Talk:Snickers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject Brands (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Where's the Variation-part?[edit]

There used to be a 'text' about the variations of Snickers - why isn't it here anymore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.165.5 (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Has the recipe changed?[edit]

In the image of the Snickers, it says "(original)", and even on Amazon US it has an "Snickers-Original Chocolate Candy Bar", so has the recipe changed in anyway over the years?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.155.173 (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Poison[edit]

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 CatTalk|@ 18:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Disambiguation reverted[edit]

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)

"Knickers" reference[edit]

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)

Just corrected a spelling error in this area CaterTrade (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Almond Snickers[edit]

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)

Snickers in the UK[edit]

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?

No it's NOT a UK thing. A name-change wouldn't do anything like that. Sounds more American actually!--213.83.125.225 (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately it is. The UK population are a bunch of in bred parochial assholes who seem to think that becuase the name of something changes, they "aren't allowed to like it" anymore. Thats the sort of narrow minded "small group" mentality they have. In fact the best way to get the British to become healthier by giving up cigarattes and beer would be to rename cigarettes "Yankee Smokes" and beer "New York Brew", then none of them would buy it anymore........

Emesis 07:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That's nonsense! I don't know anyone like that. --77.99.231.37 (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Emesis, do you like fruit? Trust me, no-one would stop drinking beer if they renamed it. You aren't English, right, so how the hell do you know what the UK do? You don't no nothing


  • Because it sounds like "Knickers". Imagine if they renamed it to "Spanties". Rwxrwxrwx 16:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Reply to Emesis:-
Yes, it is very much a UK thing. The whole culture is based on fear of change and hanging onto minutae from the past. Changing the name of a chocolate bar....jeez if only I had as few things to worry about! The really big problem is that I'm stuck living among the sad bastards. I say what I like and I like what I bloody say. DEAL WITH IT LOSERS 81.179.178.131 12:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Deal with what, you blustering nonentity? The last couple of sentences (Harry Enfield's "Yorkshireman" meets Slashdot troll) are pathetic flamebait added to a comment which isn't as controversial or interesting as you obviously hoped it would be. Fourohfour 13:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

For user 81.179 etc., we are not sad and people from the UK are not like that, not anyone i know.--77.99.231.37 (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, user 81.179.178.131, do you like fruit too? The real problem is that us English have to live with you and your racist insults which are not insulting in any way. You just wanted to release anger. I say what i like and i like what a bloody say. DEAL WITH IT LOSER. Remind you of anyone?

Message to the troll...its nothing to do with a fear of change just a dislike of being subject to the dictates of those most reviled of people those in advertising/PR and indirectly big business.PS I've removed North of england from where you can get deep-fried mars bars...I'm from the north of England, live here and travel all over the region and have never seen one or heard of one on sale...as far asI know the only time I've heard them mentioned here is in comments along the lines of "you wouldnt believe what they sell in chip shops in Scotland..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.173.35 (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2008 (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.

I hate the Snickers name because it sounds as though it's more than one Snicker, whatever one of those is. 1 Marathon, 2 Marathons. 1 Snicker(s), 2 Snickers(s). It just doesn't sound right to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.29.166.169 (talkcontribs).

You mean "affected" the sales. In this case, "effected" has the opposite meaning. Ironic, isn't it ?204.44.0.4 (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Someone seems to have removed the sentence explaining why the name "Snickers" is still met with disdain, in that even now it is still ridiculed in the likes of comedy routines. I think that it should still be part of the article.--194.247.53.233 (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for those who think we British are being pedantic in our dislike of the name 'Snickers'. It is just one brand out of many that has had its well known name changed just to bring us in line with the Europeans and Americans... Despite the fact that we are neither of them. With 65 million people in the country, their arguement that it's too expensive to print different wrappers for such a 'small market' is total b****x. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.181.149 (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Images of UK Marathon Wrappers[edit]

Hey - what happened to the picture of the bar in UK Marathon wrapping that used to be here? There were a couple of images - a Marathon wrapper as per the 1980s I think, and then a version from the 90s with "Marathon (in big writing) Internationally Known as Snickers (in smaller writing)". I thought these were great - where did they go? (end unsigned comment)

The image itself was removed from Wikipedia, presumably because it hadn't been tagged correctly and no-one bothered to fix it within a reasonable time. Fourohfour 13:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

--24.0.138.63 (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The packaging[edit]

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)


That was Peanut Butter Snickers--24.0.138.63 (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Snickers Guitar Guy[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) .

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

i too feel that there should be some mention of this person and if he is an actual artist or not.

the guitarist is actor Jack Mulcahy. somebody should include a mention of this commercial and a link to the article on jack mulcahy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.189.221.134 (talkcontribs).

I demand that you read wikipedias Civility policy page, and I demand that you make your own edits. Zanusi 10:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Dead Link[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) .

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

Date of renaming[edit]

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)

Reason for including the ingredients[edit]

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)

First sentence[edit]

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)
I thought the difference between chocolate bars and candy bars is that chocolate bars have actual chocolate in or on them. Candy bars can have (among other things) "chocolatey" coatings that do not actually contain chocolate (like the canadian oh henry's).

Accidental kiss[edit]

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)
Someone said that one of the alternate endings, with a third mechanic wanting in on the "Love Boat", was found acceptable by gay groups. Does anyone know which ones? I wasn't even aware that the alternate endings were used anywhere but the voting website. San Diablo 20:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Australian recall[edit]

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)

Snickers Xtreme edition[edit]

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)

Editing the Article[edit]

There was a paragraph added to the general description of the item in question that had copy/pasted information added to it from later in the page. Is it really necessary to explain what the Snickers bar was called in the UK twenty years ago in the general description? It's already explained in its own section of the article.

