Talk:Twix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Spokesmen?

Should we add info on celebrity spokesmen? So far I know of Usher and Rahzel (Rishi B 05:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Images

This article has too many pictures. Seriously.—This unsigned comment was added by Archducky Duck (talk • contribs) .

I disagree.--Mlprater 22:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ingredient listing

The ingredient listing is a useful resource to enable people with particular dietary issues to see what the ingredients are without spending time in a supermarket reading labels and being viewed by supermarket staff with suspicion. This happened to me as a grandchild with several health issues was coming to stay for a weekend, as a result I spent over 2 hours looking at products - and yes we do use mainly fresh food produce for that reason. There is the option of not looking at ingredient listing's but for some like myself I welcome it! {user aussiegirl} May 6th 2005, Sydney, Australia

I think the ingredient listing was fine. enlighten me --Johnjosephbachir 05:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think the ingredient list would provide valuable information to someone researching the candy bar. Since Wikipedia is not limited by size constraints, I do not see the problem. I have asked McFly85 to explain his position here. -SCEhardt 15:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The ingredient listing is just pointless and is not usful to the masses. No other candy or proceessed food page that I have seen has an ingredient listing. If you really need to research the candy bar, just pay 50 cents and buy a twix and get the ingredient listing. The listing is not interesting and an encyclopedia is not to explain everything in fullest detail. I highly demand that the listing be removed to perserve the high quality of wikipedia. Mcfly85 17:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • People have food alergies. Nothing wrong with ingredients. Maybe other candies and processed foods should have such informationRoodog2k 18:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The ingredient listing is a great idea -- if we had one for every candy bar, people could easily look up the additives in their snacks. (Plus, by having links from the bars to the additives, you have backlinks from the additives to the popular candy bars that contain them). Besides, even if this were execessive, it's nowhere near as bad as, say Category:Cosmic_Era_mobile_weapons (dozens of individual articles on fictional weapons from a Japanese TV show.) jdb ❋ (talk) 04:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. Wikipedia can put the ingredients into a fuller context than awrapper can. Dystopos 16:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that it's ridiculous to "demand" that the ingredients section be removed. Especially as the lame excuse of "preserving high quality" is sighted. How does removing data do that? Ideally, every food product listed on this site would contain nutritional information and ingredients so that we can use this site as a resource. Where else can you find this information? I've been adding ingredients and nutritional information to pages on Wikipedia (have done Crunchie & Hobnobs so far) as & when I buy a product. I think that many producers of processed foods don't really want their ingredients displayed any more than the law dictates. For example, Twix contains hydrogenated vegetable oil which is increasingly being highlighted as a damaging trans fat. LewisR 21:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Why are so many people upset about listing the ingredients and nutrion information? If you don't need to know it, don't read it. I don't read the chassis plate of every car I get into but I don't "highly demand" that it be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LewisR (talk • contribs).
I want to know what PGPR is. Proto 13:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


LewisR; your analogy is poor. The chassis plate is an important part of the car's security, and is not obtrusive in day-to-day operation. Also, a car is not an encyclopedia.
Meanwhile, Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of information. Wikipedia is not supposed to be an original source of information, so its purpose is to synthesise that information (from multiple sources) into a tidier, more readable and more useful form. If we just copied information from elsewhere, without caring about how it affected the readability or organisation of the article, there would be no point to Wikipedia.
You can argue whether ingredients should be included or not (and I think that there should be a proper policy discussion on this). However, if this is the case, all Twix variants in all countries should be included. The resulting list is likely to be massive, so should be moved to its own page, since it would make the parent Twix article far too long. Fourohfour 12:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no need to include all Twix variants in all countries. How many French, German, Spanish, Italian, Dutch etc. readers would come to the English site? LewisR 09:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
That's quite presumptious. The English-language Wikipedia does not mean that it should be restricted to information about countries whose first language is English. And if it were, that still leaves a lot of countries. Anyway, we need a proper discussion about this; it's pointless to have multiple repeated rehashes of the same points over multiple pages. Fourohfour 20:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Do we really need a proper discussion about this? It seems an incredibly petty point. I've seen many pages on wikipedia where prices, for example, have only been quoted USD even though that item is available in many other markets. I saw no evidence of you or anyone else highly demanding that it be removed. Furthermore, I note that the French Wikipedia has Twix ingredients listed yet no discussion whatsoever there of its removal. To me, it's useful information for those that want it and little, if any, inconvenience to those that have no use for it. 86.29.161.66 01:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

For all the space that was used to debate this, the ingredients could have been listed. I came looking for them because my son gave me a "fun size" bar which does not list the ingredients. I do not eat transfat, so thank you to the person who mentioned that Twix has hydrogenated oil. This candy bar will not be eaten by me.

