Talk:Skittles (confectionery)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mint Skittles

What about Mint Skittles? Can't remember enough about them to write something, but they were the first non-normal ones over here. Skittle 11:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Not GA

Delisted. This article has no references. --BorgQueen 23:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with the GA removal. I would add that the images in the 2nd half of the article overwhelm the text. Joyous | Talk 23:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Gloopy

It's used in the last paragraph to describe an alcohol and Skittles concoction. But is this really a word? Do most people know what it means? I couldn't find a definition for it. --198.82.80.230 03:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

When making Skittles Vodka the end result isnt particulary "gloopy" anyway. Winky 12:55, 14 July 2006

Deletions to clean up article

I removed the screen shots of the web site - there is a link to the site at the bottom, and in my view, they clutter the article, as noted above. I also removed the reference to a movie where a character asks for a pack of Skittles - this is pretty thin stuff for an encyclopedia. Your thoughts? Seaphoto 18:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

refernce not needed

Is a reference for the existance of gelatin in skittles needed? I mean, it's right in the list of ingredients of any American-made package.

Ordinarily, I would agree, but since this is the difference between the product sold in Europe and in America I think it is a worthwhile fact, like regional differences in the types of sweeteners used in Coca Cola. Seaphoto 04:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

So how would one go about citing this? Take a photo of a Skittles wrapper, put it on, say, Photobucket, and create a link? I think the point of disputing the need for a reference is that this is a fact that anyone living in America or Europe who has access to a store that sells Skittles can check. You wouldn't even have to buy a bag of Skittles; you could simply walk into the store and look at the listed ingredients. -- Pennyforth 17:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, OK, if you mean documenting the fact, unless someone disputes it I don't think a citation is needed. I understood the question to be whether that particular fact is relevant to the article or not. Seaphoto 19:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Cherry vs. Strawberry

On the page I noticed that it says the red Skittle is Cherry but I have always thought the red one was Strawberry. I'm even looking at a package of Skittles right now and it says the red is Strawberry. -n8lewis —The preceding unsigned comment was added by N8lewis (talk • contribs) 17:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

List of Product Variations

How about a comprehensive list of the different products? Distribution varies, and there are several products on their site that I have never seen in a store (in California at least). Jozecuervo 21:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate???

What's up with this sentence?

"Skittles Bite Size Candies, originally made by a company in England, were first introduced in the United States in 2007."

As far as I know, Skittles have been around for much longer than that... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.113.195.93 (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Skittlesgum.jpg

Image:Skittlesgum.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Skittles are the Bomb! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.13.53 (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Tropical Skittles

Isn't there the light blue colored package of Tropical flavored skittles? The article doesn't even mention them. Distressing! I love tropical skittles! http://www.skittles.com/products/tropical.jsp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.138.205 (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Shellac or Carnauba wax

This article mentions the use of shellac in Skittles. (so they are not suitable for vegans) AFAIK a lot of Skittles contains Carnauba wax (E903) instead of shellac (E904). I'm aware of the different receipes used for this product, so I don't want to correct it cause I don't know a fancy description for it. My english sux anyway. 212.120.72.190 (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Taste

In the article, it is said that skittles are delicious. I'm sure some people don't like them, so that should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.199.126.11 (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Biased

The article seems american-biased in a strong fashion, from the beginning. My opinion is that it should be rewritten with emphasis towards history, not for an apparent American audience like it is now. --abach 04:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, its bias is anti-American in its current state, which titles a brand called "candy" by its manufacturer as "confectionery", a British usage. - Nunh-huh 02:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If it is an un-American article, why is purple labelled as being grape flavoured. everywhere outside of North America has blackcurrent flavoured sweets; it is a british product, hence in theory the original flavours should be put down. In actual fact when Skittles were originally released in the States, purple was blackcurren flavoured. however in the '50s, all North American blackcurrants suffered some disease, thus the flavour is changed to grape in evrything —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.0.26 (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Varieties of skittle section clean up

Id like to clean up this article of non sourced claims if anyone would have any objections to me reducing the 'varieties' section please let me know. Unless the information here can be veriefied it has way too much unsourced information and as i said before is just prone to vandalism. Ottawa4ever (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I made extensive citation remarks on this page, there were also a few POv issues of people discribing the skittles. Again, the big worry for this article which makes it ripe for vandalism is do these skittles even exist, I can see how remarkably easy it would be for someone to make up a brand and stick it in here on this page. I also made info on making each section consistant with the others. This is a starting point for fixing this page something we could all start on if theres interest. Unless we can verfiy through some credible sources about these brands the questionable facts should be removed. Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I know, right? -Autumn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.115.178 (talk) 12:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Darkened Skye

Apparently, there's a computer game based to an extent upon the Skittles franchise. I believe this would be somewhat relevant to the brand, but can't muster the eloquence to include a section on it. 71.106.254.128 (talk) 03:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Be bold! Add it yourself. I agree that it is totally relevant. Walrus1 (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Skittles Clean up

Im handing out alot of barnstars right now for users who help clean up this article to meet references and vandalism. That said there is still alot of unsourced information being placed in the article. If an editor feels a source should be added please respect this on this page and cease reverting the article to contain more unsourced content. To be specific in this case, grape skittles specifically is sourced from the North american product page, while it may be true that outside North america it is called blackcurrent, we need a source that says this, Other wise in other circumstances false information could easily be allowed in the article which says purple licorice skittles replace grape in iceland....etc.

A good edit was made recently to remove the sourcing tags in a way. I agree they should be removed(as well as the unsourced information which hasnt be verified), however, I propose If there is no objection a complete overhaul of that paticular section, just mentioning the different brands (which can easily be sourced) and a expansion can be made from this afterwards when sources are provided. Are there any objections? Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

citation needed

I have never seen an article with so many citation needed tags. 90% of the things listed in this article that have them do not need them. Someone needs to get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.8.58 (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There are indeed too many citations needed on this page. As mentioned above, if they do not have the proper referencing they should be deleted. There are many policies considering if its not on one page it should be on this page etc, so its not really a valid argument to make. The main reason for putting the citation(s) needed on this page is that most is not verifiable, the page is ripe for vandalism (and it sees this weekly more so than average wikipedia articles) One could easily make up a fictious brand if they wanted (and thats probably the case already here). Unfortunatly my time commitments at this time do not allow me to fix it myself. The page needs alot of work. If you are willing to properly cite and remove unverifiable material as well that would be much appreciated :) Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Crazy Cores

Does anyone know if the new skittle Crazy Cores are limited release or wide release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.27.172 (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I found this press release from Mars after someone removed the Crazy Cores entry that I made because I didn't have a source. The article says "new products" and not "limited", so I suspect that Crazy Cores are here to stay.

http://www.prnewswire.com/mnr/mars/35287/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjonesridesagain (talk • contribs) 04:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Fjonesridesagain (talk) 23:36 5 February 2009 —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC).

