This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This page is entitled "List of chocolate bar brands". That's what the page is supposed to contain. If someone else wants to create a page of non-chocolate candies (where Mary Janes would fit), or even one of non-chocolate candy bars (Like the Zero bar.), fine, please do that. But that is not what this page is for. A page which is referenced from an article on chocolate' bars - no matter that it's entitled "Candy Bars", seemingly a case of a clash between British English and American English that misleads contributors to this page (who think they can add any old confection that comes to their mind at it). Please do not do so. If you feel inclined to have your favorite confection or something you once had on a trip to Southeast Asia appear somewhere on Wikipedia, go ahead and create a page for it. This is simply not the place to add it. Thank you. Wikiuser100 ( talk) 02:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you a million to all those kind Wikipedians who helped to restore this table, after I rather inadvertently made a mess when trying to tidy earlier presentation! My mess was an accident, not vandalism! ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 15:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking of adding one. Objections? Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 20:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Skittles, bit-o-honey, and things like that are not chocolate bars, nor are thay chocolate at all! We are thinking about removing them from the list. please, if you would like to protest against them being removed, or agree they should be removed, click "edit page", then type what you want to happen, and why, UNDER this writing so other people know what the topic is! 76.197.228.12 ( talk) 21:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think they should be removed! they are in the wrong spot, and they aren't chocolate, like they said above. 76.197.228.12 ( talk) 21:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC) They should be removed, becase if they aren't, they will make it take a long time to find the candy bar your looking for! It's totally pointless, and I think it's just a waste to spend all that time on a website! 76.197.228.12 ( talk) 21:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC) These candy's are definetly NOT going to be removed! Sure, there not chocolate, but there CANDY! Keep them on the list! 76.197.228.12 ( talk) 21:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

THE POLLS ARE NOW CLOSED! Keep= 1 out of 3 Delete= 2 out of 3 THE CANDY WILL BE DELETED!

This is a ridicouls consensus and its clear the poll originated from the same source and single edit, you could rename the article and still include the candies Ottawa4ever ( talk) 16:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the heading of the table has been mixed up with an entry for Galaxy Ripple. Can someone who knows things fix it? 81.143.7.209 ( talk) 13:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, took care of it! Mikepellerin ( talk) 02:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

What's the split here between manufacturer/brand and the bars? The entry for Godiva is somewhat generic, they're a manufacturer/brand rather than a specific bar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguin42 ( talk • contribs) 21:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

These are peanut bars, they don't contain chocolate. I don't understand why Mr Tom features in this list. It should presumably be deleted. Colin McLaughlin ( talk) 12:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Deleted, along with several other items that do not contain chocolate, or appear not to. Meters ( talk) 17:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is a mess. I just removed a number of items that don't even contain chocolate. Such things may be part of the generic "candy bar" term in the US, but that does not mean they are chocolate bars. A few things to be clarified:

1. This is supposed to be a list of chocolate bar brands, not chocolate bars. I think different variations of the same bar should they be combined rather than being listed as separate brands. We have Aero, Aero Caramel, and Aero Mint listed as separate brands now, for example. The brand is clearly "Aero" for all or them.
2. Do former brands qualify for inclusion or should this be restricted to currently available brands?
3. Should this be restricted to notable brands (i.e., with Wikipdedia articles)? We currently have entries for brands where neither the brand nor the manufacturer have articles. Meters ( talk) 17:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

You asked what I never bothered to. Great.

1) I agree. They should be combined.

2) Former brands should qualify but should be described as no longer available.

3) Personally, I think no article should mean no listing. For now, I'd say if it is missing both an article and manufacturer article it should be removed. LordAtlas ( talk) 22:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

First pass, item 3. (no bar or manufacturer article) [1] Some of these are probably notable enough to warrant an article and future inclusion on this list, so I'm leaving the diff for future reference. Meters ( talk) 19:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I would advocate for the inclusion of candy even if there is no corresponding article. I'm thinking from a reference stand point as that is one of the purposes of an encyclopedia article - to be a good reference source. I'm sure there were small, regional companies producing product that was notable for the residents in those regions even though they were relatively unknown outside of that region. Fenn and Pearson are two that come to mind in the upper Midwest. THX1136 ( talk) 12:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Walnut Crush - white nougat, dark chocolate and walnuts

Chicken Dinner - never had one, but saw them in a vending machine as a kid.

Denver Sandwich - vaguely remember milk chocolate, nuts, sugar wafer and caramel(?)

