Talk:Candy/Archive 1

Temperature
To do: explain temperatures and results; link to appropriate sub-articles (like fudge); explain traditional temperature tests (like soft-ball stage). -- Dominus 05:30 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC) hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.68.148.231 (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Title?
Why do so many articles on Wikipedia go out of their way to chide North America about English usage. Has a word never changed meaning in the UK? Anyway, I'm fixing it. Daniel Quinlan 04:56, Aug 23, 2003 (UTC)

'''Candy is a very healthy snack. It moves your digestive track the way it is supposed to go, when constipated. Candy, most of all Mike n Ikes are natural candies and the acids in them make for a good digestive clean out. Gum is also very healthy for you and serves as an aid for many ear infections. Gum also stops bleeding of the ear and nose.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raewashere (talk • contribs) 19:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC) The term "confectionery" is the only one that's neutral. If you use the word "candy", that's an American POV, if you use the word "sweet", it's a British POV. The chiding is often to do with exactly what you've just done by using the American POV word even if non-American english speakers object.

I'm not necessarily advocating a change, but "confectionary" doesn't seem anymore neutral to me than "candy". From the American perspective, "sweet" is used much, much more than "confectionary". Also, perhaps this is biased, but if there's a dispute as to which country's term ought to be used, shouldn't the fact that over 2/3 of native English speakers reside in the United States be factored into the discussion. In other words, isn't the prevalent usage of a word in America essentially the more prevalent usage of the word in general? BarqSimpson 01:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Following your logic, then this would be usa.wikipedia.org. However, since it's en.wikipedia.org, it caters for all English speakers all over the world. The guidelines specifically say that no one national variety of English should be favoured over any other, in general - and where possible, internationally-neutral compromises should be used. The term "confectionery" is internationally neutral, as belongs in an international encyclopædia. If you want to start a usa-only version then be my guest: in the meantime, we all use the international one. EuroSong talk 21:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand this discussion, I myself am not a native English speaker, but have had a thorough English education. There is different word use on wording and spelling in English as in other languages, language is never static and not invented by an organisation but spoken by people. Even dictionaries don't include all words immediatly on use. Is the word google a verb? Is it in a dictionary? Will it be in the future? I really see no need for this discussion, if there are many POV's (read wordings) the best way to be NPOV is to include all POV's with a note on where they came from and where they are used. Teardrop onthefire 07:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest that the heading simply be changed to refer to candy being an American term, which it is. The present "neutral" title is actually misleading. No one need feel chided, or that this implies any criticism.

Incidentally, 2/3rds of native English speakers may reside in the USA (actually closer to 40%), but the language is "English", not "American". American usage, like that of New Zealand or India, is non standard where it deviates from the original form. Of course English English also deviates, more so than ever, due to increasingly lax school standards.JohnC (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC).

Removal of lists
I'm removing the 'list of candies' because it doesn't give you any information you wouldn't get by just clicking on the "Category:Confectionery" link. Further, these category pages keep themselves up to date. The list in this article only lists a fraction of the 'candy articles'. ike9898 01:50, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Candyarian?
What's the adjective for someone who eats only candy? Jarrod 04:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC) Candy eater
 * Various options that spring to mind (depending on how long they've been doing this for) include "fat" and "dead". If you do have a reason to use the term, I'm sure there's no law against coining "candyarian" to serve. (There is some paranoia against using words that aren't in the dictionary, but I doubt most dictionaries include the word "eats". The important thing is if you're understood, and if it suits the context.)


 * Of course, "candarian" is a bit dangerous because it's based on a dialect-specific term; you might find Australians then discussing "lolliarians". Perhaps it could be based on "confectionery" which is dialect-neutral albeit formal, thus giving "confectionerian" (I imagine a "confectionarian" is someone who eats places that sell confeck, rather than the confeck itself—probably no better for your long-term health!).


 * —Felix the Cassowary ( ɑe hɪː jɐ ) 12:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "Sweet-toothed" ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps "Lunatic", or "suidical"?JohnC (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Candi, Crete
Would this be important?


