Jump to content

Talk:Kraft Dinner/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5


"original recipe"

It should be noted that the "original recipe" is no longer "original". The article reads as if the box of Kraft Macaroni and Cheese that you buy today is the same formulation that it was in 1937, and that is just not the case. The "original" recipe or formula has changed several times since 1937, and certainly more than once in my lifetime. I don't have a citation at the moment, but I will soon. HardwareLust (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe the Canadian variant ended in March 2008 and was replaced with the global version which had 17% more cheese of a different flavour and different noodles - unfortunately the only sources I can find are blogs CoW mAnX (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Smile

Kraft Mac & Cheese Gets New, Unified Look. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Have to check this out

Homeless man is new voice of Kraft Mac & Cheese User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That's cool Fred, That could go in the marketing section. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Advertising Age version User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

CP+B

http://www.cpbgroup.com/#kraft User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

dinosaur?

I don'r remember the name but i know that commercials for kraft boxed macarani used to feature a large orange dinosaur. maybe his name was cheesey rex? it seems like that should be in the article somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.3.112 (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

His name was "Cheesasaurus Rex". If you do a simple Google search, you can find many examples of him. I don't remember exactly how long they used him, but a small mention wouldn't be out of line. HardwareLust (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2011

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: clearly no consensus to move Kotniski (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Kraft Dinner → Kraft Macaroni & Cheese — 17:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Relisted. Hasteur (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC) There is a convenience food product called "Kraft Macaroni & Cheese" in the US and UK and "Kraft Dinner" in Canada. Two previous RFCs (2006 and 2009) proposed to move the article from "Kraft Dinner" to "Kraft Macaroni & Cheese". Both of these RFCs ended in "No Consensus". Here is a summary of the arguments previously made:

Argument for keeping name as "Kraft Dinner" (Canadian Name):

  • In 1937, the product was originally sold in the US and Canada under the name "Kraft Dinner". The subsequent change of name to "Kraft Macaroni & Cheese" did not occur in Canada.
  • "Kraft Dinner" is a product of Kraft's Canadian subsidiary, and is therefore a Canadian product.
  • Wikipedia policy is that Wikipedia does not prefer one nationality over another. Changing the name would constitute favoritism.
  • The product has a special cultural importance to Canada. Pop culture references were cited as examples.

Argument for changing name to "Kraft Macaroni & Cheese" (US Name):

  • The name "Kraft Dinner" is currently used only in Canada. All other markets use the name "Kraft Macaroni & Cheese."
  • Canada accounts for only 10% of the product's market (uncited claim).
  • Kraft is a company headquartered in the US, so the US name should be used, per WP:Common name.

Relevant Google Searches


I am opening a new RFC in the hopes of reaching a consensus on the proposed move. --RSLxii

