Talk:Sugarloaf

message: I propose that Sugarloaf Mountain be merged into this article as it is an incomplete duplication of the list of mountains on this article. -- PatLeahy (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal Sugarloaf Mountain

message: Suddenly we have Mount Sugarloaf, Sugarloaf (disambiguation), Sugarloaf (summit), Sugarloaf, Sugarloaf (mountain) and god knows what else. Let's discuss it here. What is the best structure? Snalwibma (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proliferation of articles

message: So many multiple meanings... and how best to organize them. One problem with Sugarloaf (mountain) is that some mountains that are named sugarloaf don't have "mountain" in their name (they are just called "sugarloaf"). With regard to the designation sugarloaf (summit), if you visit the USBGN website  and do a search on sugarloaf mountain (without checking the exact match box), you come up with a list of "summits." that's the classification for what it's worth. I agree it's not an ideal name. . .that said, I'd be fine with sugarloaf (mountain), providing someone is willing to do the work of writing separate stubs for sugarloaf hill sugarloaf (rock), and whatever other forms there are (butte, Mount Sugarloaf, etc). How's that? How are you all with the tiered sugarloaf to sugarloaf (disambiguation) to sugarloaf (mountain or summit or whatnot)?--Pgagnon999 (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the general outline you (Pgagnon999) are setting up is good. Sugarloaf (disambiguation) (to bring it all together and list the types of sugarloaf that don't have enough content to merit their own articles or lists) and Sugarloaf (for the sugary thing itself) are fine. The only real question, I think, is what to call the mountainy/hilly/peaky/pointy-groundy things. I reckon the best title is Sugarloaf (mountain) or possibly Sugarloaf (hill). The argument that many of them don't have "mountain" in their names isn't going to get us anywhere - as it's equally true (or more so) of any of the alternatives. The list should not attempt to say "these things are all called Sugarloaf Mountain", but rather "these are all mountainy things which have names something like "Sugarloaf". As for "summit" - I just don't see it as a likely term that anyone will look for, and anyway, in most cases (e.g. Sugar Loaf Mountain, Wales, with which I am very familiar - note my photo of it adorning its wikipedia page) the "sugar loaf" is  rather large piece of land, of which the summit is only a tiny part. "Rock" is no use, as many of them simply aren't rocky. Yup, I prefer Sugarloaf (mountain). I think that title most neatly describes and explains the list. They are mountainy things with names along the lines of Sugarloaf. Snalwibma (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Not a geologist or geomorphologist in sight... Just you and me, I think! I reckon it's best for Sugarloaf (hill) etc to redirect to Sugarloaf (mountain) as a permanent arrangement. Any attempt to distinguish the hills from the mountains is (IMHO) fraught with difficulty and danger, and trying to base it on what they are called is bound to fail. Snalwibma (talk) 08:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sugarloaf mountain, mount sugarloaf, sugarloaf hill, sugarloaf butte,  or just Sugarloaf etc.   

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  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 . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: The image at the top of the page needs some kind of scale or units of reference, to give an indication of size.  I can't tell, from the picture, if the sugarloaf is twelve inches high, two feet high, maybe taller.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/Sokeritoppa.jpg/220px-Sokeritoppa.jpg
Karl gregory jones (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image needs scale 

message: The article mentions that sugarloafs were traditionally wrapped in blue paper.  Would be nice to replace the current image with an image of a blue-paper sugarloaf.
Karl gregory jones (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image better with blue paper 

message: I would not think this is universal, and also I find it doubtful because in India jaggery is not sold this way and I think that country has historically been the largest sugar producer throughout history.  Is there such a thing as granulated jaggery, or is jaggery a type of sugarloaf? I just added a "see also"; perhaps there should be more comparison between sugar articles.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Two comments: 1) a sugarloaf is "refined sugar" and jaggery is not refined; 2) I think there jaggery might be considered a type of sugarloaf in which the sugar sugar is only partially refined. older ≠ wiser 18:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm studying the history of sugar right now. It seems to me that "sugarloaf" was not always refined sugar. In Elizabethan times it was only partially refined and needed to be clarified by the cook. I suspect that later refined sugars were supplied in loaf form because that's what people were used to.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.30.165 (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Where