Australian Skittles

I'm working abroad in Australia, and was surprised to find out the green sSkittles over here seem to be Apple flavour. I edited the article, but didn't have a source so it was reverted...

I'm having a hard time tracking down a source for the flavours in Australia, anyone got any ideas? I have the empty packet in front of me, I could take a picture of it and upload it somewhere (it has the blurb saying they're made in Australia on the packet to, they're not an old packet of US Skittles or anything!).

I have also emailed customer services to see if they can verify, would it be possible to upload their response somewhere?193.133.192.115 (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

is there a australian web site of any sorts?., the article should get away from labelling every flavour as they are different in many countries and prooving this is difficult. As the article stands today there are too many things that are unsourced. Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I've searched in vain for one. I have found a few anecdotal references elsewhere on the internet, but nothing that's a reliable source. I think I need to check a few more packets in different shops before I can be sure this isn't some fluke... They are also different to the ones in the UK as the red packet specifically calls them Skittles Fruits; unless I'm mistaken, they've always just been called Skittles in the UK.

As a side issue, this would mean the sentence in the first paragraph would have to be changed saying they're manufactures in Victoria for distribution in NZ; they're obviously also distributed in Aus as well!

I agree having every flavour and variation would bloat the article somewhat, but I think as this is from the core product of the range is should be on the page somewhere (conversely, I could easily go without knowing the full range of flavours in Mint Skittles!). Can we have a table listing the main variations in the most popular packets (Original, Tropical and Sours, maybe?) then just list the other packets by name without describing the flavours inside? 193.133.192.115 (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Table would probably look better as well, and the other brands can easily be sourced below (though some countries have different brands and different names. It is an issue that in different countries the product is `different` this might lead way to a seperate section in the article mentioning this. As Ive mentioned before the page needs a ton of work, its just a matter of someone having the time to do the necessary fixes. Im pretty confident if a table is made at the very least vandalism will drop as well(my big concern). Feel free to fix the article if you have the time (I can try myself but I always seem to get pulled away)Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be willing to put all of these products in a table if someone could point me to a link of a tutorial that shows how to do so. (Or another Wikipedia article that uses them well so that I can copy-paste-modify.) I love Skittles, and would like to see the article show all variations that Skittles have had over the years. All of the strange flavors that they've had over the years adds to what Skittles are (to me anyway). Fjonesridesagain (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC).

I think this would help in creating a table; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Table ; It should be easier to source as a table. I know the american skittles website 'lists' the products but they just take along time to load and its not at al organized. Hope it helps Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually If a plan is to include 'all' possible brands of skittles in a table we might end up atracting other users to recommend that it be placed in a seperate article as the article becomes a 'list'. This might actually be better for the article. We could Name the key ones as suggested above in the main artcile and have a link to a new article that 'lists' the brands of skittles. This will decrease the amount of unsourced material in the main article and allow users to hammer out sources easier for the list: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chocolate_bar_brands Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, as has just been pointed out to me, the purple skittles here are not blackcurrent OR grape, they're blackBERRY. Still waiting to hear back from Masterfoods after I sent a query in, but I could still upload a picture of a new packet... Are there any more Skittles 'regions', or are there only Americas, Europe and Australasia?

Anyway, would agree that only putting the main brands in the article with a separate link to a list of historic flavours would be best; two options suggest themselves to me. First, we could have the current flavours in the main article (with regional variations...), second we could put popular 'core' products in the main article. The first seems better as there is less cause for people to add in their own personal preferences as to what is a 'core' product... This would give a more encylopedic feel to main article, with technical information there, and list of flavours to, appropriately enough, add flavour. 193.133.192.115 (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the additin is theres on the key thing to remember; what ever is put into the main article shouldnt really resemble a 'list'. I think a link to the list(which would eventually be sourced right) and mentioning maybe just the original flavour with variations accross regions might be a good option. Anyway, As for uploading the photo, I think it sounds like a great idea especially if it emphasizes a point in the text Ottawa4ever (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Corporate use - potential badness

Skittles' New Site Is the Social Web

NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- The new Skittles website, just out from Agency.com, looks awfully familiar. In fact, it's virtually the same concept as Modernista's website, introduced a year ago.

The site is not really a site at all but an overlay that lives on top of Web 2.0 content, such as Wikipedia, Facebook and Flickr.

Beware of corporate ad-speak. Oddly enough, I can't actually get skittles.com to load the Wikipedia page. It seems to be loading the twitter page instead. -- Cyrius|✎ 10:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Try viewing some of the products from the dropdown menu. :) BuddingJournalist 22:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed table

I put this together with the data currently on the page. I tried it with and without bulleted lists, and the spacing works better this way -- the list also could use some organization beyond just arbitrary randomness.

This looks like crap, I'm the first to admit it. But let's look at this as a draft. I invite and encourage editors to edit the table below, remove superfluous descriptions, pare things down, put things in a sensible order, etc., etc.) JDoorjam JDiscourse 21:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

->[Table moved to Talk:Skittles (confectionery)/Proposed table sandbox --Dynaflow babble 22:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)]

I like that; it's much more readable than the current page. I'd support putting it up. (And skittles.com breaks in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ...) --Dynaflow babble 21:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-arbitrary section break

I think it can still use some improvement, including a sorting into active and retired flavors, but as it's the same info on the page already but in a better format, I'm gonna be bold and throw it in there. Pleasepleaseplease add improvements! JDoorjam JDiscourse 21:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed: As predicted, this breaks part of what skittles.com was trying to do. Oh well, I'm sure they're capable of adjusting in this dynamic, Web 2.0 environment. I'm trying to figure out what happened to citation 9 (=label), though. --Dynaflow babble 22:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed (: --Nezek (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I added back the anchors for those links, but I'm not sure if it's actually better to make browsers jump to the table directly or to show the recognisable top of Wikipedia articles and the pretty colourful photo. Up to them, anyway. Meh. --Para (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You can't read the top of the article very well anyway, since a lot of it is hidden under their box, so it's just as well. --Dynaflow babble 22:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The new table shows even more clearly how overloaded the article is with needless detail about the many and sundry names, colours and flavours of individual candies having to do with this brand. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

new lede

Attempting a straightforward lede here. Anyone upset? Collect (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Commented out a bunch of stuff -- will anyone who notices either decide the delete should be made <g> or just remove the comment brackets. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Good cuts. I am going to go through and re-standardize standardise the dialect, which I think was British English when we started, but has now been considerably bastardized bastardised by us Americans (see: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. Remember, collective (e.g., company) names generate plural pronouns. --Dynaflow babble 13:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Unlimited in Canada

