Talk:Chocoholic

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: (Comment)

message: :Millicent Bond wrote a paper reflecting the ideas of a student but did not intend it to be authoritative.  
* Chocoholics, Millicent Bond
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)
thread_title:  Millicent Bond 

message: "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)
thread_title: What Idiot wrote this

message: 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)
replies: text: Maybe someone could consider replying!! >:( 99.245.149.171 02:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:    This is a remark, rather than an overdue reply: I did consider a reply, but decided to limit it to this remark. (Sorry about your ambiguous negative emotion, which is BTW a bit too vague to permit my making a more specific response. But I do hope those facial muscles have uncramped by now.--Jerzy•t 08:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

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 . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chocoholism 

message: 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)
thread_title: Restored article

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I took the liberty of moving it myself. Congrats on the DYK!- Gilliam (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oooh - tricky! 0;-D  Thanks again. MelanieN (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Chocoholic 

message: This article was self-nominated for DYK after it was expanded x 5 on May 26, 2020 by editor Emilyhawthorne
Inserted template below:
--Emilyhawthorne (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination for DYK 

message: "Chocolate and its psychological effects was kept a secret throughout its origin in Spain during the 16th century, until the early 17th century when Madrid became a hub for fashion and society. [38]" Chocolate did not "originate" in Spain, did it? It was used in South America long before the 16th century. And how was it "kept a secret"? Kept a secret from the rest of Europe? Kept a secret by a secret society in Spain? I hope someone will read the source and find out what this is actually supposed to be saying. (Not to mention it should be "were", not "was".) -- MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this sentence make sense? 

message: Until the recent improvements, this article had a very informal tone. It was mostly about the use of the term "chocoholic" used to describe people, and including a "Popular usage" section.  But as a result of this expansion and rewriting, that tone has been changed, and it now treats the subject as a medical issue, with mostly medical references. For that reason, it might be a good idea to change the title "Chocoholic" back to its original title, "Chocoholism". The article is now comparable to the article "Alcoholism" in its treatment, and maybe the title should reflect that. Thoughts? (I realize that changing the title during a DYK discussion can be disruptive, but in fact that's exactly when the title was changed from "Chocoholism" to "Chocoholic" - during its first DYK back in 2013.) -- MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I just saw the note above saying that the article can't have a second DYK. That's too bad. I was responsible for the first one and I apologize for messing up this one; the article is much better now. Well, at least now you can discuss the name without DYK considerations interfering. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the name