simplistic searches, with the wildly unbelievable results we have seen above and which I have now countered. A general unconcern with niceties of typography (including, I mean, diacritics and distinctions in punctuation marks) affects the makers of reference works such as online dictionaries, too. One example: Credo Reference, access to which some Wikipedians applied for and were granted some months ago, regularly changes en dashes to em dashes. Its online version of The Penguin Dictionary of Physics has the heading "Michelson—Morley experiment" (em dash), though a check of the print version shows that it uses the correct en dash.

Conclusion: We simply cannot take web evidence at face value, and must give greater weight to print sources consulted in print. Once a source goes onto the web, or is adapted or cited on the web, the inevitable tendency is for it to lose the standard distinctions that are made in print; and once these are lost, they are not likely to be restored in subsequent versions, citations, or adaptations. The challenge for us is to ensure that Wikipedia is not a contributor to that chain of degradation. We must be more vigilant and more sophisticated. The present RM, with its predecessor above, should become a classroom example for admins assessing future RMs. Let's hope they take note: a complete overhaul of the process appears to be necessary.

Noetica^Tea? 07:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I do find it extraordinary that no one who opposes has addressed the evidence that Noetica has adduced. Tony (talk) 06:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I get 43 post-1990 books with the words "crepe" or "crepes" in the title, compared to 16 for "crêpe" or "crêpes". I don't why we are looking at book titles when there are 28 dictionaries that give this word as "crepe." Kauffner (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that should just about clinch it, then: the web has spoken. No, wait, if you actually look at the books, like Noetica suggested, you find that many of your 43 without are actually with circumflex, included the first two (I guess you looked at none!)! Damn you, Google! Reality intrudes again! Dicklyon (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) The technical term for this kind of response is chutzpah. You are not counting correctly, and given that you are replying to a post in which the problems with counting were pointed out and claiming to contradict that, this is not excusable. Your 43 hits for titles with "crepe[s]" break down as follows:

• 8 for which Google has a scan of the cover page, and it does use this spelling.
• 6 in which Google apparently got it wrong. Google has a scan of the cover page, and the title is clearly presented with ê.
• 9 which are about pancakes, but there is no scan of the cover (or the word is part of an extended subtitle that does not appear on the cover), so the spelling cannot be easily verified.
• 2 which are about the (crepe myrtle) tree, not pancakes.
• 14 which are about crêpe paper, not pancakes.
• 1 which is about crape cloth.
• 1 which is about crepe rubber.
• 2 which are actually in Spanish.

There are also several obvious duplicates among the hits, but I didn't bother to remove them. It's pretty obvious that one needs to do further research to decide whether the cover spelling is also the official title spelling, but Noetica has done that already for very similar searches. Hans Adler 15:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Support: Clearly both usage and opinion are divided and there was no consensus to proceed with the original requested move, and Noetica's new evidence weighs even more heavily against it. The page should be moved back to its original longstanding title with the circumflex. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose move Per Kauffner’s argument, which goes as follows:

  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".

I would have expected those observations to be the end of debate. Wikipedia has to go with the flow and can’t be exploited as a tool by all-volunteer hobbyist wikipedians—no matter how well meaning—to Be Different and Better For a New Tomorrow.™®© I have no objection to having a parenthetical in the lede saying (from the French: crêpe) or something along those lines.

BTW, I see Noetica’s thorough analysis of the issue based upon Google Book searches. However, English-language practices can certainly change after 50–100 years and this appears to be one of those cases. I am (very) open to consider more evidence; I want Wikipedia to always do the right thing and not be out in left field. But so far, it appears that the preponderance of modern most-reliable English-language sources have dropped the diacritical. What are the practices, today? Given that Encyclopedia Britannica spells it without the diacritical, that means their research shows that the most common and proper way to write it has changed over the years.

Oh, FYI: I am not an anti-diacritical editor. I am a middle-of-the-roader. Those diacriticals that are commonly used in English should be used in our article body text. This is a gray area; ergo, all the debate. Greg L (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Greg, you appeal to "Kauffner's argument". Let's look at what you quote of it. First, yes: the smaller Merriam-Webster (the Collegiate) has only "crepe"; but the larger Merriam-Webster (what they now call their "Unabridged") specifically says "or crêpe". So does the other dictionary he names (American Heritage), and the encyclopedia he names (Britannica). The online Cambridge source that he cites gives both forms, but glosses the word as "mainly US"; in its entry for crêpe suzette it has only "crêpe", not "crepe". So much for cherry-picked sources. OED, on the other hand, is no cherry-picked source but the pre-eminent international authority on the lexicon of the English language, including variant forms. I quoted the relevant text above, in full; it has only "crêpe".