Seven Up bar - milk and dark chocolate versions segmented into 7 pieces each with a different center filling.

Bun - milk chocolate, peanuts with one of 3 different centers - caramel, white nougat, maple nougat. These were round in shape, perhaps 3 inches across.

Nestle Triple Decker bar - 3 layer bar comprised of milk, white and dark chocolate layers about 2.5" square.

Recommend including Mallo cup. The first such style in the US. Reeses Cup is included, so it seems reasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:95E0:9A80:C85A:8C8C:40EE:9825 ( talk) 21:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I am assuming the Zagnut bar is not here due to it not containing chocolate? Same for Pearson's Salted Nut Roll (now known as just Pearson's Nut Roll along with a peanut butter, chocolate and pecan variation)? THX1136 ( talk) 15:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Ragusa 50g.png
• Torino chocolate bars.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Seven Up Candt Bar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.99.165.6 ( talk) 16:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Aero Orange.png
• Balisto.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

If you look on the respective sites for Cadbury USA and Cadbury UK, you won't find some of the same things. Or at least that's what I encountered. For instance, on Cadbury USA, they have a Royal Dark bar and Cadbury UK doesn't. There will have to be some figuring out on this. Questions, comments, and suggestion are welcome as always. Mr. C.C. ^{Hey yo!} _{I didn't do it!} 04:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Fishhead2100: I think that's just a matter of finding out whether or not one of the sites just doesn't list the product or it isn't sold at all in one of the countries. If so, this has to become clear in the "distribution" table cell. Coldbolt ( talk) 15:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I've noticed they there are various versions of chocolate bars. For instance, there is Coffee Crisp and Coffee Crisp orange. Coffee Crisp orange is not a brand, but a flavour variant. If we are adding flavour variants, logic would dictate that Peanut Butter Oh Henry should be added to the list. Herhsey's has lots of variants that are not listed. Kit Kat has lots of variants. In fact, Japan has 200 different variants of Kit Kat alone? Are we going to list all 200? No. Why are variants of Aero and Coffee Crisp listed? Also, there are chocolates that are not bars such as Rolo, After Eight, Glosette, and Cherry Mash. Even Bun Bars, despite their name are not bars. Those four will be removed. If it's not in bar form, it shouldn't be on the list. We need inclusion criteria. So I am open to a discussion. Mr. C.C. ^{Hey yo!} _{I didn't do it!} 14:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Part of your question has been covered in an earlier item. If I were to be quite particular the list would be Mars, Hershey, etc. with no individual bar names as the article is entitled "list of chocolate bar brands" which I define as manufacturers - but that is only my peculiar interpretation obviously. As you mentioned, Kit Kat should be listed, but not all the variants. I do think that some way to include variants would be desirable as I view Wikipedia as a reference source as I mentioned in another response here on the Talk page. I not sure an article on Kit Kat bars to allow for listing the variants is a good idea, but it would be one approach. I haven't seen the current form of the Bun candy bar, but when I was a youngster I thought of it as a "candy bar" even though it was round instead of some angular shape. It was quite substantial at that time being 3 to 4 inches in diameter and relatively thick at it's center (3/8" possibly with the amount of peanuts on top). I would feel the same about the Cherry Mash "bar" - Rolo would be harder to define most definitely. Exactly what noun would one use to describe a Cherry Mash if not "bar"? They are larger than a boxed chocolate and comparable in size to a Mallo Cup - diameter only, not thickness. I could see one arguing that the Cherry Mash is as much a candy bar as a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup. I think you make a good point, inclusion criteria and definition of what a "chocolate bar" is is necessary to continue forward on this article if changes/additions are to be made. THX1136 ( talk) 00:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Just scanned through the list. One thought: if Bun is not worthy of inclusion, then we have a problem with Nut Goodie, Turtles and Goo Goo Cluster as they are similar candies. THX1136 ( talk) 00:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@ THX1136: It says "bar." In terms of the chocolate bar shape, it's long, square or rectangle not circular or oval Scanning the list and there are some I also missed Toffifee and York Peppermint Psttie. Mr. C.C. ^{Hey yo!} _{I didn't do it!} 08:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I would think that more input from other editors would be needed on the issue of the definition of a chocolate candy "bar". Personally the shape does not enter into the definition of a candy bar. As I mentioned, Reese's Peanut Butter Cups would not be a candy "bar" by your definition. I'm guessing some would agree with you and others may not. Making changes to the list based on one person's criteria would not be a wise choice. Some sort of general consensus should be reached before doing so in my opinion which is just that, my opinion which carries no weight. Also it says "brands". Does that mean "Mars" or "Milky Way"; "Hershey" or "Fifth Avenue"? How particular should we be in defining these terms? Again, I think further discussion by other editors and interested parties is critical before changes are made to the article. Last thought (for now): what about changing the name of the article to "chocolate candies" instead of "bars"? That would make the inclusion of different shaped chocolate candy a non-issue. Thanks for your input and including me in the conversation. THX1136 ( talk) 16:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mr. C.C.: A thought occurred that your definition of a "bar" would also exclude Almond Joy, Mounds, Almond Cluster, Caravelle, 100 Grand and other double bars along with Baby Ruth, Butterfinger, 5th Avenue and others as they are rounded, not angular. Just a thought and, in my mind, a demonstration of the need to define "bar" before making changes to the article. THX1136 ( talk) 01:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@ THX1136: Technically, a bar is not always rectangular. It can be rounded at the ends. As long as it's long enough to be a bar, they are included. It's circle chocolates like Reese Cups or Glossette raisins (chocolate covered raisins), for example, are not included. Reese Cups are in that section of the junk food category, but are clearly not a bar. Mr. C.C. ^{Hey yo!} _{I didn't do it!} 02:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