I have them and the flavours are: Red Licorice Green Slushy Bubble gum Cotton Candy and Candy Apple —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.79.94 (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That is because you ate carnival skittles. (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.233.155 (talk)

Ad banner

Does this article really read like an advertisement? What content needs changing? It comes across as pretty dry to me, actually (as many Wikipedia articles appropriately do). I really would like to get that banner off the page, so if there are edits we need to make to do that, let's make 'em. JDoorjam JDiscourse 22:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Gale was very insistent upon it. I've removed it once and been asked to restore it, pending further input. If you regard your last post as "further input," feel free to do away with it. =) --Dynaflow babble 22:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd removed it too, and received the same response. It's my goal to build a consensus to remove it within the next three hours, so let's get talking! Gwen Gale, what would you like changed?

Okay, I'm not seeing much that's really, blatantly promotional. It's just oversourced from sites under Mars Brand control and lacks much third-party perspective. What are some outside sources that could be used to replace the "official" links that ultimately come from their marketing department? --Dynaflow babble 23:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just been alerted that I need to take a 180-mile, round-trip drive, but here are some of the sources I've found so far: History of Skittles Candy, Confectionery Timeline, Masterfoods Updates Packaging For Skittles® Dark Bar And Skittles®, Skittles nutrition facts. Do what you can with them, I'll see what I can do once I get back. --Dynaflow babble 23:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is deeply lacking in reliable and independent sources. A company can be cited with a strong presumption of honesty and good faith, but cannot be taken as a reliably neutral source when the topic is itself or one of its products. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the ad tag to the product description section, which should be skived into a few encyclopedic paragraphs of text with a sourced overview of the product and its history. Every little flavour, package and colour they've had a go at over the years is not notable, but the notion that they have made so many variations is likely notable. This brings us to reliable, independent sources, which the article is almost wholly lacking. I'll not put a ref tag at the top of the article but it wouldn't be untowards to have one there. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone has rm'd the ad tag. If it's hard to tell an encyclopedia article from a product brochure, a listing from helpful paragraphs of text bounded with context, background and reliable sources, then I guess one must wait for more input. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That's three times it's been removed by three different people. There may be a consensus forming. I think the breakdown of individual products is useful to the article (not to mention a prophylactic against someone spinning off individual articles on any or all of them), and the table is a good, efficient way to organize it. If I'm reading you right, having that table at all makes this brochure-like and thus written like an ad. Is there a middle ground between scrapping the table of products and your agreeing that this is not written like an ad? Note again that the ad-likeness you're pointing to is the consequence of an editorial decision made by a sixteen year old over three years ago, and though I've looked painstakingly through the history (it was the first thing I did after I saw this story posted to the Signpost's suggestion page), I have yet to see solid evidence of COI-type edits to format this thing as an ad, and I don't think this ever looked like an ad at all (certainly not GA material, but definitely not an ad either). The items listed in the table are separate products currently being dealt with under this blanket article, and this seems like a proper way to deal with them. --Dynaflow babble 05:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The ad tag's been put up by two editors. Only so you know, 3-2 is not consensus. The product section reads like a brochure, not an encyclopedia article. The article is not reliably sourced. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I see you, you again, me at your request, and then your move. That just looks like you and me. If you're referring to this, it was a spurious CSD G11 nomination by an editor who has made no other contribution to the article, nor communicated any further with us here (according to his userpage, he's this guy, a blogger on such things as guerilla marketing). I think we have a workable consensus, for the time being, that we can have a product-list table without seriously compromising the quality of the article. --Dynaflow babble 06:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Dynaflow -- I just don't see this as being very ad-like. Gwen Gale, please by all means modify the language in the table to make it more suitable, and if you have ways of rearranging, organizing, and shrinking the list down, it'd be good to hear them so we can take this article to a higher level. But it just doesn't hit me as being promotional in tone. This is an ad, full of references to Skittles being super-awesome, popular, and delicious. A table with every Skittles type is certainly more information than we need, but it isn't an advertisement. If it needs a {{tl:references}} tag, let's put a references tag in there, but the ad banner oughta go. JDoorjam JDiscourse 07:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok. It's that super-awesome overflow of (listed) flavours, colours and names which make it ad-like but no worries, sounds to me like there is a consensus the section could be skived down and that's the pith, however an editor might tag it (or not). Gwen Gale (talk) 07:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to nag again about the lack of WP:RS though. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

RS on commercial products is difficult to obtain. Newspapers, for example, do not put ads in their archives to be searched. This is likely the type of article where RS rules really need to be revised. On the other hand, the article does not read like an ad anymore, which I trust is a good thing. Collect (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

wikied flavours?

Is there really a need for wikilinks from flavours to the articles in WP on the fruits? Seems to me that most readers of the article know what "lemon flavour" is, and a link to the fruit is not really a positive thing. Any other opinions? Collect (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The links are reasonably benign but there is some question as to whether the content itself is encyclopedic (see Gwen Gale's comments above). -- samj _in^out 17:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

How about a varieties table?

