Talk:Twix

Are ingredients notable?
On various pages such as Twix and Whoppers, there is an extra-long, extremely pointless ingredient listing on the pages. These really hamper the quality of wikipedia and come across as filler to the masses. I propose that for various food items (name brand), that it is strongly discouraged to have a full ingredient list on the page. I feel that eliminating the ingredient listings will make the pages more concise and of a premium quality. Mcfly85 23:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The person who originally put them there probably thought they would be useful to people with dietary requirements. However, I think putting the whole ingredient lists is overdoing it; maybe a note like "Twix can contain peanuts" for people who die if they eat peanuts.  I can't see any good reason for having an ingredient list, though.  &mdash;Sean &kappa;. &#x21D4; 00:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think the lists are pointless at all. In fact, it's probably the only reason I would view such articles.  It might be nice to format them in small text, but it doesn't work in lists.  It's also very helpful to be able to click on ingredients like thiamine mononitrate and find out what exactly they are.  &mdash; Teknic Talk / Mail 00:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * As the person who originally listed the ingredients, I do think they are useful. For example, someone researching candy bars would be able to find out what they are made from.  I realize, however, the format of the ingredients list I used is very large.  I am not concerned with keeping that particular format but rather I am concerned that the information be available in some format.  For comparison, I have changed the list in Twix to comma separated.  This can be compared to the list in the Whoppers article.  Some compromise will need to be made for size vs. readability. -SCEhardt 00:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it could ever pose a problem. It would be useful too. Howabout1 00:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I still don't see how the ingredients of a candy are any more notable than, say, the hair color, eye color, and height of George W Bush. Are the ingredients useful?  Perhaps, but Wikipedia isn't a knowledge base.  I think this falls under the category of information overload.  &mdash;Sean &kappa;. &#x21D4; 02:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It's just kinda silly to have an entire ingredients listing when the very few that need it would just search the website or buy one item and look at the wrapper. Of course, the general/main ingredients are important (ex. A Milky Way is a candy bar made of chocolate, caramel and nougut), but to have a retelling of the label is just not usful. And even if you really cared to know more about the ingredients, the compounds are just linked to the separate words. This is not a widespread problem, but I feel that it could be. I like that Wikipedia can contain info about candy bars and other things you wouldn't see in print. The quality of the article is based on solid, concise research and writing, not just doing a verbatim listing of ingredients. A majority of the candy pages follow the format very well, without resorting to a full-blown ingredient listing. Mcfly85 03:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Not everyone lives in an area that sells Mars or Whoppers, so they can't easily buy them. I think the lists are useful, particularly for Teknic's reasons. (Mcfly85, if you really want to fight against unnecessary and useless information on Wikipedia, you may be interested in a little category called Fancruft.) Besides, this issue really should be decided on each article's talk page -- it's not really a proposal. jdb &#x274b; (talk) 04:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deletionists - Just because you can not see the value of content (including lists) does not mean that it has no value. In this case the mentioning of an obscure ingredient may reveal that it does not have a page describing what it is. That may lead someone to research and add the article. I for one think a list of ingredients is a great thing to have on food pages. If you don't think it works in the article perhaps it would be better served elsewhere with a link. Perhaps http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbook. Never delete valid and true content, just find a better place for it. Rottweiler 04:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At first I was skeptical, but after looking at those articles I think having ingredient lists with links is a good idea. I prefer the more compact format used on the Twix page, though. --Coolcaesar 05:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For generic food items, like pizza, a list of ingredients is silly. In the case of specific, commercially-produced food items, however, I have to agree that the list of ingredients is helpful, beneficial, and interesting. Roodog2k 12:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I fixed the whoopers page - keep.

Again, wouldn't a link that has the official snack website (which usually has info for the few that need the listing) suffice? I doubt a vast majority would find an ingredient listing useful or interesting. Even with the smaller format for the ingredients, it still looks like needless filler on the page. If this doesn't stop, time will be wasted and the quality of the pages will suffer. I do find Rottweiler's suggestion of putting a link or using the cookbook to be a perfect solution. Mcfly85 02:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The ingrediants ARE the food. How can you sensibly justify NOT listing them in an encyclopedic context? That would be like not mentioning that Lassie is a dog. An enyclopedia of food would certainly have the ingrediants listed. Why should we do any less? The Twix list, for example, is compact and well linked. Ingrediants are useful to nutritionists, vegetarians, Jews, Muslems, and anyone who cares about what's in their food. You may not care if you're eating soybeans or soylent green, but many people do. Also, having a well linked list like this lets people easily find out more about specific ingrediants. (I mean, just what IS high fructose corn syrup, anyway?)


 * - Pioneer-12 03:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What say ye then to my analogy with hair color and George Bush? Does that mean I can start putting the hair color, eye color, height, weight, and favorite foods of my favority celebrities on their pages? &mdash;Sean &kappa;. &#x21D4; 03:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Alright, while the ingredients are the food, it is certainly not notable to make a listing of each ingredient. A general consise description of the bar is all that is needed. If anyone really cares enough to know the ingredients, they will search on the link provided on the page or pay 50 cents to buy the bar. An encylclopedia is made to give a general overview of a topic, not list every detail. I am still stunned that the majority of you don't see my side of this issue. Most of the other food pages do not have mass ingredients listings, and they are very well-constructed pages. I do not want to see these unnotable listings that can easily be read off a container. I do not want writers to waste time writing listings when there are tons of stubs that need to be expanded. Here is what I feel should be done:

1. Please save your time and do not add similar ingredients listings for the time being. And please keep the few that remain for now.

