Talk:Sparkling wine

Definition

Champagne can be and is used to refer to any sparkling wine. So, I am reverting. Here's two dictionaries that support me:

Champagne

    A light wine, of several kinds, originally made in the
    province of Champagne, in France.
    [1913 Webster]
 
    Note: Champagne properly includes several kinds not only of
          sparkling but of still wines; but in America the term
          is usually restricted to wines which effervesce.
          [1913 Webster]

From WordNet (r) 1.7 [wn]:

 champagne
      n 1: a white sparkling wine either produced in Champagne or
           resembling that produced there [syn: {bubbly}]

Novalis 22:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A dictionary reference has little bearing to validity. Champagne is from Champagne in NE France just as Microsoft products come from Microsoft. Other Sparkling wines are Sparkling Wines and non Misrosoft Software is Software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wedwardes (talk • contribs) 22:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

non-word

what the f... ist "Price Chamfiction II."??? -- Kku 15:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Merges

I've started the merge of the regional style into this article. TONS of work still need to be done to improve the format and prose of the article. I will be working on this article throughout the week with the hope of getting it to GA quality. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

England

I think the opening para should be a little less surprised about English wine - we had quite major vineyards during Roman times, so that para could be cleaned up. OTOH, some English fizz is now world class and deserves its own section in this article eg :

Best non-Champagne fizz at IWC : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/21/nwine21.xml (and a second wine got gold) "In blind tests, Nyetimber Classic Cuvée is regularly rated more highly than leading champagnes" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/28/nwine28.xml "I would prefer Nyetimber to all but the best champagnes" http://decanter.com/news/46424.html 'We have a patch of soil the Champenois would kill for,'

The Champenois had a bit of a Paris 76 moment with a blind tasting at which Nyetimber won, I'll see if I can dig up a reference FlagSteward 00:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that England merits it own section. Feel free to add it. I was planning to myself once I have the free time. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I only came here to add the possible Charmat process merger (everyone here should take a look at Talk:Champagne production for that discussion, it's an important one which also involves the proper name for that other article) but in passing I've just done a quick edit to get the UK stuff going in the right direction - no citations or anything I'm afraid, some of the ones above would be a start. Thinking more about

As an aside, well done on the work you've done here - the more I think about it, the more vital I think these general articles are for the Wine Project, in feeding new readers into the hierarchy of wine articles. As such, I think See Also:'s are particularly valuable for this kind of article - I've done one for the UK section. FlagSteward 10:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for starting that section. I'll see what I can do about sourcing. I have to say that English sparkling wine is intriguing and I wish there were more distributors importing it into the US. With the changing climate and global warming, I keep hearing positive stuff.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't get too excited about it :-), it's definitely a minority interest even here, and Nyetimber is priced similarly to the mainstream Champagne brands - they're doing a major expansion at the moment, but I guess they don't need to worry about exports for now. But it's kinda fun, especially if there's any French about :-)) PS I've upped the assessment to a B, I guess that GA must be a matter of time. But I think it would make sense to unify all the subtypes into country sections, so that the UK and US sections would be joined by France, Italy, FSU etc for consistency FlagSteward 02:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought the shocked, "England? WINE?!" in the first paragraph was very amusing, myself. I had Nyetimber at a sparkling wine tasting a couple of years ago, and would like to know more about it. Does anybody know enough to write an article? By the way, we also had a Perrier-Joulet, and when tasted blind the Nyetimber was generally preferred. Just as an aside. --Raulpascal 18:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

---

If there is any injected gas the wine must be labeled as "Aerated Sparkling wine made with the addition of carbon dioxide".

I assume this is in just one jurisdiction? In which case it might make sense to say which one. I don't think I've ever seen this. -- richiau

Romans and Charmat

Though it should be noted that although the traditional method is more commonly used throughout the world, the Charmat method has been used in Italy since the ancient Roman Empire.