The content for each variety of Skittles seems rather uniform: name, color, flavors, notes. What do people think about a four-column table that lists all this info and increases the density of the page somewhat? JDoorjam JDiscourse 19:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. That would be a much better presentation. --Dynaflow babble 19:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, probably a good idea to test it out on the talk page before blowing up the whole page structure. Joshdboz (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you think using the of the structure of Mars Bar as a model for a revamped Skittles article, substituting your table idea for the general region encompassed by "Limited editions" and "Spinoff products" in the latter article? Does anyone have a decent source for the history of these things? The corporate websites aren't terribly much help. --Dynaflow babble 20:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of the pith seems to come from the Notes column. While I don't see a problem with the reliability of the manufacturer as a source for what are effectively product specifications (even if there were reliable sources they'd likely have used this source anyway), the notes about years introduced, etc. are both superfluous and unreliable. Here's what it would look like if we dropped the column (and a sprinkle of colour to see what that does for appearance/accessibility):

Variety	Package colour	Flavours
Original Fruit Skittles	Red	Lemon (yellow), Lime (green), Orange (orange), Strawberry (red), Grape (purple)

Colours could also be expressed through table background (with half a dozen columns to list the various flavours) but I'm unconvinced this helps our accessibility. -- samj _in^out 06:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I fear that the notes have the only real content here -- noting the names and colours seems a teeny bit useless. And I still do not think links to the actual fruits is helpful in this article. There is a temptation ot over-wikify such stuff. Collect (talk) 11:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Colour-blind users probably won't like it....-Wafulz (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup, and as Gwen Gale points out above, not particularly encyclopedic (albeit benign). -- samj _in^out 17:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

funny how the table idea was brought up last month, good to see people have the time Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Skittles.com Breakage

This series of edits broke http://skittles.com/ without consensus and for no apparent reason (the offending content was moved to another article, despite the fact that this one is already quite small). Yes Mars probably could have anticipated some breakage and perhaps should have linked to a specific revision (thereby essentially defeating the purpose of linking to a wiki), but this edit (and others like it) appear to be trying to make a WP:POINT at the expense of third parties (and ultimately Wikipedia itself).

There are no doubt some people who don't appreciate this commercial [ab]use of Wikipedia, but there are others (myself included) who are intrigued by it and the possibilities it presents (after all they are effectively advertising and validating Wikipedia, albeit at the expense of some resources). Assuming they haven't already donated then there's nothing to stop us asking them to do so if that's a problem.

Anyway my point is simply not to make changes for the sake of it. Yes the article needs to be compliant with policy (and there are a lot of eyeballs looking out for WP:COI violations) but we shouldn't deliberately be trying to break this application without good reason (e.g. violations), or at least without clear consensus. -- samj _in^out 07:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC) (who has nothing to do with Mars or Skittles)

Its interesting you call this page skittles.com, Sadly this is not skittles.com, but is a wikipedia article. Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The point about the table was brought up nearly a month ago as well as the abundant use of citations on the page going back a year. The table resembles a list which is grossly lacking apropriate citations and is bordeline notable. The table is still readily acheivable by a link to a new article, you can try fixing it and bringing it up to par however citing a cnady bar wrapper gives it the view of being an advertisement as it really doesnt give facts about the product. The table has been fixed albit still needing work in the new article list of skittles. consensus really doesnt need to be achieved here since the plan of action was discussed without objections over a month ago with this point being brought up about a `list` (however If consensus is disired again ill be open to it, but keep in mind the material in the table does resemble a list and is more appropriate to a list article then a main article page). And as you pointed out breaking up skittles.com is not going on here, this article has needed work as noted going back over a year in this discusssion, the plans were already in motion, its a wikipedia article and not property of skittles, If anything skittles is in partial violation of WP: reuse, especially considering there are copyrighted logos they are using on their cite (but thats another issue, point is this is a wikipedia article not the home page of skittles and the changes bring the article up to notabilities and give it a shot at a good article assesmentOttawa4ever (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

We could place a deletion or merge tag on the skittles list of products and generate a larger debate on the notability of the products list itself and get feedback from more people. But I think holding off on that for now would be a better course as the information in the list has a chance to be developed and achieving more notability prior to undergoing a debate.Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this edit, which removed the table, was very helpful because the content it carried is fit for an advertising brochure or promotional website but not an encyclopedia article. A paragraph ot two of text with an overview and background about how the company has marketed sundry colours and flavours of the sweet would be encyclopedic. However, the lack of independent and reliable sources is still highly worrisome. Lastly, I think it's ok (which is to say, I could care less) if someone, anyone, wants to carry the live content of this encyclopedia article and even overlay it with logos and other stuff at a promotional website, but that has aught to do with the article and no edits here should be swayed by that in any way: If, from the outlook of anyone's non-en.Wikipedia goals, it "breaks," this has no meaning here. Likewise, if from that same outlook of non-en.Wikipedia goals, it spins up wonderfully for someone, this also has no meaning here. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Varieties section resembles a list

Might it not be time to form a list article for the varities section? Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I cannot believe skittles redirects back here lol. On a side not im removing everything thats not sorcedeverything thats not sourced is being removed the tag has been on the citation needed signs have been on the page for over a year. Please read above before reverting. Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ive moved the list to its own article so the trouble zone of sources can be dealt with and the article doesnt become a 'list' itself Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is, there's no arguing this is a high profile page, and you removed a very long section of it after achieving consensus with yourself. Am I missing a big conversation? I see scattered comments but nothing to conclude that all the information should be moved to a separate page. Joshdboz (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

missing alot actually. Above this discussion there was talk of building the table and the worry that it would resemble a list long before this section of the talk page. Because there were too many products in it, at the time the people working on the article did not have the time avaliable to commit the table, the table was built recently based on questionable material with reference tags dating back to august of 2008 ( as well as a page reference tag dating to march 2008 recently removed). Currently its stronger sources were those of the candy wrapper themselves, to be fair, I would argue the table should be completely removed,deleted and only a few skittles products mentioned as it has no real relevant sources and is merely promotional(and this setiment has been expressed by not only me on this talk page). Half the products on the list could have been made up. The skittles side bar only mentions 5 products as well. Ill concede that missing the table was easy and thats been fixed with a section header, but the issue of it being a list was brought up for some time in this article in paticular the questionable nature of the information noted in the table. My question to you is why put it back? does it improve the article? Or does it generate more problems and could not potentially the entire table be deleted as un-encyclopedic? If you would like to merge it back, theres few easy fixes open to you; 1) fix the citations and trim down the table so its not a list 2) propose the merge on the products list page generate a larger debate for consensus and this could easily be merged back without a fuss. At this time you are probably the first to question the list being a seperate article idea. But no one before had so there was no problem with being bold and fixing an article (in fact others have agreed with the edit). At this point the information is a `list` with major sourcing issues and makes this article look like a list as well and could easily be deleted by itself. You will also note that Ive put the list under assessment at this time as im hoping to get more official feedback on the information in the table and ways to improve it. You want the products table back in the main article?, but what are you doing to improve the table and its sources?, aside form pasting the older version back with all its reference tags dating back to last august? Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"At this time you are probably the first to question the list being a seperate article idea" Heh, hold on a sec, it was just created a few days ago. You bring up a few issues. One is referencing, some of which is available online, and some is in that gray area of product packaging, but that concerns details, not the main structure of the article. This article is about a product that is sold in multiple varieties, and it is entirely appropriate for those varieties to be listed in the main product article (see the article Coca-Cola). It only gets promotional if we start listing prices and buy 2 get 1 free offers. The question is whether or not the inclusion of a list of varieties overwhelms the main article and should be moved to a breakout article. All combined they add up to around 13,000 bytes (with the chart), which isn't too large at all. Considering the article is rather lacking in information anyway, I don't entirely see the reason for spiriting away a list of its varieties to a more obscure corner. I have absolutely no opposition to your work in trying to improve this situation at all. Joshdboz (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Im not going to go too much more into this, but again the 'list' problem was brought up at least one month ago. Anyway, point is, yes the table reads as a promotional article, (it has few if any independent sources used outside the company) but its easily fixed with some editing and valid sourcing. The products are obscure and doubtful in that few can proove their existance (why sources are needed in this case) not to mention the detailed explanations of some of their packages with lovely 'Xtreme' and 'exotic' adjectives (easily fixable mind you). At any rate the list was the size of the text of the article if not more by length means, and even at this point alot of the current text in the main article could still be brought down if it cant be sourced, making the article in danger of being a list itself if the table is still there. The other key to is that you cant compare two seperate articles but you can look at the quality scale of the two articles for comparison; Coca Cola at this point is a B, skittles is a C, The main objective of any article is to at least get it up to 'good' or 'featured' standing. The obscure corner should be dealt with now since it has its own heading. Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

