Talk:Chocolate/Archive 2

How much cocoa (or chocolate) has to be consumed for its opioid qualities to take effect?
How much cocoa (or generic chocolate) has to be consumed for its opioid qualities to take effect? How much for chilies opioid qualities? If you have the answer, can you drop off a message on the discussion page of the userpage?  C h i s s B o y         00:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I heard that chocolate is in fact lethally poisonous to humans, but you would have to consume something like 20 pounds for it to kill you off. I like chocolate, but even I'd be hard pressed to eat more than 2-3 pounds at a time... Paul-b4 14:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

CHOKLIET REIGN MIRITE???????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.93.31 (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Was the word "chili" really used in the 16th century?
"Loathsome to such as are not acquainted with it, having a scum or froth that is very unpleasant to taste. Yet it is a drink very much esteemed among the Indians, where with they feast noble men who pass through their country. The Spaniards, both men and women, that are accustomed to the country, are very greedy of this Chocolaté. They say they make diverse sorts of it, some hot, some cold, and some temperate, and put therein much of that "chili"; yea, they make paste thereof, the which they say is good for the stomach and against the catarrh"

I don't think so.

Perhaps the word should be "chile" referring to a hot pepper.


 * Why not? The Oxford English Dictionary says that the word was available in Spanish, the language in which José de Acosta was writing, in the 16th Century; it has a citation for "chilli" in English from 1662.  Are you objecting to the spelling, or what?  -- Dominus 15:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The Spanish used two native words for chile peppers, "aji" or "axi" and "chili". Aji probably comes from the Taino or another arawakan language.  Chili from Nahuatl.  Ironically, in 16th century New Spain (aka Mexico) Aji was the more common term for Spaniards. Chile is an english form, presumably derived from the Nahuatl word for chile pepper. Rsheptak 01:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As a followup to the above, see the article by Peter Boyd-Bowman entitled "El Lexico Hispanoamericano del Siglo XVI" (Asociación Internacional de Hispanistas Actas IV (1971): 191-198) in which, on pages 196-197 he discusses the use of 'aji' and "chili" Mexico.  Rsheptak 00:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

More on Tempering
The description of tempering in the article seems a bit shy on details. Googling I couldn't find any proper phase diagrams of chocolate and cocoa butter. From a materials standpoint, I would love to see more information about what tempering of chocolage actually does (as compared with the heat-treating and tempering of steels). ―BenFrantzDale 20:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The only source I know of that has any diagrams like that is McGee's On Food and Cooking

Toxicity in Animals
"According to the Merck Veterinary Manual, approximately 1.3 grams of baker's chocolate per kilogram of a dog's body weight (0.02 oz/lb) is sufficient to cause symptoms of toxicity. For example, a typical 25-gram baker's chocolate bar would be enough to bring about symptoms in a 20-kilogram dog."

Surely, 20kg/1.3g/kg = 15.4g. I'm no vet, so I don't want to change hard and fast numbers, but wtf.
 * I was reading about this recently. It is the theobromine that is toxic to dogs, and this is contained in differant quantities in differant chocolates. For example, "On average, Milk chocolate contains 44 mg of theobromine per oz., Semisweet chocolate contains 150mg/oz., [and] Baker's chocolate 390mg/oz. Using a dose of 100 mg/kg as the toxic dose it comes out roughly as:1 ounce per 1 pound of body weight for Milk chocolate, 1 ounce per 3 pounds of body weight for Semisweet chocolate, 1 ounce per 9 pounds of body weight for Baker's chocolate." (source: but there are many more sources out there) LexieM 06:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

cocoa liquor
In most chocolate, the cocoa is listed as "cocoa liquor." Why? anyone knows if there is more to this ingrediant? should this be included somewhere in the article? LexieM 06:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Propose "Physiological effects" reorg
I propose a reorg of the "Physiological effects" section. Maybe something like (ROUGH outline):