I was of the understanding that the Charmat method used technology that would be only found in post-Industrial Revolution society. Does anyone have information on Romans using a secondary fermentation method in metal vats to create sparkling (or even frissante) wines? If the Romans did so, would it not make sense to change the phrase in the above excerpt from "Charmat method," to "Charmat-style method" or something similar? Tthaas 16:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that the misunderstanding arises from the fact that producers of Prosecco Spumante (one of Italy's top Charmat method wines) like to boast that Prosecco has been around since ancient Roman times, as mentioned in the writings of Pliny the Elder - at best this may however refer only to prosecco as a grape variety, which is also used to produce still wines ("Prosecco Tranquillo") which is probably what the Romans drank. So I agree with you that it is unlikely that the Romans had devised a way to build the steel autoclaves used for the Charmat method, and have edited the paragraph accordingly. HAdG 21:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Something I disliked about the paragraph was the negativity surrounding the Charmat method. True, it is rather less poetic and more cost-efficient to have grapes ferment in large pressurised steel containers rather than in the bottle, but the wine obtained as a result is structurally different (typically: sweeter, fresher, fruitier - depending on the grapes used), and there is definitely no consensus that it is qualitatively inferior. Indeed, some Prosecco Spumante is produced by méthode Champanoise, but this wine is not at all regarded as being of better quality than the typical Charmat method Proseccos. I've re-worded the paragraph to remove this negativity. HAdG 21:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which, the sentence at the top that says Metodo Italiano sparkling wines can be sold at a slightly lower prices than méthode champenoise wines. subtly attempts to suggest that these wines are of poorer quality. The sad reality is that the prices of both Champagne and Prosecco di Cartizze are through the roof, and have nothing to do with production costs but are simply a result of high demand. Changed "sold" to "produced". And besides, the term "Metodo Italiano" is hardly used in Italy; the process is referred to as Metodo Charmat-Martinotti, crediting both the original inventor Martinotti and the later patent holder Charmat. HAdG 21:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC) //edit: sorry, that referred to another article, "sparkling wine production"

Attribution note

Some content is from the merged stub Sekt. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Other comments

"... the grape variety Pinot Noir is also permitted for use in the production of white cavas." Source: http://www.wein-plus.com/magazine/index.html?show=fullnews&nr=3911 GregF (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with merging all forms of sparkling wines, Champagne semi-sparkling --Wedwardes 22:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Could the author please avoid the use of the word "sparkler"? It's more of a nickname for sparkling wine rather than a universally accepted alternative. --Eddylyons (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts on getting this up to a B

Well first and foremost, referencing is the big on. I take full responsibility for dropping the ball with this one. It was going to be one of my pet projects on cleaning up and expanding but I soon grew bored. :p Many of the major sparkling styles like Sekt, Asti etc need much more detail to merit the redirect going here. All in all, this article really needs a total rewrite. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Korbel brothers and the origins of american sparkling wine

Hi, I fixed some mistakes concerning the Korbel brothers and the american sparkling wine :

1 - The Korbel brothers weren't from Czechoslovakia because Czechoslovakia existed only from 1918 to 1993. In their nineteenth century era their country, Bohemia, was not yet a part of Czechoslovakia, which didn't yet exist, but a part of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. Nevertheless they were czech people from Bohemia (just consult the external link I added to source that information : http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/F-Korbel-amp;-Bros-Inc-Company-History.html ). Only later, in 1918, Bohemia and other czech lands, along with Slovakia, will be a part of Czechoslovakia, but the Korbel's period is in no way related to the Czechoslovakian period.

2 - The Korbel brothers didn't immigrate in California in 1892, this is only the year in which they were supposed (according to the current version of the article) to begin production of sparkling wine in California. According to the page I formerly mentioned, they immigrated in 1852 and began production of sparkling wine in 1882, not in 1892. But this date (1882) doesn't come from the official Korbel website, so I didn't modified the former version of the article (1892). Could anybody check this source, please ?

3 - I added the source ( http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/F-Korbel-amp;-Bros-Inc-Company-History.html ) in the external links section ("On the origins of american sparkling wine").