about COI

Conflict of interest is allowed among editors of Wikipedia articles. Please mind, however, editors who may have a conflict of interest on a topic must take even more care that their edits are heedful of Wikipedia editorial policy and for them, editing such an article will be fraught with ways to easily stray from the policy. If COI edits stay within policy, they can be highly helpful to the project (this indeed happens more than some editors think) but if they don't, the outcome will be harmful. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You may find this essay useful if you find yourself regularly explaining this. -- samj _in^out 21:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Marketing trivia

I removed some material about its marketing. Is there more coverage about this material that would make it notable? Maybe include links here and discuss. Thanks, Tom 15:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

in undoing my undo you also deleted a lot of background info on the ingredients that was supported by citations - did you mean to do that too? can i at least revert that part? i dont really see the value in removing relevant additional information from an encyclopedia. --Katerg (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesnt it fall under that 'wikipedia is not news'? which goes right back to whether this information is even notable or not (I have no objection to the removal edit at this point). For the ingredients if there is no source it can be removed, Solution, use a valid source and supply it. Im not sure if it had a source, but i recall citations needed and JDoorjam made this edit 5 days ago. We should also be careful to be using third party sources if possible down the roadOttawa4ever (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Skittles, the Mars-owned candy brand, has turned its Wikipedia page into its home page

http://www.productplacement.biz/200902282995/News/Internet/skittles-product-placement-on-wikipedia.html

"Skittles, the Mars-owned candy brand, has turned its Wikipedia page into its home page in an effort to get more consumers. The campaign, which was crafted by Agency.com, is a total revamp of the site. It has links to other social networking media, including Twitter, Facebook, and Flickr. “We are leveraging what we think are the key consumer social media touch points,” commented Carole Walker, integrated marketing communications VP of Skittles. “Wikipedia is a definition of what the brand actually is.” ....

What's Wikipedia's position on this???

If every corporation does this, Wikipedia will be just a collection of advertising pages "controlled" by corporate employees, who can monitor their pages 24/7 and edit out what they don't "approve". Corporate employees can also infiltrate the sysops echelon and become enforcers of the corporate edicts.

