User talk:Txs5635/sandbox

Hey guys! I think we should decide on our topic first. I have a couple of ideas in mind. Since we all have some kind of childhood connection to our chosen snack, I think it could be "top childhood nostalgia snacks". But I don't what our criteria would be since we all have different experiences. We could do either "top snacks during quarantine" or "top snacks for college kids". We could include price, size/packaging, and taste in our criteria. I think we could probably relate more and understand the audience for the college kids one. What do you guys think? (User: Ashley)

I think "best snacks for college students" would be the best topic because it would be hard to have a target audience for childhood nostalgia snacks because not everybody can relate to our specific experiences. Txs5635 (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. So I think we can start brainstorming ideas for criteria. I think we definitely should use the prices and packaging. If it's really expensive, it probably won't be as useful for many college who are living on a budget. I also think talking about packaging is needed because it could be a really cheap snack that only has a couple of chips or crackers inside the bag. So taking into the cost per unit I think should be included in the price criteria. I definitely think we should also include the nutritional value. Although some college kids probably don't think about their health, I still think it's an important factor that should be brought up. Since college kids are younger and should be conscious about what they are eating. Also, if we discuss the calories and nutrition of the snacks, it may help someone make a decision if they are stuck between two snacks. Since it's food, we should probably include taste and texture. (User: Ashley)

How should the rankings and text itself be organized? Should we include the top 5? Top 10? Should we begin with discussing the highest rank first and work our way down or lowest rank first and work our way up? Ashley also suggested topics for our subheadings such as criteria like price, nutritional value, and packaging. I think taste should also be one of the criteria included being that taste seems pretty important. What else should go our subheadings be about? Or is the criteria enough? (User: TheoKayy)

First Discussion
Hey guys! Can you see this? Please reply to let me know. We should discuss who our audience shall be, how to fix the two similar snack entries, and what to do with Theo's entry as well. RileyWian (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep! Here's what Thomas and I talked about. I'm not sure what I did with the page thing. But we are thinking of doing snacks for college kids... Hey guys! I think we should decide on our topic first. I have a couple of ideas in mind. Since we all have some kind of childhood connection to our chosen snack, I think it could be "top childhood nostalgia snacks". But I don't what our criteria would be since we all have different experiences. We could do either "top snacks during quarantine" or "top snacks for college kids". We could include price, size/packaging, and taste in our criteria. I think we could probably relate more and understand the audience for the college kids one. What do you guys think? (User: Ashley)

I think "best snacks for college students" would be the best topic because it would be hard to have a target audience for childhood nostalgia snacks because not everybody can relate to our specific experiences. Txs5635 (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. So I think we can start brainstorming ideas for criteria. I think we definitely should use the prices and packaging. If it's really expensive, it probably won't be as useful for many college who are living on a budget. I also think talking about packaging is needed because it could be a really cheap snack that only has a couple of chips or crackers inside the bag. So taking into the cost per unit I think should be included in the price criteria. I definitely think we should also include the nutritional value. Although some college kids probably don't think about their health, I still think it's an important factor that should be brought up. Since college kids are younger and should be conscious about what they are eating. Also, if we discuss the calories and nutrition of the snacks, it may help someone make a decision if they are stuck between two snacks. Since it's food, we should probably include taste and texture. (User: Ashley) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aswope17 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if using nutritional value as a category would be particularly helpful for our point. I mean, so far, the only two snacks we have are goldfish and flamin' hot Cheetos, which aren't exactly the healthiest options to choose from. If we want to use it as another criteria, we should think about either changing one of the goldfish options to another snack, or see if Theo is adding in her snack. If we only use the two we have now, I don't think nutritional value will be so helpful. --riley RileyWian (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

How should the rankings and text itself be organized? Should we include the top 5? Top 10? Should we begin with discussing the highest rank first and work our way down or lowest rank first and work our way up? Ashley also suggested topics for our subheadings such as criteria like price, nutritional value, and packaging. I think taste should also be one of the criteria included being that taste seems pretty important. What else should go our subheadings be about? Or is the criteria enough? (User: TheoKayy) Theokayy (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, we cant really do a top five if we only have two snacks at the moment. Theo, I suggest you write your response to the prompt at the end, and then we can edit that and have a new snack. We can also edit one of the goldfish responses to another snack you all think is reasonable so that we have more snacks. I think that is the first thing we should focus on before we start majorly editing all of our pieces. Theo, if you need any help with the prompt, let me know. --riley RileyWian (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

