Jump to content

Talk:Chocolate-coated marshmallow treats

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

Split out "Mohrenkopf" et al

[edit]

These are not made with marshmallow filling, so do not belong here. Or rename the article, but since that didn't fly and doesn't make sense anyway (or we'd end up with "confections"...) I came to the article via the Mohrenkopf redirect, and was suprized that they seemed to be made with marshmallow. I've eaten quite a few in my life, and I've eaten marshmallows, and they seemed to be totally different. And turns out I was right, and the article is misleading. --jae (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Flødebolle / Negerbolle / Negerkys also doesn't have marshmallow filling. It is a completely different filling which has nothing to do with marshmallow in any way. Even though a person may think it resembles marshmallow somewhat, it is actually something very different. For example, it is not spongy. It's simply whipped egg whites with sugar. The Wiki articles seems to try and fit this type of filling into their category of marshmallow, just because they don't know what else to call it - or so I presume. It just isn't the same.

2.104.74.130 (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

South America

[edit]

These are also popular in Argentina and Uruguay, and are known as "Ricarditos". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.204.90 (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found only one entry "Ricardito es ricardiquísimo" when Googling it. - 83.254.214.192 (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

winter

[edit]

I added the bit about the winter in the first line. It's a big part of this dessert's popularity, that it's only available for a limited time each year. I also don't think the word "confection" is too appropriate - why not just say "dessert"? - but whatever. —This unsigned comment was added by 128.139.226.34 (talk • contribs) . — Preceding undated comment added 16:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

first line

[edit]

I don't think that the line about the krembo in the winter is nessisary, it is already mentioned lower down! —This unsigned comment was added by 217.132.243.6 (talk • contribs) . — Preceding undated comment added 23:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate?

[edit]

As far as I know, all mass-produced krembos are made with cemacao (צמקאו), not real chocolate. Timtzeptel 20:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nu, we'll see soon, won't we? I'm normally a Kinder Surprise kind of guy (nothing's better after a hard night out), but I'll give a krembo a shot. --Mgreenbe 01:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

redundent information

[edit]

the phrase "The average Krembo weighs 25 grams (0.882 ounces) and has 115 calories." has been repeatedly inserted into the Krembos in Israel section, even after it is in the introduction. Is there a reason that it should be repeated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon513 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course not. I'm glad you removed the duplication. Owen× ☎ 15:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So am I, and so am I. – AndyFielding (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

trivia

[edit]

I am not sure that that the section "Krembo in popular culture" is apropiate in an encylopidia. see Wikipedia:Trivia Jon513 12:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's neither a guideline nor policy, so it's not binding. I don't think it hurts — it's cute and gives an idea of its role in Israeli culture. --Mgreenbe 12:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch name

[edit]

The Dutch name isn't Buys Zoenen, it's Zoenen. "Buys" is the brand name of one of the companies distributing the Krembos. MrTroy 19:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't ever heard anyone refer to them as "zoenen". Regardless of what it says on the pack these days, they are still always called "negerzoenen", in my experience. Other companies than Buys (such as Dickmans) didn't say "negerzoenen" on the pack even before the overly politically correct name-change by Buys, but they were still called negerzoenen by most people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.248 (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

everyone will always call them Negerzoenen, because if you tell people: can you get me some zoenen they will just blow you a kiss :| Markthemac (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

removed line

[edit]

I have removed to following:

The snacks are sometimes served as a dessert by Haredi Jews on the pretext that it provides an excuse to discuss its complex status in halacha of blessings made over food.