ConcernedCitizenry (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

— ConcernedCitizenry (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Dynaflow babble 13:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the marketing campaign is quite high-profile, any attempt of roguery on Skittles' part (such as editing the article to promote the product) would backfire quickly. That said, I do wonder about the utility of listing all the Skittles varieties on this page (rather than, say, List of Skittles or something similar). BuddingJournalist 22:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm noticing that their Flash applet obscures the standard button to access the Talk page, as well as most of the edit button. I'm wondering if this is intentional. Through a bit of futzing, though, I did manage to get through to here from there (my address bar currently reads http://www.skittles.com/products.htm#skittles_original), so this thing is definitely live. Twinkle works in here too. --Dynaflow babble 23:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Attn: Monitors: At the risk of throwing out a WP:BEANS problem, I would like to raise a point to the ad-agency monitors (I know you're here). You need to seriously consider how to deal with a good-faith rewrite of this article which does away with or otherwise alters section headings in the process of improving the article (i.e., changes which may break your Flash app but which cannot simply be reverted). I am somewhat tempted to do that, given the current state of the article, but I don't want to blind-side you. I would suggest completely avoiding the use of direct links to inherently-unstable article subsections in such a high-profile web-app. Also, you should sign up for accounts, if you have not already done so, and introduce yourselves. We will not have any problems with you if you declare who you're working for and your edits conform to Wikipedia:COI#Editors who may have a conflict of interest (and as long as you're not an otherwise-active Wikipedian violating WP:SOCK to avoid scrutiny). --Dynaflow babble 00:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Another thing for the Skittles people to talk to their developers about is the placement of the Flash overlay. Not only does it make it difficult to access important Wikipedia buttons; it also makes it impossible to read the words on the left-hand side of the intro to this article or any other you may try to navigate to. I would suggest making the overlay tall and thin, and pinning it to the bottom-left corner to make it less self-defeating and less able to interfere with Wikipedia's functionality when accessed through skittles.com. --Dynaflow babble 04:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt Skittles folks will be revealing themselves, I'm afraid. The whole benefit to them here is the pure externalization of both the work and the consequences. Why try to start up a Web 2.0 movement around your product when you can simply piggyback? Doubtlessly, access to their web site (and thus this one) will spike over the next few days as this spreads around the internet, but there just won't be that much traffic to it. I wouldn't oppose a preemptive sprotect if someone wants, but I doubt there will be much trouble here. On the other hand, this whole thing could go sideways if someone in the media engages in Colberrorism. At that point we may need to lock it down. Until then, let's just keep cool and see what happens. JDoorjam JDiscourse 08:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It may be helpful to visit and read Talk:Modernista! - that company did a similar redesign several months ago. Dreamyshade (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I notice that the guy who did the Modernista! site was kind enough to wave hello, which makes me hopeful that the Skittles people will do the same. I also noticed that the Modernista! frame was done much more intelligently, as it is not able to obscure any article text and will not break if the article is significantly changed, though it does hide the Wikipedia logo and obscure the edit and talk buttons in the same way Skittles' does. For the likely final word on this sort of thing (Jimbo's), or at least the precedent, see Talk:Modernista!/Archives/2012#I have asked this company to stop hotlinking and framing, which continues here: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 35#MfD of disclaimer at Modernista!. --Dynaflow babble 13:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I've flashed the Jimbo-signal to see if he wants to comment on this; in the meantime, the page does look marketing-designed to me - do we really need a breakdown of the flavours and colours in each separate type of candy? Someone up a few sections suggested some sort of table instead. Seems silly to me. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't need a breakdown of flavors, and I don't think it jibes well with WP:MOS, but they need it in order for their Flash app to work. I don't think it's their doing, though; that basic structure dates back to January 2006. --Dynaflow babble 17:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, blocking the "Talk" and "Edit" pages from the overlay is a good thing -- it will cut down on vandalism a bit. If you need to edit the page, you can do it through the normal WP interface.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the "Home" page of their website, which is what I guess was a Wikipedia overlay, has been redirected to their "Chatter" page. Avruch ^T 18:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's been like that from the beginning. What they're using us for is the product descriptions. Use the drop-down Products menu in their Flash application that's pinned to the upper, left-hand corner. --Dynaflow babble 18:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the current incarnation of "Flavor Skittles (Color Package)" headings occurred all the way back in September 2007 diff and the idea to create separate sections for each variety was already started in January 2006 by User:DaNASCAT diff, so it doesn't look like they've redesigned this page for the ad campaign. (And not to throw any flame on this fire, though I am usually for adding all relevant information, this is seriously bordering on WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory) Joshdboz (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added an advertising tag and a conflict of interest tag until the content worries having to do with this article are dealt with. There is no need for all the sundry descriptions having to do with this line of candy: The confection is notable, every little variation, flavour and name is not. Moreover, all the citations back to the brand owner are not too worthwhile as reliable sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, nothing fundamental has changed about the article for a long, long while. I don't think anyone has tampered with it in any unseemly ways. It's just kind of a crappy, neglected article that very few contributors have bothered putting much effort into improving until now (lightbulb moment: maybe that's why they're doing this). I just removed a CSD G11 tag, and I'm going to remove the advert and COI tags too, because they have absolutely no justification -- at least yet. --Dynaflow babble 19:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't remove the tags at least until further input shows up here. The article is a product description platform, not reliably sourced and not encyclopedic. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Who is the major contributor with the conflict of interest? Where are the COI edits? How is this article even coherent enough to be mistaken for an advertisement? It needs serious work, yes, but just because a company believes they can get away with linking this to their main site, it doesn't mean we can besmirch the work of previous contributors. --Dynaflow babble 19:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about a company linking to the article, I think it's more than ok if they do. Hence, I was hardly besmirching anyone for that and truth be told, I wasn't besmirching anyone. Either way, the article is not reliably sourced, is not neutral and reads like an advertisement brochure. Please restore the tags pending more input, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I will restore the {{advert}} tag until someone else gives further input. However, I will not restore {{coi}} tag, which reads, "A major contributor to this article appears to have a conflict of interest with its subject." That simply doesn't seem to be true at all and presumes malevolence in a way that's fundamentally at odds with WP:AGF. --Dynaflow babble 20:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

COI in no way presumes malevolence, it only hints there may be a lack of neutrality. Please stop characterizing my posts about this as "besmirching editors as malevolent," those are your words and they are wholly mistaken, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The {{COI}} tag is a cleanup template that should be used to explain actual policy violations. In the absense of a supporting violation it can constitute a personal attack as it is a comment on the contributor (and the other contributors, and the article, and its subject). See WP:WHYCOI if you need a more detailed explanation.

If Mars wants to reveal themselves, play by the rules, and pay to keep the (otherwise stagnant) article up to date then good on them. There could be an element of WP:LUC involved though! -- samj _in^out 00:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Its amazing how much chatter has come to this page and how all of the sudden there are so many people wanting to make the page better. So long as addtions are made that make the article still encycopedic thats not a problem regardless of who they are. Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was raised at WP:COIN so that probably explains why some of us are here. -- samj _in^out 06:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The Skittles website links to list of skittles products, which redirects to list of Skittles products. If we delete the redirect, the marketing folks will no longer be able to use Wikipedia as an advertising vehicle. On the other hand, this will not affect normal users because they will still be able to find the article using the search feature, which automatically capitalizes words when the lowercase versions are not found. --Ixfd64 (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Not vegetarian?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that vegetarians are generally okay with animal products such as collagen; they just don't eat meat. Shouldn't the page say that Skittles are not vegan rather than not vegetarian? 194.123.224.249 (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It should say something. The revelation that they are coated in insect resin (often including insect parts) is probably quite surprising and of undoutable interest to a large portion of society. To claim some group is affected by it would require some sort of citations but to display and explain the ingredients is surely of some interest? 86.46.64.230 (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Most vegetarians try to avoid ingesting any animal products, including gelatin. Food colourings from insects is a gray area. Vegans avoid ingesting the same and also avoid having contact with animal products (leather etc.) --92.9.37.67 (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrigley and MARS - Skittles (r) Production - FALSE

I work in the factory where Skittles (r) are produced. The statement in the article about production being moved from MARS to Wrigley is false. Unless I'm in a warp zone of some kind, they are still coming off the line that I just walked past a few minutes ago. Someone should check their facts. Production has NOT been moved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.88.99.130 (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The source is indeed erroneous thats used, first its from 2004 NYT and deals with a shift in advertising practice not production, and i belive the purchase of wrigley by mars was 2008 (am i correct?). Wrigly indeed manufacturers skittles in the UK. as confirmmed by their company page at the bottom. I can confirm theres mistakes here but these should be sorted out still for the sentance to stay (just my own thoughts). As a temporary measure since the source doesnt mention wrigley anyway, Ive removed it for now. Please feel free to be bold and remove things/add things, or change things which you feel are incorrect or can be improved, thats what Wikipedia is about, growing the page and making it more accurate through the community. Are there any other thoughts out there on this issue? Happy editing. Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia link on website?