4/7/2011 Note: I originally opened this RFC on March 2. The RFC expired after 30 days, dying a quiet death. But for some reason, after the RFC expiration, there seems to be much more activity. Therefore, I'm going to reopen the RFC, listing it under a more appropriate category. --RSLxii 10:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm not sure why this is being listed as an RFC instead of a Wikipedia:Requested move. –xenotalk 14:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for teaching me something new. OK, changed from RFC to RM. --RSLxii 17:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Note Here is a link to the 2009 Move discussion: Talk:Kraft Dinner/Archive 2#Proposed move
  • Oppose, for all the reasons given in the lengthy previous discussions. Nothing new has arisen since those discussions. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Actually, WP:COMMONNAME prescribes to keeping an article tied to the nationality that it was originally created under, as with the style of English used in the article. I do not get even half as many hits for "Kraft Macaroni and Cheese" -wikipedia. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment - Bad Googling, no cookie! "Kraft Dinner" -wikipedia returns 790,000. "Kraft Macaroni and Cheese" -wikipedia 419,000. "Kraft Macaroni & Cheese" -wikipedia 2,560,000. (On the box, Kraft uses the ampersand.) - SummerPhD (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Rename to Kraft Macaroni & Cheese, by far the most common name for this product. Wikipedia "uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources."Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#Deciding_on_an_article_title Really, this discussion should only be necessary "When there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources". The single, obvious term is the term used in most of the world and by the vast majority of sources. As for the national varieties of English argument, yes, "The title of an article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the variety of English appropriate for that nation".Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#National_varieties_of_English However, it goes on to give examples: Australian Defence Force and United States Secretary of Defense. The "connection" argument doesn't fit in this case. The "original" title is moot in this case. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Move - American company, product should follow the American name. Also the most widely used name. Furthermore WP:Engvar is the policy speaks about language conventions while WP:Common name only states that The title of an article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the variety of English appropriate. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Move - "Macaroni & Cheese" is a much more common name, and the argument about "favoritism" is fairly pointless because by leaving it as "Kraft Dinner" it could be argued that you're showing favoritism towards Canada, since that name is used almost exclusively there. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 04:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Move - Keeping the name here makes zero sense, "Macaroni & Cheese" is the overwhelmingly more common name. Frankly, I don't even buy that it's THAT much of a cultural icon in Canada... it got namechecked in a song once, big deal. Unless a source can be found for it's supposed strong ties in Canada, I say there's no legitimate argument for keeping the name -- MichiganCharms (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose move per WP:RETAIN and previous discussions. –xenotalk 18:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • 'It doesn't really matter; although Kraft Macaroni & Cheese is clearly the common name (and the one used by the company). It's even called it as the main name in the lead --Errant (chat!) 18:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per arguments above, and WP:NOTPAPER, WP:RETAIN. I have seen, in a number of discussions across Wikipedia, the notion that views from the United States should be dominant. However importance of aspects from other parts of the world are not supposed to be diminished in Wikipedia (see essay WP:BIAS). Kraft Dinner was the original name of the product, it tastes different from Kraft Macaroni and Cheese (yes, I've tasted both), and it has a certain cultural significance -- inasmuch as a food product can have such significance. I'm surprised that this move discussion is even taking place. Taroaldo (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I think you ruined your own argument by bringing the US into it. this isn't "The US calls it Kraft M&C and everyone else calls it Kraft Dinner", its Canada calls it Kraft Dinner and the rest of the world, not just the United States, calls it Kraft Cheese & Macaroni. 74.177.44.214 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC).
That's not correct. For example, in the UK it's called Cheesey Pasta.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Move. WP:RETAIN has to do with varieties of English; this refers to the name of a product, which isn't a "variety of English issue." But even if we were to apply WP:ENGVAR, it's clear that WP:TIES is the defining issue here: we have a product that is produced in the U.S. and 90% of the market for which is in the US (I'm trusting the above claims are true). That strongly indicates the US name is the "common" name. Note that this is not a sense of simply supporting a US perspective; if the numbers or production site were reversed, then the Canadian name would be correct. We can't correct bias just be ignoring other guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. for the reasons in the previous discussions. Brumak (talk) 07:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Move - with a redirect from Kraft Dinner. If the preponderance of users are likely to be searching for information using this name, then why not make it as easy as possible. I saw this on the RFC and was surprised this has been contentious for so long, as it is a minor issue. SeaphotoTalk 20:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support; WP:RETAIN should not apply when an overwhelming usage differential exists. Powers T 01:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Move - per WP:COMMONNAME. This is not an issue as to whether the Canadian name or the United States name is correct. The product is marketed as "Kraft Macaroni & Cheese" in every part of the world, except for one country (Canada) — even in foreign languages. For example, the English-language trademark "Kraft Macaroni & Cheese" was registered in Spanish-speaking Peru (South America, where I live) in December 1998.