Jump to content

Talk:Madeleine (cake)

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

Madeline

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I did not delete it a second time; I made it more informative by listing the author of the book. (The one you reverted to is not in the proper tone for an encyclopedia entry and will confuse people unfamiliar with the subject.) Did you even look at my edit? I suggest you do so before accusing someone unjustly. I deleted it the first time because the names are spelled and pronounced differently, and did not think the issue was "ambiguous". Guermantes 21:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've reached a compromise; this may work for all three of us- If you're looking for the 12 little girls in two straight lines, the smallest one was Madeline, the children's book by Ludwig Bemelmans. --Shultz IV 23:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is fine with me, but should it say something like "character" instead of "children's book," since there are film/TV adaptations as well? | Mr. Darcy talk 02:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure?

[edit]

"Madeleines are perhaps most famous outside France for their association with involuntary memory in Marcel Proust's". Could we get a citation for this? Cuz, um, I think madeleines are most famous outside France in bakeries not in some obscure French novel. Is someone just trying to push Marcel Proust recently? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.76.140 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your ignorance is showing. Try reading the external link - or even google the words Proust and Madeleine - to see that Proust's connection to madeleines pervades the international psyche. 70.17.161.243 11:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course if you google both Proust and Madeleine together, pages containing both Proust and Madeleine will come up. But Proust didn't introduce the madeleine to the world! He just simply mentions it. That's all. Who cares except for people who like Proust. It has no meaning for anybody else who don't know Proust but enjoys pastries. It is like taking a quote from one of your favorite author/celebrity/personality about any subject and saying that it is "the most famous association" for that subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.76.139 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um... Proust and his madeleines are very famous. Very very very famous. It's not a case of someone plugging their favorite obscure author, it's arguably one of the most famous scenes in modern literature. (It is taking every bit of my strength to refrain from quoting the Peter Cook Proust/miners sketch.) An analogy: James Joyce fans call June 16 "Bloomsday". Would you argue that the Wiki pedia entry for June 16 has no business mentioning that, because no one cares except Joyce fans? Nightsky 20:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can mention it all you want. The objection is that you claim "the world" associates madeleines with Proust. Which "world" are you talking about? Joyce fans don't say "June 16 is best known to the world all over as Bloomsday". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.76.140 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to say that "La recherche du temps perdu" ("In Search of Lost Time" or "Remembrance of Things Past") is "some obscure French novel" is, to say the least, preposterous. It is perhaps the most famous novel of the modern age, and the madeleine episode, the best known thing about the book. Most people I know have heard of madeleines through Proust, so yes, "the world" associates madeleines with Proust. You denying that is like talking about Elizabethan poetry but omitting Shakespeare... some obscure author... vaguely known for his theater, and not at all for his poems. You may not like or know literature, but there is a whole world out there, you know ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.43.189 (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard or read of Proust and when I eat madeleines, I never of course think about him or his novels. I think the "world association" requires a citation. Nevermind that the book is in French and the author an apparently well known author in France, yet the French don't connect to madeleines with Proust but the rest of the non-French speaking world does? Bizarre. Angry bee (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can add me to the list of people who think that it's utterly moronic to downgrade the connection with Proust. It's surely the best known literary reference to any sort of cake, not some obscure passage in a French novel. Sjwells53 (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image in article

[edit]

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

In Spain, cupcakes are said "magdalenas" (sg. magdalena) and madeleines aren't easily found and haven't any special name. Perhaps this is the reason someone has included the image of a cupcake. Sergio Macías ✉ 10:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. In Switzerland, these sweets (with lemon taste, paper shells, etc., as pictured and described) are indeed called Magdalenas (in German) or madeleines (in French). The photographer of the image (from Brazil, I believe) also tagged it with "madeleine" and "madalenas". Too, they don't look like the other images of cupcakes that Commons has to me - more like the madeleines that the article describes. But maybe there is some language problem here? Sandstein 19:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Madeleines as described in the article are pictured here. The pattern on the surface, resembling the grooves in the shell of a scallop, shows that these madeleines have been turned over, bottom side up, while still resting on the pan in which they were baked. –Æ. ✉ 00:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not classic French Madeleines.

