Talk:Chocolate addiction

(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.

• 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)

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)

   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)

Snarkastity Jerzy•t 08:36, 20 March 2019 (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!

   Well, the obvious question is, has the merge been done? Going away to look, & report back here.
--Jerzy•t 09:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

   And the answer is "Yes, Master, the deed has been done!" (Or maybe "hath" was the contemporary word (aside from whether Will's or MacBeath's was the relevant period).)
--Jerzy•t 09:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

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)

Nomination for DYK

This article was self-nominated for DYK after it was expanded x 5 on May 26, 2020 by editor Emilyhawthorne

Inserted template below:

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by SL93 (talk) 03:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
It was already on DYK.

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Dark chocolate

Dark, milk and white chocolate

• ... that being a chocoholic or having a strong liking for chocolate can be genetic? Source: [1]
  • ALT1:... that being considered a chocoholic is not formally recognised by DSM-5 as a diagnosable addiction? Source: [2]

5x expanded by Emilyhawthorne (talk). Self-nominated at 07:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: What a delicious DYK. Although Earwig shows 33.8%, I find it likely to be a result of WP:CIRCULAR/copied from Wikipedia. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I came by to promote this, but the more I read into it, the more I wonder if the article is really quoting the sources. I just removed a few cites that didn't mention chocolate at all. The source given for the hook on this template doesn't mention chocolate either. I think this article needs to be looked at by someone familiar with medical writing. Yoninah (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I have reviewed your comments and made relevant changes in the article chocoholic in regards to citations. I have also updated the citation given in the first hook above to make it more relevant to the correlation between chocolate and genetics. Thank you for your comments and feedback. Emilyhawthorne (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• evrik 05:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Reviewing... Flibirigit (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Article was expanded fivefold from May 23 to 28 and nominated within time. Length is adequate and article meets citation requirements for DYK. No plagiarism issues found. Comment from the previous review regarding WP:CIRCULAR/copied from Wikipedia still applies. All images used in the article are properly licensed on the Commons. Both images listed on this nomination are suitable for use as a DYK image. User has less than five DYK credits and no QPQ is required. Both hooks are interesting although ALT0 is best. Both are properly mentioned in the article and verified with the cited sources. I have several concerns for tone and neutrality. I have noted those with maintenance tags in the article. The entire section "popular usage" section is promotional in tone and very subjective. "Many diet books" is subjective and should be either quantified, backed up with names of well known books, or removed. The statement "and even" sounds like a cliche and is not backed up with names of books. The mentions of Sarkozy and Dairy Queen are trivial and add nothing to the article, unless more context is added. Flibirigit (talk) 07:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• This nomination was submitted by a student editor, who has not made any contributions since June 2. I have posted on the talk page of the student's mentor, (User_talk:Carrolquadrio#Help_needed_for_DYK_nomination_by_Emilyhawthorne), and hope for follow up. Flibirigit (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• I cleaned up the tags. --evrik ^(talk) 14:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for your work, @Evrik:. I read through the whole article and while it reads well, the lead is not written in line with WP:LEAD. It reads more like the introduction to an essay, or, in Wikipedia's case, as the first subhead to be called "Description". I don't know if you're up to it, but a proper lead based on the main points in the article should be substituted here. Yoninah (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: The lede has been reworked. --evrik ^(talk) 21:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think the edits made by evrik (talk · contribs) improved the article. While the article's introduction could be improved, I think it is adequate and meets basic DYK guidelines. Also, for an article written by a student editor, this is better than average. I feel this nomination should be moved forward, and the article meets DYK criteria as per my review above and the recent changes. Flibirigit (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Well... this is really awkward, but it appears myself and others failed to notice that this article has already apppeared on DYK and is ineligible to be listed again. On Talk:Chocoholic, there is clearly a notice about its appearance on DYK on 21 April 2013. Thanks to everyone who has helped improve the article so far, but I am really sorry to have to mark this for closure and I apologize for not seeing it sooner. Flibirigit (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

--Emilyhawthorne (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Does this sentence make sense?

"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)

About the name

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. [3] 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)

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)