I see the Twitter and Facebook thing on their website but not the Wikipedia one...Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No gelatine

My UK packaged Skittles state that they dont have gelatine in them -.- Could anyone please confirm this, if so, the section about dietary conditions needs changing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.91.20 (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I TOO have found that MARS INC. now has GELATIN AND GLUTEN FREE SKITTLES...someone EDIT THIS PLEASE!! NO GELATIN IN SKITTLES! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.126.200.146 (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

hi i live in germany. several years ago skittles were also sold here and they were without gelatine, so i could eat them because i am muslim. but now you cant find nowhere in germany skittles! anyone knows why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.12.63.135 (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

They used to have gelatin. But now it seems that Mars is trying to take gel out of their products. I noticed that Starburst jellybeans (NOT THE CHEWS!) no longer have gelatin. And just today I noticed that the Skittles don't either. This needs to be mentioned. Elecbullet (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The "Dietary restrictions" section of the wiki article seems somehow.. misleading.. http://www.wrigley.com/global/brands/skittles.aspx - I see gelatin in them thar ingredients. I believe these are the ingredients listings for the candies as they are produced in America. However, as mentioned before, I still find the wiki article somewhat misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.144.132 (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Skittles candy and Shellac

There is a link being made on the web to Bug resin and Skittles candy, which would be easy to connect. Shellac is food grade, it coats pills, Skittles are pill-shaped: (Aha Vegetarian! You ate bug resin!) It is traveling around the web like and Urban Legend. If it is true, a better reference is needed. The current ingredients,, according to the Wrigley Brands site, for the Original Flavor Skittles show as:SUGAR, CORN SYRUP, HYDROGENATED PALM KERNEL OIL, APPLE JUICE FROM CONCENTRATE, LESS THAN 2% CITRIC ACID, DEXTRIN, MODIFIED CORN STARCH, NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS, COLORING (INCLUDES YELLOW 6 LAKE, RED 40 LAKE, YELLOW 5 LAKE, BLUE 2 LAKE, YELLOW 5, RED 40, YELLOW 6, BLUE 1 LAKE, BLUE 1), ASCORBIC ACID (VITAMIN C).http://www.wrigley.com/global/brands/skittles.aspx. What is the ingredient name for food shellac? Group29 (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the dietary restrictions section, which is not backed up by the ingredients reference. Group29 (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Old look

The package design on the page is old. Does anyone have any pictures of the new design? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.165.104 (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

In the UK, the packaging is different from that depicted in this article

Dannyboy1209 (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 150.135.248.26, 19 July 2011

citation #3 linking to a www.masterfoodsnews.com cite is no longer valid. Please remove or locate another appropriate link.

150.135.248.26 (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I cleaned up that reference and added an archiveurl to it, so clicking on it will take you to an archived version of the link that is now dead. That should solve the problem. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 December 2011

Production

Each candy starts as a chewy center. Then, in an eight-hour-long process, the centers are tumbled and coated with a flavored sugar shell in a process called “panning”. They are then polished and blended, and a special machine designed to preserve the sugar shells prints the “s” on each SKITTLES® Bite Size Candy before packaging.

Mrdanken (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

 Not done This would have to be summarised and reworded before it could be included in the article. To include this verbatim would be a copyright violation. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

References

Famous People Who Love Skittles

My wife keeps lists of famous people, and the kinds of foods they enjoy. In her notebooks "Candies" she has a skittles section. Those people in it include:

Martin Mull Danny Devito Leslie Wood Paul Hogan Dave Matthews Marv Albet Trayvon Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.214.234 (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Ed O'neil Bobby Jenks Carl Lewis Pete Seeger Brian Jones Dean Martin

Michael Jackson was a really great singer. I really miss him. Can't believe he is gone. Should we put this in?

== A list of random people who 'like Skittles'? Not notable in the least. 162.136.193.1 (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources

I remember being a kid and loving at least 4 different varieties of skittles in the mid 1990s. I see some of those skittle brands as being produced in the late 90s and early 2000`s which is false. Sources are needed. This article is ripe for misinformation and needs to be edited desperately. Please provide sources for this article. I mean how easy would it be to make up a brand of skittles...who would know????...........Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And yes there is(was) tropical skittles........Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Skittles Sour anyone? I just ate a bag of them... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.107.172 (talk) 03:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Skittles (confectionery) → Skittles — The candy is by far the primary topic. According to article traffic statistics, Skittles (confectionary) gets about three times as many visits as Skittles (sport) and Skittles (chess) is rarely viewed. –CWenger (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose; a three-fold difference in traffic stats is not sufficient in my book to determine primary topic. Powers ^T 18:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • How does a three-fold difference not meet the primary topic criteria of "much more likely than any other"? Consider that getting any even number from a rolled die is more likely by a three-fold difference over getting a "1" - if you roll a die aren't you "much more likely" to get 2, 4 or 6 than a 1? The odds of getting a "1" are 1/6 or 17%. The odds of getting a 2, 4 or 6 are 3/6 or 50%. If 50% is not not "much more likely" than 17%, how much more likely is "much more likely"? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
    • As I'm sure you've noticed, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not specify a percentage threshold—as well it shouldn't. That means it's a judgment call, and in my case, I judge "much more likely" to mean at least an order of magnitude difference. (That's not a hard and fast rule, of course; there can be mitigating circumstances that allow for a smaller threshold, and of course there are the problems inherent in using nothing more than page views as a metric...) Powers ^T 23:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. A classic case of Internet bias. Primary meaning is probably the sport; Safest solution is to leave it with the DAB at the undisambiguated name. Andrewa (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by "primary meaning" and what relevance does that concept have here? Primary topic is defined specifically in terms of how likely a person entering a term is to be looking for each of its uses, and article traffic statistics are one of the best tools we have to give us that information. There can be exceptions (like when the higher traffic for one use is better explained by users getting there by some means other than searching with the term in question), but no reasons have been given to indicate why there should be an exception like that here. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Quote: There can be exceptions (like when the higher traffic for one use is better explained by users getting there by some means other than searching with the term in question) - You mean like the corporate website for one of those topics increasing the traffic by sending users here, or by displaying this page as their homepage? Call me old fashioned, but that WOULD seem to warrant consideration before assuming this is the most sought after topic. MrZoolook (talk) 10:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
    • In this context, primary meaning is interchangeable with primary topic.
    • Disagree that no reasons have been given. Andrewa (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Traffic statistics clearly show that the candy is most likely the article being sought by anyone searching for "Skittles", which is the only consideration we're supposed to make when determining primary topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Oversimplified argument and as a result self-contradictory. The other consideration is, of course, whether there even is a primary topic. And there seems significant doubt of that here, as evidenced by the difficulty in determining what that primary topic might be. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Several meanings here, and no obvious primary topic. Stick with the dab page at Skittles. To me, "skittles" is a long-established game, rather than a current brand of sweets. PamD (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Agree. I'm skeptical that the sweet will ever overtake the sport as primary meaning, despite the best efforts of the promoters of such products. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: I'll admit I was not even aware of the sport when I posted this move request, so if the consensus is oppose I have no problem with that. But echoing what Born2cycle said, there are some odd sentiments here that I think should be avoided, i.e. "the sport is legitimate, the candy is a marketing ploy, traffic stats be damned". –CWenger (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: May I gently suggest that, while I have no problems with this particular move request being raised, it would be good in general to skim the affected articles before raising a move request? Specifically, in this case, the DAB. I realise that you'd possibly have raised the request anyway, but I think it's courtesy to do this homework before seeking input from others by raising a move request. And I hope you're not paraphrasing me as saying the sport is legitimate, the candy is a marketing ploy, traffic stats be damned, that's not what I (or anyone else as far as I can see) said at all. The point is rather that there are other factors to consider in interpretting the traffic stats. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I should have said I was not aware of the sport when I conceived of this move request; I did of course look into the sport before posting the move request.
      • OK, understood. I was a bit puzzled as you mentioned the game explicitly in the proposal. But there have been requests where the proposer didn't do this. Andrewa (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    • The specific comment I was primarily referring to was "To me, 'skittles' is a long-established game, rather than a current brand of sweets." Move requests should not be judged in this way since it is clearly subjective, as to me Skittles are a popular candy and not an obscure sport. –CWenger (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Agree it's a very weak argument, but disagree that it's irrelevant. Andrewa (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Like some others, I'd have assumed that the pub game, if anything, was the primary topic (and I'm not even British). WP:PRIMARYTOPIC suggests two rules of thumb other than article views for determining a primary topic: incoming links and Google hits. In this case, incoming links for the game and candy article are roughly equal, and the game gets far more Google Books hits. Deor (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Concur with Powers that 3x is not by itself a sufficient traffic difference to confer primarytopichood when other supporting factors are also lacking. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