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

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

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

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

Trivia

[edit]

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

Trivia in and of itself is by definition of minor importance. It is quite possible, however, that encyclopedia readers who previously had little knowledge of or interest in the Madeleines-Proust connection, which inhabits a small corner among iconic international high culture references, benefit from the inclusion of trivia in that their intellectual interest in the deeper cultural roots of such items is stimulated.
It would be excellent if you would both respect Wikipedia:Civility and refrain from exaggerating. Please also eschew disruptive and tendentious editing, and please refrain from threatening to pursue that line of action. — Athænara ✉ 23:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to improve the quality of Wikipedia, and I am not exaggerating about anything. If you think my deletions are undeserved, argue why; don't attack me (ironically). My edit was an improvement of the article, not disruptive. Fanboyism does not belong here, and the people that inserted such obscure pop-culture references are obviously fans of the respective TV shows, for I do not believe anyone else would think to include such things. Yes, trivia is by definition unimportant or meaningless, and unimportant or meaningless things do not belong in an encyclopedia. The trivia items #1 and #4 are relevant and of some (slight) importance, which is why I welcome them and never deleted them, but the others are simply irrelevant.
I brought up the point that if an article on madeleines should mention every single pop-culture reference to them, why doesn't the article on cheese mention every single pop-culture reference to it? You failed to address this very valid point. If you feel I'm exaggerating when I say "every single reference" then please explain to me the significance of the Stranger Than Fiction reference that elevates it in importance above other pop-culture references to Madeleines.
Simply put, it is very unprofessional. CGameProgrammer 07:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Proust connection

[edit]

Proust, in the famous madeleine scene, clearly says his mother brings "thé", not "tilleul". Only two or three pages later is lime-flower tea ("tilleul") mentioned, as part of his childhood recollection of his aunt Léonie. I therefore corrected the relevant sentence.GardenQuad (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The limeflower bit was the result of changes more by three editors more than a year ago:
I'm glad to see the correct text restored. An edit to that section last month (diff), which doubled the length of the Proust quote, also concerns me. I left it alone at the time, but I still wonder if it isn't a bit much. The point of quoting Proust is to briefly and clearly give the connection, while the expansion of the extract goes beyond what is needed for the purpose. What do you think? — Athaenara ✉ 00:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the quote is rather long. Ideally the (currently rather thin) article on Marcel Proust would include a full description of the madeleine episode, to which this article could refer. GardenQuad (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pronounciation

[edit]

How do you pronounce Madeleine? 98.14.15.12 (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like that: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/madeleine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.43.189 (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proust again

[edit]

A few years ago someone suggested that the "world's" association between madeleines and Proust needed a citation. Now the article says "Madeleines are perhaps most famous outside France for..." this association.

This definitely still needs a citation. I know the Proust reference, but I certainly don't think about Proust when I bake or eat madeleines. I had been eating madeleines long before I had ever heard of Proust.

They are available in most American supermarkets these days, and I guarantee you that 99% of people who buy them not only don't know of the Proust connection but also haven't ever heard of Proust. I have professional baking cookbooks which have recipes for madeleines, but no mention of Proust. After I saw this article, I took an informal poll among over a dozen Ivy League friends in Ph.D. programs in the humanities (none of them in literature, though), and only a couple made an association between madeleines and Proust, but almost all of them knew what madeleines are.

Is the passage "famous"? In some sense, yes. Should it be mentioned here? Probably. Proust's passage had some impact in the popularization of the madeleine initially, but now that the cookies/cakes are available to people outside the elite folks who read Proust (or at least pretend they do), this connection is much less prominent. A Google poll gives me over 4600 results for "madeleine cookies" but only about 800 for "madeleine cookies" + proust. ("Madeleine cakes" seems to have a closer connection to Proust in Google results, because madeleines are in fact cakes -- the fact that there are 3 times as many results for cookies over cakes already seems to say something...)

If the Proust section stays, it needs to clarify the historical importance of the connection. It's like the Earl of Sandwich in the "sandwich" article. The reason anyone started eating madeleines outside of France may be because of Proust, but that doesn't explain why the cookies are now ubiquitous. The reason they are now "famous" and available in most supermarkets is probably because they taste good and people buy them.

