Talk:Chocolate addiction
Food and drink Redirect‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 9 October 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was Userfy. |
This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
A fact from Chocolate addiction appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 April 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
(Comment)
This article is far from encyclopaedic. If there is anything worthwhile to be said about chocoholism, it is not here yet. --Hugh7 23:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, I have gone ahead and added a WP:WEASEL disclaimer and two additional tags for one particularly dubious claim. 24.144.46.236 (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Millicent Bond
- Millicent Bond wrote a paper reflecting the ideas of a student but did not intend it to be authoritative.
If I am interpreting this correctly what it really means is that Millicent Bond wrote this essay while she was a student (it does not mean that she is a professor who wrote up the theory of a student).
The opinion written by a student taking Biology 103 (or any other 100 series science class if they use the same system my school did) does not seem sufficiently reliable to cite. (Unless it was published in a peer reviewed journal or the person became a noted expert in the field and then reasserted the same opinion). RJFJR 03:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Barbara Shack 15:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)I took all the stuff I got from Millicent Bond out of the article. The article doesn’t look so good now. Sad, Sad, Sad.
Article should mention that the word "Chocoholic" is used more often jocularly than as part of serious medical terminology... AnonMoos 13:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I kinda indicated this in the first paragraph.
Megan102 06:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
What Idiot wrote this
"Sugar contains large amounts of sugar."
well duh!
Okay, this article is kinda stupid, but the above statement made me laugh out loud. 76.22.201.109 (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Image
I don't really see how an image showing chocolate dipped in melted chocolate is really relevant to the article other than saying "This is the kind of thing a chocoholic would enjoy eating". What do you think? Anyquestions 21:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe someone could consider replying!! >:( 99.245.149.171 02:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Chocoholic and Chocoholism
Does anyone else feel these articles should be merged. It's silly how they're two seperate articles. Anyquestions 21:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Here too!
WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Chocoholism
Hi, I have just written Cioccolismo on italian Wikipedia. If you are interested, you can translate my page to english Wikipedia :). --Lucus (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Restored article
The article was nominated for deletion in 2010 and the result was delete/userfy to me. I have rewritten and restored the article as of April 2013. --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Move to Chocoholic
Chocoholic seems to be a better title than Chocoholism. Then it would be in sync with other -holic neologisms, namely Shopaholic and Workaholic. Besides, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines only Chocholic with no mention of the more clinical-sounding Chocoholism. Any objections to moving it?- Gilliam (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion, and for your other improvements to the article. I think you are right and this should be moved. "Chocoholic" is a far more common word (dozens of userpages link to "chocoholic" because of a userbox identifying the user as a chocoholic). In fact "chocoholism" sounds like a clumsy back-creation, an attempt to come up with a clinical-sounding noun analogous to "alcoholism". On Wikipedia, Alcoholism is the article and "alcoholic" is a redirect, but I think this term is more analogous to the examples you give. However, we will need administrator help to move it, since Chocoholic already exists as a redirect. I would request that we delay the move by a day or two, so as not to mess up the DYK statistics. (BTW although I am the author of this article, I did not choose the name; there was a previously deleted article called Chocoholism and I just kept that title.) --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- I took the liberty of moving it myself. Congrats on the DYK!- Gilliam (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oooh - tricky! 0;-D Thanks again. MelanieN (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- I took the liberty of moving it myself. Congrats on the DYK!- Gilliam (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)