Talk:Crisps
Merging[edit]
'Crisps' (UK English) and 'potato chips' (US English) are two names for the same thing. The 'potato chips' article encompasses pretty much all of the content of the 'crisps' one and is more subtantial in other respects, so I propose that the 'crisps' article is merged into 'potato chips' and a redirect is put in place. --Smallbone10 23:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- No, they're not. "Potato chips" are made from potatoes, either whole or reconstitued, crisps are also made from corn flour and other starchs. They are -not- the same thing. --Kiand 00:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Crisps are only made from chipped potato (i.e. potato chips). To call, for example, corn snacks 'crisps' is wrong - it's a popular mistake but wrong nonetheless. In the UK, they can only be called 'crisps' if they are made from chipped potato - even reformed potato snacks can't be called 'crisps'.
- Have a look at the following examples - none is called 'crisps' because it's wrong and not allowed:
- http://walkers.corpex.com/cr15p5/products.asp?snacktypeid=37
- http://walkers.corpex.com/cr15p5/products.asp?snacktypeid=40
- http://walkers.corpex.com/cr15p5/products.asp?snacktypeid=31
- http://walkers.corpex.com/cr15p5/products.asp?snacktypeid=33
- http://walkers.corpex.com/cr15p5/products.asp?snacktypeid=25
- Compare with Walkers chipped potato products, which are all called crisps, because they're allowed to:
- http://walkers.corpex.com/cr15p5/products.asp?snacktypeid=26
- http://walkers.corpex.com/cr15p5/products.asp?snacktypeid=24
- http://walkers.corpex.com/cr15p5/products.asp?snacktypeid=27
- http://walkers.corpex.com/cr15p5/products.asp?snacktypeid=48
- http://walkers.corpex.com/cr15p5/products.asp?snacktypeid=39
- I hope this settles the argument once and for all. Crisps and potato chips are synonymous. --Smallbone10 17:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- While it may be "wrong", its done -extremely- commonly, and I'm not sure what you mean by "not allowed", crisps is not a protected product name. I utterly oppose any form of merger, because they are -not- the same product, and article titling and content on the Wikipedia generally reflect the commonly used form rather than the "accurate" form. Bertie Aherns name is Patrick Ahern, but look at not only the article but every reference to him, etc. In the parts of the world where the term "Crisps" is used, its not used solely for potato products. Theres nothing to argue over, they're not the same thing as potato chips. --Kiand 18:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Firstly, there must be some form of industry or government prohibition on the use of 'crisps' for things that aren't potato chips - it can't be a coincidence that Walkers always uses 'crisps' when referring to potato chips and never when it isn't. The Bertie Ahern reference is not analogous - he has opted to refer to himself as this, and in any case the first piece of information in the article is his actual name. The situation with 'crisps' is more analogous to 'Great Britain' - many people (including politicians) use the term to refer to the UK, although this is inaccurate. --Smallbone10 18:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Unless someone owns the term, theres nothing preventing them using it, but thats irrelevant. The term is used, frequently, to refer to more than what it legally is, and you've just provided a wonderful example of a situation where that occurs, and which is explained within the first few lines of the article. Theres no reason that this common misnaming can't be explained here. Theres no need to merge the articles. --Kiand 18:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ownership of a term isn't the only thing that stops you using it. On a similar note, McDonald's aren't allowed to call their french fries 'chips', even if they wanted to. I maintain that there must be at least an industry convention, or more likely some sort of trade description ruling about when you can and can't call something 'crisps'. This must have some bearing on the accuracy of the article. In any case, you're accepting that using 'crisps' to refer to things other than potato chips is a 'common misnaming'? This isn't what the article says at the moment. Therefore, we need to change the article to say something like 'Strictly speaking, 'crisps' are potato chips (link), although the word is erroneously used by many people to refer to items such as corn snacks (link). All other content should be merged into 'Potato chips'. --Smallbone10 18:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Theres absolutely no point in merging the other content, however. And I don't agree that its inaccurate, as words get adapted over time, and the majority of people would not say that its inaccurate. Once again, there is absolutely no need, reason or point in merging. This is a different topic, and stripping it of half its content for no reason is pointless. --Kiand 19:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- You've accepted that using 'crisps' to refer to things other than potato chips is a 'common misnaming', which, by definition, is inaccurate. You then go on to say that it's not inaccurate. Which is it? --Smallbone10 19:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Theres absolutely no point in merging the other content, however. And I don't agree that its inaccurate, as words get adapted over time, and the majority of people would not say that its inaccurate. Once again, there is absolutely no need, reason or point in merging. This is a different topic, and stripping it of half its content for no reason is pointless. --Kiand 19:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ownership of a term isn't the only thing that stops you using it. On a similar note, McDonald's aren't allowed to call their french fries 'chips', even if they wanted to. I maintain that there must be at least an industry convention, or more likely some sort of trade description ruling about when you can and can't call something 'crisps'. This must have some bearing on the accuracy of the article. In any case, you're accepting that using 'crisps' to refer to things other than potato chips is a 'common misnaming'? This isn't what the article says at the moment. Therefore, we need to change the article to say something like 'Strictly speaking, 'crisps' are potato chips (link), although the word is erroneously used by many people to refer to items such as corn snacks (link). All other content should be merged into 'Potato chips'. --Smallbone10 18:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Unless someone owns the