[1]. Kraft Dinner Canada should be a section of the main article Kraft Macaroni & Cheese. ––JMax (Okay, tell me. What'd I do this time?) 22:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:RETAIN has no exception for proper nouns.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
"Kraft Dinner", as a proper noun, is not English. As such, there is no "variety of English" involved. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The claim that a proper noun is not English looks bizarre to me. Why not? Andrewa (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Move. A number of wikipedia policies/guidelines have been cited by commenters above. For convenience, I've quoted the relevant portions of these below:
    • WP:Commonname is part of the WP:Article Titles policy. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.... For cases where usage differs among English-speaking countries, see also 'National Varieties of English' below. In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals, and a search engine may help to collect this data. When using a search engine, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word "Wikipedia".
    • 'National Varieties of English' is part of WP:Article Titles. The title of an article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the variety of English appropriate for that nation (as in Australian Defence Force, United States Secretary of Defense). However, sometimes a form which represents only minority local usage is chosen because of its greater intelligibility to English-speaking readers worldwide (e.g. Ganges rather than "Ganga").
    • WP:Retain is part of WP:Manual of Style. When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety of English it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic.
    • WP:Ties is part WP:ENGVAR, which is part of the WP:Manual of Style. An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation. For example:
      • Great Fire of London (British English) or Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings *(which uses another variant of British English)
      • American Civil War (American English)
      • Institutions of the European Union (British or Irish English)
      • Australian Defence Force (Australian English)
      • Vancouver, B.C. (Canadian English)
      • Usain Bolt (Jamaican Standard English)
The term "strong national ties" is used in 'National Varieties of English', WP:TIES, and WP:RETAIN. If we compare the product in question to the examples given in WP:TIES and 'National Varieties of English' (shown above), the Kraft product does not have a strong tie to one particular country. For example, the Kraft Product is not tied to Canada as strongly as, say, Vancouver, BC is tied to Canada. The only proof of "strong national ties" given in our discussions was the inclusion of "Kraft Dinner" in a pop song and on an episode of South Park. And even if more proof of Canadian affection for Kraft Dinner were shown, it would also have to be shown that people in the US and other countries do not have any significant attachment to "Kraft Macaroni and Cheese". The Google search numbers suggests this is not the case.
That leaves WP:COMMONNAME as the policy most relevant to our discussion. And the Google numbers clearly indicate what is the common name. --RSLxii 15:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Relisting Note: Concensus appears to be 9 move/6 oppose currently, no broad concensus exists to justify moving the article again. Lamest move war ever. Hasteur (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose move Nothing has been advanced to further the last move discussion, so why is this here? "Lame" or "relentless in the face of previous consensus", take your pick. My points from the last discussion stand. Franamax (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: I just want to clarify something here: none of those opposed to moving are citing a policy based rationale for keeping the name. WP:RETAIN only applies when there are no strong ties, and sales, production location, and google hits all show that this product has strong ties the the US. As such, our guideline requires that we move the article, unless someone can dispute the underlying facts of the TIES. As with all decisions on Wikipedia, this isn't a simple vote--it's a matter of achieving a consensus that matches policy/guidelines.Qwyrxian (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
That first sentence is wrong, and you go on to argue against the most common policy based rational for keeping the name. The reasons you've given for ties to the U.S. (sales and google hits) are much weaker than the ties in the examples in WP:TIES. I don't think those are strong enough to overrule WP:RETAIN here.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The examples cited in TIES cover American Civil War, Great Fire of London, a book written in British English and other plainly obvious examples. The basis for applying TIES here are sales and g-hits (for American English) and, um, a Barenaked Ladies song and numerous "just so" claims (for Canadian English). As for the guideline at RETAIN, A) proper nouns are not a "variety of English" and 2) policy at WP:COMMONNAME makes it clear that the we should have moved this long ago. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: It seems that we're getting somewhere, as the core debate seems to have boiled down to a couple simple issues: First, do "Kraft Dinner" and "Kraft Macaroni & Cheese" count as national varieties of English? If so, then we follow the "National Varieties of English" clause of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RETAIN, i.e., assuming that there are no strong ties to a particular country, all national varieties of English are acceptable in article titles; Wikipedia does not prefer any national variety over any other. And if they are not considered varieties of English, then WP:COMMONNAME would suggest we change the article title to the more common name of "Kraft Macaroni & Cheese".