 * The Arabs installed the first industrial sugar refinery on the island of Candia or Crete around the year 1000. The Arabic name for Crete, Qandi meant crystallized sugar.
 * History of Food, Maguelonne Toussaint-Samat,Translated by Anthea Bell [Barnes & Noble Books:New York] 1992 (p. 549-554)

(unsigned comment ArthurianLegend on 2006-08-03T04:17:00)


 * Alas, Toussaint-Samat is a really, really unreliable source, full of legends and misinformation, and since she doesn't footnote most of what she writes, there's no way of verifying it. (Take a look at the customer reviews at Amazon. In this case, there is one major error, one minor error, and another dubious claim. The Arabic name Khandaq quite clearly comes from the Arabic word for "moat" (they dug one around the city), and has nothing to do with Qandi or Candy. It is true that Crete was sometimes called Candy, short for Candia, but this is pure happenstance. The island and the capital were not called Candia under Ottoman rule (as the article used to say), but under Venetian rule (before the Ottomans). I don't know where she gets the idea that the Arabs "built a large sugar refinery". This may or may not be true, but I don't know of any evidence for it. ِAn article I found, "The Mediterranean Sugar Industry" (J. H. Galloway, Geographical Review 67:2:177-194 (Apr., 1977)), shows sugar being produced in Crete from 1300-1600 (during the Venetian period), but shows only question marks for 800-1300. Upshot of all this, I have deleted this section of the article. Of course, if you have other sources for the Cretan sugar refinery claim, that would be great.... --Macrakis 20:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandlized
The page has been vadilized, and I can't seem to edit out the explicet content. If someone knows how, please edit out the profanities ect. Unforgotten 03:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedia, and it is good for our articles to be explicit, and we have no particular religious orientation, so don't worry about profanation much. On the other hand, the obscenities that some vandal has added have nothing to do with this article, so I have removed them. --Macrakis 20:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

lollypop
I can't speak for new zealand, but in australia, lollypop only refers to a lolly on a stick. --UnnamedGent 02:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with UnnamedGent. This article should not say Austrlain's use the term lollypop for any candy -Waza 04:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Can we get an edit on that ?

Who invented candy?
I'm curious, Wikipedians. 69.245.103.98 00:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

God. =

Are skittles Candy, Confectionary or neither?
Most people are surprised to learn that Chocolate, when absent of a crunchy shell, is not actually candy. Chocolate has all the properties of a fruit or a vegetable (e.g. vitamins and anti-oxidants). Generally, a tablespoon of 67% dark chocolate is equivalent to a serving of fruit and a near-perfect substitute for a bowl of cherries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.207.90.200 (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Skittles do not taste sweet so what the heck are they?


 * Skittles taste sweet. Even Skittles Sours taste sweet. Liam Markham 19:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Skittles are tart - they're not sweet at all. What about sour soothers?  they'll make you pucker and burn your tastebuds off because they're so sour.  I want to know WHERE DOES ***********SOUR************* CANDY FIT IN!!!?????  DOES CANDY HAVE TO *TASTE* SWEET? - YES OR NO? GIVE ME AN ANSWER.  If the answer is yes, then sour candy needs to be mentioned in the article.  If the answer is no, then sour candy is not candy and deserves it's own page!!!  You cannot ignore the fact that sour candy exists!!!!  Here's some extra exclamation marks!!!!!!

Candy must be pleasing to eat to be considered candy. My mum always buys those little licorice diamonds that are really salty. Are they candy? Is salty candy not candy because it tastes of salt? JayKeaton 07:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course salty candy is candy but heaven forbid you put it in the article. People freak out and delete your entry.  Watch, I'll put one in right now....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pagingmrherman (talk • contribs) 04:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

or tamarind candy?142.68.53.212 20:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Is a candy not something that is enjoyed simply as a pleasure (without any other benefits) whether it be sweet, salty, or sour? If this does correctly define candy then many other goods that weren't previously seen as being candy could be considered as such with even the possibility of making different categories of candy. My point is that candy is an ambiguous term that may need the help of sub-definitions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.163.218.120 (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Merger
'Candy' is a purely American centric word. Wikipedia's guidelines state that titles of pages should be, where possible, easily understood by all English speakers, from whichever country. I therefore suggest that Candy is merely a local term for Confectionery, and that merging this article with Confectionery would give a more neutral term. Candy would then be a redirect to Confectionery, in the same way that Sweets does at the moment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.147.80.137 (talk • contribs).


 * Candy is not americentric; it has a specific meaning in British English. "Confectionery" and "sweets" are both much, much more broad in meaning, and include things that aren't considered to be candy.  I proposed the following on the confectionery page (please respond there to keep the discussion in one place.)
 * That candy be cleaned up to specifically be about sugar candy (it could possibly be renamed "sugar candy" with "candy" as a redirect.) There should be a tag at the top noting this and asking readers interested in other kinds of candy to see "confectionery."
 * That confectionery, which is currently a glorified list with a usage note, be cleaned up and made into a proper disambiguation page. It should possibly be moved to "confection" because "confectionery" can also mean the act of confection making, as well as the place where that happens.