because it is unverifiable. There never was, and I doubt there ever will be, a study of what deserts Haredi Jews served and why. Granted they do have a complex status in halacha (see the hebrew article for a lengthy discussion), and an explanation of the status would be welcome. This tidbit of information cannot remain on wikipedia because there is no way for others to confirm wheather or not it is true. (I also doubt that it is true - most poskim advise people to avoid eating foods with indeterminate brachot.) Jon513 07:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. All this is new to me and I find it quite interesting, as trivia goes. I would have assumed it's simply "boreh miney mezonot", not that I know much about these things. I'll go read up in the Hebrew and maybe add a more verifiable paragraphs, stating not why it is or isn't served by Haredi Jews, but merely the fact that it has a complex status. --woggly 11:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've now read the Hebrew. This is the essence of what makes trivia fun. Taking an ephermal, insignificant pop-culture artefact like a Krembo - lightweight in every sense of the word - and treating it with utter gravitas, asking philosophical questions such as what is the most important component to give thanks for - you've gotta love it. (To prevent misunderstandings let me clarify that I'm poking fun at Krembos, not at Kashrut). --woggly 11:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

emphasize on israel?

[edit]

if u read this you get the impression its an israeli sweet. it was invented in denmark, known in other parts of the world longer than in israel. so why is the emphasize seemingly on israel--Tresckow 03:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started working on this article in december 2005 and added information from a hebrew article "10 things you don't know about krembos". I have never seem krembos outside of israel, but the article already said that there were so I left it. I would love to see sources about krembos outside of israel, but until there are I don't see how the section can be expanded. Jon513 12:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it is a very wellknown in Germany produced by several companies and often by bakeries. It also has some cultural impact as the former eastern germany uses a different form--Tresckow 09:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to expand it, please go ahead. Sources would be nice, but don't let that stop you. Jon513 12:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It IS an Israeli sweet, as long as it is being discussed under the Hebrew name of "Krembo". The article doesn't claim that it is an Israeli invention, there is space devoted to the history of this sweet in Europe, but the focus on Israeli culture is appropriate given the name of the article. I don't think this sweet has a generic name in English, only specific brand names, or I would have suggested setting up a generic article for the sweet. --woggly 09:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the lack of a generic name a problematic reason for maintaining separate articles if the product is essentially the same? After all, we can easily create as many redirects as there are brand names. Couldn't we call the article Chocolate-covered marshmallow wafer or similar? --Twid 16:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
@woggly thats not the point. If you would just start an article about twix under the hebrew name for it , wouldnt that be senseless??? It is a sweet in Israel, I don´t doubt it. But as this is the English Wikipedia this article should stand under the correct English designation.Whatever this is. The national chapters would, of course be preserved.--Tresckow 02:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
English speakers in israel call a krembo a krembo. There is not english word for it. Jon513 13:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Twix is a brand name just like Krembo is. Therefore in Hebrew Twix is called Twix, and in English Krembo is called Krembo. Just like how the brand name Levi's is called Levi's in Hebrew, and like how Madonna is called Madonna. You also have a seperate article for CNN and NBC, even though they're both TV channels. If anything, this article should show more focus on Krembo and less on worldwide variants of it (regardless of which one came first), because the article is about Krembo and not about Negerinnentet. 89.0.238.46 23:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Krembo is not a brand name; it is a hebrew word of a type of candy. While the name was invented by the whitman company (which was bought by Strauss-Elite) it is used by all Krembo producers in Israel. Jon513 21:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, Creambo is a brand name. That is why Feldman Ice Creams in Israel has to call their product Manbo. NYC2TLV 16:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article introduction makes clear that this is not a national sweet, it originated in Europe and is now known around the world. I cleaned up and also added an entry for France. After seeing the Krembo image in the article I would love to taste one. :) - 83.254.214.192 (talk) 11:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image in the section isn't a krembo, it looks like it was added by user TheYmode with a wrong description (diff). - 83.254.214.192 (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It actually is a picture from a Swiss product, said the autor of the image. [1]- 83.254.214.192 (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tunnock's Teacake

[edit]

I'm wondering whether the Tunnock's teacake (common in Scotland) is similar enough to be described in this article, or whether it should get its own. --Twid 18:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what is the teacake like? Kembos are not a cake by any definition. It is a marshmallow covered cracker surrounded by chocolate. Jon513 17:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded a photo.

Tunnock's teacake.