[edit] Are ingredients notable?

On various pages such as Twix and Whoppers, there is an extra-long, extremely pointless ingredient listing on the pages. These really hamper the quality of wikipedia and come across as filler to the masses. I propose that for various food items (name brand), that it is strongly discouraged to have a full ingredient list on the page. I feel that eliminating the ingredient listings will make the pages more concise and of a premium quality. Mcfly85 23:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The person who originally put them there probably thought they would be useful to people with dietary requirements. However, I think putting the whole ingredient lists is overdoing it; maybe a note like "Twix can contain peanuts" for people who die if they eat peanuts. I can't see any good reason for having an ingredient list, though. —Sean κ. ⇔ 00:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the lists are pointless at all. In fact, it's probably the only reason I would view such articles. It might be nice to format them in small text, but it doesn't work in lists. It's also very helpful to be able to click on ingredients like thiamine mononitrate and find out what exactly they are. —TeknicTalk / Mail 00:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As the person who originally listed the ingredients, I do think they are useful. For example, someone researching candy bars would be able to find out what they are made from. I realize, however, the format of the ingredients list I used is very large. I am not concerned with keeping that particular format but rather I am concerned that the information be available in some format. For comparison, I have changed the list in Twix to comma separated. This can be compared to the list in the Whoppers article. Some compromise will need to be made for size vs. readability. -SCEhardt 00:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how it could ever pose a problem. It would be useful too. Howabout1 00:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I still don't see how the ingredients of a candy are any more notable than, say, the hair color, eye color, and height of George W Bush. Are the ingredients useful? Perhaps, but Wikipedia isn't a knowledge base. I think this falls under the category of information overload. —Sean κ. ⇔ 02:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's just kinda silly to have an entire ingredients listing when the very few that need it would just search the website or buy one item and look at the wrapper. Of course, the general/main ingredients are important (ex. A Milky Way is a candy bar made of chocolate, caramel and nougut), but to have a retelling of the label is just not usful. And even if you really cared to know more about the ingredients, the compounds are just linked to the separate words. This is not a widespread problem, but I feel that it could be. I like that Wikipedia can contain info about candy bars and other things you wouldn't see in print. The quality of the article is based on solid, concise research and writing, not just doing a verbatim listing of ingredients. A majority of the candy pages follow the format very well, without resorting to a full-blown ingredient listing. Mcfly85 03:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not everyone lives in an area that sells Mars or Whoppers, so they can't easily buy them. I think the lists are useful, particularly for Teknic's reasons. (Mcfly85, if you really want to fight against unnecessary and useless information on Wikipedia, you may be interested in a little category called Fancruft.) Besides, this issue really should be decided on each article's talk page -- it's not really a proposal. jdb ❋ (talk) 04:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deletionists - Just because you can not see the value of content (including lists) does not mean that it has no value. In this case the mentioning of an obscure ingredient may reveal that it does not have a page describing what it is. That may lead someone to research and add the article. I for one think a list of ingredients is a great thing to have on food pages. If you don't think it works in the article perhaps it would be better served elsewhere with a link. Perhaps http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbook . Never delete valid and true content, just find a better place for it. Rottweiler 04:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At first I was skeptical, but after looking at those articles I think having ingredient lists with links is a good idea. I prefer the more compact format used on the Twix page, though. --Coolcaesar 05:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For generic food items, like pizza, a list of ingredients is silly. In the case of specific, commercially-produced food items, however, I have to agree that the list of ingredients is helpful, beneficial, and interesting. Roodog2k 12:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I fixed the whoopers page - keep. Lotsofissues 12:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) ›››Leave Me a Message‹‹‹