 * "Sweets" is synonymous with "confectionery," and should thus continue to redirect there, but neither of those terms is synonymous with "candy," which should stay an independent article. Furthermore, this article contains candy-specific information that does not apply to other "sweets," such as the discussion about sugar stages.  --Confiteordeo 23:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Origin of term
I've somewhere seen the etymology of "candy" attributed to Candy, the mediaeval/renaissance name for Crete, since that was the only Christian holding where sugar could be produced (Venice held it for a long time). Of course, the etymology could have gone the other way. Could somebody clear this up? P.M.Lawrence.


 * The Oxford English Dictionary would be the authoritative reference. You might be able to consult it at a city or college library. As a word for sugar confections, candy comes from the Persian qand meaning sugar, through Arabic, to Italian around 1300, and then to English around 1420. To complicate things, another meaning of candy is an obselete form of candia, which was once a name for Crete, as you say. This appeared in English around 1600. The OED does not connect this name for Crete with sugar, and most of the uses are as names of plants, but one use refers to something as "more sweet than candy oil". Tom Harrison Talk 15:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Candy... or if i were to take the liberty to call in 'sugar candy' sounds too much like the Hindi word for sweet potato - shakar kandi'. Is there a connection here ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.64.5.34 (talk) 05:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggested merge with 'Confectionary'.
Agreed. 'Candy' is only a terminology used within the US and therefor should not have a seperate article. By having a seperate article this suggests imperialism through the suggestion that their terminology is somehow exempt from Wikipedia rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.65.119 (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, confectionary is more of a technical word for it and more appropriate for Wikipedia. This entry is pointless. Merge.70.189.213.149 (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Strange picture
Why is there a picture of a hand holding jellybeans and a person's head? 198.89.160.22 16:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That was vandalism. I've since fixed it.  Thanks for bringing it to my attention.  --Confiteordeo 21:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)//////////////AAAAAAA

Why isn't this at "sweets" or "confectionary"?
The title as it is is very North American centric, why when only two English language countries call it "candy" is it located there? More countries call it something else. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is already an article called confectionery, and its talk page contains a discussion about the proper naming and article content, which you may find enlightening. This article is specifically about candy.  Confiteordeo (talk) 07:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But "candy" IS confectionary! Why does it have its own article? Should I start articles about "lifts", "nappies", "footpaths" and so forth and defend them on the grounds that they are specifically about the non-American versions of elevators, diapers and sidewalks? Confectionary is clearly a generic term that fits all - There's no need for two articles. I have to wonder WHY the American version of the word ALWAYS has to win out on Wikipedia, even when the English one would be more appropriate. Most ludicrously of all, in cases like this where a generic catch-all name is available.70.189.213.149 (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There you go. >>>> Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But not every speaker of English is a native English speaker (indeed, most are second language speakers), and the English Wikipedia is not targeted solely at native English speakers. Dreaded Walrus t c 12:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's not forget the (semi-)native English speakers of India, Philipines, West Africa, etc. But let's also not forget "cultural prominence" -- American English dialects are the most prominent international cultural ("cultural") variety of English (in everything), followed by Received Pronunciation (news, film, TV, pop music) and regional British dialects (pop music).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.168.116 (talk) 03:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * But perhaps the answer is to use a national-neutral term, something like "Sweet Snacks", and include both crystalized-sugar sweet snacks (candy strict sense), chocolates (strict sense), etc. Well now, thinking further -- that word actually is "confectionary", which actually is the formal American English term, with "candy" being a 20th Century colloquial expansion. So here I will vote to make the main article "Confectionary". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.168.116 (talk) 03:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Excerpt from English Language article. US users please note.

"English is the primary language in Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia (Australian English), the Bahamas, Barbados, Bermuda, Belize (Belizean Kriol), the British Indian Ocean Territory, the British Virgin Islands, Canada (Canadian English), the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Grenada, Guam, Guernsey (Channel Island English), Guyana, Ireland (Hiberno-English), Isle of Man (Manx English), Jamaica (Jamaican English), Jersey, Montserrat, Nauru, New Zealand (New Zealand English), Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Singapore, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Trinidad and Tobago, the Turks and Caicos Islands, the United Kingdom, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the United States. In many other countries, where English is not the most spoken language, it is an official language; these countries include Botswana, Cameroon, Dominica, Fiji, the Federated States of Micronesia, Ghana, Gambia, India, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malta, the Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Namibia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines (Philippine English), Puerto Rico, Rwanda, the Solomon Islands, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. It is also one of the 11 official languages that are given equal status in South Africa (South African English). English is also the official language in current dependent territories of Australia (Norfolk Island, Christmas Island and Cocos Island) and of the United States (Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa and Puerto Rico),[29] and in the former British colony of Hong Kong." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.199.146 (talk) 10:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:ENGVAR. Edison (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The word "Candy"
The word CANDY (crystallized sugar) comes from Persian QANDI or GHANDI. GHANDI or QANDI in Persian means Sweet or whatever which is coming from sugar.