343KKT Kintaro (talk) 06:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with

{{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 06:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Bubble formation

Here some recent review article with lots of references and some nice picture. STill as ASAP/preview, not sure if it will be freely accessible afterwards.. here is the link:

• Gérard Liger-Belair: Recent advances in the science of champagne bubbles, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2008, DOI: 10.1039/b717798b (http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/b717798b )

79.217.79.247 (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Spumante

There seems to be a revert war on whether Spumante should be merged or not merged into Sparkling wine. Please remember the three-revert rule and discuss your opinions on the merge here. - AKeen (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I want add Spumante voice!! If you don't want.it's censured!!Wikipedia not is free!!!Robyc73 (talk)

Please note that the issue is a divergence from the status quo and we now have significant POV and WP:UNDUE weight issues since all the other sparkling wine styles, include ones with significantly more worldwide prominence than Spumante, such as Sekt, Cremant and Cava are already merged into the sparkling wine article. Roby seems to be editing with a marked POV (as evidence by his comments--Spumante already has a voice in the sparkling wine article), irrespective of the neutrality and weight issues. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems that this merge was previously discussed. Makes sense to merge Spumante here then, if that was the previous decision. -AKeen (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I would sincerely love to have Roby's help on improving, with reliable sources and sound referencing of course, the coverage of Spumante within this article and also in the Italian wine article. But I fret that he is interpreting this as some slight if Spumante doesn't have its own article. Just like all the other significant regional sparklers are merged here, so to does Spumante have a "voice"--just like Cava, Sekt, Cremant, etc. It for the benefits of our readers, not our editors, that all these styles are merged together since most of the material overlaps and this can proud the reader a solid context of the information versus search for it piecemeal over the project. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you,dear Agne27,aren't so neutrality!!Spumante must have more evidence that Cava,Sekt,and Champagne!!Robyc73 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC). I think that add Spumante voice isn't so distructive or uncostrutive....Robyc73 (talk) and see please Francesco Scacchi Fabriano (AN) 1577 - 1656 http://www.francescoscacchi.it/Conferenza_Santelpidio_a_Mare.htm and I want add other voice about Francesco Scacchi!

I think that the major styles/designations for sparkling wine (other than Champagne), such as Cava, Crémant, Sekt, and Spumante, could merit their own articles. (I've been thinking myself about writing Crémant and Sekt - but then again, there's a long list of wine-related things I've considered writing or improving...) I base that opinion on the fact that we have and accept individual articles for several individual French AOCs, and one common article for the 7 Crémant AOCs therefore doesn't seem too far fetched to me. Also, several of these wines are big sellers and are rather notable/known under their own umbrella names. However, such articles should be treated strictly as splinter articles of this "mother article" to avoid unnecessary repetition, and should therefore be relatively short and succinct. I see no need to repeat a lot of material on general production methods and general sparkling wine history. Instead, the splinter articles should focus on things that are specific for that type of sparkling wine, such as allowed or common grape varieties, production region(s), requirements, labelling, production volume and so on. Two good pieces of advice for anyone wanting to write such articles: start by adding material here, and avoid comparisons to Champagne to avoid POV and OR issues. Tomas e (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"American champagne"

I think a better description of this term is warranted in the article than the somewhat cryptic line that currently closes the discussion of American sparkling wines. The legal status and abandonment of the term by producers of higher priced wines should be discussed. I would do it myself but don't know if I could keep it short enough. Rmhermen (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I was looking details particularly about the abandonment of the term by premium producers but I couldn't find any reliable sources that adequately described the situation. Any help in this area would be great. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sectioning: France vs. rest of the world

According to the current version of the article, "Champagne is responsible for about 8% of worldwide sparkling wine production". This being a rather small percentage, it seems odd to have the current sectioning, which separates French wines from wines not from France. Maybe they should all be put under the same section, with countries in decreasing order of production. 151.100.62.97 (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Outdated: atmospheres