Again, wouldn't a link that has the official snack website (which usually has info for the few that need the listing) suffice? I doubt a vast majority would find an ingredient listing useful or interesting. Even with the smaller format for the ingredients, it still looks like needless filler on the page. If this doesn't stop, time will be wasted and the quality of the pages will suffer. I do find Rottweiler's suggestion of putting a link or using the cookbook to be a perfect solution. Mcfly85 02:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The ingrediants ARE the food. How can you sensibly justify NOT listing them in an encyclopedic context? That would be like not mentioning that Lassie is a dog. An enyclopedia of food would certainly have the ingrediants listed. Why should we do any less? The Twix list, for example, is compact and well linked. Ingrediants are useful to nutritionists, vegetarians, Jews, Muslems, and anyone who cares about what's in their food. You may not care if you're eating soybeans or soylent green, but many people do. Also, having a well linked list like this lets people easily find out more about specific ingrediants. (I mean, just what IS high fructose corn syrup, anyway?)
- Pioneer-12 03:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What say ye then to my analogy with hair color and George Bush? Does that mean I can start putting the hair color, eye color, height, weight, and favorite foods of my favority celebrities on their pages? —Sean κ. ⇔ 03:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Alright, while the ingredients are the food, it is certainly not notable to make a listing of each ingredient. A general consise description of the bar is all that is needed. If anyone really cares enough to know the ingredients, they will search on the link provided on the page or pay 50 cents to buy the bar. An encylclopedia is made to give a general overview of a topic, not list every detail. I am still stunned that the majority of you don't see my side of this issue. Most of the other food pages do not have mass ingredients listings, and they are very well-constructed pages. I do not want to see these unnotable listings that can easily be read off a container. I do not want writers to waste time writing listings when there are tons of stubs that need to be expanded. Here is what I feel should be done:

1. Please save your time and do not add similar ingredients listings for the time being. And please keep the few that remain for now.

2. Consider making the ingredient listings part of the cookbook project, or leave a link to the company website which likely has the listing.

3. Consider the pandora's box effect that may result, and consider what adding an ingredients listing would be to the masses. Also keep in mind that Wikipedia isn't a knowledge base. Mcfly85 04:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't see anything in Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base that even infers that the ingredients of a foodstuff should not be part of that foodstuff's article. Personally, I wouldn't bother including them in an article I was writing (as I'm lazy), but I don't see a problem if anyone does choose to, and it could be useful information Proto 12:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is just absurd. The argument for keeping them always seems to end in "it could be useful information." But I just don't see why that's a valid argument. Why not include the nutritional facts as well? That could be useful. Again, I am going to say that the ingredient list doesn't help anyone get an understanding of what Twix are, and could not possibly be notable. (except in the case of allergies, as discussed).
Also, Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base is comletely relevant to the discussion, since it begins,
Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base, that is, it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia.
—Sean κ. ⇔ 14:33, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You know, nutritional information would be even better than a list of ingredients, particularly given how health-obsessed a lot of people are. Proto 15:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Clearly information is not useful until it is used. I assert that all of the information added to Wikipedia is put here under the assumption that "it could be useful information." There is no way to prove it will ever be useful to anyone in the future. The point being that most people (all but two who have commented here) seem to think that the ingredient list will be useful information. -SCEhardt 19:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Having nutrition facts would be great. Sure, Wikipedia isn't for everything, but I beleive, Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base, that is, it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. applies mainly to articles, not facts in them. There may be no need for very small facts, but ingrediants are important. What if someone, let's call him Jeff, loves twix, but is also health concious. Then a news report comes out saying thiamine is harmful for your health. Jeff wants to know if there is thiamine in twix, but lost his glasses and can't read the label. He goes to wikipedia and looks for twix. Hey! There's an ingrediant listing! Jeff is saved and never again eats twix. Howabout1 22:48, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh man, this is just so pointless. I will say it once, and I will say it one more time. An encyclopedia just gives a concise overview on a topic, it does not need detailed information. I think it is a horrible idea to have an ingredients listing and it will just lower the quality of the pages. The above example is just a stretch to make things relevant, and it made me laugh in disbelief when I read it. I don't have anything nice to say about this issue anymore. Have some common sense, remove the ingredients listings, do not add anymore, and focus on the quality of the page rather than cut-and-pasting unnotable info. Mcfly85 03:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think the only problem with the ingredients listing is there's not enough of them. All chocolate snacks, delicious and biscuity or otherwise, should have the ingredients on there, because it is a pertinent and useful addendum to the article. I still want to know what PGPR is, though. But on another point, without wanting to start any kind of argument, an encyclopedia does not have to be a concise overview - wikipedia is not limited by printing constraints or page limits, and users are free to have as much or as little relevant (ingredients are relevant) detailed information as they desire to add.

