Talk:Kit Kat
Latest comment: 11 months ago by THX1136 in topic Early candy in US similar to Kit Kat?
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kit Kat article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 31 days  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
Move from Kit Kat --> KitKat
editI moved from Kit Kat to KitKat, which is the way the company and modern sources spell it. Happily888 contested and moved back, but didn't bother to start a discussion, so I am. This shouldn't take a big RFC, it would seem local consensus can decide this. I'm fine either way, but because this is the way the product is spelled, via their own website and even the logos we use within the article itself, it seems the article title should be reflective on this WP:COMMONNAME. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Shouldn't the the name being spelled KitKat on the wrappers both of Hershe[1], [2], [3], [4] and Nestlé Canada[5], [6] as well as on the wrappers/packaging in Australia[7], [8], Austria[9], New Zealand[10], South Africa[11], South Korea[12], the UK[13] and elsewhere support moving from Kit Kat to KitKat? Mcljlm (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- See discussion below. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://www.hersheyland.com/kit-kat
- ^ https://www.hersheyland.com/products/kit-kat-milk-chocolate-candy-bars-1-5-oz-6-pack.html
- ^ https://www.hersheyland.com/products/kit-kat-milk-chocolate-candy-bar-1-5-oz.html
- ^ https://www.hersheyland.com/products/kit-kat-milk-chocolate-king-size-candy-bar-3-oz.html
- ^ https://www.madewithnestle.ca/search/products?t=kit%20kat
- ^ https://www.madewithnestle.ca/search/products?t=kit%20kat
- ^ https://www.kitkat.com.au/our-creations/blocks
- ^ https://www.kitkat.com.au/our-creations/gifts
- ^ https://www.nestle.at/marken/alle-marken/kitkat
- ^ https://www.nestle.co.nz/brands/kit-kat
- ^ https://www.kitkat.co.za/
- ^ https://www.kitkat.co.kr/product/prod
- ^ https://www.kitkat.co.uk/
Requested move 12 March 2022
edit- 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: Not moved. Consensus is to keep the title as is, as there is no clear common name among sources. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 07:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Kit Kat → KitKat – The manufacturer lists the brand name as KitKat on their website (https://www.nestle.com/brands/allbrands/kit-kat).+AMVictory (talk) 10:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- This is a contested technical request (permalink). Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Contested as consensus is necessary before move as the term "Kit Kat" is still used by Hershey, the manufacturer in the US (see here). Happily888 (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Even some of Nestlé's localised web sites are inconsistent: the Canadian one for example mixes between having the space and not having the space in the text. The New Zealand one adds the space. An article this year from News24 (website) in South Africa uses the version with the space,[1] I assume because Nestlé in South Africa used "Kit Kat" with the space as well. And as noted by Happily888, the distributor in U.S., Hershey, uses the space as well, and therefore do American reliable sources. So IMO there seems to be an unclear WP:COMMONNAME. See also previous discussions Talk:Kit Kat/Archive 1#KitKat vs. Kit Kat and Talk:Kit Kat/Archive 1#KitKat, Not Kit Kat? Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- The first discussion is too old to be considered. The second is still old, 8 years, but more relevant. I would have to look around some to be sure, but consensus does change as does use. I'm not hard fixed on removing the space, I just want to be sure we are using the actual common name. If, as seems to be indicated, there isn't a singular use in English speaking sources, then sure, leaving as is makes more sense. I think that the Primary source in this instance would be perhaps more important than secondary, since it is their product, but some research is needed to be sure. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- What I found when researching
- Primary: [2], ironic that the webpage name is kit-kat and not kitkat, but the product is clearly called "KitKat". Maybe the change is newish.
- Licensee in the US [3] the split it into two words. Keep in mind, Hershey's isn't the owner, just the licensee for US sales.