id say anything that has the same purpose as a chocolate bar should be included, so goo goo clusters and other not round bars should also be added or kept on the list Dino54gaming ( talk) 18:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Seriously, are we going to list all mass-produced chocolate bars (even if perfectly rectangular)? Shouldn't there be some inclusion criteria, like 30 of 50 years of continuous production, only original version? And maybe some more strict definition of chocolate bar. Zach (Talk) 14:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Quick response/thought: since this is an encyclopedia, I personally would expect a far reaching list since some readers may be doing research. Limiting the list per your suggestion would hamper said research possibly. I am not making this as a strongly held thought, just mentioning for your consideration. THX1136 ( talk) 23:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@ Zacharie Grossen: The following.

1. It has to have chocolate. That means PayDay bars, for example, will not be listed. Those are candy bars. There is a candy bar article for non-chocolate bars.
2. Chocolate cups, cubes, pieces, small or individual squares, clusters, etc. are prohibited. That means Reese Cups, York Peppermint Patties, Cherry Blossoms, After Eight, etc. were removed.
3. If it's an oblong (rectangular or oval) bar, it can be added to the list.
4. If you look at Ritter Sport or KitKat, you won't see any varieties listed because of how many there are. There are hundreds of varieties of KitKat in Japan alone. Some chocolate bars lines are small enough that they can be listed here.

Mr. C.C. ^{Hey yo!} _{I didn't do it!} 05:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

But concretely, what is the reason for not having any Kit Kat variant (like Kit Kat ruby) but all varieties of Karl Fazer? If the only reason why you can't list Kit kat varieties is because they are too numerous, then the logical following step is to avoid listing variants from other brands as well, because... they are surely going to be even more numerous given the number (!) of brands, and probably outside Wikipedia's scope (please correct me if I'm wrong but I think the limit is supposed to be about 32K for this type of list). And how about a 50-year inclusion criterion? Zach (Talk) 11:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The definition of chocolate bar can be tricky. You say it should contain chocolate, but chocolate itself is not an ingredient. Cocoa butter would be an essential ingredient, if not the essential ingredient, given that all 3 traditionnal types of chocolate must have a fair portion of it (at least in my country). What if a bar contains only cocoa solids and vegetable fats, would you include it? Personnally I'm not sure I would. And if you mean coated in chocolate, then that would exclude purely gianduja and praline bars (like Minor I think), although they have all cocoa butter and cocoa solids. Zach (Talk) 12:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Zacharie Grossen: It was explained, but you still need it explained as to why KitKat variants aren't listed. Right... If something shouldn't be listed, the logical think to do is remove it.. But Minor has chocolate in it. It has cocoa butter. 21 percent cocoa. Praline has hazelnuts and hazelnuts are in a Minor bar. It's listing is correct. If gianduja or chocolate hazelnut spread is in a bar, it's accepted. As long as chocolate is present in the bar, it's allowed to be listed. You're assuming it was only bars that are covered in chocolate that are to be listed. You're nitpicking and making an issue out of certain things that are a non-issue. If and when, we'll revisit listing variants if it becomes too long. Mr. C.C. ^{Hey yo!} _{I didn't do it!} 06:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem (about the variants) is that the introduction states "flavour variants and discontinued chocolate bars are included". So if someone wants to add Ritter Sport or Kit Kat variants, which is going to be likely, then you can not remove them just because they are too numerous, while leaving the intro unchanged, otherwise it wouldn't be fair therefore neutral. What we need here is a reasonable inclusion criterion that applies to all items, and preferably easily verifiable (like a production date). I'm really sorry for nitpicking but I hate to see people spending time trying to compile impossibly long lists that end up getting deleted. Again, does anybody seriously plan to list every bar of Frey, Lindt, Cailler, Caffarel, Ghirardelli, Venchi, Pernigotti, Amedei, Alprose, Milka, Ferrero, Côte d'Or, Dolfin, Godiva, Leonidas, Bonnat, Cluizel, Meiji...? If you do, I certainly admire your passion for chocolate! Zach (Talk) 12:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

