Jump to content

Talk:Chocolate bar/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

First Chocolate Bar

On the Ganong page it lists them as being first, here it says otherwise - consistency check? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.57.148 (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

I added the neutral point of view tag to the table, as it contains references to the superiority or inferiority of certain products. --Aaron Walden 00:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The Early Semantics Era

Note to Derek: Do you work for a national food-regulation agency? Why did you remove the link to confection? I will not edit the current article, but I do have to admit that it seems to be making a distinction which I don't quite understand. If it remains as it is, then the links to the article will have to be corrected because these refer to chocolate bars and not candy bars. - 206.15.46.129

I didn't intend to remove the link to confection. I'll put it back in. And please continue to edit the article. Note that the distinction between chocolate and candy might not be obvious to you but then referring to all confectionery as candy is a very American thing to do. In other parts of the world, candy means a particular kind of confectionery -- which is definitely not chocolate. So maybe the links to the article will have to be corrected as you suggest. I was certainly surprised when I found that candy is just a redirect to confectionery. That will have to be fixed too. A lot of confectionery is candy but not everything. Derek Ross

The Middle Semantics era

At least in the US, a Milky Way bar contains some caramel, whereas a Three Musketeers bar contains only chocolate and whipped "nougat". -- Arteitle 21:34 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Changed it. -- Arteitle 06:05 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)


In Canada we call candy bars chocolate bars but chocolate bar redirects to chocolate instead of here. Odd. Earl Andrew 02:41, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

where does this terminology come from, because my understanding was that no candy bar contains very much candy at all, and is usually chocolate-based.. candy being things that are sugar-based.

(The above edit was by 12.47.38.130)

This article strikes me as very US-centric. This term used in Britain is chocolate bar. It also seems inconsistent with other parts of Wikipedia, e.g. Milky Way is listed in the candy bars category. Could someone clear this up? Treborbassett 14:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is also a page on chocolate bar. They should probably be merged. Earl Andrew 08:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Candy vs. Chocolate?

--Well, this article strikes me as very very US centric. In Australia and the UK, the term "candy bar" is never used.

Yep. Just telling you as im from UK we don't call them candy bars. --Wikidood123456789 (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Should we really make the distinction between "candy" and "chocolate" bars? In Canada (and apparently the UK as well), both terms describe the same thing. Furthermore, it seems inconsistent with the existing articles to keep them separate. Example: Candy bar uses the caramel in Twix as justification for calling it a "candy bar", but the chocolate bar article clearly states that chocolate bars may include "other ingredients... such as peanuts or caramel". So is Twix a candy or chocolate bar, or both?

In the UK, the terms are NOT synonymous - "candy", on the rare occasions when it is used, refers specifically to chewy sweets made from crystallized sugar (such as some of these). ANY and ALL bars with chocolate are called exactly that: "chocolate bars". That includes Twix and all others that have additional ingredients such as nougat, nuts, toffee, etc. The other alternative term used generically for all confectionery, chocolate or candy, is "sweet" or "sweets" (eg: "I got a mixed bag of sweets today", "Where does this shop have its sweet counter?", etc). - HTUK 01:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
In the UK, the big distinction for manufacturers is between "chocolate bar" and "biscuit", the latter conferring certain tax advantages. (Is a Kit Kat considered a biscuit or a chocolate bar? I can't remember.) "Candy" is either a dog's name, or a maker of household appliances. 217.155.20.163 21:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be simpler to merge the two, rather than have this argument about every chocolate/candy bar that goes up on Wikipedia.

The Late Semantics Era

"whether technically correct or not" I removed this phrase at the end of the stuff about U.S. vernacular and candy bars because the candy bar police were disbanded years ago. Also it sounded - uh - not completely sane. Mothperson 02:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, upon rereading the article, it all sounds bizarre, but I will leave it be for now. Mothperson 02:14, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

US v. UK Terminology

The root of confusion here is between US and British terminology. The Americans tend to be more inclusive while the British more strict. Canadians share food vocabulary from both. I presume we could make a start by pointing out that this article is based on one form of our mutual language or the other. 

[[Paul, in Saudi 15:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)]]

If this article does not cover 'candy' but only what everyone would understand by the term chocolate bars, it should be called 'Chocolate Bar' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.209.172 (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

New Table

I hope you all enjoy the new table. You may just cut and paste these lines to add to it. 

