From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Between those three pages, who actually owns and makes Toblerone and what should it say on the page? I'll post this on Krafts page as well because its probably more travelled.

Swiss Chalet[edit]

Swiss Chalet content was added by User:Auric The Rad, a Canadian. Changed "North America" to "Canada". Most people in the United States have never heard of Swiss Chalet, but many are familiar with Toblerone. According to their website, they only have three restaurants in the states, all in New York. --Viriditas | Talk 02:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Patent, Trademark and Einstein[edit]

The pdf patent offered doesn't have Einstein's name on it. THe it comes from says: "The TOBLERONE brand is registered with the Federal Institute for Intellectual Property in Bern, and shortly thereafter TOBLERONE becomes the first patented milk chocolate with almonds and honey. The physicist Albert Einstein, barely thirty years old, is employed at the Institute. A few years later, he will become famous for his theory of relativity." It doesn't say Einstein approved it. Therefore, probably not true. Besides his specialty was electromechanical devives. GangofOne 07:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

A few thoughts on this:

1. Toblerone has some problems with present/past tense.

2. The person who today (19Feb07) changed patented to trademarked probably is wrong because it says earlier in the article (as well as the quote above) that the machinery and process were patented. So I'm going to revert it, but will let others sink their teeth into this more deeply. (Sorry, couldn't resist.) Bellagio99 23:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


A damn fine chocolate bar, I must say. - 03:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC).

For a mid-priced commercial bar yes. But have you tried Leonidas (Belgian) or Stubbe (Ottawa-Toronto)? Bellagio99 23:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No of peaks[edit]

I must dispute the number of peaks in the 35g bar.

I bought a multipack of 4 in the UK today and it certainly only had 8 peaks. :)

Wonder if it differs between countries? This was a yellow standard one btw :)

Could it be that the UK is being diddled of a Toblerone peak? Or, if the weight is the same, does this mean that Toblerone peaks in the UK are larger than those abroad? Given that Toblerone is from Switzerland, there must be an official document that outlines all the dimensional standards of a bar, with angles and volume etc. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, there is also a single peak version (in a foil wrapper) which seems to be given out in hotels and such like. I don't know about the official documentation of toblerones though. I doubt the Swiss would go that far. Qualalol (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


On a more serious note, the photograph in the article is very good; and perhaps because of this it seems to have been nicked by these people here. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

170g bar[edit]

The bars I buy from my local store are 170g and have 11 peaks.

I haven't edited the main page as I'm not entirely sure how to add this info and don't want to risk damaging the page. If you need proof I can post a picture!

Jumbles1971 (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Incomplete list of varieties?[edit]

The dark bittersweet variety (in a black box) seems to be missing. (talk) 09:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You can see an advert for Tobler-O-Rum in the film On Her Majesty's Secret Service. (if it's of any interest, lol) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Swiss - US[edit]