--Twid 20:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krembo Spelling

[edit]

I work for the importer of Creambo to the United States, Dairy Delight. Strauss Ice Cream sends the Creambos over here with English labels and קרמבו is translated/written Creambo, like Cream. Does anyone agree on switching the name of the article? - NYC2TLV (talk • contribs) 02:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Twid added Creambo as a redirect to here. That should be good enough, I think. Owen× ☎ 15:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is silly because the article should use the correct spelling as defined by the company in Israel and not the phoentic spelling as defined by users. NYC2TLV 20:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mallomars

[edit]

Is the American mallomars similar enough to be incorporated into this article? --Twid 12:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate-coated marshmallow treats?

[edit]

Where does this article title come from? Is there any official designation of these things as "Chocolate-coated marshmallow treats"? or has someone arbitrarily started the article in this title? TheHYPO 13:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it because this is a more accurate description. They are not "wafers" and they are a cross between a cookie and a candy. All the articles I've read on Krembos, Mallomars, etc. state that there is no "official" name for them. --Gilabrand 13:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does the treat have to include a cookie or wafer to be included? What about Valomilk? Thebookpolice (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why marshmallow? I don't know about the rest, but the one made in Denmark are whipped egg white with sugar, it has nothing to do with the products otherwise sold as marshmallow at all. Sure, both are fluffy, but there's no historical relation at all. From the producer's page: "High quality, creamy, airy egg white and sugar filling are the signature characteristics of Samba foam kisses". Marshmallow: "a confection made from the root of the marshmallow or from corn syrup, sugar, albumen, and gelatin beaten to a light spongy consistency" In other words, no relation except in the weird heads of the editors who wrote the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.52.104.131 (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing that we change the name of 'Chocolate-coated marshmallow treats' to 'Chocolate Teacakes. The name is abit daft and to biased towards an American spelling.

When I googled Chocolate Tea cakes, I got 506,000 results. But when I googled Chocolate-coated marshmallow treats, I only got 2,320 results.