So the questions to settle are:
1. Do "Kraft Dinner" and "Kraft Macaroni & Cheese" count as national varieties of English?
2. If the answer to #1 is "yes", is there a strong tie to a particular country?
I feel like the answer to Question 2 is "no", at least based on the examples of "strong national ties" given in the policies. But I don't know the answer to Question 1--the policy itself seems to leave things ambiguous (I lean to one side, as stated above, but now that I understand the policies better, I've become more understanding of the opposition). If we all agree that the debate can be narrowed down to these two questions, I think we might make progress with our decision-making. Agreed? --RSLxii 19:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • {after e/c cum browser meltdown) For examples of strong national ties, specifically Canada: the original name was intentionally retained, KD was popular then and to this day has a disproportionate share of global sales; KD is a widely-known cultural referent in Canada as a cheap and filling meal. It is referenced in song (wikilink); radio broadcast (Vinyl Cafe, came up last RM); nutrition class/legal threat (CBC last week and note the ref to "Crap Dinner", sme as what I said in that archived discussion); and of this sequence, the video at the end is teh cool! :) ProQuest (likely paywalled, Ambroziak, P. West Carleton EMC 07 Apr 2011, "CFUW accepts donations of Kraft Dinner for Kanata Food Cupboard"), the school referred to in that article, and the KD Domino Challenge (MPG video). KD - "Kids Deliver". KD "Kraft Dinner". There is your mational variety of English. If you can find me another source where kids at an elementary school find it so easy to set up a "Kraft Macaroni & Cheese Challenge" and collect the 800 boxes in whatever other country, I'll stand aside from the "strong national ties" to Canada. I found more in my library sub, but I'm wondering if it will ever be enough. In April this year, at least 10 times as many people reached our article through the Kraft dinner title as through the variants of Kraft/macaroni/and-&/cheese/dinner that redirect there (most-linked), which are presumably reached via the search box. Some of the main title hits will surely be through navboxes and wikilinks and our software doesn't measure the difference, but I'd be betting a >1/10 proportion of those will be direct searches for "Kraft dinner". Franamax (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Thinking more on Question #2: consider the Toyota Tundra, a minivan produced by a Japanese company, manufactured in the United States for sale throughout North America. Would this vehicle be considered to have a strong national tie to Japan? USA? I would say no to both. I tried to think of an example similar to this that involved solely English-speaking countries, but came up blank..... --RSLxii 20:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The Toyota Tundra is a full size pick truck that is made for the North American market with no analogue in Japan, a practice which is not uncommon with all automotive manufacturers. Kraft M&C is made by an American company for multiple markets and is identified by such in all of its markets but the one country that still calls it by the original name, Canada. Despite it being some sort of cultural icon there, there is nothing that ties it exclusively to Canada. Canada is not the largest market for the product, it is not its originating country of the product, it is not made by a Canadian company and the Google tests show that it is by far better known by the brand name Kraft Macaroni and Cheese. It is not jelly babies or Orangina, products which have true ties to their origin countries. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The article namne defaults to the status quo unless compelling arguments are brought forward to change it. This is not a popularity contest among editors. Have you looked at the links I've provided showing a deep cultural conext? Do you have similar examples for other markets of the product, such that our readers might likely be searching for that name in ways more than mere shopping? Maybe I missed them in your last reply... Franamax (talk) 05:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
If its so important to Canada, why isn't it a part of WikiProject Canada? 74.177.44.214 (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Notch one up for lamest deletion [rename] rationale ever. Are you saying that if I add it to the project listing you will opt to keep [the current title]? Or do you just suspect a devious Canadian editorial plot? The national attachments are real, and documented just above. Franamax (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