Suggestion: Specify what the percentage sugar means. I assume it is weight/weight but it is currently ambiguous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bucaro1975 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ORIGIN mid 17th cent.(as a verb): the noun use is from late Middle English sugar-candy, from French sucre candi ‘crystallized sugar,’ from Arabic sukkar ‘sugar’ + ḳandī ‘candied,’ based on Sanskrit khaṇḍa ‘fragment.’

Ice Pop?
Since when is an ice pop candy rather than a "flavored ice" -- if an ice pop is candy, then sorbet, ice cream, what is the distinction.

The Oxford American Dictionary gives a primary sense for "candy" as sugar (or other syrup) that has been repeatedly boiled down to produce crystalization -- and it seems that the article should start with this concept of flavored, crystalized sugar products produced by boiling as the origin of "candies" -- in an old fashion sense -- and then expand to modern candy types, sensu stricto and (per national usage) sensu lato. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.168.116 (talk) 02:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

US Centric
The introduction to this article has one of those awful "there's the US and then there's everywhere else" styles that are far too common in Wikipedia. Can someone with a more international perspective please fix it - preferably changing the title to the more neutral and internationally recognised "Confectionery" at the same time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.199.146 (talk) 09:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Applebees (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're on the wrong page. We already have a confectionery article, and this isn't it. Viriditas (talk) 08:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hardly unique
The separation of this article and confectionery appears to be very dubious. Neither of these two articles is especially large, and could easily be merged. This article seems to be describing a specific term, not a topic, and in this case it's not a valid reason to keep a separate article. We could just as well start separate articles for sweets, sweetmeat and lollies. I don't see much good coming out of that, though.

Peter Isotalo 19:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, your right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.95.76 (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Persians not beginning of the line
The Arabic term comes again from a loned phrase in Persian which is from similar indo-European languages from South Asia which the Persians had alot of contact with. Arabs could have also got that term directly from India via trade, though it's more likely from Persian as Persian-speakers generally historically had alot more contact with India. I just clarified that part in the opening statement. Either the whole chain of where the name Candy comes from is used, or just the last step before it gotten into the English language (Arabic). It makes no sense to just end it at the Persian orign. Pink Princess (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

LINK SPAM in article
See the link to "Candy Online - Online Candies Information" at bottom of this article. Someone pointed it directly to Amazon using an affiliate id. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.37.70 (talk) 10:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the spot! Removed. :) Dreaded Walrus t c 11:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Why does "fun size" redirect here?
I understand that fun size almost always refers to candy, but there is no reference to the size at all in the article.MichaelProcton (talk) 05:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC) liers you lied lied lied lied to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.150.58.99 (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Many Indian loan words from Persian, no?
Candy from Arabic qandi "candied," derived from Persian qand, meaning "sugar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 08:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sick of language nazis
Though the link given as reference mentions arabic, persian, sanskrit and tamil as possible origins of the word, the author seemed to have conveniently ignored the other languages and even added his own invention that the word in Sanskrit is "in turn" derived from Tamil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.251.195 (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Is Chocolate Candy?
Most people are surprised to learn that Chocolate, when absent of a crunchy shell, is not actually candy. Chocolate has all the properties of a fruit or a vegetable (e.g. vitamins and anti-oxidants). Generally, a tablespoon of 67% dark chocolate is equivalent to a serving of fruit and a near-perfect substitute for a bowl of cherries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.207.90.200 (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This article reflects the inherent problems of Wikipedia....
The intro is written to suggest that the North American term "candy" is the generic word for confectionery, and then a couple of paragraphs and half a dozen sentences later er, the rest of the world only happen to call them "sweets". There is no attempt to even add sweets in the first sentence to disambiguate phrase from the American centric terminology. It must be stressed that the rest of the progressive English speaking world does not use 13th-century words to describe their food any more. But that is the problem with American English it's just full of outdated words used in a contemporary manner. For example common words in the USA sound haughty and really old fashioned in modern English, e.g. sophomore (a 17th century English word) or turnpike (a 16th century English word). Others include words and meanings that originated in Middle English or Early Modern English but have remained in everyday use in the United States even though they have been dropped in most varieties of commonwealth English. Terms such as fall ("autumn"), faucet, diaper, candy, skillet, eyeglasses, crib or obligate have long been abandoned and been replaced with newer words. Fall for example came to denote the season in 16th century England, a contraction of Middle English expressions like "fall of the leaf" and "fall of the year". During the 17th century, English immigration to the British colonies in North America was at its peak and the new settlers took the English language with them. While the term fall became obsolete in Britain, it became the more common term in North America.

