Talk:Tic Tac

Box contents

There are 37 tic tacs per box.

Calorie versus calorie

If I remember my medical science courses correctly (I should), 1 Calorie = 1000 calories = 1 kcal. This article seems to confuse the Calorie (big C) with the calorie (small C). 81.247.123.105 (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would be good if someone knowing those matters corrected that. Calories, calories, kiloCalories, kilocalories? It's too complicated for an ordinary reader. --Jędrzej Pełka (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Name of Article: Candy?

Shouldn't it be under Tic Tac (mint)? 65.197.192.130 21:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No because Mint is just one of its many flavours.Mark E 13:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that tic tacs are universally known as candy, so there's no need. It's not like a person or city is named Tic Tac. 68.235.157.103 (talk) 04:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

'candy' is not universal. In the UK the term for candy is 'sweet', in Australia the term is 'lolly' Mjoyce (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Tic Tacs vs. iPod Nano image

I strongly suspect that the image was created to show the relative size of the iPod nano, not the size of a box of Tic Tacs. The size of a box of tic tacs really shouldn't merit a comparison image at all, but if it really is important to some people then can we find another picture with something more appropriate? The iPod Nano isn't exactly a known standard. Perhaps a quarter or penny instead? Or (even better) mention the height of the box in the introduction (e.g. Tic Tacs come in a clear plastic box about five centimeters tall...). Anyone disagree?

Selevercin 01:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been over 1 month with no disagreements (or otherwise any comments at all). I have gone ahead with the removal of the offending image. Once again, the image added very little to the article and if anyone really wants the size of a box of Tic Tacs, they should consider one of my suggestions above. Selevercin 16:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Under wrong name?

This article should really be under 'tic tac' since that is the name of the product. However, this will clash with 'tic-tac', the betting signalling system. Davidbod 00:28, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I know no one who calls them "Tic Tac", it's always the plural, even in adverts they refer to them as Tic Tacs. It's the most common name and I personally think it should stay as such on the Wiki. - Ferret 16:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

You are correct that "Tic Tacs" is the correct name for the product and for the article. We would not name the article on Certs as "Cert", would we? Herostratus 05:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Perhaps it is a US vs. UK thing, because it's very common to "have a Tic Tac" on this side of the pond. We would still say, "Pass the tic tacs" when referring to the container full of candy. But the package is clearly labelled "tic tac", while Certs is labelled with an "s". Also, "tic tac" beats "tic tacs" in a Google Fight, hands down. Finally, the bloody website is tictacusa Hoof Hearted 19:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

After loking at the main page and checking my own boxes I agree the name of the main page should be under correct title of the actual product and not the colloquial title of the product.(Halbared 09:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC))I l

30% bigger

the 30% bigger Tic Tacs are listed as an innovation and it is implied that they are a different variety of Tic Tac. Maybe it wasn't an international change, but in the US ALL Tic Tacs are 30% larger than the originals.

tic tac capitalization

• I have noticed that everywhere on the official website and on the box itself, the capitalization is strictly 'tic tac'. I propose a capitalization change. LtDonny 06:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The website and the box are clearly all in lower case, so I'd agree that the page should be moved to 'tic tac'. However, isn't there a technical issue with Wikipedia pages that don't begin with a capital letter? Incidentally, I've changed back the idiot who replaced the 'tic tic's with capitals everywhere. 82.43.137.103 17:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a misapprehension that the name should be written lower case in plain text. Corporations do not have the right to override the capitalisation of proper nouns. The lower-case lettering is a design feature only. Numerous brands have got lower-case logos, and some of them choose to spread this into the text on their own websites - it doesn't make it correct. Salopian (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No More Lime!?

I can nolonger find just lime tic tacs in the store these days. It is now always lemon and lime, which I don't like. I went to there website and was shocked to find they dont advertize lime by its self. Have they done away with just lime? I think it really sucks if they did!

William 18:30, 31 Decembe 2007

Eucalyptus flavour in Slovakia (Europe)

There is Eucalyptus flavour ("winter edition") advertised here in Slovakia, however I have yet to see it in the shops.

Hyartep 09:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Official links

Considering tic tacs are a Ferrero product, shouldn't we list also a link to the Italian official website (not just the US site)? The website url is http://www.tic-tac.it/ Hroswith (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Box sizes

On my 4/19/2008 edit in the Nutrition section I added the piece count for a box size not mentioned: "Big Pack", which is what the boxes are labled in a recent tic tac purchase I made in Colorado, USA. It is labeled with net weight of 1oz / 29g. I counted the pieces in two "Big Pack" boxes and both counts came to 59. This count jives with the Calorie information documented in the same section (390 Calories per 100 grams).

Flavour section tidy up

I think we could improve the flavor section by using a table. Here are my suggested columns:

Product Name	Flavours	Weight	Sighting
fruit adventure	Pineapple, Cherry, Orange, Melon	29g	Sydney, Australia, July-2012
Example	Example	Example	Example

Dates should be Month-yyyy or some other date format, seasons are relative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjoyce (talk • contribs) 01:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

We should avoid including an WP:INDISCRIMINATE amount of statistics about "sightings", especially if they are being provided without a reliable source. It'd be more useful to write about the history of significant flavours in context (the current article doesn't even state whether the product was originally mint-only, or if other flavours were also around at launch), than to overwhelm the reader with a large, unexplained table of fifty international flavours. --McGeddon (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)