For the rest of your questions, though, I think we should discuss the highest ranking snack to the lowest ranking, and discuss the reasons why they earned that specific rank. I believe I began to mention this in the edit history. I moved goldfish to the top because two out of four group members chose this as their favorite snack, so I believe we should start with that. If we have any other ideas, I would obviously be open to discussion. --riley RileyWian (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I think we should start by analyzing the snacks in accordance to the criteria we talked about before. I think when we're done analyzing each snack, we can then agree on a ranking of the best snacks for college students based off our evaluations. We can order them with the top (#1) snack being at the top and so on. I have added a little bit to the introduction to start us off. Then, after we have analyzed each and decided on an order, we can include this in the introduction as well. (Ashley) Aswope17 (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I have created a separate discussion page for this topic. I think that will help us keep all of our ideas separate. --riley RileyWian (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Criteria for the snacks
Hey! I figured that criteria was a large enough issue that it deserved it's own discussion piece. This should clear a bit of room up in the other discussion. From now on, I think it would be helpful to break up issues into different discussion posts. This could help in case the other discussion area becomes too overwhelmed with topics. --riley RileyWian (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The four criteria that we have currently in the previous discussion post are pricing, packaging, taste, and nutritional value. I believe these are pretty decent categories for ranking snacks for college students. The only thing we may have an issue with, however, is taste. This is a pretty subjective category. I also see it as a necessary category for a snack-ranking. Maybe we should mention in our criteria that the taste category is a subjective one. RileyWian (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that breaking up our discussions is a great idea! I definitely understand and agree with you that it is a subjective category. But, I think taste is still an important category since most people choose a snack because they like the flavor. I don't exactly know how we can do this. I guess we can try to research surveys people may have done. Does anyone else have any ideas for this? (Ashley) Aswope17 (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay! The criteria sounds great! So, below each food, there should a subheading for each of the criteria? Or should criteria itself be the subheading? I feel as if if we break each subheading into each of the criteria, that should be enough content for each of our foods. Theokayy (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay! The criteria sounds great! So, below each food, there should a subheading for each of the criteria? Or should criteria itself be the subheading? I feel as if if we break each subheading into each of the criteria, that should be enough content for each of our foods. (User: TheoKayy) Theokayy (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking we could construct the wiki like one of our previous writing assignments where we evaluated a subject of our choosing. I think our introduction should include a description of our criteria, and how they will play a role in the overall ranking. --riley RileyWian (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we need to have subheadings. I think we can just have a paragraph or two for each food and analyze it using the criteria, similar to like what we did in the analysis essay earlier in the semester. (Ashley) Aswope17 (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay that sounds good. Should there be a specific order we talk about the criteria? I feel as if to make our article more structurally sound, we should all talk about the criteria in the same order. (User: TheoKayy) Theokayy (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Does anyone have a preference towards which criteria should be placed first? --riley RileyWian (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so since each of us is writing about one snack, I'm assuming we will have a total of four snacks we are going to talk about in the whole article? (User: TheoKayy) Theokayy (talk) 01:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Possibly. We technically only have three since Ashley and I both apparently love goldfish, but I think we should change one of the goldfish to another snack (this information has another discussion post dedicated towards it). I would like to have four snacks instead of three. --riley RileyWian (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

For the criteria, let's scrap the idea of using taste as a component in our ranking. It may be an important feature of the snack, but it is way too subjective for us to use as a legitimate reason. Do you guys agree? RileyWian (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes I definitely agree. I was trying to find ways to include this, but it's very subjective and just based on opinions. I was looking at reviews and some people like some snacks, but some people hate them. For the Flamin' Hot Cheetos, someone may love spicy foods, but others may hate it. So, what I think is the best to do for this is to describe the food, but not use this as criteria. (Ashley) Aswope17 (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Good idea! I think that will work perfectly. It's unbiased and an easy way to incorporate that important factor without becoming subjective. RileyWian (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Citing Sources
Hey! I think it would be beneficial to our argument to use sources. We can use these for the pricing, nutritional value, and the packaging, and maybe throw in a few reviews. The only problem I have is figuring out how to make a citation in a wiki article. If any of you guys can help, let me know! I want this to be as great as we can make it. RileyWian (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the best idea for now would be to just use MLA format. We can just make a header and section at the bottom of the page. Later, we can change it to whatever the Wikipedia guidelines say. (Ashley) Aswope17 (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Do we know how to edit our rough draft page to make it look more like a "wiki"? I'm having a bit of trouble trying to figure it out. --riley RileyWian (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Foods We Are Ranking
Hey, I think there should be a discussion on the food itself that we are ranking so we can begin to divide who will be discussing what food. First, how many foods should be in this ranking? Ten seems like a good, even number. After we figure that out, we should come together for a decision of the best foods and then begin to rank them and organize the ranking of them for our article. (User: TheoKayy) Theokayy (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The foods we are ranking are just the snacks we picked as our favorite snack in the discussion post. So since there are four of us, we have four snacks to rank. (Ashley) Aswope17 (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