But the issue like candy is therefore obvious and quite clearly an attempt to use an anachronistic term to describe a modern food stuff. But the issue is not dealt with and you wonder why the page is blocked!!? This is the real state that Wikipedia has reached where commonality is defined by the majority with their "agenda" or denials. Candy is an obsolete word in the most widely used version of the English language. I don't count second language speaker because they do not have a choice what they learn, which sadly is American. An old-fashioned version that was kept in use by people who were isolated from much of the outside world for 150 years. Did the average settler travel much further than the USA in the 17th/18th/19th centuries? Of course not they went to America to settle, and they did, like their language. This issue would be the one faced by the Netherlands if the the Africaans had grown into a country as big as America, as Africaan is old Dutch, but they didn't so it's a moot point. Nevertheless it makes the point about American English and it's perceived dominance even though it full of obsolete expressions, words and grammar.

Therefore the agenda which need to be cleared up here is whether it is acceptable to use the word Candy - a 13th century word - just because it is never fell out of use in America even though the rest of the English speaking world now call them sweets?

Until this is sorted out this page will be blocked. A sad indictment of the values that this site now has! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.110.204 (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC) BUT I WANT TO INFORM YOU THAT ALL CANDY IS NOT FROM SUGAR —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amybethlive (talk • contribs) 01:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Benjamintr, 30 November 2010
edit semi-protected

Please change the link for reference #5, as it has changed on the website.

OLD: http://www.candyfavorites.com/shop/shelf_life.asp

NEW: http://www.candyfavorites.com/shop/shelf-life.php

Benjamintr (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ - thanks I have make the edit. Keith D (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Canadian English
The article's assertion that in North American Englishes the term "Candy" includes chocolate is wrong. In Canadian English, chocolate is never considered candy. See the article Candy Bar as a reference (Americans use Candy Bar, Canadians use Chocolate Bar.) Chocolate is not Candy in Canada. It is either referred to as "Chocolate" or occasionally as a "sweet." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.224.10 (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Cochineal is not a beetle
Cochineal is a scale insect in the order Homoptera, not a beetle in the order Coleoptera. 209.6.90.149 (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Etymology
Hi, I actually came to this page because I was looking at the page on English loanwords from Arabic...one of them was candy...I would really like to see an etymology for candy (and really for all wiki articles) Thanks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.17.53 (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate image caption
The most of the candies depicted here are licorice, but not all of them. J I P &#124; Talk 18:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have changed the caption to: "A selection of mixed candy." =) AnimatedZebra (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of branded names from candy types
Should we remove such things as Reese bits from candy types? It's too specific, and, what's worse, brand specific. EDIT-yes you should — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxankixx (talk • contribs) 21:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 22 November 2011
Please change the reference to Australia and New Zealand on 'lollies'. We do not collectively call all chocolates and sweets 'lollies'. We only call small candies lollies, and do not refer to chocolate as lollies. We refer to chocolate as 'chocolate'.

101.161.26.37 (talk) 07:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, sort of. Based on my Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary, what matters is not whether it's chocolate, but whether it's small.  So a small piece of chocolate could still be called a "lolly", but a block would not.  I've updated the article according to my source, but feel free to suggest further improvements, ideally supported by a reliable source. Remember that Australia is a big place, and what sounds right to you might not sound right to someone from across the continent.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Health aspects
There's a bit of bias on the vegetarian aspect. Carmine and gelatin can made from strict chemical means and still be vegetarian friendly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schlyne (talk • contribs) 02:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see some aspects on the health by eating candy. For example:
 * Is it dangerous to let your children eat candy? Perhaps to a certain extent?
 * However, it is certain that candy has a bad effect on the teeth. Prokaryotes produce acids in the metabolism of sugars, and these acids breaks down enamel. The result is caries. The world deserves to know this.


 * The sentence about dentist's recommendations is inaccurate. Although it may have previously been true that dentists recommend brushing after every meal and snacks, the recommendation now (in the UK at least) is to brush twice a day, one of those times at night, and to avoid frequently eating sugar-containing foods ("non-milk extrinsic sugars (NMES)") throughout the day.  In terms of tooth decay, it is the frequency, and not quantity, that is causative.  Also, it has been suggested that brushing prior to consuming NMESs may be beneficial as the plaque bacteria are removed from the tooth surface before the sugar arrives, and so caries cannot happen.  Does anyone want to incorporate any of this?  One could find sources for this all, but it's somewhat off the topic.  Maybe we should say something all-encompassing like: "Dentists recommend practising good oral hygiene and reducing the frequency of sugar consumption to avoid tooth decay."

