Talk:List of ice cream brands

Discussion

Just having a list of brands of ice cream reads horribly like an advertisement! Would it not be more sensible to have a list of ice cream flavours, such as vanilla, tutti frutti, strawberry, chocolate, raspberry ripple, coffee or neapolitan? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I have just started such a category. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

And it now seems that some one has merged it with ice cream. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Clean up Dec 2012

Page is littered with hyper-links and badly formatted. Lithium (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Y This has been addressed (by other editors) as of this post. For more information, see the Revision history for the article's page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup 2017

The list is again littered with apparently non-notable listings and external links used as references. Unless anyone objects, I will soon remove all listings that do not have an associated Wikipedia article and remove all "references" that are nothing more than links to the brand's website. Deli nk (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Systemic bias problem: allow Interwiki links

@Deli nk, Northamerica1000, Alexf, Lard Almighty, Narky Blert, UnitedStatesian, and Mean as custard:

The current page notice Template:Editnotices/Page/List of ice cream brands reads:

... Every entry in this list must have an article written in the English Wikipedia ...

and links to WP:Write the article first, which is a very reasonable essay, though not official WP policy -- reasonable because it protects list pages from non-notable entries and spam. However, that essay says nothing about interwiki links. To be fair, interwiki links were only introduced in 2013, 5 years after the WTAF essay was first written. But the WP editing guideline WP:Red link explicitly encourages the use of interwiki links:

use a link to the article in the other edition of Wikipedia instead of or next to a red link

Forbidding interwiki links creates WP:Systemic bias against brands from outside the Anglosphere, which are more likely to be covered in their own Wikipedias. And sure enough, the current article is missing some of the most important ice cream brands worldwide. For example, most ice cream sold in Italy is from mass-market brands like Motta and Algida, which aren't covered in the English WP. The English WP does include the famous artisanal or artisanal-style brands Grom (company) and Giolitti (which were missing from this list, but I just added) which are more likely to be known to (and appeal to) English-speaking tourists, thus giving the misleading impression that all Italian ice cream is from high-end, artisanal gelaterie.

Of course, ideally, we should have articles on major ice cream brands worldwide in the English Wikipedia. However, it's more realistic to take advantage of the work done on other Wikipedias and allow Template:Interlanguage links (as above for Motta and Algida).

What's more, this policy of forbidding non-English Wikipedia entries was never even mentioned on this Talk page (or for that matter in edit comments), let alone discussed.

Let's remove the word "English" from the page notice, and encourage the use of ill links to get a more worldwide view, and to support our colleagues working on other Wikipedias. --Macrakis (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Interwiki links encourage editors to translate notable articles into English, and do no harm if they link to non-notable ones. Either way, they are more helpful to readers than redlinks. Narky Blert (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The hatnotes on the article read "PLEASE DO NOT INCLUDE LISTINGS THAT DO NOT HAVE AN EXISTING ASSOCIATED WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE". That does not preclude interwiki, and I believe other lists do have links to articles in other languages. So I see nothing wrong with changing the page notice to reflect what the hatnotes say and accept any link as long as it's blue. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, but I oppose this change for the following reasons. 1) The other language Wikipedias have different (sometimes very different) standards of notability, so it is fallacious to state that a brand with page in a non-English Wikipedia would meet the notability guideline here. 2) There in no evidence that the presence of an interwiki link does anything to encourage English article creation, via translation or otherwise. (I would encourage editors to read the write the article first essay). On the other hand there is evidence that allowing interwikis on a page like this is a way to insert brandspam onto a very highly viewed website: this page is fundamentally different from List of notable surviving veterans of World War II, where interwikis do not have the spam issue. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure, go for it, since any interwiki links will have a functioning article on other Wikipedia language editions, hence no red links will be present. To create distinction, keep these entries separate, placing them in a separate section titled "On other Wikipedia language editions". For entries that meet English Wikipedia's notability guidelines, this would also likely encourage the creation of new articles on English Wikipedia as well. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The position proposed by UnitedStatesian's WP:WTAF essay (which in any case doesn't actually address interwiki links) has not been adopted by WP editing guidelines. In fact, they say the opposite:

• Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists WP:CSC: "Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the near future. Red-linked entries should be accompanied by citations sufficient to show that the entry is sufficiently notable for an article to be written on it"
• WP:Red link: "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished."

So the policy argument seems to be on the side of adding ill links to existing pages on other-language Wikipedias. (Which is still more restrictive than allowing pure redlinks as discussed in the editing guidelines mentioned above.)

The edit notice added unilaterally by Alexf was never discussed, so there isn't an argument from existing consensus.

So we're left with the substantive question of how to avoid spam.

I can certainly believe that not all articles on other Wikis are notable by the English WP's standards. But making a rigid rule that all articles on other wikis should be presumed non-notable isn't reasonable either. I support keeping "with reliable sources to support inclusion", which applies both to English and to non-English WPs, so we can certainly remove non-notable entries as necessary.

Our current policy is creating extreme systemic bias in the selection of ice cream brands. As I pointed out above, this article already includes several brands which are only sold at one retail location (Berthillon and Giolitti) when they are brands that are well-known to English-speaking tourists, but excludes brands which sell millions of units a year.

Given that we have rough consensus on including interwiki links (only one editor objects), I have put in an edit request to remove the word "English" from the edit notice. --Macrakis (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Cornetto or Kwality Wall's?

I see that the Indian brand Kwality Wall's is missing. Should I add that or the brands individually (such as Cornetto)? I'm Here to Help You (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)