[[Paul, in Saudi 15:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)]]

Extinct bars, et al.

You do realize by adding extinct bars here, you have opened up a whole big can of gummi worms? This list is going to be sort of really really long.

As far as the article goes, I'm going to add some candy bar history, because right now it's a very promising table and an extremely obscure discussion of candy bar semantics. --Mothperson 20:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Images

I want to go live in Australia. Hazelnut Snickers, Cherry Ripes, and animal trading cards. Damn. But I digress. I had an idea about images for this article, and want to know what you think about it, Paul, in Saudi. The cross sections of candy bars at "Name That Candy Bar" are both hilarious and gorgeous. The page sponsor is an educational institution - I forget which one - but maybe they would let us use some of them for Wikipedia, since we're directing people to their site. If you haven't seen these things, go look, and tell me what you think. If you agree, I'll start trying to get permission. Anyway, if they won't, it's easy enough to go buy a bunch of candy bars and take original photos. Plus, then those candy bars could be eaten.... hmmn. What to do.

Let me know, anyway. I was thinking 4 cross-sections could go above your table and 4 below. And maybe an assorted group of wrapped bars at the top of the page. --Mothperson 14:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC) (with no hidden agenda)

Well, it is certainly worth considering. To being with, how much space would they take? Would be have an image for a good number of the items? (Of course we could go with some other source of images for the rest, they need not all be the same.)
Why not contact the Name That Candy Bar people and ask them? That seems to be the first step. At least some images would be nice. I see the [[Tootsie Roll] article has a nice image, why not play with that to try it out? [[Paul, in Saudi 15:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)]]

Hey, Paul. I know how you feel. I remember distinctly the amazement when I made my first link. I couldn't believe it worked. Actually, I still don't. I was working on the table last night for over an hour, and when I went to save, I was told that the servers were down for maintenance and I couldn't. So I left the thing on all night, and this morning I cut and pasted what I could, but if there's new mistakes hanging around, it's because I didn't check anything - too intent on salvage. I'm not going to do anything until much later, so you won't have any editing conflicts. At least, not from me. I'm going to wait a few days on images until we have the table filled out more. --Mothperson 13:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Descriptions

Hey, Paul. I took out someone's (yours?) description of something (I forget which) because it didn't make sense - I think orange was involved. I love the exotica you've come up with - well, Sahara is pretty exotic to me. I wondering if you have any better knowledge of the British candy bars than I do, because I can't describe them without a lot of googling. Oh, I remember - it was a Canadian bar (I can manage Canadian) - Coffee Crisp or a related bar. I'll redo. I've got a request in to the Minnesota Science Museum about their lovely cross-section images. I also took a look at Tootsie Roll, and you're right - great old ad. And I read the public domain business about pre-1923 stuff in the editing article. What I haven't figured out is what might be appropriate for an old image if we don't want to focus on one named bar (which is why the cross-sections are so good, because they're unnamed). But I do have some ideas about pictures of old display boxes and groupings of old wrappers, and I'll pursue these. Anyway, good going! It's nice to be working with someone for a change. --Mothperson 14:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let me check the page history. I may have very well deleted my own work by accident. Please keep an eye out for alphabetical order problems. I have spotted and repaired a few. As for research, I just go to my local market. BTW, did you know Cadburry has a factory in Poland now? The whole world is changing. Oh, and if you can, please tell me why this automatic tilde thing looks wrong when I use it like this ===>[[Paul, in Saudi 16:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)]] Two bracket things or only one?
Hmm. I'm not sure what you mean. You haven't finished bracketing at the right end. Actually, I have notice some of your titles - oh, maybe this is what you mean. Your titles coming out with the two brackets visible in front. You have to close them - two at the front,two at the back, and if you have anything in parentheses inside, you have to make sure they are really parentheses, i.e. (candy) not (candy} which you sometimes do. That } for some reason throws the title out of whack, because it's used as a symbol for some other action. I don't know If I've answered your question, but I'll try double bracketing my tildes at the end and see what happens.
Other things: I'm going to remove the fictional candy, because there's a list of fictional foods elsewhere (yes, really - you'd be surprised how many fictional things have lists!) and I don't want Harry Potter freaks storming in and adding chocolate frogs and such, although given the nature of the candy business there probably already are chocolate frogs for real with wizard trading cards. And so you, too, with the research? We're not supposed to do original research you know, but I say to hell with that! From recent personal experience, I would not recommend the Snickers Cruncher, the Whachamacallit, or the Milky Way Midnight, unless you were really desperate. The 5th Avenue, on the other hand, was a delightful surprise, and I don't think I appreciated it enough in my childhood. The Reese's Fast Break is not bad, but not equal to its cousins. Poland - I'm not surprised, although I'd prefer if Poland came up with its own candy bars. Cadbury, Hershey and Nestle can get a little boring. Now if Poland could produce a wildly popular Polish bar - oh, well. Who knows. Maybe it will.

