Talk:Entremet

Merge discussion: material from subtlety

Dispute on Talk:Subtlety resulted in a plea to Wikipedia:Third opinion. Dispute appeared to center on whether the material in subtlety was necessary in that article, as the dishes that could be classified as a subtlety is a subset of entremet. Because the material deleted from the subtlety article had valid sources, and that material did not exist in entremet I felt it was inappropriate to delete that content. Instead I proposed that the appropriate subtlety content be merged into entremet and the subtlety article instead redirect to entremet. Please continue that discussion here. -Amatulic 00:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is more about subtlety than entremet and, more importantly, no one has actually opposed merging content. If someone would like to add content here, they should do so without all the tedious bureaucracy.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There is opposition to removing content from subtlety. The merge was suggested to preserve it in a more appropriate place, if subtlety isn't the best place for it. The mergefrom and mergeto tags I placed automatically direct discussions to this page; I have no control over that. -Amatulic 17:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Surely the content belongs somewhere, Amatulic has a point about that. ^(H) 18:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Has any of you actually realized that I removed that content because I thought it was irrelevant? You're all very eager to keep the content, but I don't see anyone explaining why.

If you want to salvage content just do it yourselves. Get cracking instead of having these pointless discussion where you refuse to motivate yourself.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I restored the {{Mergefrom}} tag, which invites other editors to discuss article improvements, after it was removed. The user who removed it also reduced Subtlety (again) to a near-contentless stub.

I don't know if that user understands the caveat ("By submitting content, you agree to release your contributions under the GNU Free Documentation License.") which is displayed with every Wikipedia article text box. — Athaenara ✉ 00:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are you assuming some type of bad faith when I'm insisting that the material is no longer relevant? Why do you think I removed (or rewrote) it in the first place? What aspect of subtleties or entremets do you believe is missing? And why are your completely ignoring my opinions while tooting your own as consensus? And stop answering with mere bureaucratic formalities and finger-wagging. You've consistently avoided all of my relevant questions so far.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have three things to say:

• Nobody is assuming bad faith. Others have pointed you to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, which I encourage you to read it and take it to heart. Once you submit something to Wikipedia, if other editors disagree about the content you include or remove, the solution is not to engage in a reversion war or insist that the articles in question fit your personal vision. There are many other editors here with equally valid viewpoints.
• This merge discussion has one purpose only: To discuss the merits of merging relevant content from subtlety into entremet so that only one article remains. The subtlety article would contain only a redirect link to entremet. So far, the merits of such a merge have not been discussed.
• Furthermore, I don't see why you'd have a problem with such a proposal. After all, you have insisted on reducing the subtlety article to a mere definition because entremet is a broader topic. Why not go one step further and simply redirect subtlety to entremet? That's what this merge discussion should be about. -Amatulic 01:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I kinda resent having the effort I've spent on these two article being characterized as a "personal vision" when I'm the only one who has contributed content based on reliable and relevant academic sources.

I'm quite convinced there's more information to be found on the subtlety and I don't see it as a problem to have a stub sitting around for a while. I'm also hesitant about sorting it under the French term that was never as specific, even if the concepts are similar. Look at the definition in OED at subtlety, for example. It's not the ideal source for culinary history, but it still appears to restricting the definition of a subtlety exclusively to sugar sculptures and table ornaments, which means that it might very well have been entirely inedible.

Peter ^Isotalo 01:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a disadvantage to having the Subtlety content sit around waiting for more sources while being a section of Entremet? -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 18:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Peter, may I ask why you archived Talk:Subtlety? I know you called it a "waste of time" in your edit summary, but what about the other participants? I tried to bring this up on your talk page but you blanked it. ^(H) 18:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; FINALLY we have some discussion on the merits of merging the two articles. Your points are persuasive. I also don't have a problem with a stub sitting around for a while, just as I don't have a problem with "merge" tags on both articles to foster further discussion. -Amatulic 23:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Keeping a maintenance tag around for God knows how long in an article about a topic which just about no one has taken interest in (despite many attempts on my part to get input) isn't exactly proportional to what we're trying to achieve. If you want to advertise the merger, I really suggest doing it in projects and other types of non-article space. Articles are for readers, not an insignificant minority of editors.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

My comments: Entremet and subtlety should be merged. References should be culled to remove dead weblinks and print texts should be better identified. Efforts should be made to distinguish the historical information available from contemporary sources written by hobbyists or enthusiasts who enjoy re-enacting the medieval ages. The subset of subtleties should be described in their own section within Entremet. Unless it is redundant, content should not be removed so long as it is sourced.Professor marginalia 15:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

An attempt to revive this discussion here: first off, the article doesn't reference anything written by "hobby enthusiast", but serious food scholars and professional writers. There's a link to the Gode Cookery, but they are a pretty good source or people who want to try out cooking medieval dishes, which is hardly harmful to the article.