Request to edit
I'm a college student and my group is trying to learn about Wikipedia. We're still considering ways to expand this article, and topics we're considering include candy by region and significant business mergers. We would appreciate suggestions on this, but please experts, please allow us to learn. Thanks RLHobbs (talk) 01:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As your account is already WP:AUTOCONFIRMED, there's nothing stopping you from editing this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

My group finished our project with the article, but we would welcome any ideas for future development or suggestions. RLHobbs (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Nestle SA from Switzerland with 7.8% of world market (Smarties, Aero, Crunch, Wonka, etc.) is one of the top 5 largest producers of candy in the world's; you have already included other four. Switzerland should be included; Perhaps your group can trace WP:Secondary sources for Suisse and include it as well?
 * Wikipedia suggests tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists, such as country-based listings. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Influence of Atitude
This artcle fails to mention the considerable effect of the altitude of the place where the cooking is done to the temperature corresponding to the various "stages". Are all people interested in candy ftlanders or lowlanders ? Hxchadicaudichusidhci — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.150.161.44 (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Issue with the title...
We’ve got an issue here, with the title. “Sweets” the typical usage in the Commonwealth, redirects to the article confectionary. The same goes for “lollies”, which I believe is used more specifically for certain types of sweets in NZ and Australia. Once at that page, however, there is no easy and understandable link to this page, which has the information that someone searching for “sweets” or “lollies” would actually want. Confectionary, the page, has no real useful information on it. It is essentially a list. There must be a way to get Commonwealth users to this page, instead of that one. I must bring up the old issue…merge this page and confectionary, and title that page, confectionary. “Non-candy” confectionary can still be adequately detailed in that article without confusing the user, and this would eliminate this bizarre truncation which leads Commonwealth users to a less useful article. Candy, sweets and lollies should all redirect to this new article. 138.16.103.0 (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Health Benefits
I thought I'd point out these two sentences at the end of the health benefits section. "The non-consumers run into several problems such typically eating less red meat, salads, and are also more prone to smoking. Candy consumption in moderation is the key to maximizing life longevity, rather than constantly denying the lust of sweet candy." Besides both being poorly written, the final sentence is an obvious conflation of correlation and causation. If someone could change this that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.169.70 (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks like that was added here. It is an odd sentence.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I read the source, and traced all replies the editors of British Medical Journal received after this article was published. The BMJ commentators mention that several causes could explain the correlation, including moderate consumption of alcohol for example. I concur that the language as cited above by user @ 198.53.169.70 could be better phrased to improve this article. It conflates correlation and causation.


 * Please note wiki's WP:VNT guidelines emphasize that wikipedia is about Verifiability not Truth, and content is acceptable if it is verifiable in WP:RS sources. This content meets this test and therefore okay in this article.


 * I have revised the language to make it more balanced and consistent with the source.ApostleVonColorado (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It should be clearer that the candy could not be differentiated from chocolate in the cited paper: "We could not differentiate between consumption of sugar candy and chocolate in our study. One plausible explanation for our observations may be the presence of antioxidant phenols in chocolate. A 41 g piece of chocolate contains about the same amount of phenol as a glass of red wine, and alcohol consumption, in moderation, lowers the risk of coronary heart disease.3 Direct evidence regarding the antioxidant properties of chocolate also exists. Cacao liquor phenol can inhibit reactive oxygen species, as well as modulate immune function.4 Additionally, cacao powder extract is a powerful antioxidant for oxidation of low density lipoprotein cholesterol.5 These beneficial effects of chocolate may decrease the risk of heart disease and cancer." I find it misleading that candy is stated as giving benefits when it could be chocolate and not candy that gave all the benefits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian1986 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge?
Just wondering if candy shouldn't be merged with confectionary? I realise I'm not the first to suggest it but since I've no idea how to set up a merge suggestion ... As it is I  only stumbled over this, while wondering about American candy. Now my head hurts :-) Chocolate as candy? WoE?!? Okay so maybe it's not just boiled lollies but ... :-) 114.33.29.137 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the policy-based reason for requesting this merge?
 * Looking at the articles in question, they do seem to be covering the same topic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with merger. Candy is simply the American word for confectionary.203.184.41.226 (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Gum is not candy
There are two chewing gum items under the most sold candies-section. Both, Vivident and Orbit are sugar-free, and meant to protect your teeth,. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.235.120 (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. They're sold in the same stores, and they don't "protect" your teeth.  They just don't hurt your teeth as much as sugar-filled gum.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Gum is not candy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.184.93.136 (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Candia
I have heard an alternative derivation of the name: that for a long time, Crete was the only place in Christendom where sugar could be produced, and so westerners mostly obtained it as an export from the then capital of Crete, Candia. (Of course, even if true this doesn't invalidate the other possible origins of the term, as it may be a case of multiple etymology). Can anybody provide references for this and put it in the article if appropriate? PMLawrence (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That would make a tidy claim, but it's myth-making. Crete was not the only place in Christendom where sugar could be produced. See the Cambridge Economic History of Europe, p.359. SteveStrummer (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