[[Mothperson 19:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)]] Okay - you can't bracket your four tildes because there is built-in bracketing already that underlines your user name, and it won't double underline, but you don't need to with the tildes, so if your question was about titles, I think I've answered it. I hope. Here:

Lord Nelson so the fictitious bar is underlined, but in red because we aren't linking to Lord Nelson himself whereas [[Lord Nelson (candy bar}|Lord Nelson comes out weird. Mothperson 19:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

p.s. I really like Almonds Joys. I don't want to have to eat an Almond Joy Piña Colada to find out what it's like. I don't suppose you've had one? Mothperson

Images 2

Good news: the Science Museum gave us permission to use their images - educational, non-profit, etc. Bad news: Wiki rules won't let us, and it's too complicated for me to explain. It took me two hours to read up enough to ask the question, and it would probably take another two hours for me to figure out the answer beyond "can't." You can go look at the Help Desk. At least I got a cookie. --Mothperson 13:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nope, I trust your scholarship and judgment on this. Isn't it remarkable how much we do for the Wiki for free? Good work! [[Paul, in Saudi 13:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)]]
Ps I have never had an Almond Joy Pina Colada. I found a link on a site, I think the things are available by mail order. Paul, in Saudi 13:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) <==No brackets, does this work?
Yeah, it's remarkable. It's remarkably nutty. No, it's nutrageous. I'm actually considering trying to recreate the cross-sections myself. Then I'd have to eat the leftovers. Hmm. Well, I still have other ideas. And I guess I'll have to do some original research. Coconut, chocolate - how bad can it be? Yes! No brackets on tildes works. --Mothperson 14:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redundancy

I'm wondering if I shouldn't take off some of the excess Hershey's this, Cadbury's that, Nestlé's whatever and redestribute the bars that have names that can stand on their own. A few of them need to keep their mfr. labels, where their names are just descriptive, but bars like the Polly Waffle can do without it. I find it jarring to see these giant clots of names based on mfrs all listed together in the H's, C's, etc. What's your feeling about this?

Also, as the list gets longer with more stuff from other places (I got inspired by your finds and went after Australia, as you can tell), I am thinking we need a new article/list - a history and table of extinct bars, so that this one is more manageable, and the extinct bars can party on their own. What's your opinion?

I finally saw your note about the Toggi bar in the history. What was so awful about it? Please tell. --Mothperson 04:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have been buying unusual candy bars of late for research purposes. One of these was a Toggi bar. It was way too much hazelnut filling and way too little chocolate covering for the wafers. Further, by the time I got to it, it had already melted into a disgusting mess. No fun.
I can see your point about how to classify the names. I say go for it.
On the other hand, I would say keep the extinct bars here, at least for now. I like them and their funny names. Further, they show a company relationship and sort of help tell a story. Keep them for now.
Finally, how the heck did we end up with another (empty)column? It will be a pain in the tail to find and remove the mistake. Paul, in Saudi 07:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What extra column? I can't see it. I even checked the history several times, thinking I'd done it. I still couldn't see it. I'm concerned about your eyes, my monitor, or my eyes. Toggi - a hazelnut bar you think is that disgusting I will have to try when I get a chance. For science, mind you. Okay, I will cut loose the Hershey and Cadbury gangs. et al., and leave the extinxct bars, and probably add some more I'm partial to. I am convinced by your "help tell a story." Besides, we have to consider those motorcycle candy bar freaks. --Mothperson 11:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Look all the way to the left. Under the blue Edit, see a fainter-than-normal column? Why is it there? Why can't I put anything in it? How can we remove it? Paul, in Saudi 14:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is only a guess, but you've been putting descriptions into the wrong columns, so I bet it happened either when I was relocating the Relax description or you were adding the Tin Laren bar. As for how to remove it, again, just a guess - first go look at the lines for those two bars, and see if there are any extra td's there. If they aren't in those lines, then I guess we'll have to inspect every line and count. Don't worry, we'll find it sooner or later, and it isn't a glaring thing now, since I didn't notice it even when I was first looking for it. --Mothperson 15:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mea culpa