term, theres nothing preventing them using it, but thats irrelevant. The term is used, frequently, to refer to more than what it legally is, and you've just provided a wonderful example of a situation where that occurs, and which is explained within the first few lines of the article. Theres no reason that this common misnaming can't be explained here. Theres no need to merge the articles. --Kiand 18:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Firstly, there must be some form of industry or government prohibition on the use of 'crisps' for things that aren't potato chips - it can't be a coincidence that Walkers always uses 'crisps' when referring to potato chips and never when it isn't. The Bertie Ahern reference is not analogous - he has opted to refer to himself as this, and in any case the first piece of information in the article is his actual name. The situation with 'crisps' is more analogous to 'Great Britain' - many people (including politicians) use the term to refer to the UK, although this is inaccurate. --Smallbone10 18:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- While it may be "wrong", its done -extremely- commonly, and I'm not sure what you mean by "not allowed", crisps is not a protected product name. I utterly oppose any form of merger, because they are -not- the same product, and article titling and content on the Wikipedia generally reflect the commonly used form rather than the "accurate" form. Bertie Aherns name is Patrick Ahern, but look at not only the article but every reference to him, etc. In the parts of the world where the term "Crisps" is used, its not used solely for potato products. Theres nothing to argue over, they're not the same thing as potato chips. --Kiand 18:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- I hope this settles the argument once and for all. Crisps and potato chips are synonymous. --Smallbone10 17:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- (resetting indent) its a common misnaming but its reached the stage where calling it "inaccurate" isn't, err, accurate. Because its not something that can actually be backed up with fact - the word "crisps" means nothing, its not like calling corn starch products "potato chips", it can't be called inaccurate. --Kiand 19:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- No - you can't have a 'common misnaming' that's also 'not inaccurate'. It doesn't make sense. --Smallbone10 19:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Err, you can. In this case, theres nothing to be innacurate about - the name means nothing - but if you're totally pedantic about what its used for, using it for corn starch based products is a misnaming. Two different things. --Kiand 19:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in being totally pedantic, just creating good articles. And I'm not interested in arguing about semantics, which we are on the verge of doing. The word 'crisps' must mean something, otherwise you could apply it to anything. We just need to agree on what it means. I maintain that 'crisps' and 'potato chips' are synonymous. The industry (looking at the Walkers website) appears to agree with me. Many people refer to other similar items as crisps, but this is inaccurate and a common misnaming. The situation is analogous to referring to the UK as Great Britain. The solution is to merge most of the 'crisps' content with 'potato chips' and add a note to state that some people colloquially use 'crisps' to refer to similar snacks. --Smallbone10 20:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Theres next to no content to merge, and such a note would be inappropriate in an article with a different title, so I still strongly oppose a merge and maintain that the terms are NOT synonyms. --Kiand 20:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in being totally pedantic, just creating good articles. And I'm not interested in arguing about semantics, which we are on the verge of doing. The word 'crisps' must mean something, otherwise you could apply it to anything. We just need to agree on what it means. I maintain that 'crisps' and 'potato chips' are synonymous. The industry (looking at the Walkers website) appears to agree with me. Many people refer to other similar items as crisps, but this is inaccurate and a common misnaming. The situation is analogous to referring to the UK as Great Britain. The solution is to merge most of the 'crisps' content with 'potato chips' and add a note to state that some people colloquially use 'crisps' to refer to similar snacks. --Smallbone10 20:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Err, you can. In this case, theres nothing to be innacurate about - the name means nothing - but if you're totally pedantic about what its used for, using it for corn starch based products is a misnaming. Two different things. --Kiand 19:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- No - you can't have a 'common misnaming' that's also 'not inaccurate'. It doesn't make sense. --Smallbone10 19:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Resetting indent again, just because. I'd just like to say that I wholeheartedly support Smallbone10 in his efforts to have the two articles merged. Chips and crisps are both quite obviously two names for the same delicious potato-based snack. In fact, I'm eating some right now! Interestingly, my Australian uncle refers to them as "potato flakes". Crazy, huh? — Anty♥
- Kiand is on crack - NO ONE refers to Monster Munch or Chip Sticks or Nik Naks as "crisps". Well, possibly one person does. I say merge them - they're exactly the same thing!! 84.64.131.221 01:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support! Hopefully, together, we can bring an end to this pointless conflict. Crisps and potato chips are the same thing. There is no evidence in the industry that they are different at all. Similar products are never labelled as crisps. That's it! --Smallbone10 02:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Kiand is on crack - NO ONE refers to Monster Munch or Chip Sticks or Nik Naks as "crisps". Well, possibly one person does. I say merge them - they're exactly the same thing!! 84.64.131.221 01:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Me and everyone i know ALWAYS refer to Monster Much and Nick Naks and the like as crisps. It may be wrong but everyone does it. 138.251.249.145 03:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- "You want a bag of crisps?" "Yeah, what have you got?" "Monster Munch, Chipsticks, Skips, Discos, French Fries and normal Cheese and Onion." People so do refer to them as crisps. 57.66.51.165 10:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)