New book
A former professor named Samira Kawash is about to publish a book on candy called Candy: A Century of Panic and Pleasure, ISBN 9780865477568. I think it would be a good source for this article, although it's kind of focused on the U.S. Here are some links that give some information:


 * "Is Candy Evil or Just Misunderstood?" about Kawash's work at The New York Times
 * Q & A with Kawash
 * Kawash's blog

If anyone gets the book, I'd be interested in hearing about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's a link at Slate.com. I think it might be an excerpt from the book, and it touches briefly on the difficulty of defining candy.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Definition
The introduction correctly notes that "Outside North America, the generic English-language name for candy is sweets or confectionery". In other words candy is only used to mean any sweet or confection in American English. Therefore shouldn't the article start by describing the term as American English for any sweet or confection - since the article largely follows the American usage?Royalcourtier (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm nearly finished reading a British source that I think has a solid definition, which I'll eventually use to replace this. (Actually, I hope to eventually find time to massively re-write nearly the entire article.)  Our first sentence is far too narrow (it doesn't encompass chocolates or chewing gum, both of which are "sweets" in British English and "candy" in American English).
 * I'm still sorting out how to coordinate it with Confectionery. (If you've got ideas, then please speak up. :-)  Confectionery includes all candy, but also sweet pastries.  The line between the two is not firm; small pieces of baklava are "sweets" (or "candy") in parts of the Middle East, but they are always "pastry" in Western cultures.
 * One possibility is three articles: Confectionery (all sweets and sweet pastries) > Sweets (British use:  all non-pastry confections, from boiled sugar candy to chewing gum to chocolate bars) > Sugar candy (specifically the hard-sugar kinds of candies, not candy bars).  Another possibility is just one article, at Confectionery, that covers everything.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Table
The table regarding sales and leading brands is very confusing...what does the annual sales figure reflect...sales in that country, sales globally what? The fact that Galaxy sells well in Saudia Arabia is not very important compared to Galaxy's global sales figures and its place in the wider market place. Why does the US get two entries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.199.137 (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * At the first entry, for M&Ms, the source says the figure given is for single-country sales. I assume that the rest of them are the same, although it doesn't specify that on each entry.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Infographic
A kind of spammy blog was linked for an infographic. The infographic itself can be linked directly at https://cdn.shoutlet.com/file/9625/952624 It has more detailed information than we would ever put in an encyclopedia article. Do you think it's worth including a direct link (which deals with the spammy issue, but readers will have to click/enlarge it to read it) under ==External links==? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal
I have proposed some reorganizations and page moves that will affect this page. I would like your views and ideas. Please join the conversation at WikiProject Food. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge
I can't add the MergeTo tag to the main page; it's protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.147.80.137 (talk • contribs)
 * ✅ Done --ais523 12:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That was quick!

Industry book
I'm finding that industry-orientd books are pretty useful for definitions, because there are tax implications to the definitions, so they have thought them through pretty thoroughly. If anyone's interested, I'd like to find an up-to-date version of this book, which gives the UK perspective (e.g., ice cream and chocolate are not candy, but chewing gum is) from about 1990. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Misleading
This source:


 * Candy Encyclopedia Brittanica

is supposed to support this statement:


 * "It is called confectionery in some parts of the world."

Here's what the source actually says:


 * "candy, also called confectionery, sweet food product. The application of the terms candy and confectionery varies among English-speaking countries. In the United States candy refers to both chocolate products and sugar-based confections; elsewhere “chocolate confectionery” refers to chocolates, “sugar confectionery” to the various sugar-based products, and “flour confectionery” to such products as cakes and pastries. This article is primarily concerned with sugar confectionery. Other types of confections are discussed in the articles baking and cocoa."

Flour confections are not candy, even according to this source. Despite the "also called" phrasing in the opening words, if you read the entire paragraph, it's clear that candy is a subset of confectionery. They are not actually exact synonyms anywhere. The only significant regional difference is whether chocolate is a separate category:

Other sources like this (also UK-based) are more direct and specific: confectionery is hard to define, but it always includes small sweet pastries. Pastries are not candies, so although all candies are confections, confectionery is not only candy.