	Skittles sweet (or candy)	Skittles game
Google	328,000 (or 332,000)	754,000
Google Books	3370 (or 2030)	17700
Google News	1650 (or 1150)	4130
Google Scholar	4250 (or 1330)	5280

• Oppose If someone says Skittles to me, my mind is about equally likely to jump to the game or the sweet. I agree that the confectionary is getting significantly more hits, but I don't believe that it is the primary topic. Doing a little research, I'd say Skittles is primarily the game. I expect the best way to demonstate is with a pretty little table. There's a vague argument for moving it to the game, but I'd say it should stay at the DAB page. Worm 13:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Just looking at a Google search for Skittles excluding Wikipedia here in the United Kingdom, the first couple of pages of results are pretty evenly divided. Admittedly, to most people under 10 (and my partner, who is addicted to the little buggers), the sweet is probably the primary use of the term. To an older audience, it is highly doubtful that that would be the case, and the evidence above suggests the sport may even have the edge. On that basis, it is better not to have either as the primary use of the term. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

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.

Edit request on 1 May 2013

Skittles has one of the largest fan bases of a brand on Facebook, with approx. 25 million followers. That success is due to a decision act 'goofy'. A recent post: “Most cacti are just looking for hugs.”

The grammar and wording of this section are a bit awkward, could you change it to something like this:

Skittles has one of the most-"liked" pages for a brand on Facebook, with over 25 million followers. The page's success may be due to the page's eccentric posts, such as this recent post: “Most cacti are just looking for hugs.” 0per4t0r (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Done, with a couple changes. – 296.x (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2014

They come in a variety of flavours such as original, sour, wild berry, crazy colors 165.228.197.218 (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

True, but....
Five years ago, as can be seen here, this article used to include a large table listing the varieties, packaging colours and flavours, but this was removed as being "non-encyclopedic" as can be seen in the discussions further up this page. - Arjayay (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Green Apple

It should be mentioned that the green apple change affects only the US, Australia and a limited number of Asian countries, in Europe and most countries worldwide green is still lime as of April 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.40.141.149 (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Original date not 1974?

The wiki article says: "Skittles were first made commercially in 1974 by a British company." However, the source listed for that sentence says: "SKITTLES® Bite Size Candies were first introduced in the United States in 1974, made by a company in England." Viz, the article sentence does not accurately reflect the source used and that 1974 is the date of introduction NOT the first time Skittles was made commercially.

This fortune article lists 1963 as their start date under the original name of "Glees".

"Skittles started in the U.K. as “Glees” in 1963 before entering the U.S. market in 1974 as Skittles. They were designed to be a non-chocolate alternative to M&Ms—a similar hard, melt resistant shell candy."

http://fortune.com/2016/06/20/skittles-americas-favorite-candy/?xid=for_fb_sh

108.46.147.132 (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Language

The current page is a mix of UK and US spellings [flavour vs flavor]. As the product was originally British and as the original page used UK spellings, shouldn't the spelling be standardised to be UK style throughout? 137.222.148.35 (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Lentils

Word on the street has it that an individual Skittle is called a 'lentil'. There are numerous online sources attesting to this, albeit all are informal sources. Thoughts? Zweifel (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Politics

Why is nearly half this article about politics? Almost the entire history section is about the LGBT marketing, and of course, no article would be complete without a paragraph on Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:B011:4730:20F9:EA0:E492:B8AA (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

History of Pride edition

I am not sure if the history of the Pride edition in this article is entirely accurate. It currently claims it was introduced in the United Kingdom in 2016 to promote same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage had already been legalised throughout Great Britain in 2014 (excluding Northern Ireland where it was not legalised until 2020) so it is more likely the Pride edition is intended to promote LGBT+ rights in general as well as to raise proceeds for an LGBT+ charity considering the beneficiary of the 2020 edition in the UK was the Switchboard helpline and the supermarket chain Tesco donated 2p to their LGBT+ charity for every pack sold in 2017. The claim of the colour of the Pride edition Skittles being changed to grey might be relevant to the United States hinted by the use of the US spelling "gray" but I remember the Pride edition Skittles in the UK remaining white this year. Tk420 (talk) 10:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Launch date and origins

This article repeats misinformation elsewhere. Skittles existed in the US throughout the 70s, and there are adverts in magazines from 1971 featuring them. I have found zero evidence to suggest they existed in the UK until the mid-late 80s. Have Mars got their own history wrong? Yep. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)