 * 1) Cardiovascular and anti-cancer effects
 * 2) Cardiac
 * 3) Vascular
 * 4) Hypertension
 * 5) Cancer
 * 6) Brain-function effects
 * 7) stimulant (theobromine, caffeine)
 * 8) release of serotonin [also aphrodisiac effects]
 * 9) triggers dopamine
 * 10) Supporting epidemiological surveys (maybe this is mostly a "Cardiovascular and anti-cancer effects" subtopic)
 * 11) Metabolic effects
 * 12) Toxicity in animals
 * 13) Lead

It just seems like the subsections are not coherently named.
 * —Fleminra 09:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Under which category would you include theobromine's anti-tussive effects? Also - some of the dietary effects are caffeine and theobromine related, while others depend on chocolate as a whole; you may want to distinguish those somehow. Argyriou 20:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the anti-tussive effects should go in some sort of miscellaneous section. They're simple enough to explain.  BryanC 04:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur. The current physiological effects section is very disorganized and contains a lot of unsupported and frankly silly statements, such as claiming Sugar and Tryptophan are addictive.  If Sugar is addictive, we might as well claim Water and Oxygen are addictive as well!  The section makes chocoholism out to be a legitimate addiction, rather than a facetious portmanteau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocoholism), which makes the whole article seem like a joke.  In addition, the addiction section contains no information about chocolate being addictive - rather it just lists a bunch of chemicals contained in chocolate which have physiological effects.  This whole section needs a major rewrite.  BryanC 04:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Chocolate in the media
What's the criterion for inclusion in this section? Does it need to gross a certain amount, be mentioned in third party sources as being "about" chocolate? Have an article? If we start with some inclusion guidelines and only put in items we all think are appropiate, if any. brenneman {L}  14:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Significant chocolate makers
There doesn't seem to be consensus that this list belongs at all, much let what defines "significant." I'd think if anything a category would be a good option. - brenneman  {L}  14:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Talk:Chocolate above
 * A category will be good as well as a list as lists allows us to create notable chocolate makers articles. I believe that we really need a concensus here, how about a poll? --Ter e nce Ong 14:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Every time a discussion starts with a poll god kills a kitten. The problems with polls is that they tend to be divisive and channel thinking into binary options.  I'd suggest a lot more talking, and in the end a poll will probably not even be required.  We're all reasonable people.  Could we start with (as in the section above) some possible hurdles to inclusion.  How significant should something be before it goes on the list? -  brenneman  {L}  13:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * While I earlier reverted a deletion of the significant chocolate maker section, if it can be deleted and recreated as a category linked from the page, I would consider the issue fifty percent resolved. For the other half: what constitutes "significant" among chocolate makers? Nihiltres 05:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Categories are okay for existing articles, but a list is required as as a place holder for articles that have yet to be created. If there isn't a list on this page then a separate list of chocolate manufacturers should be created. Jooler 09:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So is everyone happy with moving the existing list to a list, creating and popualting a category, and then adding them back to the page, discussing each addition here first? - brenneman  {L}  00:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm in; just as long as there's some link from this article to the list. :) Nihiltres 03:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've created the List of chocolate manufacturers based on the list in the article and the talk above. Argyriou 05:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Haigh's Chocolates of Australia produces high quality (and expensive, $15.00 Aust. per 150 gram standard milk chocolate) should be mentioned in the list. It is a very popular, though I am not sure if it distributes internationally.agonsw

white chocolate
Short of going out and looking at the ingredients in white chocolate or a food that contains w.c., I thought w. chocolate didn't actually have chocolate (cocoa) in it, that the name was a misnomer. If true then the picture and caption needs changed. Nevermorestr 02:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Among other sources, this site confirms that white chocolate is made of cocoa butter but not cocoa powder, as is stated in our article here. :: Salvo (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok Salvo, thank you for the link. Though in that linked article the FDA doesn't consider white chocolate as chocolate, I did find this site concerning the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 June 2000 relating to white chocolate. I believe there should be a distinction made in Wiki.


