Talk:Pringles

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



Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Pringles used a supercomputer in the 1960s?[edit]

The article currently states that "Their designers reportedly used supercomputers to ensure that the chips' aerodynamics would keep them in place during packaging and that they would not break when being stacked on top of each other." Because it is in the early part of the history section (and in the past tense), I believe this implies that Pringles' original inventors (in the 1960s) used a supercomputer to create the shape of the chip. However, both of the cited CNN and the NYTimes articles, published in 2007 and 2010, characterize the use of supercomputers in the present tense, stating that the company currently uses supercomputers to design the chips. Furthermore, considering that the [very first supercomputers] were being invented at the same time as chip was being designed, I am pretty sure that it is unlikely that a food manufacturer got their hands on a machine capable of modeling 3D surfaces in the 60s. I think this sentence should either be removed or reworded to be more in line with the cited sources. Pefrectionist (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, those were the only two sources that mentioned supercomputers and Pringles, and both mention the two only in passing. There are no primary sources or any other source that is dedicated to explaining how Pringles use or used supercomputers to design the chip (that I could find). Either way, that sentence on supercomputers does not belong in the early designing portion of this article. Pefrectionist (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

In 2020, the pringles got new logo, but in europe it still uses the old logo in 2021, so shouldnt then there be showed both logos ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by T0biasCZe (talk • contribs) 17:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2021[edit]

Remove reference that failed verification. 2601:246:CA01:31C0:349F:F7A2:E9:C1F1 (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis Balls[edit]

Some people think that Pringles originally intended to make tennis balls. Wolf O'Donnel (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Pringles hoax and citogenesis[edit]

An editor, Platypus222, has admitted on Twitter to creating the name Julius Pringles for Mr. Pringle as a hoax: https://twitter.com/Platypus222/status/1506254119421493255; https://twitter.com/wokeglobaltimes/status/1507210574970728459. The edit in December 2006 was https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pringles&diff=prev&oldid=91948521. It was removed twice [1],[2] but restored in March 2007 [3]. By 2013, the name was acknowledged by Pringles and in media stories: https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2013/04/the-25-coolest-snack-mascots-of-all-time/julius-pringles. Write-up: https://www.reviewgeek.com/113265/the-pringle-mans-name-is-an-epic-wikipedia-hoax/ Fences&Windows 20:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://mashable.com/article/how-the-pringles-mascot-got-his-name-julius-wikipedia; https://www.inputmag.com/culture/a-wikipedia-editor-faked-name-pringles-mascot/. Fences&Windows 20:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like it is by now a former hoax. (And we have only the editor's word that it ever was a hoax). —Kusma (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting Kellogg gave Mr P the first name of Julius, and Platypus222 is hoaxing us in 2022 that they made up the name in 2006? That's hard to wrap my mind around what kind of evil genius would instigate a 16 year long hoax-hoax waiting for the right moment to spring it on Twitter for .. reasons. I guess it's easy to show with a source for Julius Pringle prior to December 2006. -- GreenC 02:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not suggesting that this is a faked hoax; the story in the Mashable article sounds more plausible. It would still be nice to have an official statement from the Pringles side how this came about. As a Borges fan, I must say I enjoy how Wikipedia changes the real world in a bit of a Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius moment. —Kusma (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just chiming in here - a lot of this definitely depends on the response from Pringles/Kellogg's. If they acknowledge the "hoax" or not, if they continue to use the name or not, if they file for a proper trademark, etc. If the last we ever see of the name Julius Pringles are those tweets and articles where we blew the cover on the whole thing, I'll be sad but obviously that will make it a much more minor matter in regards to Wikipedia (and I always knew there was a chance of that when I decided to start mentioning it publicly). As for how it "came to be", the story that makes the most sense to me is that somebody, probably a social media intern or similar, looked up the name for marketing purposes sometime after the brand changed hands and didn't ever check that it was owned by P&G; in that case, they probably don't know. But however you choose to handle this, I won't stop you (I've made my mark on the Pringles Wikipedia page once already).  —Platypus Man | Talk 15:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't you been blocked yet!? ;-) Related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia#Pringles_hoax. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doing some investigating into this, I've found User:Platypus222 also added it to the article Julius on 4 March 2008, which was moved to Julius (disambiguation) by another editor on 10 March 2008 and moved again to Julius (name) by another editor when that article was created on 13 November 2009, where it still remains.
The earliest use of the name outside Wikipedia (and blogs that have clearly just copied Wikipedia) I can find is a University of Valle paper from 2007 that mentions Julius Pringles in Spanish: [4]. He's also named in British articles from July 2008 about the VAT court case mentioned in our article: [5] [6] They quite possibly got their information from Wikipedia. There's a PR news blog article with Julius Pringles in the title from 2011, which references Wikipedia: [7] I can't view old versions of the official Pringles website because they require Flash.
The other person behind the hoax provided more details on Twitter, which was included in the Mashable article, though some of the details aren't accurate. He says they cited a source in the edit, which isn't true, and he mentions a Facebook group they created, which he says happened the same night they created the name, but it was actually over a month later. It seems like there was an Uncyclopedia article called Julius Pringles but it was deleted in 2012 and wasn't archived by the Wayback Machine.
Overall, the claim that the name stems from that edit seems very likely. MClay1 (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re the Uncyclopedia article... Hey, @Legoktm: You've got deletedtext over there, right? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wild. The Uncyclopedia article was created in March 2007, I've asked a more real Uncyclopedia administrator if it can be undeleted. Legoktm (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys, wanted to provide some info - there are a few inaccuracies on the articles based on our interviews; after roughly 15 years, we had forgotten a few of the specifics, especially since we didn't expect it to become what it did. About claiming that a source was cited, my co-conspirator Michael may have been thinking of other erroneous claims he added to Wikipedia in which he added a bogus source under the assumption that editors would see that a source was present and so let it slide without actually checking it out (I promise none of those are still on); we did not do that in this case. I hadn't seen that Spanish-language article from 2007, but it's not entirely surprising since I also added it to the Spanish Wikipedia in early 2007 (I wasn't logged in since I don't have an account there) - [8]; if you compare the text in the article to the Spanish Wikipedia article in 2007, it looks like they just copied it. The first place I saw it spread to was Yahoo Answers, but that hasn't been around for a few years. I'd be interested to see an archive of the Uncyclopedia article, but like I said before all I did there was copy an article on "Boris Pringle" and changed the name. If y'all have any other questions about it, I'm happy to discuss it now that it's out in the open (though I also get that I may not be considered entirely reliable since I did essentially lie about it for a decade and a half). —Platypus Man | Talk 21:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Pringle or Pringle Mark?[edit]

