Talk:List of Ben & Jerry's flavors
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||||||||
| List | This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
||||||||
|
|||||||||
[edit] Cleanup
I've marked this page for cleanup. This article is a huge mess. It's really just several enormous lists with advertisement-like descriptions. I'm not really sure how to go about cleaning it up; do we sort it into multi-column lists and remove the descriptions? Do we put everything into a table? Or do we vote to delete the page altogether? I'm curious what people have to say. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 03:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry but writing descriptions for over 400 flavors takes time. The descriptions are what makes this more than a list. It is unfinished. If you want to make a pretty table for it then go ahead. BTW, have you actually ever looked at a pint of Ben & Jerry's? Maybe thats why they seem so advertisement-like. :confused: --Chunk Champion 04:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- I understand that, but the article itself needs repair. Wiki is not supposed to be just pages and pages of long, drawn out lists. It's supposed to be something considerably more readable. And yes, copying stuff off of the pints may serve its purpose, but does that really need to be on Wiki at all? I'm not sure, so that's why the page is marked. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 05:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's is alphabetical order, thats readable to me. I don't know how to make pretty tables like you would find on an artists page, complete with album covers...this is no different. If I did I would do that. The descriptions need to be there because using just the name is not intuitive most of the time. It's not like all the flavors are simply Chocolate or Vanilla.--Chunk Champion 14:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the subject matter itself is capable of being made into an encyclopedic article but Verification is non-negotionable. Unsourced content may be tolerated while articles are developed but if this remains unsourced and the majority contributors continue to disdain sourcing as you (Chunk Champion) did recently (adding three naked links to the opening and removing the unsourced tag twice) is an invitation to to take this to afd because you are proclaiming through such action that you will not even attempt to take this down a path that could lead to a proper article. By the way, on a more trivial note, all of the trademark and registered symbols are improper. See MoS:TM.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Ben & Jerry's sells ice cream...showing the ice cream it makes is clearly relevant. Instead of complaining about all the things that are wrong with the page, how about helping out. I've made at least 90% of this page by myself and you know what? I'm not a wiki expert, this is my first page. Sometimes finding guidelines/rules for formatting and such is difficult. Is a picture of a pint enough to cite something? I don't know. I could source every flavor on here if there is a need to be anal, but I am going to take my time doing it. I don't get paid to do this.--Chunk Champion 14:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- I understand that, but the article itself needs repair. Wiki is not supposed to be just pages and pages of long, drawn out lists. It's supposed to be something considerably more readable. And yes, copying stuff off of the pints may serve its purpose, but does that really need to be on Wiki at all? I'm not sure, so that's why the page is marked. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 05:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
So I've been trying to figure out how to clean up this article. At the very least, I think it needs to be split into two parts: current flavors, and previous flavors. Probably arranged using some kind of table. Anyone have any thoughts? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 00:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've gone ahead and made a huge amount of edits to this page. All the sections are now sortable wikitables, and I moved all the discontinued flavors to a separate article. I worked on the formatting a lot, but I'm fairly sure that there's more to be done. Example: the TM and Rs are hideous and are largely unneeded; the Manual of Style says that they should not be used "unless unavoidably necessary for context (for instance, to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs)." In examples like "Americone Dream" and "Dublin Mudslide," they're superfluous. I'm going to go ahead and remove those, and then I'll stop for awhile to see what else people would like to change. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 22:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Heh, why dont you ask Ben & Jerry's if the ™'s and ®'s are superfluous? I really doubt they are just there for decoration. Thats great that you put everything in tables, good job. Maybe next time you could contribute some actual content. --Chunk Champion 21:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
This article has been tagged for cleanup since July. It looks like everything is in columns now, so I am going to remove the tag. Coleman84 00:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Everything may be columned (I did that), but that doesn't mean that the tag should go. When I put the description on the cleanup page, I wrote that it's just a huge list, which is still true. IMO, the article needs a major overhaul, but I don't know how to go about doing it. The descriptions are basically copied verbatim off of the containers; there's a lot of missing information; there's redundant information that could be better consolidated (e.g. Does vanilla need to be listed six times on the page? Can't we redo the titles a bit and organize better?). The page still needs cleanup, so I'm going to add the tag back. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 00:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Um, vanilla six times? No, it's clearly only on there once...there are no doubles.--Chunk Champion 19:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Chunk, you need to calm down and read the article on ownership. You did a very good job building this page, but it's not yours; there are other people who can and will contribute to it. I'm just trying to help bring the article up to the Wikipedia standard. Please stop fighting me the entire way. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 17:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- ? I'm not sure what you are talking about. You are the one who seems to hate ice cream.--Chunk Champion 20:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Chunk, you need to calm down and read the article on ownership. You did a very good job building this page, but it's not yours; there are other people who can and will contribute to it. I'm just trying to help bring the article up to the Wikipedia standard. Please stop fighting me the entire way. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 17:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Um, vanilla six times? No, it's clearly only on there once...there are no doubles.--Chunk Champion 19:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Graveyard headings
We need to talk about this. "Flavor Graveyard" is what Ben & Jerry's calls their discontinued flavors on their website (see here). However, that does not mean that the Wiki page should reflect that. The discontinued flavors are just that - discontinued. And they should be labeled as such. By using "Flavor Graveyard," this page is potentially plagiarizing the Ben & Jerry's site. And even if we were to accept "Flavor Graveyard" as the header, the "RIP" is possibly defeating NPOV. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 02:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Calling them "Discontinued Flavors" in the first place is something you guys made up. They could be called "Abandoned Flavors", "Suspended Flavors", "Ceased Flavors", "Old Flavors", "Out of circulation Flavors"...etc. It doesn't matter. Now being that this is a page about Ben & Jerry's, it makes sense to me to call them what Ben & Jerry's calls them. The R.I.P. part was only there because that is what was on their site. Now they have changed it to "Dearly Departed Flavors"...so if you want to get technical it should be called that. This also has nothing to do with defeating NPOV. If one of their flavors was called, "Strawberry Sundae Bloody Sundae" I wouldn't question whether it was politically correct..i would just write as that...because that is what it is called. --Chunk Champion 19:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- First off, I'm not sure what you meant by "you guys," unless you mean anyone who edits Wikipedia. Although I agree that it might make sense to call them what Ben & Jerry's does, we need to go with a neutral naming convention - particularly one that clearly describes what the subject is. In this case, the flavors have been discontinued, so we should call them that. The name of one of their flavors isn't in question here; certainly we should be true to whatever their names are for that, as it's part of their brand. That's not the issue here. The issue is a category header on a Wikipedia page. Either way, I still think it should say "Discontinued flavors." — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree to disagree with you, neutrally. --Chunk Champion 05:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's fine. If you don't mind, I'm going to go ahead and get a third opinion on this. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 12:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree to disagree with you, neutrally. --Chunk Champion 05:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- First off, I'm not sure what you meant by "you guys," unless you mean anyone who edits Wikipedia. Although I agree that it might make sense to call them what Ben & Jerry's does, we need to go with a neutral naming convention - particularly one that clearly describes what the subject is. In this case, the flavors have been discontinued, so we should call them that. The name of one of their flavors isn't in question here; certainly we should be true to whatever their names are for that, as it's part of their brand. That's not the issue here. The issue is a category header on a Wikipedia page. Either way, I still think it should say "Discontinued flavors." — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Third Party Opinion While I don't believe using the nomenclature adopted by Ben & Jerry's risks plagiarism, I agree that neutral naming conventions are preferred, particularly those that make their purpose clear in the index. It may be a good encyclopedic compromise to name the section "Discontinued flavors" and refer to the Ben & Jerry title for them (of the moment) in the body of the section, as part of the pointer to the separate list. If the headers are to be made more encyclopedic, then "Lighten Up!" should probably be re-named as well. --Moonriddengirl 13:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help. That seems like a pretty fair compromise. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 13:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I would accept the section being renamed to "Discontinued Flavors" as long as the Flavor Graveyard page was renamed to "Flavor Graveyard". But then in a couple weeks im sure HelloAnnyong will complain that people viewing the Flavor Graveyard page will be lost as to what they are viewing without that page saying "Flavor Graveyard (Discontinued Flavors)...Flavor Graveyard is a graveyard, for flavors..where discontinued flavors go to be buried..ie they dont make them anymore so it is as if they died, get it? Do you see the relation here?". But we can try if you would like. Im fine with that.--Chunk Champion 13:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- If you're going to be openly hostile and accusative towards me, then we can take this to the next level. I'm trying to follow the appropriate ways to solve issues, and you've fought me at each turn. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 13:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I am only guilty of being historically accurate. --Chunk Champion 13:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- If you're going to be openly hostile and accusative towards me, then we can take this to the next level. I'm trying to follow the appropriate ways to solve issues, and you've fought me at each turn. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 13:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I would accept the section being renamed to "Discontinued Flavors" as long as the Flavor Graveyard page was renamed to "Flavor Graveyard". But then in a couple weeks im sure HelloAnnyong will complain that people viewing the Flavor Graveyard page will be lost as to what they are viewing without that page saying "Flavor Graveyard (Discontinued Flavors)...Flavor Graveyard is a graveyard, for flavors..where discontinued flavors go to be buried..ie they dont make them anymore so it is as if they died, get it? Do you see the relation here?". But we can try if you would like. Im fine with that.--Chunk Champion 13:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- (Resetting indent) Apparently you both have very strong feelings about this. :) Looking at the list Discontinued Ben & Jerry's flavors, I see that there is a subheader for Flavor Graveyard but no introductory sentence. It's standard for stand-alone lists to contain an introductory sentence that provides a clear and unambiguous statement of criteria for inclusion. Would it be acceptable to the two of you to word that criteria something like, "This list is for Ben and Jerry's ice cream flavors in the 'Flavor Graveyard'"? --Moonriddengirl 16:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Heh. I added it in (see here) but it was almost immediately reverted by Chunk Champion. At the risk of hitting 3RR between the two reverts on this page and the one over there, I left it alone and instead took the issue elsewhere. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Backing off and seeking consensus is usually a good idea. :) Chunk Champion, would this satisfy you? --Moonriddengirl 16:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- If things were my way there wouldnt even be a redirect to a separate page for the flavor graveyard and it wouldnt even be an issue. --Chunk Champion 17:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's an amazingly complete list, and very well organized. I didn't realize Ben & Jerry's offered that much! Although I wasn't here for that, I assume it was subdivided because of issues with size? Given that it has been subdivided, would a criteria listing of that sort satisfy you? --Moonriddengirl 17:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'll go ahead and speak up on that point. Yes, I subdivided the article due to size. Prior to my first edits, the page was several enormous lists that needed to be cleaned up. [1] If I acted incorrectly in splitting the article, then we can go ahead and bring the two together, but I think that would be inappropriate. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Given the length of the separate list, I suspect that was a good choice. It is still easily located by those at this master document. I don't think it would be helpful to merge it back myself. Although it isn't required, it might be a good idea to discuss any future divisions on the talk page first, though, since there are very active and involved editors here who might wish a say in what sections are to be relocated. I have inserted a list criteria on that site for now, but will have no objection if either of you eliminate if you do not find it an acceptable solution. I have also created a redirect page for Flavor Graveyard so users seeking it by that title will have no trouble finding it. Let's hope nobody objects to the redirect. :) Chunk Champion, with these steps, would it be an acceptable compromise for you to permit the renaming the section "Discontinued flavors" and refer to the Ben & Jerry title for them in the body of the section, as part of the pointer to the separate list? --Moonriddengirl 19:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- That looks fine to me. The only thing I would add is that the company refers to it as the Flavor Graveyard; otherwise, it seems to just be an arbitrary naming convention. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Good point. So changed. :) --Moonriddengirl 19:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- That looks fine to me. The only thing I would add is that the company refers to it as the Flavor Graveyard; otherwise, it seems to just be an arbitrary naming convention. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Given the length of the separate list, I suspect that was a good choice. It is still easily located by those at this master document. I don't think it would be helpful to merge it back myself. Although it isn't required, it might be a good idea to discuss any future divisions on the talk page first, though, since there are very active and involved editors here who might wish a say in what sections are to be relocated. I have inserted a list criteria on that site for now, but will have no objection if either of you eliminate if you do not find it an acceptable solution. I have also created a redirect page for Flavor Graveyard so users seeking it by that title will have no trouble finding it. Let's hope nobody objects to the redirect. :) Chunk Champion, with these steps, would it be an acceptable compromise for you to permit the renaming the section "Discontinued flavors" and refer to the Ben & Jerry title for them in the body of the section, as part of the pointer to the separate list? --Moonriddengirl 19:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'll go ahead and speak up on that point. Yes, I subdivided the article due to size. Prior to my first edits, the page was several enormous lists that needed to be cleaned up. [1] If I acted incorrectly in splitting the article, then we can go ahead and bring the two together, but I think that would be inappropriate. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's an amazingly complete list, and very well organized. I didn't realize Ben & Jerry's offered that much! Although I wasn't here for that, I assume it was subdivided because of issues with size? Given that it has been subdivided, would a criteria listing of that sort satisfy you? --Moonriddengirl 17:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- If things were my way there wouldnt even be a redirect to a separate page for the flavor graveyard and it wouldnt even be an issue. --Chunk Champion 17:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Backing off and seeking consensus is usually a good idea. :) Chunk Champion, would this satisfy you? --Moonriddengirl 16:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help. That seems like a pretty fair compromise. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 13:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- (reset indent) I just popped in to say I've been keeping an eye on the, er, discussion. :) I see that Chunk Champion has not been active since the last comment was made. I believe it would be courteous to wait another couple of days before assuming consensus has been reached. --Moonriddengirl 17:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- I didnt respond to the previous comment because I thought we had come to an agreement. And then four days later it gets changed again. So I'm gonna go ahead and change it back. In the meantime I will be writing to Ben & Jerry's for their opinion on what it should be called. That may take a week or so since they are slow to respond. I asked my wife for her opinion, she could care less. I asked my dog, and he licked my ice cream...so I guess that means he votes for whatever Ben & Jerry's says on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chunk Champion (talk • contribs) 19:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- What consensus did you think had been reached? --Moonriddengirl 19:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- The way it is now. The title of the page being Discontinued Flavors with the Flavor Graveyard heading below that. Also I added the email I sent to my talk page. --Chunk Champion 19:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, Ben & Jerry's feelings on the matter aren't necessarily relevant. :) This is an encyclopedia article, which may have different conventions from theirs. The last proposal was that the page & section be called "Discontinued flavors" with a re-direct page for Flavor Graveyard (which was created) and mention of the Ben & Jerry name in the criteria (which was added at Discontinued Ben & Jerry's flavors). --Moonriddengirl 19:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Do we want to just go ahead and apply for an RfC for this? It seems silly to do, but I believe we've reached an impasse... — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 22:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- I wrote an email to Haagen Dazs about this issue, surely their opinion will not be Ben & Jerry's biased. --Chunk Champion 02:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- edit - i got a response already..see my talk page. --Chunk Champion 02:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- I wrote an email to Haagen Dazs about this issue, surely their opinion will not be Ben & Jerry's biased. --Chunk Champion 02:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Do we want to just go ahead and apply for an RfC for this? It seems silly to do, but I believe we've reached an impasse... — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 22:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, Ben & Jerry's feelings on the matter aren't necessarily relevant. :) This is an encyclopedia article, which may have different conventions from theirs. The last proposal was that the page & section be called "Discontinued flavors" with a re-direct page for Flavor Graveyard (which was created) and mention of the Ben & Jerry name in the criteria (which was added at Discontinued Ben & Jerry's flavors). --Moonriddengirl 19:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- The way it is now. The title of the page being Discontinued Flavors with the Flavor Graveyard heading below that. Also I added the email I sent to my talk page. --Chunk Champion 19:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- What consensus did you think had been reached? --Moonriddengirl 19:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Chunk Champion has now moved the page from Discontinued Ben & Jerry's flavors to Retired Ben & Jerry's flavors[2]. While this change is rather trivial to me, the headers are still marked as "Flavor Graveyard," which is still an unsatisfactory solution. As such, I'll be taking this to RfC. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 03:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- wow, thats sad --Chunk Champion 04:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's fine. Wikipedia runs on consensus, and since you cannot accept the overwhelming consensus, this issue needs to be taken higher up. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- I did accept the consensus, the section is not called Flavor Graveyard anymore. I don't know what you are complaining about. --Chunk Champion 04:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm. I just removed the title heading [3]. The one table on that page does not need a header. I'll now consider this issue resolved. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- awesome, now we can concentrate on content --Chunk Champion 04:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm. I just removed the title heading [3]. The one table on that page does not need a header. I'll now consider this issue resolved. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- I did accept the consensus, the section is not called Flavor Graveyard anymore. I don't know what you are complaining about. --Chunk Champion 04:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's fine. Wikipedia runs on consensus, and since you cannot accept the overwhelming consensus, this issue needs to be taken higher up. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Correction to Chunky Monkey description
I just corrected the description for Chunky Monkey. I have the original article cited as a reference, "Winning Scoop" The Boston Globe6/14/88. The inventor's name is spelled Aprill and there was no contest for naming a flavor, as was previously stated. NotsusWiki 14:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
