Talk:Sprinkles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Strongly oppose merge with Nonpareils. See that article's talk page. Beginning to wish I'd just left Sprinkles alone. --Mothperson 16:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Plaigarism? I think this article contains material written by a different author. Check out this old Philadelphia Inquirer article. Specifically, the two paragraphs in the Inquirer article after "Here is some history." are word-for-word what you see in this Wikipedia article. I'm sorry if this isn't the right place to put this: I've never contributed to Wikipedia and don't know how things work. I just wanted to point this out. EDIT: this information was added to the article on 15:54, 23 February 2006 from an anonymous user at IP 65.96.145.49 --Darius

I removed this: ``It is also worthy to note that "jimmies" only refers to the sprinkles of a rainbow nature, and is not to be used to denote chocolate "sprinkles." since, at least in the Northeast (As the article states further on), "jimmies" definitely does refer to chocolate sprinkles as well as the rainbox variety. Cchiappa 00:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


British - Hundreds and Thousands[edit]

The article states that in Britain 'sprinkles' are known as hundreds and thousands, and may also be spherical. I am British, and have always understood the term 'hundreds and thousands' to exclusively denote the spherical nonpareils. The elongated type are usually referred to as sugar/chocolate strands, or by the Itailian, vermicelli. Does anyone disagree with this, or should the article be changed? 217.206.228.15 15:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - and also (as Jimmys - see above) I would only refer to the rainbow coloured 'sprinkles' as 'Hundreds and Thousands'. Maybe this should be changed. Woodgreener 14:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I know the elongated type as hundreds and thousands. 79.69.203.91 (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second the disagreement. In fact it wouldn't seem like hundreds and thousands at all without the elongated ones. --Oolong (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have always referred to the elongated ones as hundreds-and-thousands. 91.84.126.68 (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definition 2-Sprinkles[edit]

I have created this second entry under sprinkles as there is another type of sprinkles worth discussing. It is a micronutrient powder used in the developing world to alleviate micronutrient deficiencies.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sghi (talk • contribs) 18:33, 14 July 2006

The mis-formated entry was removed completely on the logic that another article covers its content, but Micronutrient Sprinkles (and perhaps Sprinkles Global Health Initiative) should have been lk'ed to and from this one, given the presumed role of the candy in promoting acceptance of the supplement and the potential for the young among their consumers being unclear which they received (and needing to know about both articles to know which one they are seeking). That's in addition to the Dab(s), which i do intend to work on soon (tho i'm not working on they articles beyond possible ToP Dabs).
--Jerzy•t 19:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo[edit]

Gosh - that looks like it was a fun party. It would have been great if we could have actually seen the cupcakes, though, since this is an article on sprinkles. PacificBoy 20:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there needs to be a picture of colorful sprinkles. The chocolate sprinkles are drab and they're not the only kind out there. We should replace the party picture with a colored sprinkle picture. It seems like the only reason that picture is there is because some parent wanted a picture of her kid on Wikipedia. --71.74.89.197 21:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmies[edit]

Thanks to whomever started the "jimmies" paragraph, as it is definitely warranted in this topic. In the northeastern United States (particularly New England), it is almost unheard of to refer to "sprinkles" (the elongated ones at least) as "sprinkles" because there at least they're "jimmies" without question. This will help to decipher the origins of this terminology. Jeff

I am about to clean up this section, a number of localities are mentioned in passing, and I really think it should be a list. Please make corrections and additions to the list. Codeczero 02:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaned-up but the Just Born story seems to be slightly inconsistent with the company website. Also the bit about whether jimmies are chocolate only or any variety is suspect. In both cases I have no better info so I am not making substantial changes. (In my area, Delaware, jimmies were any variety) Codeczero 02:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard that "Jimmies" is a racial reference, possibly hearkening back to Jim Crow laws in the U.S. Has anyone heard this? --Joe 01:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard that and it makes little sense given the areas where the term "jimmies" is used. 72.144.103.202 05:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone provide citations for the 'origin' info referenced in the Jimmies section? Definitely different areas of the US use different terminology but would be a good idea to cite the origin of the term.Blckdmnd99 12:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I undid the "(most commonly in Boston, MA)" Jimmies reference from this version. It seems like a random speculative statement. Just getting started on here so not sure if this falls under an official policy or not, but if anyone disagrees, please let me know. Blckdmnd99 03:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"jimmies". the dance called the "shimmy". both late 1920's. co-incidence?Klasovsky (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I’m from Mass and yes I feel jimmies is used most here but they are only for the chocolate ones if they are rainbow we call them sprinkles I could have bias tho maybe other states use jimmies more but I doubt it BiggieWeaves19 (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmies vs. Sprinkles - Act II[edit]

