Talk:Honey Smacks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why is "Kellogg's" italicized? —tregoweth 19:38, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

why does kellogg's site not have smacks on it?

[edit] UCM & RAAN controversery

I looked pretty thoroughly and found nothing about these groups or any article supporting this claim that didn't cite the wikipedia article as its reference. Methinks this was a jokester from ytmnd during the brief Dig 'Em fad over there.--Doom Music 19:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Honey Smacks vs. Smacks

"In Europe, they have always been known as Smacks."

Honey Smacks and Smacks were two different cereals at least in the UK. Smacks were just like Quaker Sugar Puffs, and Honey Smacks were similar but with added honey or something. I only recall seeing Smacks in Kellogg's variety packs (some of which also contained Honey Smacks), whereas I remember having Honey Smacks out of boxes that contain a lot more than half a serving. And for the record, Honey Smacks were advertised on TV over here with a parody of I Can't Help Myself (Sugar Pie Honey Bunch) ("My Kellogg's Honey Smacks, you know that I love you....") -- Smjg 21:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urine Smell

After eating this cereal your urine will smell like the cereal, much like Asparagus. Think its worth a mention somewhere in the article, maybe not what anyone will expect to see but it is an interesting fact. P.S. Dont believe me? Eat a bowl right before you goto bed, when you wakeup and go to the bathroom, take a wiff, its not pretty but it does smell like the cereal.--Azslande 04:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I added it, but Mipadi removed it, claiming Not Encyclopedic before discussing the matter, if no one comments within a week, I will re-add it.--Azslande 06:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Simply not encyclopedic. It doesn't matter how it makes your urine smell. In fact, it's edits like that that make it hard for some people to take Wikipedia seriously. – Mipadi 16:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it is a fact of the cereal, something uncommon about it that is noteworthy. It is mentioned in the Asparagus article, why not here? Sure the mechanic's of why Asparagus alerts the smell is better known, but why should it be mentioned there and not here?--Azslande 22:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Because it's not noteworthy. It's not encyclopedic. – Mipadi 05:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well... I am not going to argue the point, I do not wish to start an edit war over something so trivial, but I wish we had other standpoints lol.--Azslande 18:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If someone can provide a citation (thus providing verification and some minimum of notability) for this phenomenon, it would be worth including in the article (I'll just not read Wikipedia over breakfast).

Unreferenced, it's WP:OR, and for all we know that's not milk Azslande is pouring over his Smacks. / edgarde 20:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I can try to find some type of verification via the web, its not quite common knowledge but the information is readily available if searched for, also, try it yourself once, I never really took noticed until a friend made mention of it. And I am from the Pennsylvania Dutch region, get my milk close to home, and if its not milk, I want to know what I've been drinking lol.--Azslande 01:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Even if it can be cited, what makes it notable enough to appear in the article? There is no way such information is encyclopedic. – Mipadi 02:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If that be the case, then we should be going over to the asparagus article and removing any mention there of the same fact. As quoted from that article "Some of the constituents of asparagus are metabolised and excreted in the urine, giving it a distinctive, mildly unpleasant odor.". If it be true for that article then why not this article, that would be a double standard to include it in one article and reject it from another. Also, to make note, this is the only cereal I know of that does this, which would make it noteworthy.--Azslande 18:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It can be encyclopedic, but notability is an issue. I'm thinking a better idea would be to identify the ingredient in Smacks that produces this effect. Especially if it's included in many foods, the urine smell information belongs on the page for that ingredient (rather than for every food containing it).

I'm modifying my opinion. If it's somehow rare or mysterious, and it's notable enough that a few references exist, it's worth including. If it happens with many foods but there is substantial attention to it happening with Smacks, it's worth including. If some blogger says "...and my urine smelled cos I had eaten Honey Smacks", that's not enough to make it notable.

Personally I'm hoping this isn't notable because it's disgusting. But WP:NOT#CENSORED. / edgarde 18:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I never argued that the note about the scent of urine should be included in "Asparagus". I would not be disappointed if it was removed, and have thought about doing that, in fact, since you mentioned it.

As for Honey Smacks supposedly being the only cereal that alters the scent of urine: Just because something is unique, does not make it noteworthy—it could very well be trivial information. This isn't censoring information—it's just leaving out information that is unimportant and unencyclopedic, even if it is unique. – Mipadi 18:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok... How about this... If it turns out one certain ingredient causes this to happen, it be listed on that article, if its not already. BUT if its a manufacturing process that causes this, and I can prove that this is the only or one of the few cereals that causes your urine to change, then it be added to the article, perhaps under a trivia section or an ingredients section. Also, If you like, I will also try and find why this occurs, thus adding some scientific background to the information.--Azslande 19:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

We're talking in hypotheticals, but yes, as long as it's also notable. (You really have your work cut out for you.) Trivia sections, however, should be avoided. / edgarde 20:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL this arguement is ridiculous