Now, I don't know exactly where the line between an entremet and a subtlety is actually drawn, since many scholars and writers use them for almost identical concepts. I think this justifies keeping two articles until more than one person (i.e. me) actually weighs in with research, not just mere opinions. Does anyone actually have anything to add in the form of references to what scholars think?

Peter ^Isotalo 17:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Not me; I lack your expertise. I don't mind keeping the two articles separate - but if they are merged, a separate article on subtlety can always be created later. I'll also point out that removing the "merge" tags will create a situation where someone else like me will come along and add them back again, because as the two articles stand, they look like they should be merged. -Amatulic 17:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

After some heated debate over at talk:subtlety, most of the relevant content concerning subtleties has been merged into this article.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Entremets as cake

According to Escoffier, entremets is the laying out of the sweets, pastries, etc., that come at the end of the meal. They are the French equivalent of the Spanish postres. These are normally desserts simple enough that a pastry chef is not required. They are such that the chef de cuisine can him/herself make them, yet are impressive enough to complement the sumptuous meal that would have preceded them. For this reason I have removed the sentence in the article’s lede that said entremets were a specific type of cake (verify). For further on entremets, see Auguste Escoffier, A Guide to Modern Cookery. London : W. Heinemann, 1907. (Chapter XX: Entremets (Sweets), p. 687ff.) (Clicking on the hypertexted title of the Escoffier book will take one to the page in the 1907 English edition at the Internet Archive.) — SpikeToronto 20:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Entremets in contemporary/modern cuisine?

This article is very informative of entremets in the context of the middle ages. Is it possible to include a section on entremets in modern/contemporary cuisine? I came across the wikipedia entremets article because I recently made a dessert that was called "entremets," although I would have just called it a mousse cake – so I looked at wikipedia to learn about "entremets." But very little in the article seems to explain what entremets have come to mean in contemporary context. A google image search of "entremets" results in a fairly consistent set of images that depict desserts that are composed of various layers that typically include a mousse.

When I google search for "entremets," the wikipedia article is within the first few results, but also among the top results are the following examples:

https://www.goodtoknow.co.uk/food/entremets-211, which states: "Back in the day an entremets was a sweet offering, traditionally served up at banquets as a little treat between savoury courses. More recently they’ve become a way of chefs showing off their pastry prowess by way of creating a complex cake made up of various layers of different dessert techniques."

https://www.askchefdennis.com/its-guest-post-friday-with-parsley-sage-desserts-and-line-drives/, which states: "What is an Entremet? It’s a multi-layered mousse-based cake with various complementary flavors and varying textural contrasts."

https://dessertisan.com/insight/what-is-an-entremet/, which states: "An entremet is a cake composed of multiple components assembled into layers, encased in a mousse, enrobed with a glaze and topped with fine decorations."

Clearly these sources may not pass muster for authoritative references, but they are the top google search results for "entremets", which would indicate that "entremets" has acquired a particular meaning in contemporary pastry parlance, with common elements bring layers and mousse – which does not seem to be reflected in the current wikipedia article.

In terms of more scholarly texts: Jeri Quinzio (2018:52) states: “On restaurant dessert menus today, the word entremet is used to mean layer cakes with soft, rich fillings such as mousses or ganaches. They may be embellished with caramel sauces, chocolate glazes, fruit compotes, sweet biscuit crumbles or tuiles, the wafer-thin biscuits (cookies) shaped like roof tiles. In today’s pastry and baking competitions, making impressive entremets is one of the tests of a pastry chef’s skills” (Dessert: A Tale of Happy Endings, Reaktion Books_.

In terms of trade journals: Richard McComb (2018, Nov 16-22) defines entremets as “rich, elegant, tiered desserts that can be sliced easily into small, bite-sized portions...” (Finish with a flourish. The Caterer. London Vol. 207, Iss. 5050: 44-48,50). Lisa Jenkins (2016, Jul 8-14) defines entremets as “a multi-layered mousse-based cake with complementary flavours and textural contrasts” (The future's bright. The Caterer; London Vol. 206, Iss. 4932: 96-99).

Conclusion: My suggestion° is that the article on entremets could be improved by including a section on entremets in modern/contemporary cuisine.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CDF0:6090:24D0:7243:4C66:AFEF (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I sometimes think it's the medieval writers sense of humor at work. Spudlace (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I get the feeling that this is turning more into a culinary dictionary entry. The connection between the modern-day cake and the historical dish is quite loose. Trying to cram everything in to the same article doesn't really do either topic justice.

If there's interest in actually creating an article about the cake, a second article should be created.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Entremet vs entremets

The normal spelling in most historical literature is "entremet". It might be different for the modern cake, but calling one or the other "incorrect" is off the mark.

The issue might also be resolved to some extent by splitting the history topic from the modern dish.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)