Talk:Sprinkles

message: Strongly oppose merge with Nonpareils.  See that article's talk page. Beginning to wish I'd just left Sprinkles alone.  --Mothperson 16:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

message: The article states that in Britain 'sprinkles' are known as hundreds and thousands, and may also be spherical.  I am British, and have always understood the term 'hundreds and thousands' to exclusively denote the spherical nonpareils.  The elongated type are usually referred to as sugar/chocolate strands, or by the Itailian, vermicelli.  Does anyone disagree with this, or should the article be changed? 217.206.228.15 15:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  British - Hundreds and Thousands 

message: I have created this second entry under sprinkles as there is another type of sprinkles worth discussing. It is a micronutrient powder used in the developing world to alleviate micronutrient deficiencies.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sghi (talk • contribs) 18:33, 14 July 2006
: The mis-formated entry was removed completely on the logic that another article covers its content, but Micronutrient Sprinkles (and perhaps Sprinkles Global Health Initiative) should have been lk'ed to and from this one, given the presumed role of the candy in promoting acceptance of the supplement and the potential for the young among their consumers being unclear which they received (and needing to know about both articles to know which one they are seeking).  That's in addition to the Dab(s), which i do intend to work on soon (tho i'm not working on they articles beyond possible ToP Dabs).--Jerzy•t 19:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition 2-Sprinkles

message: Gosh - that looks like it was a fun party. It would have been great if we could have actually seen the cupcakes, though, since this is an article on sprinkles. PacificBoy 20:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there needs to be a picture of colorful sprinkles.  The chocolate sprinkles are drab and they're not the only kind out there.  We should replace the party picture with a colored sprinkle picture. It seems like the only reason that picture is there is because some parent wanted a picture of her kid on Wikipedia.  --71.74.89.197 21:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: Thanks to whomever started the "jimmies" paragraph, as it is definitely warranted in this topic.  In the northeastern United States (particularly New England), it is almost unheard of to refer to "sprinkles" (the elongated ones at least) as "sprinkles" because there at least they're "jimmies" without question.  This will help to decipher the origins of this terminology. Jeff
:I am about to clean up this section, a number of localities are mentioned in passing, and I really think it should be a list. Please make corrections and additions to the list. Codeczero 02:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cleaned-up but the Just Born story seems to be slightly inconsistent with the company website. Also the bit about whether jimmies are chocolate only or any variety is suspect. In both cases I have no better info so I am not making substantial changes. (In my area, Delaware, jimmies were any variety) Codeczero 02:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have heard that "Jimmies" is a racial reference, possibly hearkening back to Jim Crow laws in the U.S.  Has anyone heard this? --Joe 01:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never heard that and it makes little sense given the areas where the term "jimmies" is used. 72.144.103.202 05:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can anyone provide citations for the 'origin' info referenced in the Jimmies section? Definitely different areas of the US use different terminology but would be a good idea to cite the origin of the term.Blckdmnd99 12:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I undid the "(most commonly in Boston, MA)" Jimmies reference from this version. It seems like a random speculative statement. Just getting started on here so not sure if this falls under an official policy or not, but if anyone disagrees, please let me know. Blckdmnd99 03:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimmies 

message: Hi folks. It's annoying to see random locations popping up in the article from time to time without there being a balanced view of the sprinkles vs. jimmies nomenclature for a wider range of locals.  Can we discuss and find some consensus here first? I'll try and pull out the various locations from the past versions but if you know of a source that supports one or the other, please list it here. -DjD- 11:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimmies vs. Sprinkles - Act II 

message: What was this supposed to mean?
Most New Englanders consider sprinkles to be chocolate and sprinkles to be the multi-colored variety
OrangeDog (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  huh? 

message: Corrected a couple of typos and did some minor rewording which included touching on the sprinkles'jimmies/hundreds-and-thousands naming question.  I think it's important to acknowledge that these other common names exist for the little beasties in the lead, and it can be done without trying to label them one thing at the expense of the other names, or getting into the abstruse technicalities of which one is which according to the confectioners' dictionary! -- Karenjc 18:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit

message: I've removed the unsourced claim that 100s & 1000s are "always spherical" in Australian and New Zealand. Being from Australia myself, I can tell you that is not true: at least some Australians understand the term to refer to both varieties, and we distinguish "long hundreds and thousands" and "round hundreds and thousands". Consequently I've just removed the claim rather than making positive claims about what they are known as in Australia.
It's all just terminology of course, and different people will know the same thing by different names. Popular terms for things are not necessarily the same as the "official" confectioners' jargon for them, and Wikipedia shouldn't get too hung up about popular terminology. It's most often impossible to verify and undocumented anyway. Limeguin (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In Australia, "Hundreds and Thousands" are made from grains of sugar, with a colourful coating that makes them spherical, and are therefore non-homogeneous.  "Sprinkles" are homogeneous, extruded and non-spherical. 203.45.39.201 (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Hundreds and thousands in Australia

message: Hundreds and thousands is a lovely term, and on the whole beautifully describes what they are, but what is the singular?  If there's one on its own stuck in your moustache after eating a cake, what is it then called?  Traveller palm (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linguistic conundrum 

message: These differ from the dutch Hagelslag, they are augar coated (I presume to stop coagulation) and not as large. There's no way I can think of of citing a reference these as no doubt someone will manage to produce a box of Hagelslag, but certainly they are not common like in The Netherlands (being UK residents) would always bring some back with us after a trip there). Is this worth mentioning? SimonTrew (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Hundreds and thousands 

message: We have continued inconsistency between articles, which is not good. Under Nonpareils we're told,
'Nonpareils are a decorative confectionery of tiny balls made with sugar and starch .  .  . In the UK, Australia and New Zealand, nonpareils are known as "hundreds-and-thousands" . . . '
Yet here we're told that hundreds-and-thousands are elongated.
Please find resolution!Alrewas (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency: please clarify and resolve 

message: I propose that the two Wikipedia articles Sprinkles and Muisjes be merged into the article Nonpareils. All three articles seem to describe a tiny sugar-candy, sometimes called "hundreds and thousands" in Great Britain, used to decorate cakes, etc. Naturally, we could still have redirects from Sprinkles and Muisjes to the combined article. I think that the three articles have a good deal of overlap, and none of the articles are so long as to cause problems if the three were to be combined into one. Objectivesea (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Sprinkles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110611074218/http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=/tct/2006/08/01/0608010327.php to http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=/tct/2006/08/01/0608010327.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Sprinkles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100129021457/http://www.justborn.com:80/get-to-know-us/photo-gallery to http://www.justborn.com/get-to-know-us/photo-gallery
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The "names" section is plural in title, but only talks about "Jimmies". It also "goes on" a little with seemingly anecdotal ideas of where that single name might have originated.
Since these all seem to say they're unlikely sources, perhaps a simple list of unproven sources might be easier to read (and less "intrusive" to the generic article. Supertin (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names section 

message: What are they made out of? It’s not just sugar and color. Is anyone going to elaborate?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:44:3:2800:68A0:651F:F358:D96 (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ingredients?