 * I think that part of the problem here is that "chocolate" is a word that has a "common" but is defined differently under different regulatary authorities. Much of the legislation attempts to define chocolate in recipe terms and therefore tends to come under intense pressure from interested parties along the lines of "what I make is chocolate, everything else is a pale imitation". Thus the EU spent 25 years debating the Chocolate Directive before arriving at a set of regulations designed to accommodate all (or almost all) the different formulations available across the member states. For the purposes of Wikipedia, I see no difficulty in lumping togather all the various confections based on some fraction of cocoa, with or without the non-fat cocoa solids(brown bits) with other edible ingredients, as chocolate. (Apologies for inelegance of that sentence) It seems to me that trying to split the information into that pertaining to legal chocolate (by whichver legislative definition) and "chocolate-like substances" is more likely to confuse than to clarify. Comments?

(Winstonchocsmith (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC))


 * This comment is nearly two years old. You might want to start a new entry at the bottom.  WLU (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Uneven Trade POV
The last paragraph of the Uneven Trade section sounds POV. I don't know enough about it to write it more accurately. However, phrases such as all is not lost or a better, indeed a fairer tip me off. Would someone be able to look at this?

''All is not lost however as there is an expanding range of chocolate manufacture by people who guarantee a better, indeed a fairer remuneration to the cocoa farmer. Fairtrade chocolate is produced by Oxfam, Trade aid, and Green and Blacks -Maya Gold (Green and black s has just been bought up by Cadburys so best to check they have continued the fairtrade) among others. All blocks can be distinguished by the fairtrade logo.''

- Aaronwinborn 16:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about it either but I have attempted to remove the POV language and added citation needed templates where we should have sources for some of the claims made. --Ali@gwc.org.uk 17:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Other Revisions
I added information on "compound" and the new emulsifier Pgpr which is starting to show up in American candy bars.(submitted by Aaron Proot)

Not wanting to do anything contentious
An anon has just changed 4 of the 7 instances of 'flavour' in this article to 'flavor'. Before they started, there were 7 flavours and 7 flavors. There are/were also 3 'colour's and 1 'coloration'. Question: Did this article start out in British or American English? Mostly it has very successfully used neutral language, but I fear this anon may be starting a storm. Therefore, if we can decide a region now to use for these unavoidable words, we can happily point to this decision later. Just a thought. Skittle 17:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Other potential helpful pointers in this decision. We say 'mould' 3 times (when refering to moulded chocolates) and mold once (when refering to the biological thing). We say candy thermometer. We record prices in £ with $ in brackets. Really this article has been a lovely hodge-podge so far, but the anon's actions indicate that it would be good to decide one way or the other before someone changes all things one way, then someone else feels threatened by that and changes them all the other way, then we get an edit war. Skittle 17:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

(Oh, and I also don't like the look of an external link or two, but I shall investigate that)

Color me crazy, but wasn't Wikipedia started and is maintained in the US? If so, then we should be using American spellings and currency. Aaronproot