"Deletion"? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, good one there, I've sruck and reworded. :) I suppose I'm thinking of the (suspected) large number of readers who will be typing "kraft dinner" into the search box and will be disconcerted when their search atrives at something different. I will maintain that that search is responsible for the bulk of article hits, as Kraft Dinner has a high awareness in Canada, more so than most standard supermarket products. Kinda funny though, thanks for reining in my rhetoric. :) Franamax (talk) 03:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Both terms are valid in different parts of the English speaking world, and it should thus fall under Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment - AS previously discussed, proper nouns are not English. For example, there is no French word for "Kraft". Kraft may or may not use that name in French speaking countries, but they select/makeup the name. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. Proper names very much are part of the English language, and there is no reason to exclude them from the national varieties rule. - SimonP (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment - Proper nouns are not words in a language. In France, an American named Summer Burns would still be "Summer Burns", not "Eté Brûlures". In Mexico city? Yep, still "Summer Burns", not "Verano Quemaduras". - SummerPhD (talk) 03:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
      • The proper name for this product is clearly different in different varieties of English. So I'm not sure how the argument "proper names are always the same" makes sense. In this case they clearly aren't. - SimonP (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
        • The proper noun did not change in American English when Kraft Corporation renamed the product. The company renamed the product. People in Canada who speak Canadian English, American English and Canadian French call it Kraft Dinner. That the name is different in Canada is not an issue of variety of English, it's a choice of a corporation for a small portion of the world. Kraft Macaroni and/& Cheese is -- by a huge margin -- far more common. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Why does being official make any difference? It's petrol in the UK and gas in North America due to cultural usage. It's KD in Canada and Macaroni and Cheese elsewhere based on a corporate decision (that was itself based on cultural usage). Both are examples of different language use in different countries. The ultimate source of those differences does not matter. - SimonP (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
            • We don't switch between varieties of English unless there is a particular reason an article should use one of the other (such as New York using American English). So, in an article about a subject not particularly tied to a specific country, we wouldn't change between, say, "color" and "colour". As this product is sold worldwide, it is not tied to a particular country. We would not change between varieties of English. However, as proper nouns are not English, the title of the article falls to Wikipedia:COMMONNAME, saying it should use, "the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". As demonstrated above, that is "Kraft Macaroni & Cheese" (2,560,000). A distant second place is "Kraft Dinner" (790,000). Lest we ignore them, there are also 419,000 using "Kraft Macaroni and Cheese". Depending on whether you include the "and" group or not, that's 3 (or 3.75) to 1 for the change. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
                • Why do you think we should ignore varieties of English when it comes to proper names? The policy itself nowhere says we should, and there is no logical reason not to. What you're proposing is that all proper names should follow American usage. The origin of our policy is that since American sources always outnumber the others on Google if we simply used Wikipedia:COMMONNAME, the entire encyclopedia would follow American usage. This is counter our global ethos, which is why the varieties of English rule trumps WP:COMMONNAME. This logic applies both to proper names and common ones. - SimonP (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree. I find this whole notion that WP:ENGVAR does not apply to proper names, or that proper names are not English, pretty novel and wholly unconvincing.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Here at my desk, I have three unabridged English dictionaries. In theory, they have definitions for every word in the English language at the time of their publication. One is the Shorter OED, FWIW. "Kraft Dinner" is not an entry. "Kraft" is a type of paper. Other non-entries include "Compaq", "Exxon", "Microsoft" and numerous other proper nouns. Perhaps these well-respected publishers are unaware that proper nouns are now part of various languages and should be translated. Somehow, that explanation doesn't make a whole lot of sense. What does Wikipedia have to say about it? Here, you read it: Proper_noun#Translation_decisions. Unfortunately, the example used there, Tiger Smith doesn't link to articles in other languages using the Roman alphabet. Let's check Tiger Woods (he is not a "tiger", nor is he a grove of trees). Now check those articles in other languages. Is it "Tier Bos" in Afrikaans, "Tiger Wald" in German, "Tigre Boschi" in Italian, "Tigre Bosques" in Spanish, "Kaplan Orman" in Turkish, etc.? No. They all use "Tiger Woods" because proper nouns are not part of a language. They are labels. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry - none of that seems to prove (even indirectly) that WP:ENGVAR does not apply to proper names or that proper names are not English. But you've convinced me that we shouldn't change the article title to something in Afrikaans. Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
The difference between English varieties and Common names is as follows: EngVar refers to dialects of English, and the related formats of those dialects. This includes the suffixes -our versus -or in neighbour/neighbor, word usage such as gasoline vs petrol and grammatical rules such as in hospital versus in the hospital. EngVar also covers units of measurements and rules of punctuation. It also states that articles should follow the dialect of English they were originally written in unless there is a viable reason that this should be changed. Reasons for change include subjects that decidedly tied to a specific country (Ties). This means that American subjects should be written in American English, British subjects in British English and so on. It also means that an article that was originally written British English about an American subject should be redone in American English. Kraft Macaroni & Cheese is an American product, created and distributed by an American company, but as it stands now, written from the Canadian perspective. This would mean that EngVar would actually apply to changing the name as opposed to keeping it as it stands now.