For this assignment, we kind of have to use only the snacks that we as a group picked as our favorites. We can probably make a small adjustment due to our group having similar amazing snack tastes and change one snack, but nothing other than that. We have to work with our favorites and nothing else. --riley RileyWian (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, got it. It would be a good idea to change one of the goldfish paragraphs. This clears up the confusion. (User: TheoKayy) Theokayy (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Goldfish
Do we want to compress the two goldfish articles together and make them one paragraph together, or do we want to change one of the goldfish articles to a different snack? The only issue I have with pushing the two together is regarding who can edit it. Ashley and I would both be thrown out of the loop on that one, so it may be simpler for one of the snacks to be changed to another common snack that we can all agree on. --riley RileyWian (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I think we should change it to another snack, but I'm not sure what? Maybe Pringles or Lays or another kind of chip? Txs5635 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I would be okay with changing mine to Pringles. It's convenient because they sell the small cans all across campus. --riley RileyWian (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. I think there are too many similarities between the two goldfish flavors. (Ashley) Aswope17 (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Let's use Ashley's goldfish piece, and we'll scrap all of mine and replace it with the original pringle's. Since it will still be my paragraph in essence, I won't partake in the editing of that paragraph. --riley RileyWian (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Editing the Article
When you guys edit a portion of the article, be sure to write a short description stating the reason why you edited this piece. This is so the edit can pop up in the history section, and we can all see your reasoning behind the change. This should also add some "receipts" so to speak as to who is editing what portions of the article, and whether or not we are following the rules in the assignment. Thank you! --riley RileyWian (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you want us to write the changes in this discussion or is the summary before we publish the edit enough? (User: TheoKayy) Theokayy (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

No, I think it is enough for us to just write a short description. It will show up in the edit history. --riley RileyWian (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Final Ranking of Snacks
This discussion will be dedicated to the final decisions on what snacks should be considered the best for our audience, which happens to be college students. This will be based off of the information we gather on our three criteria. --riley RileyWian (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Is the ranking 1-5? What kind of scaling will be used to rank the foods? (User: TheoKayy) Theokayy (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I described in the intro that we will be using a scale of 1 to 5, with a possible 15 points total for each snack. That way, we can add up the scores each snack earned in the criteria we chose and give a numerical value as to why we put the snack in that certain place. I think it's better to do it this way so that we have numerical data to put up against each category, making it a lot easier to follow than descriptions. It will be a lot easier on us, too, since we'll only need to add up the scores and rearrange their placing from there. --riley RileyWian (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. (User:TheoKayy) Theokayy (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Goldfish Category Scores
What do you guys think should be the score for goldfish in each of the three categories: pricing, packaging, and nutrition? Personally, I think goldfish are very convenient pricewise, and packaging as well, I would give it a 5 in each of these categories. However, due to the high amount of salt, it might lose some points in nutrition. Other than the salt, it is still a very healthy snack otherwise, so I would maybe give it a 3 for that, which would add up to a total of 13 points for Goldfish. Does anyone else have any other ideas for scoring, or do these numbers sound reasonable? If another number seems more adequate, let me know and we can discuss. --riley RileyWian (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I definitely agree that it should be ranked about 12-15 points. I think that pricing should be a 5 because you can get a pretty big box for a relatively cheap price. I would give packaging a 5 as well because there's a bunch of different sizes that people can choose from depending on what they want. I would give the nutrition either a 3 or 4. I definitely agree that it has a lot of sodium and it's basically empty calories. But it is a lot healthier than most snacks, so I am a little torn. I think both are reasonable points for this category. I am leaning towards giving it a 3 because it does have a high sodium content and when I looked further into it, it contains GMO soybeans and MSG. There's a lot of controversy with both GMOs and MSG, and there are health risks associated with consuming GMO soybeans. So, I would agree with you and give this a total of 13 points. What are some other thoughts on this score (too high/too low)? (Ashley Swope) Aswope17 (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm on the same boat as you all. I think the standard packaging for Goldfish is convenient and it's there's enough inside to save for later so I would rate them a 5 in that area. As for the price, it's very reasonable as well. It's cheaper than two dollars and you can save them for later so you really are getting a bang for your buck. This category also gets a 5 out of 5 ratings for me. As for nutrition, I agree with both of you. It's okay to eat in small quantities because of the high sodium. Many college students are already eating ramen and don't need any more salt in their diets. However, this isn't the most unhealthy snack being that there are natural dyes. I give nutrition a 3 out of 5 ratings. Adding up all the total score, I give Goldfish a grand total score of 13 points. Theokayy (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