It was my fault. I'm very sorry for causing you distress. I would hate to think you lost your appetite, for example. I love the new exotica. Anyway, I had to go through the list line by line, and found I'd put an extra td at the end of "Forever Yours". Thank god I didn't do it in the s's or t's. I was reduced to singing "one, two, three, four, five" along with whatever music was playing (I think it was the Killers, appropriately) to keep track of where I was on each line. I SWEAR I WILL NEVER PUT ANOTHER EXTRA TD IN A TABLE AGAIN. Now, sort of to make up for that, I went out to one of my convenience stores, and found a truly delightful new entry by Goetze, which I'd never heard of – "Cow Tales." Actually I haven't eaten it yet. It may not be delightful. But it's made by a classic small company, it's caramel, and it has a picture of the cow jumping over the mooon on its strange tail-like packaging (an extra long "fringe" on one end - pretty funny). And while I was waiting in line, two guys behind me were discussing Hershey's new Boyer's Mallo Cup something. I rudely interrupted to ask if Hershey's had, god forbid, just bought Boyer's. No, I was told. They were just making Mallo Cup ice cream. Still, it may be the first edge of the wedge. Must keep an eye out. Nobody else (I think) makes peanut butter cups with peanut butter shells. --Mothperson 19:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm paying for my sin. The cow tale is really ghastly awful. I'm not even going to sign this.

Cow Tale? That rings a faint and distant bell, big and long, taffy with chocolate right? It threatens to pull out you fillings. Thanks for fixing the table. Paul, in Saudi 01:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ugh. No chocolate. Just the worst caramel ever, long, and a "vanilla" cream filling. But I still love the name and the packaging. Lucky for you the bell is faint and distant. I have a a Havilad's wintergreen patty that might make up for it. Or not. We'll see. --Mothperson 03:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some questions

Re: the Maestro - what country is KSA? Re: the Milka Wafelini - why do I think the object is no longer "at hand?" And when are we going to find out what the mysterious Sahara and Safari contain?

Speaking of hands, it was over 90 degrees F. here yesterday, and I tried to eat a KitKat Triple Chocolate I had bought the day before, for science. I'm going to amend your description a little, as I had an up-close-and-personal encounter with the contents. The fudge was sliding out from between the chocolate wafers, and the chocolate coating was chocolate grease. But it was worlds tastier than Cow Tales, which alarmingly retains its shape intact. This and its lack of flavor may be due to the main ingredient being "wheat flour." --Mothperson 16:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, 'KSA is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia of course. I presume from the brand name that bar is produced here in Jeddah under license from some German company. As for the Sahara and Safari, you are right, I really ought to buy one of each. I will be in town on Tuesday or Wednesday and get to it.

Paul, in Saudi 17:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've been wandering around the Australian patch (did you know you can get Cherry Ripe as a giant 150 gram block, instead of a piddly old 55 gram bar?), and I chanced upon the Furry Friends. Since they are only 15 gram chocolates, packaged in large part for the trading card, I'm wondering if (god forbid - semantics rears its hideous head again) they actually qualify as candy bars. I saw a platypus package - if they come in that shape , they're more like chocolate easter rabbits than bars. And, oh yes. There most certainly are Harry Potter chocolate frogs now, with trading cards. A chocolate platypus sounds more entertaining.
I jumped the gun on Gardena - sorry. It was irresistible. I was trying to figure out why you'd put Loacker's down as a link, and I found out! But I left the others for you. I forgot to check - Italian? --Mothperson 02:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I know nothing of Furry Friends. It was listed on a web site, I have never seen one. On the other hand I am becoming a bit of an expert on candy bars for sale in the Middle East. Change it as you might like. Paul, in Saudi 16:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'm new to eiting Wikipedia. Well I just came across this list and I want to add some things, but I'm not quite sure about some of the sections. In the "where" section, do we put where it is manufactured or where it is distributed...or where it was invented? Can we put Candybars FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD :D? And lastly: If there is more version of a Candybar (like Bounty and Bounty Strawberry) do we put both, or do we...merge them...somehow? Alright thanks, I hope I can help in the future :). (Me-pawel 04:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)) whops almost forgot to sign my post ;)