Furthermore, the product is commonly named such in the global marketplace except in one country, Canada. This is where the policy on Common Name policy comes into play, it has been shown that the product is significantly better known by the name Kraft Macaroni & Cheese name as opposed to the name Kraft Dinner.
Lastly, Ties does not apply in this situation either because, again, it is an American product, created and sold by an American company. Ties would actually apply to the name change because it is origin in the States. This product is not nor has it ever been a Canadian product or manufactured by a Canadian company. A case where Ties would apply is to a company and product is Tim Horton's and Timbits, A company and product with a strong following and market share in Canada. Despite have a strong and growing international presence, are written in Canadian English because it is closely tied to its country of origin.
These are the points we have been trying to make for many months. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 22:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a rare circumstance. By their very nature proper names are almost always tied to a specific region. People, places, and organizations all have clear points of origin so Ties applies. The case for Kraft Dinner having specific ties to a single nation is a lot less clear. It is the product of a transnational corporation, based in the United States (though founded by and named after a Canadian). It was released simultaneously in the two countries and is widely consumed in many. It has acquired major cultural connotations in only one country, Canada. There are clear and comparable ties to both countries, thus it makes the most sense to just go with the EngVar rules. - SimonP (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
You are incorrect about the name of the product "in the global marketplace." In the three largest English-speaking markets the product is sold under three different names: Kraft Macaroni & Cheese in the USA, Cheesey Pasta in the UK and Kraft Dinner in Canada. There is no compelling reason to change the article from Canadian English to American English.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose move per WP:RETAIN and previous discussions. There is no glaring reason to rename it. I would personally wager a bet that the majority of hits come from this name being that its all but the most popular food item in Canada. Regardless of who makes it I think there is a case to be made that there is a stronger tie to that name than to the other. And as mentioned above it is only Kraft Macaroni & Cheese in the US. It is not called that in the UK. -DJSasso (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of the million characters i had to scroll through to find the spot to cast my vote of agreement with many that this belongs in the perpetual proposals. If those outside of Canada really want an article named for it then why not just put a fork to it.
    This is one of those articles that if moved to the American name would likely be created under the Canadian name very quickly or/and trigger a move/copy&paste war among those who didn't notice this here.
    If i had $1000000 i would buy the Kraft Dinner page on Wikipedia.
    And to SummerPhD, names do get translated. Sometimes. Look at 伊恩·桑莫哈德 or Switzerland or Едж. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 02:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose for all the reasons listed above, as well as all the previous debates on this exact topic. Nothing's changed, and I see no reason to change the article name, apart from the American viewpoint that the USA is the centre of the world. This isn't American Wikipedia, it's English. it's not universally referred to as Mac & Cheese, as is referenced by the UK Market name, Cheesey Pasta. As far as sales, while I admit that there are more sales of Mac & Cheese vs Kraft Dinner, has anyone considered popluation density? try comparing national sales to Per Capita sales (Original Research, but goes to point). It is a product with strong cultural significance, and I daresay that anyone who is an american editor really cannot contradict that; rather I would call such protests ignorant (though not in a negative way). If the product is referred to as Kraft Dinner, was originally named in this article as Kraft Dinner, and there are 3 separate names for the article, I daresay that any of the 3 names are fair game and as such, see no reason to change the name just because someone happens to disagree with it. It doesn't improve the article at all and the majority of page searches go to the current page. 208.38.59.161 (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. This is a Canadian cultural icon. The original and Canadian name should stay. Andrewa (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    • PS and I note that one of the summarised arguments in the proposal, All other markets use the name "Kraft Macaroni & Cheese", is apparently false, as the UK has still another name for it (Cheesey Pasta) according to the article. And considering the obviously poor quality of research backing this particular claim, it's a reasonable guess that there may be others, particularly in non-anglophone markets. Local names for grocery items tend to be used even in English and regardless of what the packet says. Andrewa (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's KD. Kraft Dinner since the very beginning, and hasn't changed in the country where it originated, and where the population makes it for 1 out of every 3 meals ;) 50.99.129.146 (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proper nouns