Hi folks. It's annoying to see random locations popping up in the article from time to time without there being a balanced view of the sprinkles vs. jimmies nomenclature for a wider range of locals. Can we discuss and find some consensus here first? I'll try and pull out the various locations from the past versions but if you know of a source that supports one or the other, please list it here. -DjD- 11:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

huh?[edit]

What was this supposed to mean?

Most New Englanders consider sprinkles to be chocolate and sprinkles to be the multi-colored variety

OrangeDog (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit[edit]

Corrected a couple of typos and did some minor rewording which included touching on the sprinkles'jimmies/hundreds-and-thousands naming question. I think it's important to acknowledge that these other common names exist for the little beasties in the lead, and it can be done without trying to label them one thing at the expense of the other names, or getting into the abstruse technicalities of which one is which according to the confectioners' dictionary! -- Karenjc 18:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds and thousands in Australia[edit]

I've removed the unsourced claim that 100s & 1000s are "always spherical" in Australian and New Zealand. Being from Australia myself, I can tell you that is not true: at least some Australians understand the term to refer to both varieties, and we distinguish "long hundreds and thousands" and "round hundreds and thousands". Consequently I've just removed the claim rather than making positive claims about what they are known as in Australia.

It's all just terminology of course, and different people will know the same thing by different names. Popular terms for things are not necessarily the same as the "official" confectioners' jargon for them, and Wikipedia shouldn't get too hung up about popular terminology. It's most often impossible to verify and undocumented anyway. Limeguin (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, "Hundreds and Thousands" are made from grains of sugar, with a colourful coating that makes them spherical, and are therefore non-homogeneous. "Sprinkles" are homogeneous, extruded and non-spherical. 203.45.39.201 (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic conundrum[edit]

Hundreds and thousands is a lovely term, and on the whole beautifully describes what they are, but what is the singular? If there's one on its own stuck in your moustache after eating a cake, what is it then called? Traveller palm (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suppose it would be a "hundred and thousand". SimonTrew (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No no, the singular form is "negligible". See Sprinkles - Types - third paragraphAlrewas (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UK Hundreds and thousands[edit]

These differ from the dutch Hagelslag, they are augar coated (I presume to stop coagulation) and not as large. There's no way I can think of of citing a reference these as no doubt someone will manage to produce a box of Hagelslag, but certainly they are not common like in The Netherlands (being UK residents) would always bring some back with us after a trip there). Is this worth mentioning? SimonTrew (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

question if anyone know it out there how many sprinkles are in a pount

Inconsistency: please clarify and resolve[edit]

We have continued inconsistency between articles, which is not good. Under Nonpareils we're told,

'Nonpareils are a decorative confectionery of tiny balls made with sugar and starch . . . In the UK, Australia and New Zealand, nonpareils are known as "hundreds-and-thousands" . . . '

Yet here we're told that hundreds-and-thousands are elongated.

Please find resolution!Alrewas (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that the two Wikipedia articles Sprinkles and Muisjes be merged into the article Nonpareils. All three articles seem to describe a tiny sugar-candy, sometimes called "hundreds and thousands" in Great Britain, used to decorate cakes, etc. Naturally, we could still have redirects from Sprinkles and Muisjes to the combined article. I think that the three articles have a good deal of overlap, and none of the articles are so long as to cause problems if the three were to be combined into one. Objectivesea (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sprinkles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sprinkles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Names section[edit]

The "names" section is plural in title, but only talks about "Jimmies". It also "goes on" a little with seemingly anecdotal ideas of where that single name might have originated. Since these all seem to say they're unlikely sources, perhaps a simple list of unproven sources might be easier to read (and less "intrusive" to the generic article. Supertin (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

gestampte muisjes[edit]

this is a commercial link yet showing the product https://www.orideli.com/gestampte-muisjes/

Ingredients?[edit]

What are they made out of? It’s not just sugar and color. Is anyone going to elaborate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:44:3:2800:68A0:651F:F358:D96 (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sprinkles&oldid=1205404972"