Exotica

I found a white chocolate variant of Take Five yesterday which I haven't dared eat (haven't dared try the regular chocolate one, for that matter), so give me courage and explain why the Sahara had too much going on in it. I'm not likely to get a chance to try one. --Mothperson 13:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Sahara Bar is also made right here in Jeddah (somewhere). It has a chocolate covering with white waxy stuff. I suppose it is a 'tropical chocolate.' The interior has a single wafer with peanuts under it. The exterior is sort of bumpy like an American Baby Ruth. All in all it was too busy with textures and flavors. Send me your mailing address. Maybe I can mail one to you in September. (How strict are Oz's food-import laws?) Paul, in Saudi 16:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, during the shift a few hours ago that suddenly has wiki going turbo (and I'm not complaining), my reply to you got lost. So, another. Can you add something about "tropical chocolate" to the article? That is really interesting, and something I had not considered, even when I had KitKat all over me this past weekend. I ate the Take Five, and I'll bet almost anything the Sahara is worlds better, even with the wax. Unless you really really like pretzels. E-mail me. Trading local candy bars sounds most entertaining. --Mothperson 02:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chocolate bar is now a redirect

You may want to look at my attempt to do a redirect at Chocolate Bar. It does not look right to me. Paul, in Saudi 1 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)

omg. I just saw this message. I haven't gone to look, but now I'm afraid the chocolate bar group is going to come gunning for you. Run and hide! We'll have to get you new papers, and probably some plastic surgery, too.
Actually, I came over here to tell you about the wonderful new book I got a few days ago - the Richardson one on the ref. list. It's where I got the dates for KitKat and Aero. Not a whole lot about candy bars, but what there is is fascinating. Also, I found some new websites, one of which led me to Japanese bars like the one (not yet added) that contains gold leaf. Real gold leaf. Probably very pretty, but what the...? I assume the Wonkas are a tie-in, but new or old? I guess, if we have a Freddo frog now, we might as well add one of those darn Harry Potter frogs. Except not if they don't have a variety of fillings! I just can't remember where I saw them now. Anyway, run and hide. I won't tell them a thing. --Mothperson 7 July 2005 13:55 (UTC)

Two Milky Ways?

Anyone know why we have two Milky Way entries? Speak up or I will zap it in a couple of days. Paul, in Saudi 15:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC) There are two different Milky Way products worldwide - the US version is different, made by the Mars/Masterfoods corp than the UK version. - Typetive 29 June 2006

Hershey

All the links to Hershey point to a town. It should point to The Hershey Company. Dont have the time to fix atm though. skorpion 08:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Did the find and replace in word. skorpion 11:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

2 extinct chocolate bars not listed.

– — … ° ≈ ≠ ± − × ÷ ← → · § Hi,my name is Ron,I am new to this discussion group and I know of 2 more bars that are not listed.They are: The "Danish" bar and The "Treasures" bar.Both were sold in Canada in the late 70's and early 80's.Unfortunately I don't remember the manufacturer of either.If someone remembers these bars and can put a name to the manufacturer,please update the list or if possible email me with the info.Thanks. Passthebar 06:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Tim Tams

Hi, I don't know who added Tim Tams, but they are not considered a chocolate bar in either Australia or New Zealand. They are a biscuit, and as such, are found in the biscuit aisle of shops. Could someone who is more skillful than I please remove it. I'm a little worried about screwing everything up. Cally73 07:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC) 

Have removed Tim Tams from list.Cally73 15:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the link in the list for: http://www.chocolatecavity.com/

I visited the site and found it rather inaccurate for many of the candies that it lists (and has a very poor navigation). I might recommend a few other sites, such as BradKent.com and several others that have archives of candy wrappers as good sources for information.

(Full disclosure, I run www.candyblog.net, which is also listed, though I was not the one who put it in wikipedia.) --Typetive 06:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for helping and contributing your expertise. I used to pay a lot of attention to this page, but I've been very lax for too long. "Fleur de sel caramels" - hee hee! Such a great concept. I love that. You've just earned yourself another bookmark. Sorry about the marzipan problem. Mothperson cocoon 20:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge with candy bar?

This section was copied from the original Talk:Chocolate bar which was before Candy bar was moved to Chocolate bar and its talk page with it. Anthony Appleyard 10:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Chicken DInner Bar

What became of the mini-entry for the Chicken Dinner (and Lobster Dinner) bars? Am I the only one who remembers them? Paul, in Saudi 13:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is Mars bar listed twice?

Isn't it the same candy stick? TheBlazikenMaster 14:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do Skittles and Smarties appear on the table?

I want to delete them, but I want to be sure that there's no good reason to keep them. Anyone? Tycho211 22:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Peacock

Please fix the terms that feel like an ad. Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 17:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I removed three times the word "delicious" along with the "peacock words" and "advertisement style" tags because I don't see any further reason, correct me if I'm wrong. -- 790 (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Article schizophrenia

The question about about Smarties and Skittles is a good one and hasn't been addressed.

Is this article about chocolate bars only, or all candy bars including chocolate bars, or is it about all candy. In my version of English (and maybe I'm the only one that speaks it ;-)), chocolate bar is a subset of candy bar which is a subset of candy. Bit-O-Honey is a candy bar but not a chocolate bar while Skittles are candy but not a candy bar.

So, what is this article supposed to be covering? I did read the history and it seems to be a merge of the candy bar and chocolate bar articles, but the lead paragraphs seem to talk about just chocolate bars. So, I'd say we either need to clean up the list (and remove non-bar candy and/or non-chocolate bars) or clean up the lead paragraphs.

I'll also echo earlier comments about the list becoming ridiculously long (and hard to reference and verify). For example, can I add all the Scharffen Berger bars to the list?

  • Scharffen Berger Milk
  • Scharffen Berger Semisweet
  • Scharffen Berger Bittersweet
  • Scharffen Berger Extra Dark
  • Scharffen Berger Mocha Bar
  • Scharffen Berger Milk Nibby Bar
  • Scharffen Berger Semisweet Nibby Bar
  • Scharffen Berger Milk Almond
  • Scharffen Berger Finisterra (Limited Series Bar #10)
  • Scharffen Berger Antilles (Limited Series Bar #9)
  • etc

--Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Split off of list of brands

What's with the capitalization?

Per the naming conventions on capitalization, it seems that this article should be called "Candy bar" rather than "Candy Bar," lowercase being used in the second word — however, the page has retained its capital letters through quite a long series of edits, so I didn't touch it straightaway. Is there some special naming issue here that I'm oblivious of? :) If not, how about Candy Bar gets moved so that its title can better conform to the Manual of Style? —Switchercat talkcont 22:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

And it looks like I ... really am oblivious, since the page was moved to Candy Bar only recently. The question still stands, I guess. —Switchercat talkcont
You're right, an editor unilaterally moved the article from chocolate bar with no discussion, a couple of days ago. While this is arguably a better title for it, it should be lower case as per MOS:CAPS. I'll request a move. (It's possible the other editor tried and failed the same move, and decided that capitalising "bar" was a clever workaround.) --McGeddon (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ganong Brothers

Since someone place a "dubious – discuss" link on the article, I suppose it will make sense to place the discussion thread on the talk page? Anyways, here it is... as a local historian, I know the Ganong story too well. In 1910, Arthur Ganong, while on a fishing trip with George Ensor, the factory superintendent, had the idea of wrapping a nut bar of chocolate. The Ganong Bros. went on to produce a commerical version for US and Canadian markets. The company is still privately owned and still producing world-class chocolates and sweets, and still producing chocolate bars. Website @ http://www.ganong.com ... Does someone else (namely the person that challenged the article's statement) have earlier proof of another company producing a commerical chocolate bar by an earlier date?? Jason Gaudet (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


Re: Ganong Bro's and Dubious

I found an article supporting the claim that the Ganong Bro's created the first Chocolate Nut Bar. Chocolate Nut Bar. By: Tallon, Beverley, Beaver, 00057517, Aug/Sep2008, Vol. 88, Issue 4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.2.185 (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

More on Ganong brothers

According to Fry's Chocolate: In 1847, the Fry's chocolate factory, located in Union Street, Bristol, England, moulded the first ever chocolate bar suitable for widespread consumption. The firm began producing the Fry's Chocolate Cream bar in 1866.

This would suggest that the Ganong brothers did not invent the first mass consumption chocolate bars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.151.5 (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate History?