There are several instances above where it's confidently asserted that proper nouns are in some sense not English.

My first reaction (as a previous tertiary student of, and part-time teacher of, applied linguistics) was that this is simply nonsensical, but as it seems such a common belief it deserves some logical analysis. Here's a start:

  • They are part of a language.
    • They are analysed by grammarians as being a part of speech.
    • They cannot exist outside of a language.
    • They obey rules specific to the language in which they are used.

Comments? Andrewa (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The observant will note this edit, which simply repeats an important point already made with references later in the lead. Andrewa (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Canadian culture

Simon, your recent additions constituted trivia, and I removed them because they were totally unrelated to the product and did nothing to add to the article (see WP:Handling trivia). Further, it appears that their addition was an attempt to sway the argument in favor of keeping the article as it stands now by rewriting the article to favor your arguments for keep. Please refrain from adding this kind of information and engaging in these types of actions. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read the policy you just linked to. How is this a list of trivial information? It is prose text that is well referenced, including a passage from Rex Murphy, who's one of the most noted Canadian pundits. As those refs demonstrate, KD does have an important role in Canadian culture and this current article only gives this a single sentence. - SimonP (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Before I continue any further, I want to point you to WP:BRD, which states that your restoration of the information is improper. You should have come here and discussed its inclusion before restoring without discussion. I ask that you please undo your restoration and not restore it again until both this discussion and the RM discussion is completed.
That stated, my reasons for deletion is based on WP:Trivia, I removed the information because it is not related to the subject. You must ask yourself several questions about the information you added:
  • How is it related to the product?
  • What does it have to do with how its made?
  • What does it have to do with how it is advertised and marketed?
  • How does it apply to its history.
  • How is it anything more than passing mention in other media?
I've challenged the information and given you policy-based reasons why I feel it should not be included. It is up to you to provide valid reasons for its inclusion beyond the fact that someone famous or notable mentioning the product. You must provide reasons why this relates to the subject as opposed to it simply being said.
Breaking down the passages you added, here is how I read the information:
  • The first paragraph opens with original research - you are making a declaration that is not sourced or backed up in later statements.
  • The second statement is an opinion by a famous writer making a comparison.
  • The second paragraph is just famous people who state that they like it and how they like to cook it, or their opinions about it.
The only sentence in the entire passage that properly applies to the product and has relevance to article other than passing references in other media is the one about the sales in Canada.
Look at Marmite and Heinz, which you conveniently linked to in the quote from Coupland. There is no such section in either article. Even Tim Horton's, the quintessential Canadian food company, has no such section. In fact, you probably will find no other food related article with a similar section. If you want to put that somewhere, I would suggest the Canadian cuisine article which is a sub-article of the Culture of Canada article. That is where this information belongs, not in a product article. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
It is about the remarkable popularity of the product in one country, with sales far out of proportion to the population and a deep cultural affinity to the product. Are there quotes from a US president out there talking about Kraft Mac & Cheese? Thought not. Everywhere else, it's just a box with some dry stuff in it. In Canada, it's part of the culture. How can that not be about the product? Franamax (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
See the last section of my post. Further, there have been several incidents in Presidential history where Presidents have made several comments like that. President Obama has on many occasions stated what he likes to eat, and that the First lady doesn't like him eating them. There is no mention of President Clinton liking Big Macs in the McDonald's article; Nothing about President Reagan liking jelly beans in that article. Just because these Presidents stated that they liked something doesn't warrant its inclusion in the various articles about those subjects. The same goes for here. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with Simon - it's not clear to me how this isn't relevant to the product. If there was an assertion that jelly beans or Big Macs were culturally iconic in the United States in those articles, then it would be relevant to mention that Reagan and Clinton respectively were noted fans. And, to address an earlier point, there is a similar section in the Tim Hortons article. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Just to give my 6 and a half cents, I think that the first paragraph about the impact on Canadian culture is relevant and not trivial, but find the specific mention of one specific politician's opinion to violate WP:UNDUE. Martin's opinion on, say, the Quebec sovereignty movement has due weight, since he was a key player in the field at one point; his opinion on processed dinner products...not so much. YMMV. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I am afraid I disagree with you on that. If the product has an iconic status in Canada, the fact that the PM speaks to it is hardly WP:UNDUE. In fact, WP:UNDUE is all about giving undue weight to minority opinions. If the impact on Canadian culture is relevant and not trivial, then it can't be undue to have a quote from the Prime Minister in support of that. Arguably, the quotes from Martin and Harper might not be relevant to the point being made, but they hardly undermine the neutrality of the article. If they are deleted, it's not on an UNDUE/NPOV basis. (I would also add, in passing, that WP:TRIVIA is also being misapplied in this discussion - it's a guideline about the organization of content, not the deletion of content.) --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion above appears to relate to this edit, which was reverted.