This is great! We'll give the total score of goldfish a 13 then, and add a statement or two to the page explaining its total score and scores for each category. --riley RileyWian (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Flamin' Hot Cheetos Category Scores
For the Flamin' Hot Cheetos, it seems like there is a lot of possible issues that come to play with it being a good snack for our audience. The pricing is a bit high for the amount of food you receive, the packaging is, as we all know with chips and other similar snacks, largely air, and the nutrition and possible addiction issues pose as a possible threat to students and their health. I'm wondering what kind of scores you guys might give this one. Thoughts? --Riley RileyWian (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes I definitely agree with you Riley and I think this may be our lowest snack. I would give it a 2 or 3 for nutrition since it really doesn't have anything healthy and because of that addictive property we talked about. I am leaning more towards a 2 since I think the goldfish should have a 3 for this criteria and I think Goldfish is a little bit healthier than the Flamin' Hot Cheetos. For packaging, I would give it a 4 probably. I think that it's easy to transport across campus and it's great that there are different sizes, but there's a lot of air in the bag. I think for pricing, I would give this snack a score of 4 since it is a little high, but still in the budget for most college students. So overall, I would give it a total score of 10 (4+4+2=10). (Ashley) Aswope17 (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I think I would also give the Cheetos a 2 in nutrition. There really isn't much too it, and it's kind of bad for you to eat. I think packaging and pricing I would aim more towards a 3, giving this snack a total of 8 points instead of 10. It seems like 4 is a bit too high for packaging and pricing, given that it had the worst packaging and highest price of any of our snacks. --riley RileyWian (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Flamin' Hot Cheetos are definitely our most unhealthy snack. For nutrition, I'm thinking of a score of 1. There's high salt, artificial dyes, and they don't even disclose what's in their "secret spice." I even heard it's addicting in some cases. I would not recommend this snack to anyone who is concerned about their health. For packaging, this snack is convenient for transport, but there's too much air and not even chips. I would give the packaging a 3. After you open the bag, all the air comes out and the chips are no longer protected. The aesthetics of the bag is nice, but in terms of its overall packing, it is not convenient. The price is okay. It's a little bit too high for what you're actually getting. But, as Ashley said, it's still in the budget for most college students so I'll give the price a 4. The overall score I give for this snack is 8. (User: TheoKayy) Theokayy (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I think your argument makes me lean more towards a 1 for nutrition. I mean, there was that guy who had to have his stomach pumped after eating them because it was ruining the inner lining of his stomach and such. I think a 3 for packaging is reasonable, given that we both agree on the air-to-chip ratio. The price is still iffy for me. It is the most costly of all of our snacks, and provides the least amount of snack for the cost. I think a 3 would be more fitting. --riley RileyWian (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

To implement our "meet in the middle" procedure, the score for the Cheetos would linger around a 1.5 for nutrition, a 3 for packaging, and a 3.5 for price, with a total score of 8. --riley RileyWian (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

After reading your thoughts, I definitely agree. I like the meet in the middle technique and I think these scores (of what Riley said) are an accurate rating of the snack. (Ashley) Aswope17 (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Smucker's Uncrustables Category Scores
I think this one may be pretty close with the goldfish, if I am honest. The prices are convenient for college students, the packaging is simple and easy, and it seems to be relatively nutritious as a snack. Do you guys have thoughts on the category scores? I'm thinking this one should receive some pretty high point values. --riley RileyWian (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely agree with you and I think this may be the highest scored snack we have. I would give it a 4 for nutrition because it does have a lot of healthy aspects like healthy fats (peanut butter). But, since it is a packaged sandwich, it probably has some preservatives and for most of these sandwiches, they use white bread which could be replaced with a healthier alternative like whole wheat bread. I would give it a 5 for packaging and a 5 for prices. If you get a big box of these, they are really cheap and college students can definitely afford these. So, I would give this a total score of 14 points. (Ashley) Aswope17 (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I think a 4 for nutrition might be a little high. I'm not sure about packaging though, there's nothing really good or bad to say about it. Txs5635 (talk)