 * Sigh* Read the Manual of Style please, then come back and we can discuss this properly. It really is astonishing that so many editors are unaware of this. WP:MoS Skittle 15:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I checked through the earliest versions of this page, and so far I think the first instance of a contrasting spelling was the 'intensely flavored bitter food' in the first paragraph during 2002. Also, this subject is divided evenly between America and England, being grown/first used on the far side, and eventually bar form invented on the near side of the Atlantic. So as both an English spelling user and a Wikipedia contributor, I adhere to the MoS and suggest American-English spellings. Lady BlahDeBlah 19:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Decision made. American Style throughout. Skittle 20:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Different flavours of US v. UK chocolate
I think something about this ought to be included. I first became aware of it when, out of curiosity, I bought a Hershey bar, which are not normally available in the UK. When I ate it, I thought it had gone bad as it tasted rancid. However, some enquiry on the internet led to the following explaination - when chocolate was first made in the US, the milk took a long time to get to the factory, and it would go sour. This flavour became the norm in US chocolate. I have noticed other people discussing on the internet this difference in UK-US chocolate flavour. I wonder if Cadburys, which is a UK chocolate company which, I understand has been exporting to the US, does it chocolate there in the UK or US flavour?
 * I can't stand Hershey's, unless they're peanut butter cups. Similarly my American friend Kristen who was over here recently said the same about Cadbury's tasting horrible to her. Even though it's a different company I recall she especially detested Smarties. Lady BlahDeBlah 19:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would love to see something about the flavor and manufacturing differences between UK, EU, and US chocolate added to the History of Chocolate page. I am an American that has spents months abroad. The only American mass-produced chocolate I can stand is M&M/Mars. Rose Lacy 01:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Be sure to mention Canadian chocolate as well. I'm a Canadian, and I found a US Kit-Kat to be horribly bitter and nasty tasting. MinstrelOfC 15:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is definitely a difference between US chocolate and the rest of the world, even identical company's products. While living in Europe, I noticed a difference between the chocolate back in the US. Most of the time there is a higher cocoa percentage in foreign chocolate. P8ntbal089 19:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * yeah there is a difference cadburys is awesome i dont like hersheys except the reeses. im american. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dappled Sage (talk • contribs) 22:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC).


 * I haven't tasted American chocolate, but I know that a TV show in the UK did a somewhat unofficial blind taste test, presenting people in Europe with pieces of (UK) Cadbury chocolate and a rival European chocolate. As I recall the Cadbury item did rather well... By and large, though, I think that it's a bit like water - most people prefer the taste of the water from the area they were brought up in, and so I can understand Americans preferring US chocolates to UK / European items (which is why the difference in flavour persists to this day). Paul-b4 14:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I added this part Hershey processGzuckier (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't the Hershey specifically developed for the soldiers during WWII to avoid it melting in warmer climates? They had to add stuff other than chocolate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.16.174 (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Large Manfacturers versus Artisinal
Maybe the list should be segregated between the large manufacturers like Hersheys and Cadbury and the smaller operations like Vosges and Lake Champlain? Aaronproot

Personally, I think the list should go away altogether, as there is now a separate List of chocolate manufacturers article, but I only pruned and reorganized the list. I may prune some more soon. Argyriou 15:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Chocolate substitutes
I've just removed a link to Cupuaçu from the "see also" section. I don't believe it belongs there, because all the other links are about chocolate, not chocolate substitutes. There isn't a link to Carob, for example. Also, the user who made the edit appears to be something of a clueless vandal.

However, I think adding a section on chocolate substitutes would be worthwhile, if someone knows enough to write it. It should definitely include Carob, Cupuaçu, and Sex. Argyriou 22:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not a clueless vandal. I'm a clueless visigoth. 201.23.64.2 19:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, "chocolate" made from cupuaçu is identical to cocoa chocolate, unlike this carob which is merely "considered chocolate-like by some". Cuzandor 21:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Quakers in early chocolate production
Nobodys mentioned yet that the early UK Chocolate producers - Fry, Cadbury and (I think) Terry were all Quakers. There was a BBC Radio 4 programme about this a few weeks ago. Perhaps it was something to do with the temperance movement - cannot remember.

Nobodys mentioned Terrys chocolates either yet.

dogs
There's a reference under the "toxicity for animals" section, which is probably not in the right place. Should it be moved to further reading? TrianaC 05:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Baker's Chocolate
Wondering if a clarification should be added about "baker's chocolate".