It looks to me to be a perfectly good contribution, well above average in fact. It certainly doesn't qualify as trivia, as claimed initially. It's well written, well referenced and I find it both relevant and interesting. The later claim of Original Research is marginal at best; It's the natural interpretation of the references, not a creative or original one. Perhaps a tag asking for a citation would be appropriate, but no more, and I don't even think that's called for.

I really wonder what all the fuss is about, and suggest it should simply be restored. Andrewa (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I was really happy to see these changes. This is an iconic Cdn food (regardless of nutritional value or place of origin) and I think the examples given do a good job of reflecting the unusual status of this food in Canada. Perhaps a Barenaked Ladies (If I had 1 million dollars) would also make sense? They had to ask people to stop throwing KD at them during shows, and I remember there being KD displays (pyramids) at HMV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.199.227 (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Can either a note or a link be made in reference to the Bare Naked Ladies single "If I Had a Million Dollars" which contains the lyrics "If I had a million dollars We wouldn't have to eat Kraft Dinner. But we would eat Kraft Dinner. Of course we would, we’d just eat more!" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_I_Had_$1000000 <-- Lyric reference is in Kraft Dinner subsection here. 76.11.9.128 (talk) 04:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

A hat note would only be appropriate if people were likely to confuse the two topics (such as when two topics have similar names). We have no place to add a link to the song because we have yet to find substantial coverage discussing the product and its connection to the song. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Name

Why is the name of the page Kraft dinner. The official name is Kraft macaroni and Cheese. In addition, its an American product and in America its not called Kraft dinner. Wikipedia policy is always use the name (or spelling/grammar such as color vs colour) thats used in the country of origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swanson16 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


It's called Kraft Dinner in Canada, and that's the original name as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.218.83 (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This is being discussed above. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't care. I just want to know the years of introduction of the different versions of the product. help? 71.206.108.29 (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You might want to contact the company directly for such information. Beyond what's already in the article, we likely can't add much more. If they can point you to specific press releases announcing product releases, please do add them to our article, as we will likely accept "self-published" sources for that sort of valuable information. Franamax (talk) 01:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
PS Don't think twice about calling up a company and saying you're trying to improve their Wikipedia article by adding more to the history. You might be surprised at the positive response. They will connect you with the right internal person, just be sure to ask for verifiable info. Franamax (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

See also: Cheez Whiz and Hamburger Helper? Why?

Can someone explain to me exactly what the specific connection is between Cheez Whiz, Hamburger Helper and KD? Is it just because they're all Kraft? That doesn't make any sense to me to call out just those two specific products? Kraft makes lots of products that are similar in nature to KD, namely that they contain cheese, or they are easy to prepare, or they are iconic. HardwareLust (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a link at the bottom of the kraft dinner page that links to a stadium collapse in Texas. I may be missing something but this appears to be irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.217.164 (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that, I've removed it. - SimonP (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kraft_Dinner/Archive_4&oldid=1138299517"