So would it not make sense to rename it 'Chocolate Tea Cakes'? Its much more relevant. --Teacake Martyr (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I would support a move to Chocolate teacake (which already exists as a redirect to this page). In addition Chocolate teacake complies with naming conventions as to capitalisation and singular vs plural. – ukexpat (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support a move to Chocolate teacake; whatever the outcome, make it singular! Pince Nez (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support a move to Chocolate teacake. Searching for "Chocolate teacake" -wikipedia gives 2600 results, versus 20 results for "Chocoloate-coated marshmallow treat" -wikipedia. Also "Treat" is an Americanism; it means something different in England. 87.113.102.248 (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Vote changed, see below. 87.114.37.68 (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reject rename The article is about national variations on a basic idea. The name "Chocolate-covered marshmallow treats" conveys a good understanding of what these things are, regardless of which national variation a person is familiar with. As the article makes clear, the name "teacake" is specific to the UK version. I've been eating these things for a long time and have never heard them referred to as teacakes. As the article also says, the name teacake is somewhat confusing. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Teacake is actively misleading. We could substitute dessert for treat if this will remove the implication of a trip to the countryside. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The google search says it all, which proves that 'Chocolate Teacake' is BY FAR more notable than 'Chocoloate-coated marshmallow treats'. No active brands use 'Chocolate-coated marshmallow treats', but several (i.e Tunnocks) use 'Chocolate Teacake'. Yes Teacakes have 2 meanings, but if a user wanted to know about Chocolate Teacakes, he/she certainly would not type 'Chocolate-coated marshmallow treats' as the term is only used in the States, while the rest of the commonwealth world (Australia,New Zealand...etc) use 'Chocolate Teacake'. --SignReleasalYacht (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unless "chocolate teacake" also refers to a type of teacake, then it is unambiguous. The name is more frequently used than "chocolate-coated marshmallow treats", and unlike many of the other names does not refer to a specific brand, so I support the rename per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). The use of "teacake" is no more confusing than "sweet potato" containing "potato" in its name. --Snigbrook (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nonstandard capitalisation for a start, but it appears that even if correctly uncapitalised this proposed title is one particular national variation. Andrewa (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A national variation is preferable, if it is one that is more commonly used (for example French fries or Potato chips). I agree that the name originally mentioned in the proposal is non-standard capitalisation; I suggest a rename to Chocolate teacake which appears to be used slightly more often than Chocolate tea cake, and has already been suggested by other users here. --Snigbrook (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The various regional names also cover significant variations to the product, as the article points out. If we go to any one of these particular local names, we've changed the article topic. This is already a good article, and it's a shame to change its focus in that way. Andrewa (talk) 04:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Per ukexpat, and with Snigbrook's naming proposal. PerfectProposal 00:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose - The Israeli Krembo, for example, was never and never will be described as a teacake, which is a totally British term. If this page is renamed, I will remove all references to the Krembo and begin a new page. The page began as "Krembo" and was renamed as information on other countries was added. In fact, the confection described is not a cake at all.--Gilabrand (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alternative proposal. It seems "Chocolate teacake" is only a regional variant. But "Chocolate-coated marshmallow treats" is far too long and convoluted. Plus there is a problem that we don't really eat "treats" in the UK. How about Chocolate marshmallow cake? or is there a region-neutral word for "biscuit" — perhaps Chocolate marshmallow cookie? (The problem with "dessert" is, these are not necessarily desserts...) 87.114.37.68 (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chocolate marshmallow cake" seems to be something different according to Google search results. "Biscuit" or "cookie" would be incorrect, at least in the UK, where a chocolate teacake is officially defined as a cake (not sure about Krembo).[2] --Snigbrook (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposed name is more common and less convoluted so I support without prejudice to a later move to a better name if found. Knepflerle (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I find it difficult to visualise this confection under the name 'chocolate teacake', it is not a type of cake and has nothing to do with tea/coffee. In Europe it is not commonly served with an afternoon tea, it is rather a type of confectionery such as marshmallows or candy bars. - 83.254.214.192 (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • correction In Scotland, the chocolate tea cake - such as "Tunnocks Tea Cake" - is taken with cups of tea, in exactly the same sort of situations where you might eat a chocolate biscuit. So that includes "afternoon tea". I don't know understand what authority you have to make sweeping generalisations about Europe, but Scotland is, in fact, a part of Europe. Austin46 (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please show with verifiable sources that the confection we talk about is recognised under the name 'chocolate tea cake' outside the UK and typically eaten with afternoon tea/coffee. In Scottland I was never offered a "Tunnocks Tea Cake" with an afternoon tea, while it is not impossible