Second, Kauffner links for us "twenty-six dictionaries that say 'crepe' ". I have already responded at length to this sort of "evidence": the detail is what matters, and some of those dictionaries also have "crêpe" (some specifically for the topic of this article: the crêpe as an item of food, as opposed to "crepe paper", etc.). Beyond that, I have demonstrated how online versions do not accurately display what is in the print original. In a summary report of twenty-six dictionaries we could predict from first principles a bias toward forms without diacritics. They are routinely stripped away. We should not allow that practice to delude us; nor should we be a part of that dumbing-down process. Policy at WP:ARTICLE requires following reliable sources; by no stretch of the imagination are those sources reliable in the sense that OED is, or printed books devoted specifically to the topic in question.

Greg, I agree with you: "English-language practices can certainly change after 50–100 years"; but not when you add: "and this appears to be one of those cases." In this case, the appearance is superficial and illusory. It comes to us through the distorting lens of utterly flawed Google searching (abetted by Google's built-in failings), and misquotations even in print sources. I have shown some of this above. Here's another case, to illustrate. The Washington Post, no authority on crêpes, regularly uses the form "crepes". The article I linked just now is devoted to a thriving business that the newspaper calls "Solar Crepes". But they report inaccurately! See the website for Solar Crêpes. The experts are the articulate businesswomen who are actually cooking the damn things, and if a newspaper misrepresents their own choice of business name, it is not a reliable source in this domain.

I could go on about newspapers, and how evidence can be selected, abused, or diluted to give a wrong impression. (The New Yorker uses both forms, but a proper search shows that "crêpe" is strongly represented when the topic is food.) But enough is enough. If we are open-minded, we have abundant evidence already to move beyond preconceptions, and to see the flaws in much of the evidence given in these two RMs. It is systematically more difficult to show the finer distinctions made in truly reliable sources, given the nature of the web – but that is what policy requires.

Noetica^Tea? 23:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• OK, Noetica; let’s gather facts on how English-language dictionaries and encyclopedias handle crepe/crêpe.

  ---

  1. Encyclopedia Britannica online: crepe, also spelled crêpe, French pancake…
  2. My 1976 World Book, two-volume dictionary: crepe or crêpe, n., adj. — n. 1 a thin…
  3. My 1993 Webster’s New Encyclopedic Dictionary (at 1785 pages, sufficient to kill pit bulls and stun the most tendentious wikipedians we’ve ever encountered): crepe or crêpe n 1 : a thin crinkled fabric (as of silk, wool, or cotton) 2 : a small very thin pancake…
  4. Oxford English Dictionary (my library’s copy, as I just got off the phone with them) has it only crêpe
  5. Larousse Gastronomique (English version, consulted in hardcopy but searchable at Amazon; search on "crepe", since "crêpe" yields no hits!). Only crêpe, throughout.

  ---

The section above between the rules is community property (not “my post”). Others please add more from unabridged dictionaries and encyclopedias. I’d be shocked if newer version of dictionaries and encyclopedias that have it without the circumflex would later change their minds; but that could happen so more recent citations are welcome. Once we have the facts, let’s go from there. Greg L (talk) 01:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added Larousse Gastronomique (a major encyclopedia on cuisine everywhere, especially cuisine of French provenance). But really, this is already beyond tedious. If the first RM had not gone through prematurely, there is no way the change to "crepe" would have been successful given the abundant evidence we now have on the table. Noetica^Tea? 02:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Here are the ten bestselling books on crepes, according to Amazon:

1. Crêpes: Sweet & Savory Recipes for the Home Cook (1998) by Lou Seibert Pappas and Jean-Blaise Hall (Rank: 8,521) (diacritic)
2. The Best 50 Crepe Recipes (1995) by Coleen Simmons (Rank: 25,954) (no diacritic)
3. Blinis & Crepes (2004) by Camille Le Foll (Rank: 148,523) (no diacritic)
4. Crêpes (2002) by Camille Le Foll (Rank: 249,774) (diacritic)
5. Crepe Cookery (1976) by Mable Hoffman (Rank: 195,754) (no diacritic)
6. Crêpes Wraps & Rolls (2000) by Liz Franklin (Rank: 492,116) (diacritic)
7. Complete Book of Creative Crepes (1977) by Barbara Prinzivalli (Rank: 532,041) (no diacritic)
8. Crepes, Waffles and Pancakes! (2006) by Kathryn Hawkins (Rank: 514,317) (no diacritic)
9. Waffles, Flapjacks, Pancakes, Blintzes, Crêpes, Frybread (2002) by Dianna Stevens and Dian Heusinkveld (Rank: 553,703) (diacritic)
10. How to Make Crepe Paper Costumes (2009) by Dennison Manufacturing Co (not about food) Kauffner (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears modern practices are evenly divided. Does this evidence, Kauffner, change your mind? I am still thinking (suspecting?) that the way Encyclopedia Britannica handles it (here), is the best solution. This appears to be a case where if the publication is one that is typeset with fine typography and ligatures like “fi” and “fl” (typed directly from my Mac keyboard) then “crêpe” (also typed directly from my Mac keyboard) is most appropriate.

I am all for fine typography. Maybe it’s time for me to have a big-time hissy fit over some intellectual gymnastics occurring on Wikipedia. I don’t see how editors can oppose fine typographic practices like typographers’ quotes (Greg’s “examples”)—as I routinely and habitually type from my keyboard—and then turn around and advocate that diacriticals should be used on the theory that editors and readers can copy and paste. I’m not sure what is best here. If we are to have articles with typewriter quotes (me "Windows barbarian"), then using the diacritical in a 50/50 thing like crêpe appears schizophrenically pretentious to me. Greg L (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Greg, once again: that appearance of equal division is illusory. See the copious evidence I present above, especially on this very matter of books with titles with "crêpes" or "crepes": 90% using "crêpe" against 10% using only "crepe", when you look beyond the heavily styled cover or the title, in English-language books over the last twenty years. As Hans Adler says above:

"It's pretty obvious that one needs to do further research to decide whether the cover spelling is also the official title spelling, but Noetica has done that already for very similar searches."

Yep. And I'll do it again now, for these books Kauffner lists for consideration. Here is the list, with my annotations:

1. Crêpes: Sweet & Savory Recipes for the Home Cook (1998) by Lou Seibert Pappas and Jean-Blaise Hall (Rank: 8,521) (diacritic)
   [OK: the most popular of all uses "crêpe".]
2. The Best 50 Crepe Recipes (1995) by Coleen Simmons (Rank: 25,954) (no diacritic)
   [Correct: verified by searching the text at Amazon.]
3. Blinis & Crepes (2004) by Camille Le Foll (Rank: 148,523) (no diacritic)
   [No evidence for "no diacritic" beyond the title on the cover; but see next entry by the same author, which has "crêpe"; see other works at Amazon by this author with "crêpe" (2003, 2007); and see analysis below this list.]
4. Crêpes (2002) by Camille Le Foll (Rank: 249,774) (diacritic)
   [Fine.]
5. Crepe Cookery (1976) by Mable Hoffman (Rank: 195,754) (no diacritic)
   [Yes, verified by a Google image hit; but this 35-year-old book is not contemporary.]
6. Crêpes Wraps & Rolls (2000) by Liz Franklin (Rank: 492,116) (diacritic)
   [Fine.]
7. Complete Book of Creative Crepes (1977) by Barbara Prinzivalli (Rank: 532,041) (no diacritic)
   [No evidence for "no diacritic" beyond the cover; 34 years old.]
8. Crepes, Waffles and Pancakes! (2006) by Kathryn Hawkins (Rank: 514,317) (no diacritic)
   [No evidence for "no diacritic" beyond the cover.]
9. Waffles, Flapjacks, Pancakes, Blintzes, Crêpes, Frybread (2002) by Dianna Stevens and Dian Heusinkveld (Rank: 553,703) (diacritic)
   [Fine.]
10. How to Make Crepe Paper Costumes (2009) by Dennison Manufacturing Co (not about food) Kauffner
    [Irrelevant.]