If we are torn between a 4 and a 3 for the nutrition, we can always settle in the middle for a 3.5. I think it's a pretty safe alternative, but I didn't think about the bread or the preservatives. It also really depends on which flavor you're getting, as I am sure some are probably more unhealthy than others. Pricing I would definitely give a 5, but maybe a 4 for packaging. It might squish and ruin easily if you stuff it in your bag like most of us college students do. --riley RileyWian (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Uncrustables definitely sits up there with Goldfish in terms of the overall ranking. I would give this snack a 3 for nutrition. It does have healthy fats with the peanut butter, however, there are preservatives in the jelly and the bread is white so it's bleached from its nutritional value. For packaging, I would give this snack a 5. They are small and easily transportable and the purple packaging is cute. For the price, this snack is a 5 in my books. They come in big boxes and are less than a dollar per package. The total score I would give is 13 points. (User: TheoKayy) Theokayy (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

For the scores we do not agree with, let's settle for the middle like Riley said. (User: TheoKayy) Theokayy (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

If we settle for the middle, that will give us a 3.5 for nutrition, a 5 for pricing, and a 4.5 for packaging, giving us a total score of 13, which ties us with Goldfish. If the tie is an issue, we have to agree on a different score for one of the categories. --riley RileyWian (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I think 4 for nutrition is more suitable. It has more diverse components than Goldfish and a wider variety of nutrients. Uncrustables should have a higher score than Goldfish. (User: TheoKayy) Theokayy (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Theo. I think it should have a 4 for nutrition because it does actually have nutrients while goldfish is typically considered just "empty calories". (Ashley) Aswope17 (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Pringles Category Scores
The Pringles, I think, deserve some credit for the low pricing, but maybe not as much as the goldfish and the Uncrustables, because though it is cheap, the other two are much cheaper. For packaging, however, I think it should take a 5. Its a very clever way to store chips without breaking them or losing a lot of space to air, which means a college student won't smash them on accident when they stuff it in their bag. The nutrition category, I think, should be a bit lower, due to the sodium issue and the fact that chips are not the healthiest option for a snack. What do you guys think?--riley RileyWian (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I think it should have a 5 for packaging. I think it should have a 2 for nutrition because it has a lot of sodium, starch, and oil. It's very unhealthy and hard for our bodies to digest. I think it should have a 4 for price for the exact reasons you mentioned. (Ashley) Aswope17 (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the nutrittion should be a little bit higher, I'm thinking like a 3. They're definitely "healthier" than the Cheetos, and I think they're about comparable to the Goldfish. We also have to keep in mind that none of these snack foods are actually healthy, the ranking is just compared to other snack foods. Txs5635 (talk)

That is very true. I do agree with the nutrition rating being 3 too. I was just thinking that since they are potato chips, they have a lot of starch. But I think Pringle's is a healthier potato chip snack than normal chips. (Ashley) Aswope17 (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad that we can agree on the 5 for packaging. It seems like a 4 is reasonable for the price as well, as you do receive a large amount of chips for your money, and you can always save some for later. The nutrition, though, is a bit off. I do not think chips are on the same level as goldfish, because the goldfish DOES attempt to make whole wheat options, uses no artificial coloring, and no artificial preservatives. The same cannot be said for the chips. Either we can bump up the goldfish to a 4 for nutrition and make the pringles a 3, or find a middle ground for the chips, like a score of 2.5, which would acknowledge that they're better than the Cheetos but not the goldfish. I would be more preferable towards the latter, since we all seemed satisfied with the score for goldfish. --riley RileyWian (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Riley. We should acknowledge that Goldfish are healthier than Pringles but Pringles are healthier than the Flamin' Hot Cheetos. We should give Pringles a score of 2.5 for nutrition. As for packaging, I would give it a 5 as well. I think Pringles has the best packaging compared to all of the snacks that we ranked. I give the price a 4. You do get plenty of chips for the price you pay. Overall, I give Pringles a grand total score of 11.5. (User: TheoKayy) Theokayy (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

It looks as though the scores Theo wrote are the ones we will go with with our "meet in the middle" procedures. --riley RileyWian (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)