I doubt that it is a typical afternoon delight. Maybe you can give some sources? I would say that the confection we talk about is in Europe known under a variety of national names (and as far as I can see none translates in English to 'chocolate tea cake'). Cheers - 83.254.214.192 (talk) 12:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiable:[3]. As with many things, a literal translation into another language and back into English is different. --Snigbrook (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a particular good verification. Actually the reference says that the product in the UK is classified as a "cake", but there is no statement about European wide recognition nor use with afternoon tea/coffee. Regarding translation, the product does not originate from the UK (likely French/Dutch origin as the article introduction says), Dutch/French names for this confection do not even include "cake". - 83.254.214.192 (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the article is called, it will use words that are not included in any of the Dutch, French, German or Danish names, as it cannot be renamed to just "chocolate". --Snigbrook (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it is served with an afternoon tea is not relevant to the name of the article, and the current title contains more words not in the other European names (3) than "chocolate teacakes" (only 1). However, I have seen the suggestion by 213.115.160.97 below, for the article to be renamed to "Chocolate coated marshmallow confection", and I think maybe that would be a better title (although I would prefer it hyphenated as with the current title). Or does that contain too many words not in the other European names? --Snigbrook (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I agree we shouldn't just call the article 'chocolate'. :) In my opinion we need another umbrella term for this type of confectionary and not create one and say it the dominant term. Taking the UK brand name and slightly modify it is not a solution in my opinion, it could make sense from a single national point of view but I feel it is not justified as an encyclopedic entry that tries to describe/collect the world wide variation of those delights. I am in big favour of keeping the article instead of splitting it up into multiple small ones, if we can't agree on a new short term I would be in favour for a descriptive one (as discussed below). - 83.254.214.192 (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative proposal Surely we have to look at this issue from a Wikipedia user's point of view. The fact is that nobody is going to be searching for "Chocolate-coated marshmallow treats" - mainly for the reason that it is not the "Name" of something it's an adjectival clause describing something and the thing it's desctibing is - to me - a teacake. If "Teacake" means different things to different people, then what we need, plain and simple, is a disambiguation page for Teacake/s which offers more detailed definitions and links to the various relevant pages.Austin46 (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Just in case it wasn't clear from my alternative proposal above, I just want to register strong support for the move. I think that "Chocolate-coated marshmallow treats" is just unacceptable as a title for the article. "Treats" don't necessarily mean food. A "treat" could be a day out at a fun-park. The main manufacturer in the UK calls them teacakes. Just google "Tunnocks Teacakes" and you'll find that's the name they're sold under across the UK and Europe. And whoever said the title had to "describe" the article? Does that mean and entry for a spade, should read "flat metal implement with long handle used for digging holes"? Let's call a spade a "spade", and a chocolate teacake a "chocolate teacake". But if the problem is that the same word means different things to different people, then I still think a disambiguation page should be considered... Austin46 (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The word teacake could be common in the UK, but in the rest of Europe the individual national names are used. If we would take a name based on quantity (number of items sold in Europe) then we could also pick the German "Schokokuss". Naming this type of candy 'Chocolate Teacakes' sounds like original research. - 213.115.160.97 (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Original research? Do some basic resarch - just google "Chocolate teacakes". The top ten hits refer to the thing we're discussing here. And it seems like having to state the obvious to have to point it out, but "Schokokuss" would be the title of the article in German Wikipedia. This is English. Austin46 (talk) 11:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question When two anonymous users both oppose the proposal, both share a preference for the word 'confection' and both have IP addresses which appear to come from Sweden, is it simply a coincidence? Austin46 (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Chocolate teacake. It may not be an expression that's understood internationally, but there isn't a suitable "generic" term (biscuit, cookie, dessert, treat, etc, all have issues which are discussed above), and it has the advantage of not being a brand name. Tevildo (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Having the article at a anglo-leaning sensible name is better than having it at the most ridiculous attempt at a PC middle-ground I've seen to date. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • Comment When you google something you have to put quotes around it, otherwise you get everything that includes the word chocolate or the word teacake. I don't think that chocolate teacake makes a very good name because the article is specifically about chocolate covered items which contain marshmallow and if you google chocolate teacake you get recipes for, well chocolate teacakes, with ingredients that include chocolate, but not marshmallow, such as the following:
Chocolate Tea Cakes
Ingredients:
1 cup butter or margarine, softened
2/3 cup sugar
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
1 2/3 cup all-purpose flour
1/4 cup Cocoa (powdered — buy it in the baking section)
1 bag (9 oz.) Hershey’s Kisses Chocolates, unwrapped
Powdered sugar

