Talk:Snickers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Snickers article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Poison 2 Disambiguation reverted 3 "Knickers" reference 4 Almond Snickers 5 Snickers in the UK 6 The packaging 7 Snickers Guitar Guy 8 Dead Link 9 Date of renaming 10 Reason for including the ingredients 11 First sentence 12 Accidental kiss 13 Australian recall 14 Snickers Xtreme edition

[edit] Poison

Somebody ought to mention the event in 2005 when 3 million Snickers and Mars Bars were destroyed to due poisoning of several bars in New South Wales, Australia.

That can be you! Feel free to do so! --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Too late, I win. :-)--Erciesielski 22:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation reverted

What was wrong with my disambiguation line linking to Snickers (workwear) that caused User:That Guy, From That Show! to revert it? That line was totally in keeping with standard Wikipedia practice, so I'm restoring it. If anybody has a problem with it again, please explain why. Tgirl 11:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I should add here that I've created a Snickers (disambiguation) page, since there were (when I moved them) two alternate meanings. Fourohfour 13:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Knickers" reference

The web-link http://static.highbeam.com/s/scotlandonsundayedinburghscotland/february112001/marathonschmarathon/ is dead, and the Internet Archive doesn't seem to have kept it. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Almond Snickers

This article states the Almond Snickers was released in 2002. The almond version has been available in continental Europe since at least the mid 80s. Ben W Bell 12:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it was called Almond Mars in the UK - although it was more like a Marathon. Grant 23:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snickers in the UK

In the United Kingdom and Ireland, Snickers bars were originally sold under the name Marathon. In 1990, the name was changed to Snickers to the chagrin of many people. Today, still, some do not buy "Snickers".

Why do people not buy Snickers? Why would the name change be to the chagrin of many people? I don't get this; is it a UK thing? Can somebody explain?

Emesis 07:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Because it sounds like "Knickers". Imagine if they renamed it to "Spanties". Rwxrwxrwx 16:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much that. If they'd called it 'Knickers' it wouldn't have been so bad. It's just having what most English people would consider an American word foisted on a much-loved chocolate bar that most of us didn't even realize had come from America in the first place. It would be like expecting Americans suddenly to start calling the Hershey Bar 'Chuckles'. I, for one, still call a Marathon a Marathon! Grant 00:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't like it. Marathon was a good, wholesome name, but Snickers sounds like some nasty disease, like rickets. One saving grace was the torment of the gullible by insisting that the London Marathon had been renamed to the London Snickers. Chris 09:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It still sounds like a total Americanism if you stop and think about it. To this day, there are people on the TV and radio using the name-change in comedy routines, 16 years after it happened. Put another way, we can safely assume that very few under the age of 20 (and next-to-none under 19) will actually remember when it was still called Marathon. Fourohfour 13:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

People I ask say it's beacuse it sounds like "Knickers". After the change I never bought or ate another Marathon bar. I really wonder why they don't change it back, they must know how many people hate that name and how it must have effected sales.

[edit] The packaging

As we know, the Snickers bar are covered with a brown packaging. But I'm sure that some years ago (in the 80's), the Snickers was covered with a red packaging. Anyone who remebers this, or even have a picture that can be added to the article? Hipporoo 00:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snickers Guitar Guy

I demand coverage of this ad campaign. 69.166.172.169 08:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I demand that you put up or shut up and add it yourself if you think it is so important. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.139.82.3 (talk • contribs) .

Hey now, don't fight. That's a funny commercial. "Happy peanuts soar...over chocolate-covered mountaintops, and waterfalls of caramellllll....."

[edit] Dead Link

If no one objects, I am going to remove this dead link. ^ The Marathon candy bar, Christian Science Monitor, Home forum 1999-03-18 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Serenacw (talk • contribs) .

The link should be fixed now. -SCEhardT 04:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date of renaming

I'm not convinced that Marathon became Snickers in the UK in 1990. I'm sure it was during my time at university, which would put it as 1985-1989. Unless my memory is playing tricks, I recall a vending machine in my hall of residence still had Marathons in, when shops sold Snickers. Can anyone find any alternative citations? — Tivedshambo (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That would more likely be due to the supplier of the machine still having an old marathon shipment. Residence halls usually buy in bulk on the cheap and aren't always up to date. There are still some vending machines that I have seen that have the ill fated green Starburst. Point being I think the statement is still correct as your evidence is anecdotal at best.