This term is used today interchangable with "semisweet" or "dark" chocolate, but "baker's" was originially a proper noun -- "Baker's" -- as in the Baker's Chocolate Company (founded by Dr. James Baker in Dorchester, MA in 1752). The "Baker" brand name is now owned by Kraft. CPAScott 13:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Feminine
There is a stereotype that females and gay men induldge in eating lots of chocolate all the time. Is this suitable for wikipedia? - ShadowyCabal 23:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Only if it can be documented through reliable reference sources, which might be hard to do. Durova 06:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you ever heard of this stereotype? - ShadowyCabal 13:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, it says here that there was once a "hysteroid dysphoria" whose symptoms were, "repeated episodes of depressed mood in response to feeling rejected, and a craving for sweets and chocolate." The word "hysteroid" is suggestive to say the least.


 * When I first heard of this, I thought, "My God, there's a name for that?" I don't do it, mind you, but I've heard of this cliche in popular culture (specifically, that of the US). I can't remember any specific examples, though.--Rmky87 18:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Nomination
I've nominated this article for good article collaboration of the week. Please visit the link at the top of the page to sign your support. Excellent work so far: I hope this achieves FA. Regards, Durova 04:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Acne
I think acne might be better as a subsection of health, rather than its own section. Also:

"Milk has been scientifically proven to be the cause of acne on twenty-two percent of the milk consumers.[verification needed] Ergo chocolate bars with any milk content are likely to cause acne. It is not the chocolate itself that causes acne, but rather the milk with which the chocolate is mixed.[15]"

If milk causes acne in 22% of milk consumers, I would hardly say chocolate bars with any milk content are likely to cause acne. They may cause acne, but 22% is less than 1/4 of consumers, and that's not even getting into the amount of milk that would have to be present in the chocolate, let alone how much of that chocolate would have to be consumed for the milk content to cause acne in the consumer. This section should reflect that. Kendall 23:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

milk has been shown to cause acne; chocolate has not... is their any wikipedia chocolate group out their? we should form one. Elmo1 22:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps chocolate doesn't cause acne, but what about childhood eczema? Paul-b4 14:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The trivia section
In that section we are told 'consumers' spend this amount on chocolate. We are not told whether these are consumers worldwide, in the west etc. We are also not told whether this is purely on chocolate bars or on other chocolate products (cakes, chocolate flavoured breakfast cereals etc) as well. Furthermore, where did that statistic come from? --Hydraton31 22:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Other Uses of Chocolate
In a news programme a few days ago on the BBC there was an article saying that bi-products from making chocolate or chocolate itself is being used as a source for making bio-fuel using the hydrogen produced by adding e-coli bacteria to the melted chocolate to break down the sugar. The gas is then used to produce electricity. I wondered if there were other uses for chocolate besides eating it and whether or not a section on this should be included in the article? Ammi 15:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection
There was a short (but IMHO sweet) time period where the article was semi-protected. Then instead of chasing vandalism I (and probably the other watchers of this page) could concentrate on verifying good-faith additions and contributing in other means. Now it is nearly impossible to merely revert all vandalism, considering how many layers of editing accumulate a day. I humbly suggest that this article gets semi-protected again, this time for good. Eldar 00:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: I have just found two missed vandalisms again, one the usual "poop substitution" and another more insidious. I don't want to think whether others have slipped also under my radar. Without semiprotection this will only get worse. Eldar 23:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the last days: Please please reconsider the removal of the semiprotection. During my term on this period, the semiprotected days (there were two such periods) were the only days in which I didn't have to chase down multiple vandalisms. It is best to come to terms with the fact that this is one article that cannot be sustained unprotected. Eldar 23:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The last two days: Situation has become so bad that the default history view of 50 edits is not enough to keep track. Others and I have resorted to bulk reverts to a previous reasonable version as singling out the vandalisms is no longer humanly possible. Am I the only one here to believe that permanent semi-protection is the only way for this page to move forward? Eldar 00:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Done, semiprotected indefinitely. Personally I'm more with the 'protected pages considered harmful' crowd, but I think in this case I agree, this article is just too sweet a target. Femto 12:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It's been quite difficult to catch all the vandalism recently, and sometimes people revert back to another vandalised version. ElinorD (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Eldar 18:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! but this is irrelivent as chocolate has only one essential use which is not debatable, eating! mayo-x --chicken-mayo-bak-at-ya 19:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "xocolatl"
is not pronounced sho-KO-lattle! The sound tɬ doesn't occur in English. Hence I've deleted this unhelpful pronunciation "advice". Prime Entelechy

