Talk:Crunchie

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.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Brands C‑class Mid‑importance

	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.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It brings tears to my eyes to see that my beloved Crunchie bar has such a nice Wikipedia entry. Rob Banzai 19:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear! -- Arkracer 5:55 GMT, 4 November 2006

Discussion[edit]

Has anyone else noticed that one slight bit of a crunchie bar, close to the side, is slightly sticky and chewy? I have, and I'm very dissapointed. Why?

We too have found that this defect is degrading our enjoyment of this fabulous type of chocolate bar. We have found that the *dodgy* side is the side at the top of the text, check it out and let us know if you are experiencing the same thing! This seems to happen mostly on the 40g fundraising bars. Sesh 03:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Sizes and Variations[edit]

I have seen bite-sized "Crunchie Nuggets" in Australia, sold in a foil bag. I presume they are available in the UK as well (http://www.britishdelights.com/prod_ca4031.htm). Can someone from there confirm the details and augment the "Size and Variations" section?

Do any of our UK friends know the details of this item?

68.20.229.86 20:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nutrition[edit]

Have updated the 40g bar nutritional information. Have just bought 40g that seems to have more realistic values than those stated earlier.

Was: Per Bar (40g): Energy 665kJ/160kcal, Protein 0.9g, Carbohydrate 16.3g, Fat 4.4g Now: Per Bar (40g): Energy 775kJ/185kcal, Protein 1.6g, Carbohydrate 27.8g, Fat 7.6g

Oh wow.[edit]

This page is mouthwatering, then imagine what the Crunchie is like for real! Like gold, so precious and sweet, wow, to die for..

RetroToysRUs 06:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similarity to Violet Crumble[edit]

Sure, they are both bars of honeycomb covered in chocolate. But the Crunchie is softer and spongier I find while the Violet Crumble has hard, shattery honeycomb. I prefer the Crunchie personally, it doesn't threaten to slice my mouth with honeycomb shards. Gemfyre (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Violet Crumble in covered in 'compound chocolate' not the normal 'full cream milk' type which the Crunchie uses. That might have something to do with it. See also 'Sponge toffee' which has some details of how confectionary 'honeycomb' is made. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 17:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the dates, it appears that Cadbury copied Hoadly's idea of coating the honeycomb with chocolate to prevent the suger from absorbing water and softening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.243.156 (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article name[edit]

This was moved from "Crunchie" to "Cadbury's Crunchie" (and then to "Cadbury Crunchie") with no explanation or discussion, and creating copious double redirects. Given WP:COMMONNAME and the fact that the article also discusses the chocolate's history with Fry's, I'd say it should be moved back to the original article title. What do other editors think? --McGeddon (talk) 11:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Today an editor moved it back to "Crunchie" (edit summary: "Simplest name"), and now it's been moved back again (with no edit summary). Maybe we should discuss this? --McGeddon (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now it's moved to the cryptic Cadbury Crunchie (Bar), again with no explanation. Would User:User Centre mind explaining his or her thinking here? --McGeddon (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the same sockpuppeteering editor (now banned) seems to have moved it away from Crunchie each time, and that broken double-redirects still exist, I'll just request a move back to Crunchie for now. --McGeddon (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I now have everything set as it should be? --Smashville^talk 15:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes, that looks fine. --McGeddon (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article discrepancy[edit]

"In the early 1960s there were a range of limited edition Crunchies on sale in the UK. These included a lemonade bar, a champagne bar and a Tango Orange bar, in which the chocolate contained the different flavourings. The champagne-flavoured bar was initially launched for New Year's Eve 1999."

Really? In the 1960's in 1999? I'll be modifying this ... 62.244.190.66 (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also the article mentions the Crunchie Tango in its own section as from 2000. This is not in the 1960s either. Rpt0 (talk) 14:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date manufacturing section[edit]

The first sentence in the Manufacturing section talks about the UK. But earlier in the article it states that production has now moved to a new plant in Poland. Rpt0 (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crunchie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090315192730/http://www.filmarchive.org.nz:80/education/online-resources/SellingNZ-Y13/02,The_Seventies.php to http://www.filmarchive.org.nz/education/online-resources/SellingNZ-Y13/02,The_Seventies.php

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked the archive link; it works; changed the checked parameter to true — DavidConrad (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup, possible Copyright Violation[edit]

This page was listed on Wikipedia:Cleanup with a comment about bare urls in references. I have changed those and in the process I also fixed a few broken/dead links and found a couple of new references. Those references seem to cover two of the three places in the article where there was a "citation needed" notation. (I would appreciate someone double checking those two spots; just look at the diff for where a citation-needed turned into a ref.) But in the process I've become aware of two other problems.

First, it looks like there may be copyright issues with the article. In reviewing two references (both of which I added), it looks like the article may have copied a fair bit of text from them verbatim. (Unless, possibly, those sources borrowed from the Wikipedia article?) Specifically, the chocolate brands list and slideshare net references. Neither of them are in the Wayback Machine, nor do they have dates on them, so I can't tell if they predate the WP article. Some Wikipedian with more experience than me should take a look at them and see what they think. Unless I'm mistaken (always possible), either parts of the article need to be rewritten, or those references need to be deleted, and the respective "citation needed" tags restored.

Second, the remaining "citation needed" tags are about the availability of the product. There are lots of ghits for it, but they all seem to be sites that are scraping/reposting WP content. I can't find any support, including on Cadbury's website. I propose that that questionable claims should simply be removed.

Wrapper change[edit]

This is going back some way but I seem to recall that around 1980 (possibly slightly earlier) the wrapper changed from a standard style of wrapper (think Mars type wrapper) in red to the foil wrapper and at the same time the product changed slightly from being dry honeycomb all the way through to being slightly moist in the middle (quite possibly as a result of the packaging change). Does anyone have any info on that? danno_uk 21:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bourbon Crunchie[edit]

So, from what I understand Wikipedia will allow something if it's citable, but not necessarily true. This seems kind of messed up. For example, in this article, I read about the bourbon Crunchie. I got really excited about it. I googled around more to find if this thing really did exist, and all i could find was various fan websites with uncorroborated stories about the supposed bourbon crunchie bar. I just wanna get drunk and eat Crunchies at the same time. Oh, also, I really want to know what the hell happened with the supposed boycott? Why did the church boycott this bourbon Crunchie bar? What motives did they have? Was it because it was mixing booze with delicious candy? Did they just have nothing else to boycott at the time? Was it just that church? Was there an uprising? Did they burn all the bourbon Crunchie bars in the town square?

i feel this information is very important for the general public to know. Anyone in Nashville around 2003, do you remember the bourbon Crunchie bar? if so, did you have it? if you had it, was it delicious? if it was delicious, please describe it to me. thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.23.190.140 (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]