Also, the citation for the added paragraph in the general description is dead. The paragraph has been removed. Dovo 09:13, 6 August 2007 {UTC}

The paragraph was re-inserted because;
* Alternate names are generally briefly mentioned in the intro/overview section
* It's permissible for the intro/overview to cover material that is covered in more depth later on in the article. In fact, this is quite likely with longer articles.
* It's not a straight "cut-and-paste", although there is some similarity in the wording.
* Yes, the reference was broken. It would have taken 30 seconds to find a suitable replacement (as I did), but it's obvious that you wanted to use this as an excuse to remove the material instead. Fourohfour 19:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Football webpage[edit]

Does the football page or an archive of it still exist? If it won so many awards and accolades, then we should see something of it to demonstrate its worthiness. 24.177.128.131 16:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr. T Ad[edit]

I've seen an ad for Snickers with Mr. T in it. Basically, the guy falls over and pretends to be hurt when Mr. T arrives in a tank, saying "Quit your gibber jabbin, you aint hurt, you're pathetic" he then throws a Snickers bar at him, saying "Why can't you act like a real man? If I catch you acting like a crazy fool again, you're going to meet my friend pain!" After that, he drives off, before saying "Snickers, get some nuts!" before taking a bit out of it. Thing I'm not sure is if it's just a New Zealand ad or not. 121.72.32.58 20:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, we have it here in the UK as well. Zanusi 10:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"Snickers"?[edit]

Where does the name come from? According to Snickers (workwear), it comes from a Swedish word meaning "workmen". But what is the chocolate bar named after? JIP | Talk 20:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Fried Snickers Calories?[edit]

The article states a fried Snickers packs 8,500 calories. I believe that may be a typo for 850, but I cannot find the source of the citation listed.Stagebear 17:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes you are right. How silly of me. I will make the amendment now. The reference link is fine but I may post another subsidiary link to ensure that future Editors 'hungry' (ahem) for Snickers facts need not worry about it. Thanks for the assist. Gormenghastly 20:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fact tags added to SB commercial section[edit]

Maybe this section can be worked on now that some time has passed since the SB? Thanks, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

In 2008, a UK television commercial in which Mr T fires Snickers bars at a racewalker for being a "disgrace to the man race" was pulled after complaints from a US pressure group officially in need of a sense of humour that the advertisement was homophobic. However, very few, if any, gay men agreed.[18]

I doubt that something like that is officially stated somewhere, this is obviously a lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.53.41.229 (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Founding date[edit]

I know it says that Snickers was made in the 1930s, but can it be more specific. --213.83.125.225 (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, i didn't notice the 1930 date! Was that a quick edit? Hahaha. --213.83.125.225 (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Broken Citation[edit]

The link in the 9th citation is broken. The article doesn't seem to exist anymore. Someone who knows a little more about what to do in this situation should take care of it. GStick (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Horses[edit]

Who is they? The Mars company has a favorite horse, what the fuck does that mean? did they regularly pole the plant workers to find out their favorite horse? If you are going to add somekind of enigmatic information like that, how about explaining it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.34.130.22 (talkcontribs) 17:32, 1 November 2011‎

Good point, looks like the original editor meant "the favourite horse of the Mars family", not the company. --McGeddon (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Candy bar/Chocolate bar[edit]

I reverted an edit to change the header to read that Snickers is a "chocolate bar" because it is normally referred to as a "candy bar". But, the article candy bar is just a redirect to chocolate bar, implying that any candy bar is just chocolate. So, I didn't want to imply that this revert was because of vandalism as it was obviously meant to avoid the redirect. However, this also brings up the question... Should all references to "candy bar" be changed to "chocolate bar"? -- kainaw 20:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Introduced where as Snickers?[edit]

This article says that the bar was introduced as Snickers but as Marathon in the UK and Ireland. It isn't really clear where it was introduced as Snickers. Does it mean Worldwide or maybe America since the link is to foods of America. I did wonder after reading it. Are Wikipedia articles seen as American by default? Or where the product is from but without details of what this is? Shouldn't there be a country or countries listed where it was actually called Snickers to begin with?

I'm not mentioning this in a picky way but because I didn't even have knowledge of whether Snickers existed outside of the UK and am too young to remember Marathon bars, I did want to know and it just isn't clear! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.246.8 (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Mars, Incorporated is an American company. Unless otherwise noted its products are assumed to have been first released in the US. --Khajidha (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Jesus Christ![edit]

"Enrobed in chocolate" ??????????????? Who the fuck wrote this? Are corporations supposed to be allowed to write their products entries in wikipedia?

It is an actual process, see the wiki entry for enrober. Covered would actually be non-encapsuled, like frosting on a cake that does not go on the bottom surface.--☾Loriendrew☽ (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I think "slathered in chocolate" would also mean the same thing and not read like a quote from a copy writer. Or just "coated" which is a word normal human beings actually use. I also like "encapsulated in chocolate" or maybe "enslaved" or "bound" in chocolate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.192.181.76 (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I would prefer "cloaked in chocolate". Big difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.189.128.14 (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect Joule values in this article[edit]

I want to point out that the Joule values given in this article are incorrect. The conversion factor between Joules and calories is 4.2 J/cal, but a food calorie is actually a kilocalorie, or 1000 calories. So a 280 calorie Snickers bar contains not 1200 J, as listed in the article, but 1.2 MegaJoules. This is a common error which occurs several places in the article.

Sincerely, Cslageewiki (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)