Also, ingredients would be a useful resource for Muslim/Jewish/any other dietary-restricted group of readers wishing to find out if a food is permissible - for example, Twixes are halaal, but Skittles are haraam due to the ingredients including carmine. Islam considers confectionaries containing calf rennet permissible but feel it is praiseworthy to refrain from them. More useful arguments for the inclusion of ingredients!Proto 09:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Too many images

Ok, I deleted the middle image and made the other two slightly bigger, then 10 minutes later a sockpuppet reverted it and set the sizes of the three images to 205, 206 and 207 pixels respectively (User:Twixlover's first and only edit). I would like to reinstate my changes unless I see an objecting consensus here. —TeknicTalk/Mail 01:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Three images may have been a bit much. -SCEhardt 03:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Three images looks good to me. It shows a nice progression, each is unique and good quality. On my display it would take the same depth of vertical space for two images. I see no reason to delete. The image size probably needs to be adjusted though. Rottweiler 01:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I like it how it is ... it's making me want to buy a Twix. Proto 08:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Can somebody help out here who isn't hungry? —TeknicTalk/Mail 23:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't really see a reason to delete them. Howabout1 00:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. I just thought the middle pic was redundant and on my screen the images break into the first section. —TeknicTalk/Mail 02:07, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] America-centric

The images, ingredients list and in fact most of the article concern the US version of Twix. Seems a bit weird for an international encyclopaedia.

If you know what the regional differences are, then why not add them? Proto 15:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The article is really quite US-centric. For instance, we've had Twix in the UK since 1967 (see http://www.prayingeachday.org/Sept19.pdf ) a long time prior to the date stated in the article. It would be hard to introduce more of a world view, without rewriting certain parts of the article - that is to say, the American slant on the article is misleading and inappropriate. Twix isn't actually American at all. Any comments? Bretonbanquet 15:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Like Proto, I suggest making the changes rather than making assignments to fellow editors. --Dystopos 17:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I have made the changes as I suggested above, including a uniform use of British English rather than the mixture previously used. I wanted to mention it here first because I thought some people may have liked to discuss the matter before changes were made. Bretonbanquet 20:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raider to Twix

Why did they ever give this product two names, anyway? Captain Jackson 05:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


Probably due to individual countries' marketing and market research, which gave the UK Marathon where Europe had Snickers and Opel Fruits where Europe had Starburst.
LewisR 22:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC). Furthermore, by unifying product names it means that bars can be made more efficiently as many markets can have one wrapper.

[edit] "Globalize" - Ingredients

This does not indicate which version of the Twix bar it refers to. It's highly unlikely that ingredients are identical throughout the world. Actually, I'm not really too bothered about its lack of globalisation (I personally remain to be convinced that ingredients lists belong at all- however, that's a different issue). I just want someone to label which version it means. Fourohfour 12:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cookies-n-Creme in 'Encino Man'

In the article, where someone mentioned discontinued flavors to include Cookies-n-Creme, 'citation needed' is noted.

In the movie 'Encino Man' (Brendan Fraser, Paulie Shore), during the convenience store scene with the two going over the '4 basic food groups', a Twix Cookies-n-Creme box can clearly be seen on the shelf right in front of the camera. I don't know if this qualifies as citation but it proves they did at one time exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.29.227.4 (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Encino Man teaches history yet again. -Etafly 03:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
There was indeed a Cookies and Cream twix, as well as a Chocolate Fudge variety. I was a huge fan of the Cookies and Cream -69.140.112.227 04:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chronology and Volume

I came to this page looking for when caramel was introduced vs. peanut butter, and which sells better. Any ideas? Why do I care? Because after working for 20 hours straight, I need some mindless data. Mlprater 22:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German Slogan

This article quotes the German advertising slogan as being "Aus Raider wird Twix ... sonst ändert sich nichts" (Raider becomes Twix...), but the German Wikipedia page quotes it as being "Raider heißt jetzt Twix, … sonst ändert sich nix" (Raider is now called Twix...). Which one is – or are both – correct? TinyMark 20:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Being a native German and having lived there all my life (i.e. since 1968) I can confirm that the latter version was used. Note that the correct German translation for "nothing" is "nichts", but to make it rhyme the ads used the colloquial form "nix" (probably to be translated as "nuthin' "). Also note that the German pronunciation for Raider differs from the English one, it is more like ry-der (sorry, but I don't know how to explain our pronunciation of the "r").

A final remark: I don't remember German Twix TV ads that "advised viewers to take a break". Actually, there were ads (in Germany) saying (in English, no translation!) "Have a break, have a Kit Kat", and I would even claim that this slogan is still in use, but maybe I have heard the old slogan so often that I just didn't recognize a new one. 84.184.27.195 22:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

This article needs some history on the product-- its origins, etc. (ApJ (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC))