|
''This is a list of retired rikishi who have "completed" articles. They are complete in the sense that they have infoboxes, tournament tables, and biographical/career information that is more than a few lines. They could always use YOUR additions and improvements of course!''
The article currently divides "confections" into "candy" and "non-candy". I'm inclined to think the division as currently explicated is somewhat arbitrary and that, worse, universal agreement is never going to be reached here, especially between US and UK English. For example, I think that, whatever classification "fudge" gets, "chocolates" should get that same categorization. Apparently, though, other people think they belong in different boxes.
{|cellspacing=10 style="background-color:transparent;"
Even if this dichotomy is meaningful to most people, I'm curious if "candy" is the best word to base it around. After all, the first paragraph suggests that "candy" is US-specific. (A US speaker myself, I have no idea if this is true.)
|-
|valign=top|
Finally, is this article going in an encyclopedic direction? The article is currently more an attempt to capture all the nuances of when the terms "confection" and "candy" are viable to use, rather than an encyclopedic treatment of information about sweet things. There definitely needs to be a wiki-based forum for codifying the usage of various terms, but I'm not sure wikipedia is it.
;A - O
*[[Akebono]]
--[[User:Ryguasu|Ryguasu]] 11:13 Dec 2, 2002 (UTC)
*[[Akinoshima]]
:Fudge is a way of cooking sugars; it is only a coincidence that many fudges contain chocolate. Some other fudges do not. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 07:54 Dec 3, 2002 (UTC)
*[[Asahifuji]]
*[[Chiyonofuji]]
:I would argue that chocolate fudge is certainly the most prototypical fudge. In any case, this doesn't change my basic point. We could bring up other examples of trouble cases, e.g. it really doesn't seem much of a stretch to me to call gum drops or licorice candy, despite this page's claim that these are not candies. --[[User:Ryguasu|Ryguasu]] 17:49 Dec 3, 2002 (UTC)
*[[Futahaguro]]
*[[Hokutoumi]] column style tourney table
:It seems to me that we are running into an issue of usage. There seems to be some disagreement over how the term "candy" should be used. As I see it, we have two options. 1) Use it as it is used in dictionary definitions. 2) Use it as it is used commonly in AE. I do not include the BE usage as they seem to use the word "sweets" instead. So, what do people think? Are we to be prescriptive or descriptive on this issue? --[[User:Dante Alighieri|Dante Alighieri]] 22:45 Dec 3, 2002 (UTC)
*[[Kitanofuji]]
*[[Kitanoumi]]
:To clarify the UK usage of the word '''candy'''. In the UK the word candy is very rarely used on it's own (although we understand the American usage). Candy bars are either called chocolate bars or if they don't contain chocolate simply sweets. . The confectionary known in the US as ''cotton candy'' is known as ''candy floss'' and there are other examples of this usage. If something is covered in sugar it might be known as ''candied ....'' e.g. ''candied peel'' The word sweet(s) in the context of confectionary is probably derived from ''sweetmeat''. All confectionary are known as sweets. The word sweet may also be used as a synonym for [[dessert]]. [[User:Mintguy|Mintguy]]
*[[Konishiki]]
*[[Kotonishiki]]
:Ah, Confirmation from across the pond! First of all, in a not terribly startling development, most people here have no idea what you folk mean by sweets. OK. The general take on whether or not chocolate is candy seems to be split. Some people in this country seem to think that all chocolate is candy while not all candy is chocolate. Therefore, a Hershey Bar (entirely chocolate) would be called a "candy bar" by these people. Others maintain that candy does NOT include chocolate. Therefore, Life Savers (small candy rings) are candy, while Almond Joy (chocolate covered almonds and sweetened coconut) is not. We also use "candied" (candied orange peel for example) in the same way here in the US. Let's see if this makes things any clearer... --[[User:Dante Alighieri|Dante Alighieri]] 23:22 Dec 3, 2002 (UTC)
*[[Kotonowaka]]
*[[Kotozakura]]
:As I imagine most Brits understand it, in the US ''candy'' (which originally referred simply to a predominanty sugar product) has pretty much become a synonym for confectionary. The former distinction is pretty much irrelevent (the word is so rarely used in the UK, we understand it as a US term). An article that said this is candy whilst this isn't, would be confusing to a British reader. A UK reader (unless involved in the confectionary business where a clearer distinction might possibly be made) thinks - ''(US)Candy = (UK) Sweets'' - and in the UK ''sweets = all confectionary''. [[User:Mintguy|Mintguy]] 23:34 Dec 3, 2002 (UTC)
*[[Kyokushuzan]] bio a little short
*[[Musashimaru]]
I dispute this characterisation of UK "candy". Perhaps the word is not used very much in England but in Scotland it is still commonly used for high sugar confectionery like boiled sweets, caramels, rock, nougat, fudge, etc. Chocolate is not candy because it is a high fat product rather than a high sugar product. -- [[User:Derek Ross|Derek Ross]] | [[User talk:Derek Ross | Talk]] 16:12, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
*[[Onokuni]]
|valign=top|
*This is not an article about confectionery. It's an article about semantics. I don't believe that people looking up confectionery, or candy, or chocolate, really want to read about why the British are so persnickety about candy language, or why Americans are so careless about it. Can you not do this someplace else? --[[User:Mothperson|Mothperson]] 16:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
;R - Z
*[[Ryūko]]
:I think that semantics are very important in the discussion of confectionery. In order to have a base to understand the subject, we all have to be clear on the basic terms and what they mean. I am an American but I admire the British for taking their confectionery seriously. I don't think there can be a serious discussion on confectionery without laying the groundwork. --[[User:mallured|mallured]] 02:27, 24 June 2005 (UTC)
*[[Sakahoko]]
*[[Sentoryu]]
Wouldn't the easiest thing be to simply have two separate pages for two versions of english? I'm beginning to wonder whether Wikipedia ought to have regional variations for its english edition as there are for physical encyclopedias and dictionaries, with the local definition of a word first and global variations second.
*[[Taiho]]
*[[Takamiyama]]
----
*[[Takanohana II]]
The current page says:
*[[Takanonami]]
*[[Takatoriki]]
:Rock candy: Based on sugars cooked to the hard-ball stage, including suckers, jawbreakers, lemon drops, peppermint drops and disks, candy canes, sticks of rock, etc.
*[[Tamanoumi]]
*[[Terao]]
I think this is incorrect. At least in my dialect, 'rock candy' does not refer to a conventional candy at all, and specifically not to suckers, jawbreakers, lemon drops, or the like. Rather, it is the crystals that form on a string or stick that has been placed in a container of sugar syrup.
*[[Tochiazuma]]
*[[Toki Susumu]]
Also, I don't think other hard candy is cooked to the hard-ball stage. According to http://www.baking911.com/candy_chart.htm, the hard-ball stage produces toffee and divinity. (Rock candy syrup is also cooked to the hard-ball stage.) Conventional hard candies are produced at a higher temperature and a higher sugar concentration, the hard thread stage.
*[[Wajima Hiroshi|Wajima]]
*[[Wakanohana Kanji II|Wakanohana]] II
If there is no contravening discussion, I will make the appropriate changes to the page in the future.
*[[Wakanohana]] III
[[User:Dominus|Dominus]] 15:15 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)
:Rock candy referrs to two distinctly different products. Most commonly in the US it referrs to the crystals on a string or stick that result from the string (or stick) being immersed into a supersaturated mixture of sugar and water. In the UK, it is a hard candy (or high boiled sweet) that has a design, logo, or text in the center. It is referred to as cut rock or simply rock. --[[User:mallured|mallured]] 02:21 June 24, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps someone could think over this: "A note on spelling: a purveyor of confections, a confectionery, retails the product confectionery. However, the two words are often interchanged — even by dictionaries." - either someone changed the first from confectionary and it should not have been changed, or the entire paragraph should be omitted because as it stands it is, at the least, puzzling.
| 