Sugar addictive?
The assertion that sugar is an addictive substance is unsupported. Indeed, the Wiki article on sugar makes no such claim.

Please see Sugar_addiction if you wish to inform yourself about what some people are going through. While not everyone is suffering from sugar addiction, many people are. There are several special no-sugar chocolate recipes created by those dedicated to helping sugar addicts avoid painful self-denial while also avoiding sugar. I'm talking homemade hot chocolate, frosting, and chips, not the grainy, overprocessed, storebought stuff. But if you're looking for storebought, here's just one example: QuickieWiki 05:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ingredient Lie
"Chocolate contains a variety of substances, some of which are addictive (such as caffeine)."

Caffeine occurs naturally in cacao (cocoa) beans. Therefore, it's not an additive, it was already there. Milk is an additive - MILK chocolate. Strike the "(such as caffeine)" and choose whether or not to insert milk in there. Knightskye 19:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Note the word is "addictive", not "additive", which would make no sense :-) Skittle 17:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

search for the acne study
I see where it says citation needed, and googled about. A suprising number of sites, quote the wikipedia directly, word for word. No telling how many others get their facts from the wikipedia, without checking other sources. I find places like http://www.candyusa.org/Chocolate/health.asp which seem to back this up, but alas, there are no government or educational websites out there that speak of the research.

Since it was done at a university, I googled that university's website. http://www.google.com/univ/upenn?site=search&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&safe=off&q=chocolate+research+navy+acne&btnG=Search

The only thing that came up was a .pdf file quoting Albert M. Klingman, the "emeritus professor of dermatology" commenting on the myth that chocolate caused acne. I don't see anything about the research they've done though, anywhere on their site.

If the research did happen, shouldn't it be listed there? I can't find anything about this dermatologist either. Dream Focus 01:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Questions and Clarifications
"As an addiction: Chocolate contains a variety of substances, some of which are addictive. These include:" -- There is no indication which of the listed ingredients are addictive -- or are they all considered addictive? (I had though it was a list of some of the ingredients, but that not all of the ones listed were necessarily addictive.) Maybe be instead of "These include:" it could say "These addictive ingredients include:". Perhapse I was confused because the first one listed is "sugar" which I didn't think was addictive. Ishi Gustaedr 19:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"As an aphrodisiac: ... that serotonin and other chemicals found in chocolate" -- This seems to indicate that serotonin is found in chocolate which I don't think is true. Ishi Gustaedr 19:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal
The information in Types of chocolate would be more accessible as a section of the Chocolate page. It already overlaps (WP:MM) the information in the Blending section of the Chocolate page. I would like to merge Types of chocolate into a section of Chocolate and redirect it. --Ishi Gustaedr 17:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is already 41 kilobytes in size. Why not split the varieties section out instead, keeping and expanding the main types/varieties article and using summary style? &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 19:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should just update chocolate so it has more.

OK. It's been almost two weeks and not much motion on this. I'm okay with keeping them separate, then. I'll withdraw the merge request I put in and (eventually) move the table I added about the FDA definitions over to the Types of chocolate page which is probably where it belongs. --Ishi Gustaedr 16:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Temperature Units
The last sentence in the Production/Varieties section should state the temperature unit used, when I first read it, I blinked and went "It gets THAT hot in there?!" before I realised it's (I think) in Fahrenheit. (Of course, I'd much prefer were it in Celsius, but I'm not going to crusade for that. 213.162.65.17 16:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)