The history section seems very US-focussed, and glosses over more significant developments such as Fry's 1847 chocolate bar in favour of Hershey. Fry's chocolate cream; a fondant centre enrobed in dark chocolate, launched in 1866 whereas hershey's bar only started in 1900. I feel that a lot happened between 1850 and 1900 which has been left out. - Cosmic Colin UK 15/02/2010

U.S. candy bars were not 10 cents after WWII;they were a nickel. I bought many of them in the 1950's.

Candy bar vs Chocolate bar

Although we know "Candy bar" is a US term and also has duel use in Canada with "Chocolate bar", can anyone verify what is the most commonly used term? AnimatedZebra (talk) 04:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. I'll note that about 2 years ago it appears as if candy bar and chocolate bar were merged. Having said that, nothing in this close should be construed as preventing the creation of an article on candy bar or a confectionery bar if that topic is notable enough to merit an article. Candy bar avoids a US/UK spelling conflict on the later option, but I don't know which is the most accurate. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


Candy bar → Chocolate bar –Relisted. The link to the discussion was bad, so relisting to see if there is more input to establish consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Although Candy/Candy bar is a US term and has (I believe) duel usage in Canada (with Chocolate bar), can anyone verify if "Chocolate bar" would be better suited for English Wikipedia? In Australia & New Zealand, the word "Candy" isn't used and a chocolate bar is defined as a bar (with chocolate) and any other ingredients. In Ireland and the UK, it also isn't used but that's another story. AnimatedZebra (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

  • I support a move on these grounds, i.e. per WP:COMMONALITY but the issue is not uncontroversial. —  AjaxSmack  13:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hope you don't mind, AnimatedZebra, I took the liberty of converting this to a proper move request... Rennell435 (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, with "chocolate bar" being far more widely used. "Candy bar" sounds ambiguous to me, since where I'm from it would refer to confectionary bars like taffy. Although where I'm from never seems to carry much weight in these engvar discussions... (sad face) Rennell435 (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In the US, a chocolate bar is a sub-type of candy bar. Candy bar covers many things which contain no chocolate at all. A "chocolate bar" is a solid bar of chocolate. If a chocolate bar contains nuts (e.g. almonds) then it becomes a "chocolate with almonds bar". User:Rennell435 is right that "candy bar" does also refer to non-chocolate bars. I believe the problem is that this article is trying to be about too many different things. There should probably be two articles: candy or confectionary bar and chocolate bar. Does "confectionary bar" include chocolate bar as a sub-type outside the US? VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Rennell435 (talk) 08:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - No worries Rennell =D

As for "Confectionery bar", it could be used, as both candy & chocolate are considered "confections" on the confectionery article page. However, I'm assuming we would still use (chocolate bar) & (candy bar) for article pages about indivisual bars, depending on what country it's made in etc. AnimatedZebra (talk) 09:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

  • I think the principle of least surprise applies here. As an American, I wouldn't be too surprised if I ended up on chocolate bar. Marcus Qwertyus 23:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Having both lived in the United Kingdom and Australia the word candy bar is hardly, if ever used. It seems to me that its a word most commonly used in the USA. --JetBlast (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm a Canadian in New Zealand and although I understand both terms, "candy bar" would never be used here except by visiting Americans. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Although at first I thought this was simply an example of different names in various forms of English, I'm now convinced there is a good case for a move. The article specifically discusses bars wrapped in chocolate (we have other articles at Granola bar and Energy bar). Outside the United States, it appears there is a distinction between a chocolate bar, which is wrapped in chocolate, and a candy bar, which isn't (I'm trying to think of an example here in the United Kingdom, but we like our chocolate too much! I suppose Tablet in Scotland is the best example). On that basis, the proposal makes sense. Skinsmoke (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I think one of closest thing in the UK is Blackpool Rock. As you say the article does talk about bars wrapped in chocolate. --JetBlast (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused by the last two comments. The article currently discusses both chocolate and non-chocolate bars. In the US, "candy bar" covers both. In the UK, "chocolate bar" also covers both? See Zagnut and PayDay (confection) for non-chocolate candy bars. If this article no longer covers non-chocolate bars, then the PayDay article, at least, will need to be modified to no longer link to this article. What article should be linked to instead? VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

TIME Magazine

This source lists 13 "influential" candy bars, and might make an interesting source for updating related articles. In one case, Chicken Dinner (candy bar), we don't seem to have an article on the notable candy bar, and it might make an interesting WP:Did you know for the Main Page next WP:April Fools. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chocolate_bar/Archive_1&oldid=1136610696"