2. Consider making the ingredient listings part of the cookbook project, or leave a link to the company website which likely has the listing.

3. Consider the pandora's box effect that may result, and consider what adding an ingredients listing would be to the masses. Also keep in mind that Wikipedia isn't a knowledge base. Mcfly85 04:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything in Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base that even infers that the ingredients of a foodstuff should not be part of that foodstuff's article. Personally, I wouldn't bother including them in an article I was writing (as I'm lazy), but I don't see a problem if anyone does choose to, and it could be useful information Proto 12:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This is just absurd. The argument for keeping them always seems to end in "it could be useful information."  But I just don't see why that's a valid argument.  Why not include the nutritional facts as well?  That could be useful.  Again, I am going to say that the ingredient list doesn't help anyone get an understanding of what Twix are, and could not possibly be notable. (except in the case of allergies, as discussed).
 * Also, Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base is comletely relevant to the discussion, since it begins,
 * Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base, that is, it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia.
 * &mdash;Sean &kappa;. &#x21D4; 14:33, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You know, nutritional information would be even better than a list of ingredients, particularly given how health-obsessed a lot of people are. Proto 15:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Clearly information is not useful until it is used. I assert that all of the information added to Wikipedia is put here under the assumption that "it could be useful information."  There is no way to prove it will ever be useful to anyone in the future.  The point being that most people (all but two who have commented here) seem to think that the ingredient list will be useful information. -SCEhardt 19:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Having nutrition facts would be great. Sure, Wikipedia isn't for everything, but I beleive, Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base, that is, it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. applies mainly to articles, not facts in them. There may be no need for very small facts, but ingrediants are important. What if someone, let's call him Jeff, loves twix, but is also health concious. Then a news report comes out saying thiamine is harmful for your health. Jeff wants to know if there is thiamine in twix, but lost his glasses and can't read the label. He goes to wikipedia and looks for twix. Hey! There's an ingrediant listing! Jeff is saved and never again eats twix. Howabout1 22:48, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh man, this is just so pointless. I will say it once, and I will say it one more time. An encyclopedia just gives a concise overview on a topic, it does not need detailed information. I think it is a horrible idea to have an ingredients listing and it will just lower the quality of the pages. The above example is just a stretch to make things relevant, and it made me laugh in disbelief when I read it. I don't have anything nice to say about this issue anymore. Have some common sense, remove the ingredients listings, do not add anymore, and focus on the quality of the page rather than cut-and-pasting unnotable info. Mcfly85 03:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the only problem with the ingredients listing is there's not enough of them. All chocolate snacks, delicious and biscuity or otherwise, should have the ingredients on there, because it is a pertinent and useful addendum to the article. I still want to know what PGPR is, though.  But on another point, without wanting to start any kind of argument, an encyclopedia does not have to be a concise overview - wikipedia is not limited by printing constraints or page limits, and users are free to have as much or as little relevant (ingredients are relevant) detailed information as they desire to add.

Also, ingredients would be a useful resource for Muslim/Jewish/any other dietary-restricted group of readers wishing to find out if a food is permissible - for example, Twixes are halaal, but Skittles are haraam due to the ingredients including carmine. Islam considers confectionaries containing calf rennet permissible but feel it is praiseworthy to refrain from them. More useful arguments for the inclusion of ingredients!Proto 09:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

King Size Twix / Twix 'Xtra
King Size Twixes no longer exist in the UK. They became Twix 'Xtra a number of years ago. Does anybody know when the change occurred and is it worth noting in the article?

Right and Left Twix
Some Twix packages are labeled Right Twix ("100% Left Twix free") and Left Twix ("contains absolutely no Right Twix"). So far as my eyes and tongue can tell, there is no difference between Right and Left. What's up with this?   Solo Owl   21:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's called advertising and should rightfully be ignored. Why they confuse people with this 'Right & Left Twix' nonsense is inexplicable.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

There's definitely a difference. The Left Twix tastes more 'lefty' while the Right Twix has a more 'right-like' taste. Bigsam0914 (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Left Twix vs Right Twix
While both bars are made of a cookie, a thin layer of chocolate, a layer of caramel, and an outer layer of chocolate, there is a distinct difference in taste between the Left & Right Twix bars. The Left bar tastes more 'left-ee' while the right bar tastes more 'right-like'. People who prefer the Left bar say that the Right bars has a slight, rightish after taste. People who prefer the Right bar have been known to criticize the Left bar for it's overly left-like flavor. Bigsam0914 (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Another sucker for a marketing campaign ThunderHenry (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Chart Show sponsorship
Should we mention the snack's sponsorship of the Chart Show? Visokor (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Naming the brand twix honey twix
You guys should call it takis honey twix. 72.24.118.7 (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)