Talk:Famous Amos

This article was nominated for deletion on October 10, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Brands Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Wow, I was just sitting here bored and eating a package of these cookies. I honestly didn't expect to find their history.

Way to go! XD

TotalTommyTerror 19:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

criticism?::

I had heard that the quality of Famous Amos cookies are nowhere near what they used to be, and that people are disappointed. Any info on this?

These arent very good cookies. I mean. They are ok. I am eating them now. I would give them maybe a 6/10. PrettyMuchBryce 08:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No documentation for this, but the likelihood is that with various changes in ownership there have been changes in the cookies' recipes. How close to or far from the version now sold in big yellow bags is from what used to be in the older, smaller bags, only experts or people with really good taste-memories can attest. Whether they now are 'as good', 'better', or 'not as good' are points of view, and by definition, not encyclopedic.

--JWMcCalvin 23:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me say that I ate countless bags of 'Famous Amos' cookies while traversing parts of Southern California in the late seventies. Back when the freeway travel there was possible. So I can indeed shed some light in this area.

When I pass a yellow bag of Famous Amos ca. 2006 cookies on the shelf at the store, my heart gets very heavy, and I become sad to the point of despondency. It would be generous to describe those little brown pucks as a shadow of their former incarnation. Truthfully, the only thing they have in common is the name.

Saying that this is 'not encyclopedic' is casting a quick, shallow, and improper judgment on this story. It would be like saying that the change of Coca Cola's formula in the eighties to New Coke is not encyclopedic, which clearly it is. Both from a historical and societal perspective. Just because something may go unnoticed (which this did not by the way) does not make it any less important.

One problem is that the biography of Wally Amos, the originator of the Famous Amos cookie has been edited and/or facts omitted that does not tell the complete story of his cookie, and by doing so has sucked the NPOV out of it making it a biased entry. It seems that the article was submitted only to cast a favorable light on Mr. Amos, rather than present historical fact. I.e. that the cookie that bears his name is nothing like the original.

This subject needs to be researched further in order to present a careful, fair and complete presentation of the facts (as Wikipedia likes it). Both this article and the biography of Wally Amos needs editing to remove bias and add some historical facts, with cited references. I do not have a specific time frame for doing this, as I have other projects and obligations Nodekeeper 08:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I appreciate the degree of personal knowledge you bring to the issue of Famous Amos cookies,but there may have been a misunderstanding about my use of the term 'encyclopedic': I was referring solely to subjective opinions regarding quality.

To use your example of 'old' vs 'new' Coke, the fact of a change in formula is a verifiable historic event. The reactions to it (many negative) are also verifiable. On the other hand, if in the Wikipedia entry on New Coke an editor were to write "I didn't think it tasted as good," clearly that would be a POV and therefore non-encyclopedic.

I can't argue with the premise that Famous Amos cookies taste different to those who do indeed have a strong recollection of the former version--any more than I can disagree with the assertion that they are 'shadows of their former incarnation.' However, I would not expect to find that phrase incorporated within the article itself; that's a POV, not a verifiable statement according to my understanding of POV and NPOV and verifiability. My apologies for the lengthy response.

Quality is not entirely subjective. For any given type of item, there are features that can be described which have broad agreement as distinguishing quality. For example few would argue that old, wilted lettuce which is turning brown is the same quality as fresh crisp green lettuce. For some items like cookies, the distinguishing factors may be less clear cut, but that does not mean that useful ones cannot be determined. For cookies, I think it would be pretty uncontroversial to put fresh, home-made or bakery-made cookies at one end of the quality spectrum, and hard, mass-produced cookies designed for long shelf life and not for any approximation of freshness at the other. I'm not familiar with the old Famous Amos cookies, and so I can't speak to them though the reputation for them being something special lingers. But having tasted the current incarnation I think they are pretty clearly on the latter end of the spectrum. --Ericjs (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--JWMcCalvin 23:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I did not put any of my musings in the main article and said that their needs to be more research. perhaps a macro side by side photo of the two cookies would be appropriate in a future revision (if they could be found - he is baking the old cookies), which I do not have time for now. Making the coke/new coke analogy not appropriate, as the two cookies are worlds apart. Wally Amos said as much, and that *would* be fodder for the article if I could dig up the quote. As I said, this article needs lots more research. Nodekeeper 23:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biscuits have gone down like that all over the world, not just over there. Gotten smaller and brittler. You used to have to stand some of them in a glass of milk for about a minute before they went soft, now you can't even do fifteen seconds.

As for Famous Amos, never tried them but the ones on the plate reminded me of turds.

Why did I contribute? Declining quality of biscuits/cookies is something I noticed too. Katana Geldar 01:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image of apparently unlicensed product

I removed thumb|right|220px|Package from a Singapore outlet, circa 2007. as it appears to be of an unlicensed product. Unless citation can be provided which identifies that Kellogg's/Keebler is opening/licensing franchises in APAC, the image shouldn't be included as not notable to the article. Thank for your contributing to WP, all the same. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 15:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A simple and painless google search of "famous amos singapore" brings you right to the Singapore website. Unless you think even the website is not bona fide. Or have the wrong concerns been addressed? Chensiyuan 07:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on Famous Amos

Cyberbot II has detected links on Famous Amos which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://famousamos.shutterfly.com/currentpackaging/87
Triggered by \bshutterfly\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on Famous Amos

Cyberbot II has detected links on Famous Amos which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://famousamos.shutterfly.com/currentpackaging/87
Triggered by \bshutterfly\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Famous Amos/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Very informative article but does not show adequate refs and some more pictures would be nice. -- Warfreak 10:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 10:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)