Analysis: Of the 10, 1 is irrelevant (not concerned with food); 2 are 34 or 35 years old, and out of print. A breakdown of the remaining sample of 7:

• In 2, we know nothing beyond the cover to warrant "no diacritics".
• In 4, "crêpe" is used.
• In 1, only "crepe" is used.

Other readings of the evidence are possible; but it is hard to resist the conclusion that modern practice in the specialised book literature favours "crêpe". Now consider another book by Camille Le Foll: Crepes & blinis & pancakes, as reported by Googlebooks. Note what Amazon does with this one: it changes the ampersands to "and" (typical!); but at least it shows the cover, which appears to confirm both that this book uses "crepe" and that we cannot search within. But wait: amazon.co.uk does allow us to look into the text. But you will not find this by searching on "crêpe"; Amazon reports "0 results for crêpe". You have to search on "crepe" to find "crêpe"! Do it, and you will see that "crêpe" is used consistently throughout, despite all appearances.

Common Sense 101: "Never judge a book by its cover."

Noetica^Tea? 01:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Well Noetica, it seems (so far) that *fine and prestigious* real-world usage—based on wikipedian-selected data—most often has it crêpe. It also seems that most dictionaries and encyclopedias have it crepe or crêpe and then go on to use the preferred (non-circumflexed) version for the explanatory body text for the entry. I could go either way on this. I’d like to see a ≤300-word, persuasive white paper-like post as to why it would be wisest to follow wikipedian-picked real-world usage (which tends to be biased) over the recommendations of most dictionaries and encyclopedias (where it is much harder to accidentally slant the evidence since there is such a limited number of them). Can we trust ourselves with the real-world examples and the methodology we use to select them? Given that this from The New York Times has it crêpe, I am tempted to change my !vote but would really like to hear why we should eschew the recommendation of so many dictionaries. Greg L (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral, maybe leaning towards move to “Crêpe” I struck my earlier “oppose move” !vote. Most dictionaries and encyclopedias recommend the non-circumflexed version (crepe). That means a lot to me. But The New York Times and Alton Brown (a way-cool, knowledgeable American chef with his own TV shows and lots of books) spells it “crêpe” (and probably does so in his books). I may change my vote to “support” if I can get a good response to my post, above. Besides, I’m just happy as a clam that we have established an important precedent here: that these issues are settled not by assuming we powdered-wig wikipedians will decide what is best for the future of the English-language and its adoption of *world conventions*, but by instead looking towards the RSs and balancing their weight. Greg L (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support Notwithstanding that the preponderance of general-purpose English-language dictionaries prefer “crepe”, they do allow the alternative form “crêpe.” Moreover, common usage in fancy and prestigious kitchen-related RSs most often seems to have it “crêpe”. This article is directed towards a readership where many would relate to and appreciate that “pro” flavor. The article currently has “crêpe” spelling throughout. According to WP:TITLE, a straightforward, common diacritical like the circumflex is OK in titles. Therefore, I support making the title consistent with the body text. I assume the obvious: that a redirect from “crepe” will take the reader to the accented title. Greg L (talk) 03:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

  As far as the cooking books go, I checked all the titles on WorldCat. They are correct the way I give them, i.e. 5 to 4 without the diacritic. Of course, the fact that the single most popular book on this subject uses a diacritic is something that has to be weighted appropriately. The whole idea of a book about crepes strikes me as gimmicky. The kind of cooking book we want to consult is the kind that a professional might use. The dictionaries trump the cooking book titles, so here is a selection of what I consider to be the most authoritative sources on this issue:

  American

  • crepe, also spelled Crêpe Encyclopædia Britannica
  • crepe or crêpe Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary
  • crepe also crêpe American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
  • crepe Random House Dictionary

  British

  • crêpe Oxford Dictionaries
  • crepe Collins English Dictionary.
  • crepe MacMillan Dictionary

  I think that it is apparent from the above that the earlier argument about British vs. American spelling is bogus, so there is no reason to go with anything other than the majority spelling. Kauffner (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

  Apparent? That your head is stuck in the sand maybe. If you look in the Random House (the one I have on my shelf), it says "also crêpe" for defs 1–3, near the end of the entry; so does the online one that you linked.

  I also have Webster's New World Dictionary; it says "crepe, crêpe", but then in the pancake definition says "usually crêpe". Perhaps some of the others make this same dictinction?