So a shorter title would be appropriate, but it needs to actually describe the subject. 199.125.109.124 (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's "Chocolate Tea Cakes", not "chocolate teacakes", although it may be similar to the Australian definition of teacake with chocolate. --Snigbrook (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A problem could be that this type of candy has no common name, it is known with different names, shapes and fillings. How about an alternative descriptive name 'Chocolate coated marshmallow confection' or 'Chocolate coated cream confection'? - 213.115.160.97 (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that may a better name for the article and it would allow it to remain as one page instead of being split. --Snigbrook (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no question of the page being _split_, we just have to decide on the name. If "teacake" is going to prove completely unacceptable, I agree "confection" is better than any of the other generic alternatives - certainly much better than "treat". I also agree that we need to keep the hyphen. Tevildo (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Schokokuss/Mohrenkopf

[edit]

I'm from Darmstadt, here the term "Mohrenkopf" is -- in the colloquial -- much more common than the formal "Schokokuss", but the article states, "Mohrenkopf" is just used in Switzerland. --79.199.127.60 (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions differences between formal and regional language in Germany... They were first only known under the names Mohrenkopf ("Moor's Head") or Negerkuss ("Negro's Kiss"). I tried to update the Schokokuss section to make this more clear. - 83.254.214.192 (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schokokuss is not made of marshmallow

[edit]

They're made of a beaten egg white/sugar mixture (like Tunnock's teacake), which is different from marshmallow mass which is made with gelatine, if I read the article right. See de:Schokokuss. BNutzer (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the fact that this is mentioned further down in the article, the order of appearance is thus misleading and should be changed, IMHO. To solve the problem: Shouldn't the varieties with egg white rather get their own article, e.g. Chocolate-coated egg white treats? BNutzer (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the two products are unrelated, and only the British/US marshmallow product is covered with this article, the whipped egg white product something different. they're also much older. This article is misleading, and the old one was much better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.52.104.131 (talk) 04:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there is some similarity between the marshmallow and the egg-white variants. Would a better name be chocolate-coated foam treats? --Twid (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove MARSHMALLOW from title

[edit]

The term marshmallow must be removed from the title because several of the described food items are not made with marshmallow, even tough the "fluff" is similar. However, neither the consistency, aroma, taste or even nutritional values are consistent with marshmallow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novaice (talk • contribs) 00:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently out of the many regional variations discussed in the article only the US Mallomars, New Zealand Mallowpuffs and Canadian Whippets are described as containing a form of marshmallow. All the other varieties are meringue based.109.150.91.0 (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the thingies without marshmallow should get an own article - like Chocolate-coated meringue treats or something — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.193.127.77 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's been nine years now, and none of this has happened? What's going on?? 😱 – — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyFielding (talk • contribs) 08:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move #2

[edit]

I'm not doing anything official yet because I thought I'd see what the general opinion here was first. It looks like an agreement couldn't be reached before, but I want to propose a comppromise. The word 'treat is an Americanism. I think that's where some of the dispute came from. How about renaming the article 'Chocolate-coated marshmallow confection'. 'Confection' is the term being used on the artcle for sweets (En-UK) / candy (En-US) and other types of confection. Novaice also makes a good point in the section above, but that's a seperate dispute. So in a nutshell, I think that the word 'treats' should be changed to 'confection' as a compromise for now until a more suitable title can be agreed upon. Zestos (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support the suggested change to 'Chocolate-coated marshmallow confection'; I am surprised that it didn't carry the day earlier. I was intrigued to learn that Brits differ from the narrow American understanding of 'treat' as something edible, with the broader interpretation of a special, enjoyable activity considered to be rather archaic. [My dog could confirm that by "treat!" I mean that a biscuit will be offered, and not that his fondest wish for a muddy lake excursion will be fulfilled.] However, 'tea cake' or 'teacake' won't do either, as 1) it is a term rarely used in American English, 2) when used, it usually refers to something completely different (i.e., some sort of sweet loaf served in slices, generally synonymous - at least in the American culinary vernacular - with 'tea bread'), and 3) some of the described treats - er, confections - including the Mohrenköpfe, cannot be classified as cakes, cookies, or biscuits. Oh, and omitting 'marshmallow' from the title would defy logic, at least from my perspective on this side of the pond. 24.128.188.152 (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Chocolate marshmallow puff"? Shorter, more descriptive and not culture-bound.--Geewhiz (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think treat may be something of a marketing term and too informal, so I would be fine with changing it to confection. But I don't really care what the title is, and think the difficulty in coming up with a title is itself interesting, since the concept is so obviously widespread. (The version I'm most familiar with is Nabisco Pinwheels, which are not even mentioned.) Richard K. Carson (talk) 05:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in comment above, some of these products are not marshmallow and have no relation to marshmallow. They're whipped egg white with sugar on a waffle base covered with chocolate. Why do you insist in calling them marshmallow? There are products which feature marshmallow covered with chocolate, but it's a different product. The product based on egg whites are usually called foam kisses. While chocolate teacakes typically ARE based on marshmallow, foam kisses are NOT based on marshmallow. They are two completely separate "treats", they have a completely different taste as well. It's just not a concept well known in the English speaking world so there's no real English word for this product. I repeat, there's no marshmallow in the Dutch/German/Danish products, and they are sold in the UK, and they have no relation to the similar looking products made in the UK. In other words, "Chocolate Foam Kisses" and "Chocolate-coated marshmallow treats" are not the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.52.104.131 (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the article ought to be renamed to Chocolate-coated white fluffy confections to satisfy all the comments above. There simply is no simple term that covers both marshmallow and fluffed egg white, but the resulting confections are so similar that I don't think that's a good reason for splitting the article into one for marshmallow-based products and another one for eggwhite-based ones. --Twid (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Chocolate-coated meringue-based confections" would be the most accurate title for the majority of products mentioned in the current article. 109.150.91.0 (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Neekerinsuukot" name change