NegroSuave 18:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I can't prove anything, which is why I didn't change the article. But what I'm saying is that if I remember Marathons being nearly "extinct" in 1989 or earlier, then the name change must have occured before then. I just raise this out of idle curiosity. — Tivedshambo (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for including the ingredients

The reason for including the ingredients is that the "fun size" bars do not include an ingredients list. This is the size commonly given at Halloween. Snickers bars include partially hydrogenated soybean oil, a trans fat — an important fact. A specific ingredients list in the lead would be unattractive, so it goes in its own section. --Charles Gaudette 11:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"An important fact"? That's a matter of opinion. Whilst personally, I consider it important too, this still smacks of POV.

"This is the size commonly given at Halloween" has an underlying "please, think of the children" air about it.

The underlying logic in your argument could extend to almost anything in a bulk pack that doesn't replicate all the information on each item. What about stuck-together 4-packs of yogurt (or children's fromage frais) that only list the ingredients on one tub?

Whilst I don't claim that these nullify the arguments for inclusion of ingredients lists in general (although I am weakly opposed to them), this particular argument is not a good one. Fourohfour 13:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever, about the POV. There is no such thing as NPOV, just being closer to NPOV. I am too tired to pretty it up for you; knew you would slam me no matter what, anyway.

Spare me the "Yeah, whatever, about the POV." As you're clearly not blasé about the matter (you wouldn't have written the rest otherwise), it just comes across as blatant teenage-style rudeness.

I'm well aware of what POV is and isn't, thank you. That NPOV is hard to achieve (and nonexistent) in practice doesn't always negate criticism in this area; you consider that the trans-fats are an "important fact". Maybe; perhaps the inclusion of large amounts of sugar and empty calories is important too? Most confectionery isn't that good for you. It's important for people to know about that in every article, right?

My point being that it's easy to claim "importance" for a lot of things; who says what is important enough to be included?

As for "knew you would slam me no matter what, anyway", you're basing this on what is (to the best of my knowledge) our first encounter? Wow.

Bulk pack food — maybe you can consider this: the article states that Snickers is the biggest selling candy bar on the planet; some people might want to know what is in it. --Charles Gaudette 14:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a better argument. I'm still not convinced that ingredients lists belong as (supposedly) Wikipedia is not meant to be an information repository. Whether ingredients lists fall under such rules is open to debate (see the discussion at the village pump); as is whether Snickers is a special case. Fourohfour 18:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First sentence

The first sentence states that "Snickers is a candy bar...". However, in the UK at least, it would be a chocolate bar. How about "Snickers is a candy bar (British English: chocolate bar)..." or something similar. Would that be a worthwhile edit?
138.243.228.52 05:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No, bloated descriptions of U.S. versus UK English should be kept out of intro; we could reference the use of language usage via footnotes, but intros are meant to be brief.

As to which one should be chosen, I'd prefer "confectionery bar", assuming that's taken as a description rather than a neologism. Fourohfour 14:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accidental kiss

Anyone seen this? To a NASCAR audience??? My guess is that we will soon be writing here about The Mother of All Ad Blunders. --Justanother 04:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This should have its own wikipage --Lincoln F. Stern 21:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha, they pulled the website. I knew it! Hope someone archived them. --Justanother 23:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this really significant. I don't think so. Not in terms of the legacy of Snickers. --Spikelee 20:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it will blow over quickly if it has not already. They dropped it fast, too. I do like "legacy of Snickers', tho. . . "Into the West came a bar and not just any bar . . ." smile. --Justanother 21:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Australian recall

Does the "Australian recall" section really belong here? I mean, it is really that important in the scheme of things in Snickers history? I don't think so. Tens of thousands of products have had recalls of some sort, somewhere in the world, and we don't devote sections to them. Nor should we. Similarly, I don't think coverage of a Snickers Super Bowl commercial should dominate such an enormous chunk of the article when it's already pretty much forgotten. wikipediatrix 22:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snickers Xtreme edition

I noticed this variation on Snickers was absent from the list, but I wasn't sure if it was already listed under a different (previous?) name instead. The only notable bits are the 5 grams of protein touted on the label and the absence of nougat. Pedoleon 05:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)