Saying "Candy is called confectionery" is exactly like saying "Cupcakes are called cakes" or "Bread is called food". These are true statements, but they will mislead readers into thinking that these are exact synonyms. I've therefore removed this misleading statement. IMO the opening statement that candy is a confection should be adequate for people who are searching for the connection between the two words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2015
i have very good info on this topic my dad is milli wonkA

142.22.209.122 (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jamietw (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Christmas candy
Someday, we should create an article on Christmas candy. It should cover candies that are traditional for the season as well as the seasonal packaging used to promote the big brands. The List of Christmas dishes should have some ideas about what to include. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Candy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131108041452/http://www.usaid.gov/locations/latin_america_caribbean/environment/docs/ag&environ/Sugarcane.pdf to http://www1.usaid.gov/locations/latin_america_caribbean/environment/docs/ag&environ/Sugarcane.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111231173244/http://dsc.discovery.com:80/news/2008/12/24/candy-canes-germs.html to http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/12/24/candy-canes-germs.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2015
Add

122.61.190.206 (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done --Stabila711 (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Candy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141006100921/http://www.oxford-americanfoodanddrink.com/entry?entry=t170.e0127 to http://www.oxford-americanfoodanddrink.com/entry?entry=t170.e0127

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2016
The article is misleading for the non-American reader, and possibly also for the American reader. American English "a candy" in British English is "a sweet", not "a lolly". A lolly in British English refers to a sugary confection attached to a stick for the purpose of taking in and out of the mouth. And the British English word "candy" refers to what (I think) the Americans call rock candy, that is, lumps of crystalline white or brown sugar, where each crystal has a diametre ranging from several millimetres to a couple of centimetres. Could a registered editor please clarify the terminology in the lead? Thank you. 81.131.172.69 (talk) 10:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: Please replace

Candy, also called sweets or lollies, is a confection that features sugar as a principal ingredient. The category, called sugar confectionery, encompasses any sweet confection, including chocolate, chewing gum, and sugar candy.

with

A candy  (American English), called a sweet in British English, is a confection that features sugar as a principal ingredient. The category, called sugar confectionery, encompasses any sweet confection, including chocolate, chewing gum, and sugar candy. In British English, "candy" refers only to rock candy.

Add


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: pp-semi already on page. Sweets is used in American English  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * According to Oxforddictionaries.com, "Lolly" in the sense of "small piece of confectionery" is Australian/New Zealand English. So the revised sentence should be:

A candy  (N. Am.), sweet (Brit./N. Am.) or lolly (Austr./NZ), is a confection that features sugar as a principal ingredient. The category, called sugar confectionery, encompasses any sweet confection, including chocolate, chewing gum, and sugar candy. In British English, "candy" refers only to rock candy and "lolly" only to a sugary confection attached to a stick. 86.154.102.49 (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect Wiktionary link
The link to the Wiktionary article links to "Candy" with a capital C (as in the name) as opposed to "candy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.80.152 (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2017
Change "etymology of the world." to "... etymology of the word."

73.170.102.139 (talk) 09:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Gulumeemee (talk) 10:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

liquorice plant
Is the link under the second picture correct? It links to Helichrysum petiolare as the plant that flavours liquorice candy. Should that not be Glycyrrhiza glabra?


 * Someone fixed it. Thank you for the note.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2018
Please remove protection from this article. Reason: The registered editors are not coping. The lead is incorrect both grammatically (confusing singular candy with plural sweets in one breath), factually (for example the lead's flawed definition for "candy" would include marmalade, jam and ice-cream), as well as semantically (equating candy with an individual item of confection but also with a class of items called confectionery). These problems can be fixed only by inclusive involvement of all Wikipedians, by respectful discussion, and by dangling the sword of edit-warring over the heads of lethargic administrators.


 * Padlock-dash2.svg Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   14:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The editor at this dynamic IP has been changing related articles in violation of WP:ENGVAR. I'm sure that it's very much in the best of good faith, and without realizing how the articles are supposed to inter-relate, but it has created quite a mess.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Links
User:Froid, I'm not sure why you added the names of the websites in this edit. This is not normal practice, and it is not recommended at External links. Even when we call out the names of websites, it's more typical to say "at The Exploratorium" than "at exploratorium.edu". If there is some reason to depart from normal practice for these, then please ping me and let me know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2018
CHOCOLATE ISNT A CANDY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ALSO NOT ALL SWEETS ARE CANDY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 207.251.101.3 (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Including Tamil language as etymological root of candy
Tamil language has a word "கற்கண்டு" (karkandu), which could be the root of the word candy. This word is mentioned in old tamil literatures and is also used currently. I didn't see mention of Tamil. So I request that this be mentioned. Are there literary references in Sanskrit that rules out the origin from Tamil? - by Annamalai Gurusami. அண்ணாமலை குருசாமி (talk) 06:23, March 1, 2018‎
 * This is possible, and reflected in the Wiktionary entry. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 19:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

porlk

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2020
i want to type new info a bout candy Wallaril002 (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You can suggest edits here on this talk page on the form "Please change X to Y" citing reliable sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)