[edit]
In Finland, the name originated from Germany, and they were named "Negro Kisses" in 1951. In 2001, their name was changed to "Brunberg's Kisses", after the manufacturer, for largely the same reasons as in Denmark.

The article never mentions the reasons for the name change in Denmark, or the name change in Denmark at all, for that matter. JIP | Talk 09:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whippets; dubious reasoning

[edit]

The "Whippets" section has the statement
"Whippets can be produced throughout the year because Montreal and its surrounding areas have a lower average temperature than New York."
which is dubious reasoning. Montreal may well be colder than New York, but it’s unlikely that’s the reason why Canadians can find these things in summer and New Yorkers can’t. This article (already cited in the "Mallomar" section) suggests the whole Mallomar season idea is just marketing hype, and there’s no particular reason why they can’t be produced and sold throughout the year. So unless someone has a good reason for it to stay, I propose removing it; I can't se any reason why we should be perpetuating a marketing myth. Swanny18 (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

[edit]

Given the discussions above, would there be consensus for changing the name of this article to either Chocolate-coated white fluffy confections or Chocolate-coated foam confections? --Twid (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. They are not white and not foamy. They are smooth, brown mounds of chocolate coated fluff.--Geewhiz (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, Chocolate-coated fluff confections? --Twid (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohrenkopf

[edit]

I'm german myself and "Mohrenkopf" is actually rather outdated. Most people these days call them "Schokokuß" (Schoko is short for Schokolade = Chocolate, Kuß = kiss). You might find some older people talking of a "Mohrenkopf" or "Negerkuss" (nigga's kiss), but usually people call them Schokokuss now. Definitely not terms used by people who sell them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.33.42.125 (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mallomars

[edit]
A graham cracker circle is covered with a puff of extruded marshmallow, then enrobed in dark chocolate, which forms a hard shell.

Is the word "hard' correct here? They basically melt in your mouth, so I wouldn't use the word "hard". Any ideas? Viriditas (talk) 06:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a few days with no response. I've removed "hard" and changed it to "enrobed in a light shell of dark chocolate", which is exactly correct. In the US at least, a "hard" shell of chocolate implies that some effort is needed to bite into the treat, however, that is not the case with Mallomars. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More accurately, I've now changed it to "enrobed in a thin shell of dark chocolate". Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pinwheels

[edit]

I feel like there should be mention of Nabisco's "Pinwheel" brand cookies (and similar products), but I'm not sure if it merits its own section, or should be parlayed into another section. I'm not very experienced with researching and providing to Wikipedia, but if given the go-ahead I may make an attempt. Naore (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate-coated marshmallow treats without marshmallow?