  But more generally, you can't trust web resources, as Noetica has repeatedly documented for every one of your bogus claims. Given the usage in almost all actual dictionaries and many cooking books that we've seen, it's hard to imagine a dictionary lacking "crêpe" even being considered a high-quality choice at this point; if such exists, you'll have to show it to us by some method other than a web link. Perhaps someone who actually has the Collins or MacMillan will tell us what they actually say.

  And the real reason to put it back to "crêpe" is to undo the error that was made, so that the process of RM consensus is not made a mockery of by people who blindly count Google hits, like you and Born2countGoogleHits. Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

  Several actual dictionaries have visible page scans in Google book search; one, the Concise English Dictionary by Wordsworth Editions, Limited, shows only "crêpe"; the rest show both with and without (except for one children's dictionary and the crossword-puzzle dictionary). Some comment on the "crêpe" spelling being particularly associated with the food usage of the word. So give it up. Dicklyon (talk) 04:52, 16 August 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.

ANI: Premature closure

I've opened an ANI regarding the premature closure of the above discussion while it was still very active[2]. That's not how we establish consensus, folks. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've replied there, but I'll say this here as well. The discussion was still active, but I believe it had moved past the point of diminishing returns, and into dead equine territory. I get the impression it could go for another month if we let it, with nothing new coming to light. If the community decides to let that happen, I won't revert or have anything further to do with it. Poor old horse. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't the closure based on Noetica's book title analysis posted on August 14? Of course you wouldn't want to leave the discussion open for more than two days after that. Once excellence makes its appearance, a failure to act promptly increases the risk of contamination by non-excellence. Kauffner (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Astute observation. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Kauffner, no. Your analysis is inaccurate, and your sarcasm is noted as unhelpful. Sarcasm pretty much never is helpful, you know, but perhaps being helpful wasn't your intention. If the community feels the discussion should re-open, then I'll stay out of the way, as I said. If you want that to happen, there's an ANI thread waiting for you. If you really just want to complain, there's the whole rest of the Internet. This page is for discussing improvements to the "Crêpe" article. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:16, 16 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

The French ones have little hats on them. DCDuring (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Pedantry ascendant

It's hard to believe that this article can remain at this spelling. It have not yet found an online English dictionary that has the hatted spelling as the main form. See OneLook.com for a convenient portal. Check to see which is the primary spelling for those dictionaries that have the hatted spelling as a search term.

Google search shows the hatless form more frequent than the hatted form at the NY Times (72,900 vs 3,310) and at the Montreal Gazette (16,400 vs 2,640). I don't know what facts would convince anyone given my review of the extensive discussion. I spend a great deal of time at Wiktionary trying to marshal facts in pursuit of more complex matters than this. Perhaps NOR has rendered Wikipedians unpracticed at the kind of research required for orthographic questions. I am disappointed that pedantry is in the ascendance at WP. DCDuring (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Click where it says "show" in #Move? above, and you will be enlightened about the vagaries of online dictionaries, Google search, and real sources. There are hours of light entertainment to be had there. Dicklyon (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

miss information

both norway and sweden do not call Crêpe panncakes, we have our own kinds of pancakes, that we name the swedish or bokmål versions of the word pancakes, while it is true some do call Crêpes pancakes here they are different things, for one our pancakes are much thicker and more sweet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.236.7 (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding Sources

I added four sources throughout this article. Mostly under the Preparation section, but also under the In Other Countries and In Culture sections. Amb2008 (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Filipino translation

When I searched for the present entry ("burnik"), the definitions that I found appeared to refer to something vulgar; running the phrase "crepe" through Google Translate returned "krep". Would the latter be correct, or is the former an accurate translation? Radioactivated (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

For now, I think I'll revert it to the last version before this entry was added, to be safe (since it appears to be a vulgarism). (By the way, what is "lang-ph"? I thought it was Filipino, but I could be mistaken, since the subsection describes the list as names in other European countries, which the Philippines isn't.) Radioactivated (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Oddly specific information in Preparation

One of the points made is that a "35 cm turner" is used to flip the crepes; is that actually information that should go with the article, or is it superfluous? I wasn't sure about what to do with that part of the article. Radioactivated (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's just silly. And prescriptivist. Ditched. oknazevad (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)