Toblerone is undoubtedly a Swiss brand as it existed for about 80 years before being bought by a US company, and was very well known throughout the world long before becoming US owned, and that Mondeléz is a US company is already prominently mentioned in the lede of the article, so please stop the silly, and very chauvinistic, edit-war that is going on. Thomas.W talk 17:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your "considered" response (pls refrain from it, if you like to be addressed politely in the future, yourself)! – Nevertheless, though it is obvious that Toblerone used to be a Swiss brand for a quite a long period, as you said, the "the Swiss brand Toblerone" does imply that this Swiss attribute is still true, even nowadays. But I am not so sure this is still valid. What kind of definition would you apply so that you seriously can claim it is currently a Swiss brand? The past (yes), the presence (no), the owner (no), the origin of the ingredients (questionable), the production costs paid by (hardly), ... or what? Currently (since 2010) the Swiss parliament discusses this issue, in order to be able to declare who has the right to claim their products to be Swiss labeled. And it is obviously not an easy task! But since the owner of Toblerone has been an US-american since 1990, you cannot easily claim that it is still a Swiss brand. It used to be, but I doubt it still is. So therefore I prefer not to claim it explicitly!
BTW: Of course they like it to market as Swiss product, especially as a Swiss chocolate, since this is a very strong attribute, valid millions of dollars, of course. -- ZH8000 (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Established brands/companies don't change nationality just because the stocks in the company change owners. Chrysler is still a US brand even though it's owned by an Italian company (Fiat), Volvo is still a Swedish brand even though their owners are Chinese (Geely), and Toblerone is still a Swiss brand even though their owners are American (Mondeléz). It's as simple as that. Thomas.W talk 17:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
A much too simply approach, IMHO, but that is not the question here, what I or you think. The encylopadic approach of WP is NOT WP:OR, nor personal opinions. Your given examples may be "correct", but that does not imply it is correct for Toblerone, also. Again, Mondalez very much likes it to claim it as a Swiss product, as you proved just previously by yourself, but self-declaration is neither a valid WP policy (see: WP:SOAP). So, despite your own claim (not valid as such according WP policies), and despite their own claim (neither valid according WP policies) I do not have an independent statement that Toblerone is still a Swiss product! Therefore, I prefer to remove this explicit, not independently cited claim. -- ZH8000 (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not just my opinion, it's established praxis here on en-WP (check the page history on articles like Land Rover and others). And there's no need for an independent reference for Toblerone being a Swiss brand, we'll take Mondeléz' word for it (see WP:SPS, self-published sources, including the company's own website, are allowed as references as long as an article isn't mainly based on such sources; so it's properly sourced...). Thomas.W talk 18:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
We do not talk about the whole article, but about one single statement (Swissness), so your last argument is irrelevant. So it is only source on one single reference by the owner itself, and stays still only a claim by the owner. Therefore it is not properly sourced. -- ZH8000 (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
And PLEASE, read at least the document of the previousy given link about Swissness before we proceed about this subject. thx. -- ZH8000 (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
No, we do not talk about "Swissness", we talk about Toblerone being a Swiss brand, a fact that is as properly sourced as it can be. And it's not about labelling Toblerone as Swiss in order to make it seem better or more exclusive than it is, if that was the case Mondeléz would describe Milka as a Swiss brand too, but they don't, they describe it as a European brand. Besides, A) it's been a long time since people in other countries were impressed by things being Swiss, and saw that as a stamp of quality, and B) the document you linked to is totally irrelevant since this is the English language Wikipedia, a US organisation governed by US laws, not Swiss laws. Thomas.W talk 18:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

LOL, who is the chauvinist now? Of course it is about the Swissness of the Toblerone product, nothing else, actually. What else does the adjective Swiss refer to!??? - If you do not ike it: just leave it away! And your A) and B) points are totally irrelevant for this discussion, as far as irrelevant as any arbitrarily chosen statement can be. And the only authority to define Swissness is only and obviously the Swiss government, anything else is just pure arrogant chauvinism. And, LOL, tell your assumptions about the English WP to be an ALL-US-american item and nothing else, to all other people speaking English on this worl! I am happy to learn about their thoughts. LOL. – You are concious how rediculous your arguments became in the mean time, don't you!?? :-)) -- ZH8000 (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You're free to have whatever opinion you want about me, just as I am free to have whatever opinion I want of you. But this isn't about me or you, it's about Toblerone being referred to as a Swiss brand by Mondeléz, with a proper reference. And your attempts to remove that statement are chauvinistic, since you obviously feel that having an American owner doesn't make Toblerone Swiss enough to "deserve the honour of being called a Swiss brand". As if that was more of an honour than being labelled as a brand of any of a number of other countries. Thomas.W talk 19:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
LOL, you are a funny guy. Young man, I never ever said such a thing and I will never say such stupid statements. These are solely your own uber-interpreted products of your obviously misleaded, free -floating imagination. But I, however, would very much prefer a serious, adult discussion, but it looks like you are not able to. So therefore I will escalate it repsectively. I wish you better, more serious arguments and more peace in yourself for the future. So long. -- ZH8000 (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
"Young man"? I am with all probability older than you, with more real life experience than you, so your childish attempts to patronise me make you look silly, not me. Thomas.W talk 19:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Toblerone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of new UK Design to save weight[edit]

Some articles about the topic to change the design to save weight in the UK should be included:

I would like to see a commons picture of the new design

Best regards -- Neozoon 12:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Toblerone line and trademark[edit]

The "Cultural impact" section begins "It has been suggested that the distinct pyramidal shape of the bar lent its name to the Toblerone line, a series of anti-tank emplacements prevalent in Switzerland's border areas. However, the Toblerone brand was trademarked in 1909, at the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property in Bern."

What has the first sentence to to with the second? Since the Toblerone line was built in WWII, more than 30 years after the trademark date, the "however" makes no sense. Perhaps the person who wrote the second sentence didn't quite know what "lent its name to" means? Or am I missing something?

Unless anyone sees reasons not to, I suggest we remove "It has been suggested that" from the first sentence, and the entire second sentence, which only repeats information given earlier. --ChasFink (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)