The Proust connection is perhaps fun trivia, but the idea that most people these days who eat madeleines outside of France have any clue about Proust sounds a bit ridiculous to me.65.96.161.79 (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and of course, it might be notable that some Proust scholars now think that Proust's madeleine was made up (or at least inauthentic), since it doesn't appear to have the properties of normal madeleines (namely, madeleines don't produce crumbs when soaked in tea).65.96.161.79 (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm eating some right now and I can attest that they do leave very faint crumbs. Nothing similar to normal cookies though.--Mr. 123453334 (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pet Shop Boys reference

[edit]

Proust is one thing, but this random reference to Madeleines on an album is pretty absurd, in my opinion. Does anyone have a good reason for preserving this reference? Thanks. larz (talk) 08:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Pointing out a pop band's lame allusion to a classic novel adds nothing to this article, except comedy. If it belongs anywhere, it's on the page about Proust's novel.Jtcarpet (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Main Ingredients

[edit]

The "Main ingredients" list currently says "Flour, sugar, eggs, almonds or other nuts" -- no butter mentioned.

However, the included recipe (in "First recipes") and the linked recipe (wikibooks) have considerable butter:

Included recipe: On a pound of flour, you need a pound of butter, eight egg whites & yolks, three fourths of a pound of fine sugar . . .

Linked recipe:

I'm not in a position to comment on the almonds, which is in neither recipe, but could butter at least be added to the list of main ingredients? Marcusreese (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Madeleine (chocolate)

[edit]

There is a variaty of chocolate named as "Madeleine Chocolate". Name is probably dervied from the cake or the madeleine palette. It is widely available from so many manufacturers, for example

melodicikolata[.]com[/]kategori[/]madlen-cikolata

godiva[.]com[.]tr[/]collections[/]madlen-cikolata

It might be mentioned in the article or a new article about "Madeleine Chocolate" might be opened. 31.206.143.156 (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 July 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– When I search for "madeleine" on Google, I immediately see the French cake showing up. So, I believe that the French cake article should be made primary. GTrang (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose pageviews suggest that while the cake has more pageviews than the 4 other choices I tried, it is not dominant enough to be the primary topic. PamD 12:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no significant advantage for the proposed topic by long-term significance, no move should be done. I also can't quite see how there could be one, given that the average reader likely recognizes this as an ambiguous name.
Also, if we look at the reader interest for people named Madeleine and compare it to reader interest for other topics named Madeleine, the former outpaces interest in the culinary topic by an order of magnitude at least. --Joy (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as I do not believe this is the primary topic. I agree with Necrothesp that there is not a primary topic here in terms of long-term significance. The Google search argument is in my opinion flawed. When I looked up madeline, I immediately saw things about the book. I did not get anything about the cake. From my understanding, the search results from Google vary from user to user. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Since google search results aren't always reliable for determining a primary topic. Waqar💬 17:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unique property of the Madeleine — ZERO CRUMBS !

[edit]

While the unusual property is not a defining property of the Maddelein cake, and therefore would not be suitable for a dictionary entry, the highly unusual – nearly Unique – property is suitable to include in an encyclopedia, such as Wikipedia.

That Unique property is this: a Madeline makes no crumbs. No other baked good – cookie or cake or other – behaves this way.

Literally you get only two pieces when you bite a Madeline: one piece in your mouth and the other piece in your hand. Is it possible to force a Madalyn to make crumbs? Yes. A shearing action with your fingers could do it. But in normal handling and eating, a Madeleine MAKES NO CRUMBS. It’s nearly a perceptual dissonance since you are used to ALL baked items making SOME crumbs.

Of course this unique property is not the only reason to eat eat a Madeleine. Awareness of this property is useful though. For children or guests, they can eat Madeleines anywhere — including where crumbs would be a concern.

WHY the Madeleine makes ZERO CRUMBS is speculative. Probably there are 3 factors: (1) eggs in recipe (2) BEING MOLDED (3) not being overly leavened and using a génoise batter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.116.83.55 (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Madeleine_(cake)&oldid=1244400563"