Shouldn't, when referring to pressure the scientific term "bar" be used instead of the anachronistic atmosphere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.121.156 (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Copied material on Cava

Another editor has created an article at Cava (Spanish wine)‎ based upon copied material previously written on Wikipedia. Regardless of the utterly inappropriate and unattributed whole sale use of another editor's work (per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia), since this copied material just regurgitates material already available here and in other articles, an important question is whether this article is even needed. If anything, I think the fact that there really isn't any new material that can be added, beyond recycling material properly kept in context of sparkling wine and Spanish/Catalan wine, that kinda proves the point that it is not needed. Otherwise, why not make duplicate articles on everything that is already written on Wikipedia? Like Burgundy wine and an exact copy at Wine made in Burgundy? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, the material copied from sparkling wine, Catalan wine and Spanish wine to the new article (formerly a redirect) Cava (Spanish wine) needs to be attributed by at minimum a hyperlink or URL but can otherwise be copied and modified at will. A hyperlink to the original article(s) is usually considered sufficient when copying at Wikipedia to create new articles. When I reverted you at the latter article, I made sure to add such hyperlinks which I simply forgot to add originally. This is the only level of attribution required for Wikipedia text, so you had no cause to revert me again. "Free content doesn't mean plagarism is okay", but Wikipedia's licensing means that hyperlinks are sufficient attribution. And I've now provided those.

I believe the article is needed because (a) having sections about cava at three separate articles without one single article about cava is confusing, especially when the sections are not identical and some contain different bits of information (or contradictory bits) than others. (b) The subject is sufficiently notable and the sources sufficient to sustain an article of its own, even if the one I threw together is rather slim for now. (c) This is standard Wikipedian procedure to prevent entirely different coverage of the same topic appearing at several articles and almost certainly leading to contradiction and even worse redundancy (since each article may feel the need to go into great depth about cava, since there is no article about cava to go into great depth in!) (d) The hatnote is simpler this way. Srnec (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Please look at the copying policy closer. Edit summary like this are not appropriate for the wholesale copying of material you did, especially since you lifted en mass selected sections of the article rather then entire article. The whole point of attribution is to allow readers to follow the material back to the original source of the material through page history. So if someone has a question about material cited to the MacNeil Wine Bible ref, who would they go to you? To you? Do you have that reference? Did you write those lines and put that material together? So where would the reader go? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

First, attribution is not personal at Wikipedia. You don't know who I am. If you want to know who added that information, you'll have to search edit histories just like with any other piece of information at Wikipedia! Then you can ask that user. The original source that readers are supposed to be able to access is that provided by references. We, the editors, are not the original sources, just the writers. If they wish to track down a user they'll have to go through page histories. Again, this is not a different case than many others where the user added some information years ago and it is buried deep on another page that was merged into the one the reader is now reading. Hyperlinks in the edit summary are sufficient, as the policy page you first linked to indicates. I would add that I did modify the text quite a bit, so it is not purely your own work. If there were an issue with wording the reader would have every reason to ask me about it if they wanted, but I think you're missing the point about attribution (not the same thing as sourcing). Wholesale copying is fine, as long as it is properly attributed. Deletion is not the way to solve such an attribution problem, per that policy page again.

As a matter of fact, I do have MacNeil's Wine Bible and if you want me to look up what it says, I will do so. Srnec (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

We are the people that looked at the source and put the material into the article. We are humans and can make mistakes so if someone has a question about how a source was used, they need to go back to the original author of the Wikipedia material who put that information in. Not having proper attribution for copying materials within Wikipedia is dishonest and a disservice to the reader. We are here for the readers and our work should not add more burden to the readership by misleading them as to the source of the original material. Again, I encourage you to read the copying policy more closely, in particular the Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia#Proper_attribution. A mass of several hyperlinks directing the reader to god know which article history is not helpful. At the very least you could have removed the material in piecemeal with a direction to each article history for each section you removed. Then you could have used the {{copied}} template and/or left an attribution note on the talk page. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

We can still do all this if you like. I don't know why you are acting like this oversight on my part is some great violation of all that is good and holy. The guideline is easily adhered-to, and one can easily go fix any mistaken cut/paste. (The text was not just a copy/paste, however, as I heavily modified and restructured it.) Srnec (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Now in regard to whether this article should exist I'll concede that (a) is your strongest point and I am usually a strong proponent in limiting the number of links a reader has to click on to get information about a topic. But I'm also a big proponent of keeping material in context and limiting redundancy and useless duplication. There is some material that is unique to knowing the greater context of sparkling wine (and such in the sparkling wine Cava section) and some historical material unique to Spanish/Catalan wine. As long as there is not conflicts or contradiction (which you mentioned but didn't elaborate on), it seems to serve the reader best to read the material in context rather than isolated. At its core, Cava is a just a sparkling wine and just a Spanish wine. We don't have a separate article for American sparkling wine for similar reasons. We could certainly create an article with reliable sources but we would just be creating the same redundancy or duplicate information that we have here with Cava. Again, what benefit would that offer the reader? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

And we don't have an article on Spanish sparkling wine. Good thing, too. The problem with cava (and sekt, crémant, etc.) is that it is not clear why sparkling wine should be the main article for those wines as opposed to, for instance, Spanish wine, Catalan wine, German wine, French wine, etc. Or why not the DOs or AOs? Is cava more well-known or more important as a sparkling wine than as a Spanish wine? I don't know and wouldn't expect anybody else to. If we can justify articles for other appellations/denominations, why not for cava? Why can't sherry be merged into fortified wine? Wouldn't that be similar to this case? Srnec (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Well Sherry's production method and history is far different from other fortified wines such as Port and Madeira. That same really can't be said of Cava whose history and production is essentially being a Spanish version of Champagne with the same production method. The only difference really is the grape varieties. The sparkling wine article deals with the difference between Champagne and its many imitators which provides a key link to Cava, Sekt, Crement, etc and important context for the reader. That makes it the most logical choice for the majority of info with DO and history specific info going Catalan wine article. The Spanish wine article should really only have the briefest summary and slight mention of the scare Cava made outside Catalonia. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

methode champenoise in European Union

"Since 1985, use of the term methode champenoise has been banned in all wines produced or sold in the European Union." shouldn't this be "... has been banned in all other wines produced or sold in the European Union." (without bold in article)? Otherwise the implication is that the term can't be applied to Champagne itself. David Woodward ☮ ♡♢☞☽ 00:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Mousseux in Quebec Comment

I removed the following sentence form the part about Other French sparkling wine, since I can't make sense out of it.

"In Quebec, "mousseux" commonly designates any kind of sparking wine as originally, other methods of its production were unknown to the Quebeckers."

If they produce a sparkling wine in Quebec, called mousseux, I think it should be in under the Canada headline. If it explains the meaning of mousseux in Canadian French, I don't really know where it fits but maybe it could be put back where it was. In either case it needs some clarification and expansion on what it refers to.

//Amphioxi (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Lead photo?

I feel like this article is stepping on Champagne's toes. It's a given that a photo of Champagne belongs in this lead of this article, but we've got a bunch of photos in Commons that would do. This one, for example. Thoughts? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Likely incorrect definition of VFQPRD

"VQPRD is a sparkling wine that can be made by injecting the wine with gas in the traditional champagne, charmat, transfer method anywhere in Portugal."

Portugal VFQPRD states that the bubbles are injected via traditional method, charmat or transfer. You can not inject CO² via these methods. A secondary fermentation is promoted via adding yeast after initial fermentation of sugar to alcohol. This yeast converts sugar to CO² and additional alcohol, the CO² is trapped in the wine never injected in these methods.

Unless VFQPRD allows CO² to be artificially injected the statement is incorrect. This statement needs clarification and a reference. I'd guess as it's Frisante nearly all VFQPRD wines are Charmat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.230.113.222 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)