- Trademark (US only), filed 1988, is confusing [4] because the word mark is "Kit Kat" and the image mark is "KitKat" There is not a trademark registered for "KitKat" without the space in the US, at least that I see doing a search. Secondary trademark for "Have a break, have a Kit Kat" uses two words. Registered to Nestle. [5]
- Searching secondary sources, I'm finding KitKat, Kit Kat and Kit-Kat (lesser extent), but Kit Kat does seem to be more common in at least American sources, while KitKat seems to be at least as common in English non-American sources. So as pointed out, there isn't a singular WP:COMMONNAME, so I would withdraw my question as to name and say leave it as "Kit Kat". I stand corrected. I went ahead and collected the links mainly for the archive, in case the topic comes up there will info newer than 2006 or 2014. If we are having an RFC (not my doing) I would say no to a rename, even though I started this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, and it also compounds the issue when, as I mentioned, Nestlé's localised web sites in Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, and possibly other countries continue to use "Kit Kat" despite what the main global Nestlé web site says. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Weak oppose: Aside from WP:COMMONNAME, we should consider MOS:TM. "Kit Kat" is more like ordinary English formatting, so if the sources are mixed, we should lean toward keeping this where it is. (And independent sources should matter more than "official" ones.) — BarrelProof (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would disagree that primary count less when we are talking about product names. Certain facts, like DOB, name, etc. always lean towards Primary as they are in the best position to know. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Preferring self-published material over independent sources would be going against Wikipedia policy, as far as I know. The marketing departments of companies have a tendency to bend the truth to fit their preferred narratives, and especially for things like names and founding dates / DOBs. I often focus on articles about whiskey, for example, and many of the narratives presented by whiskey-making companies have elements that are simply false, tenuous, or are purely unverified speculation presented as fact. As another example, many companies use unusual formatting of the name of their company or their products in order to try to make their products seem more prominent or more appealing. Resisting that is the whole point of guidelines such as MOS:TM. When publishing about themselves, yes, they may be in a position to know things, but they may not want you to know those things, and they may even see the world through heavily tinted lenses. — BarrelProof (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- That may be true for some facts, but for instance, if the NYT gives someone's birthday as 12-12-1980, and that person's confirmed website says it is 12-11-1980, we generally go with the Primary source. Certain claims ARE best presented by primary sources like that. Events and such, no, but identifying information, yes. In this case, "how do you spell the product name", well shoot, the company is in a better position to tell us than a local newspaper. So we lean towards the primary source. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Preferring self-published material over independent sources would be going against Wikipedia policy, as far as I know. The marketing departments of companies have a tendency to bend the truth to fit their preferred narratives, and especially for things like names and founding dates / DOBs. I often focus on articles about whiskey, for example, and many of the narratives presented by whiskey-making companies have elements that are simply false, tenuous, or are purely unverified speculation presented as fact. As another example, many companies use unusual formatting of the name of their company or their products in order to try to make their products seem more prominent or more appealing. Resisting that is the whole point of guidelines such as MOS:TM. When publishing about themselves, yes, they may be in a position to know things, but they may not want you to know those things, and they may even see the world through heavily tinted lenses. — BarrelProof (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would disagree that primary count less when we are talking about product names. Certain facts, like DOB, name, etc. always lean towards Primary as they are in the best position to know. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Weak oppose, looking at Google Trends, it seems that Kit Kat is slightly more popular than KitKat. Mannysoloway (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Leaning oppose, based on the substantial portion of the article covering the history of the product under the name, "Kit Kat". BD2412 T 17:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
US license/ NYT source
editSource currently numbered 2, the NYT article, is cited for explaining a US licensing deal Hershey made with Rowntree, but the article doesn’t actually explain that at all. Citations need to be fixed. -KaJunl (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Early candy in US similar to Kit Kat?
editI recall an advertisement on tv during 'The Flintstones' that was for a bar made of alternating crisp and chocolate layers. It was claimed there were 7 layers in all. Since this would have been early 60s it would predate when Hershey started producing the bar. Could this have been an import version of Kit Kat?
I saw no mention of Kit Kat being imported to the US which is why I ask. THX1136 (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)