Talk:Caramilk

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by proposer. Unanimous consensus that joint title would be clunky.  Trystan (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Caramilk →  – The article currently covers three topics: (1) the Canadian Cadbury Caramilk bar, (2) a very similar product sold in other countries as Cadbury Caramello, and (3) the entirely different Australian Cadbury Caramilk bar. I think (1) and (2) are clearly a case where "closely related or complementary concepts are most sensibly covered by a single article," and Caramello already redirects here. The proposed move would clearly reflect that scope. Arguably, topic (3) should be in a separate article, as it is a fundamentally different product that happens to share the same name, but there isn't enough content for a standalone article, and I think it all works well enough as a single article.  is what I would propose it look like following the move, which I think is clearer than the current version. Trystan (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be fine with the broader scope at the current title, but proposed the move in response to the section above.--Trystan (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have rephrased the lead section; let's see how people react to that. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

text: The issue I was trying to address with  is to clarify that the Caramello bars aren't simply covered incidentally as a related topic, but are themselves within the scope of the article. The article  covered only topic (1), the Canadian Caramilk bar, with all other bars discussed as "Similar products". It was expanded a year and a half ago to also cover (3), the Australia/NZ version of Caramilk, on an equal footing with topic (1). But, despite sharing the same name, topic (3) is less directly related to topic (1) than topic (2), the Caramello bars. Depending on how narrowly or broadly we want to define the article's scope, it could be just (1); (1) and (2); or (1) (2) and (3); but just (1) and (3) doesn't really work.--Trystan (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 6 March 2023 

message: This was long decided in the Talk section years ago. Not sure why it was removed.
https://assets.shop.loblaws.ca/products/20691626/b2/en/front/20691626_front_a06_@2.png 2604:3D08:6380:6E0:35F0:E7A2:292C:4C01 (talk) 08:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted it because, the "Canada" section of the article already covers the fact that it's sold as a candy bar there (i.e. it says ). Also, calling it a candy bar instead of a chocolate bar fits in less with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as the majority of sources/references, especially secondary sources, like the ones used in the article, call it a chocolate bar and not a candy bar. We should be giving weight to the majority viewpoints and not the minority ones. Anyways, to make things clearer about this, I added "labelled as a candy bar" to the top of the article where it says . — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Also check out what  wrote in the discussion thread Chocolate bar revisited in the first archive of this talk page. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not labelled as a "Candy Bar", it is labelled as "Candy". I've updated it, but I don't think the statement belongs in the lead at all, since we haven't provided any context for what that means or why it is relevant.--Trystan (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Look at the label - Clearly states CANDY Bar, because it legally is a CANDY bar, not a chocolate bar.