And maybe a size criterion could also be applied (like between 30 and 50 g). Zach (Talk) 12:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

About the definition of chocolate: I think there could be difficult cases, but I don't think we have them on the list right now, so, no worries, I'm not suggesting removing any item because of that. Zach (Talk) 12:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

If I may give my opinion, for now many brands do not have too many variants, when this does become the case we can always list them on their own page. Furthermore about listing variants at all; in the past many (anonymous) editors have added variants as seperate bars. By listing them as variant with their own markup style in the tables, it becomes more clear for people to see the brand and its variants. Btw, inclusion criteria such as "50 years of production" is unrealistic, because many variants are produced on and off (sometimes not for a few years and then they are revived). That's why in the introduction we say "discontinued chocolate bars are included". I understand your concern about going deeper on wheter or not something is "chocolate" but it's a good thing you won't make a whole point of it. Luckily, it's clear that most chocolate bar brands are chocolate without any doubt. Coldbolt ( talk) 14:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I think listing indiscriminately any variant on the brand page is also problematic and is typically going to lead to lists lacking third-party sources. Compare for instance the quality of the sources used for the Ritter Sport page (which lists all variants) and that of the sources used for the Kit Kats in Japan page (which lists only notable variants). And this page is also obviously lacking reliable sources (can snackhistory.com can be considered one, I'm not sure...). Zach (Talk) 16:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Standard PayDay bars would not, Chocolately PayDay bars would, yes? THX1136 ( talk) 23:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@ THX1136, it does say chocolate in the title. That should answer your question. Mr. C.C. ^{Hey yo!} _{I didn't do it!} 05:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Since we have sources from all all over the world, we have a variety of date format used. I'm used to using MDY format, but if DMY is already used you continue using that. A consensus on which date format whether it's MDY, DMY, or any other other needs to be reached. I'll all for MDY, but if DMY is decided upon, that's fine as well. Mr. C.C. ^{Hey yo!} _{I didn't do it!} 23:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I would be in favor of using the date format that is automatically generated when doing a cite - DMY (European format - so called). The one thing that is important per Wiki guidelines is that all dates within an article be consistent. If someone is manually entering dates they should be in the same format as dates already in the article. THX1136 ( talk) 23:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@ THX1136, the problem is there are multiple formats include MDY, DMY, and year-month-day format. The most common format in the list is MDY. Even though MDY is the most common, it's not totally followed. That's why I've started this discussion as you can see. We can use {{Use MDY dates}} since that is the most common format in sources. That's what I use even though in Canada MDY and DMY formats are both acceptable. Mr. C.C. ^{Hey yo!} _{I didn't do it!} 03:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

To clarify: I am in favor of using the format that Wiki uses when you auto date a cite and when you 'sign' a post like this one D-month-Y. THX1136 ( talk) 19:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@ THX1136, I have my preferences set to MDY format, but it still shows DMY format on talk pages. Never paid much attention to it still happening though. Now, if more people don't jump in the discussion, we might need to WP:RFC. Mr. C.C. ^{Hey yo!} _{I didn't do it!} 05:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Like THX1136, I'd be in favor of using the format that is automatically generated, but if this doesn't help (which seems to be the case), then I'd be in favor of using MDY, because it's the predominant format in this page (and I think it was the first used). Zach (Talk) 15:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a dangerous page to look at while hungry! Ha ha ha :) Rosedaler ( talk) 07:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)