The history section currently uses the name Mark Pringle for the inventor of US Patent 2286644. However, the cited source gives his sort name as "Mark, Pringle" next to "Lame, Herman F.", which would make the former's real name Pringle Mark. Most hits I get for "Mark Pringle" online are either from Wikipedia or about other people with the name, so can someone help verify what his real name was? Glades12 (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, the patent itself clearly gives their names as "M. Pringle" and "Herman F. Lame" respectively. Turns out the online abstract was wrong. Glades12 (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The 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) 20:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sour cream and chive[edit]

At some point, Pringles in the UK *possibly* used to market "Sour Cream and Chive" flavour. Weirdly the actual evidence for this seems to be scant and honestly all I could turn up was a bunch of r/casualuk threads started by people who (like myself) vehemently insist that this did exist at one time and has been replaced by "Sour Cream and Onion". And this is regardless of whether the flavours were actually different. Anyone have any definitive sources either way? 84.92.44.244 (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

why this a lock,, I can edit too[edit]

//. // IS FAIR I NOT SURE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:B747:48:344:5995:609E:3217:1DB3 (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis[edit]

There is speculation as to whether they originally meant to market tennis balls, but were shipped potatoes instead. Can anyone find evidence to verify this? Wolf O'Donnel (talk) 09:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pringles are not a chip/crisp but an extruded snack?[edit]

When you look online Pringles manufacturing states that they are actually an extruded snack not a chip/crisp even though they are marketed as one. Before i amend the page, does anyone have objections? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a WP:Primary source, if most of the secondary sources term both Pringles and their competitors "chips" or an equivalent thereof then that is what wikipedia should be telling its readers. Orchastrattor (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a primary source. [9] [10] [11] all show that they are extruded snacks. For the purposes of tax in the UK, Pringles are actually crisps as per the court case [12] where P&G argued they weren't so they didn't have to cough up £100m. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like one of those definitional problems. If you define chip/crisp as a thin, crisp, fried (or baked) slice from a whole vegetable, then they're not. If you define chip/crisp as an thin, crisp, oblong snack food made from vegetables or sometimes grains (e.g., Tortilla chip), then they are.
Various tax laws will define things in different ways. Twix are always considered candy bars by consumers, but they are considered cookies/biscuits for tax purposes in some places. I don't think the tax laws should define the subject. Otherwise, we end up with snails being defined as "fish, land-based" because it suited the EU's tax and regulatory system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing I know what you are saying. My idea was to change the lead to: Pringles is a brand of stackable potato-based extruded snack. Invented by Procter & Gamble (P&G) in the US during 1968, they were marketed as "Pringle's Newfangled Potato Chips". The brand was sold in 2012 to Kellogg's, and are now marketed under Once you pop you can't stop. I was then going to change the main part of the article to include the argument about chip/crisp and extruded snack. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence is currently Pringles is an American brand of stackable potato-based chips invented by Procter & Gamble (P&G) in 1968 and marketed as "Pringle's Newfangled Potato Chips".
What do you think about leaving that mostly alone, and instead adding the extruded snack language a little later, maybe like this: Pringles is an American brand of stackable potato-based chips invented by Procter & Gamble (P&G) in 1968. Marketed originally as "Pringle's Newfangled Potato Chips", it is technically considered an extruded snack because of the manufacturing process.
That gives the detail but doesn't surprise people or make them wonder whether they're on the right page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoingSounds like a plan! Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a link to Food extrusion WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pringles&oldid=1214228301"