[edit]

those Chocolate-coated NON-marshmallow treats do not belong on Chocolate-coated marshmallow treats article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.172.96.141 (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Krembo to Chocolate-coated marshmallow treats#Krembo

[edit]

I propose a merge from Krembo to this article's section on [[[Chocolate-coated marshmallow treats#Krembo|Krembo]]. Basically it is the same candy and other national variety has a seperate article. A merge would also make it possible to connect the Wikidata sitelinks of Q11265516 with Q1578239. Due to this, a Dutch reader who reads the nl:Negerzoen will not see in the sitelinks that it is called "Krembo" in Israel and vice versa. Also, as someone mentioned earlier "Krembo is not a brand name; it is a hebrew word of a type of candy", just like all other national varieties. Both section also share mostly similar information. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, Timelezz (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moon Pies?

[edit]

Why are U.S. Moon Pies not listed here? They are pretty much identical to U.K. Wagon Wheels, as far as I know, which I'm also not sure I see listed. Marshmallow filling between 2 cookies/biscuits, covered in chocolate. Moon Pies do also come in non-chocolate flavors (I like the vanilla; the banana is just okay). They definitely meet the definition, and may be one of the most well-known examples in the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angilong (talk • contribs) 19:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Chocolate-coated marshmallow treats. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chocolate-coated marshmallow treats. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Chocolate-coated marshmallow treats. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nun’s farts

[edit]

I’m placing a citation needed note on the paragraph around Anglo Quebecers referring to Whippets as “nun’s farts”. Anecdotally I’ve asked fellow Anglo Quebec colleagues, as well as a friend to post on a more broadly read blog. This does not seem to be a common nickname. [4] One of Many Tims (talk) 14:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of citation is needed for the negerzoen?

[edit]

Are Dutch language sources ok? I can find a few proper newspaper articles about them and their name, though I wonder why someone put a citation needed tag on it in the first place. Generally you don't need a citation to justify a translation from one language to the other.

https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/het-is-over-en-uit-met-de-negerzoen~b732eb35/ https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2005/11/19/mogen-negerzoenen-zwarte-piet-mag-ook-al-niet-11045042-a926987 https://www.trouw.nl/cultuur-media/moorkoppen-negerzoenen-afrikaantjes-gaat-na-de-canon-ook-het-woordenboek-op-de-schop~b39152fb/

Please add whichever newspaper source is the most fitting or remove the citation needed tag. Mijzelffan (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

[edit]

I see that in the discussion that someone merged this article and Krembo before, but there still is the Krembo article. I think it should be merged completely. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 17:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@QuickQuokka: may I remove the merge tags? No one seems interested. I personally think that the entire Krembo article would make a lengthy section, and I assume you have made as much effort as you can towards merging it. --(Roundish ⋆t) 01:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Roundish: Yeah you can remove it. To be honest I only put up the template and didn't make an effort myself to merge it. Maybe I should? --QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 03:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, it's honestly pretty merged as it is. There's like a solid 50-60% of the Krembo article already, and the whole article would really overstuff such a simple section. If anything, copy some of the section back into the article, there's actually some sources not even in the article. (Roundish ⋆t) 11:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate coated marshmallow treats?

[edit]

marshmallow covered with chocolate is the best snack! ( without a layer of a cookie ) but Cadbury's marshmallow coated eggs are the best and don't see them here SithembileK (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minarets

[edit]

For about a decade starting around 1962 Nabisco sold a cookie very similar to Mallomars called Minarets. Were they the same? Were they both offered at the same time? From an earlier time, when anything connected to Mohammedanism was naively seen as simply a pictureque facet of Near Easrtern culture. 96.237.184.133 (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate

[edit]

Is so good and it very sweet but we don't want to spoil our teeth so we don't eat chocolate some of us.🍩🍫🍮@Sc Co Spring 2008 41.121.5.19 (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chocolate-coated_marshmallow_treats&oldid=1235841347"