Talk:Honey Smacks

Food and drink Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Why is "Kellogg's" italicized? —tregoweth 19:38, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

why does kellogg's site not have smacks on it?

I looked pretty thoroughly and found nothing about these groups or any article supporting this claim that didn't cite the wikipedia article as its reference. Methinks this was a jokester from ytmnd during the brief Dig 'Em fad over there.--Doom Music 19:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"In Europe, they have always been known as Smacks."

Honey Smacks and Smacks were two different cereals at least in the UK. Smacks were just like Quaker Sugar Puffs, and Honey Smacks were similar but with added honey or something. I only recall seeing Smacks in Kellogg's variety packs (some of which also contained Honey Smacks), whereas I remember having Honey Smacks out of boxes that contain a lot more than half a serving. And for the record, Honey Smacks were advertised on TV over here with a parody of I Can't Help Myself (Sugar Pie Honey Bunch) ("My Kellogg's Honey Smacks, you know that I love you....") -- Smjg 21:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least in Germany they have always been known as Smacks. --Thiesi 23:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that's not correct. In Germany they were first known as "Honigpops", which seems to be the same as Honey Smacks. I think the name "Smacks" has only been known since the early 90s. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.81.221.245 (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You are of course right - I should have tried to verify my statement before making it. --Thiesi 14:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After eating this cereal your urine will smell like the cereal, much like Asparagus. Think its worth a mention somewhere in the article, maybe not what anyone will expect to see but it is an interesting fact. P.S. Dont believe me? Eat a bowl right before you goto bed, when you wakeup and go to the bathroom, take a wiff, its not pretty but it does smell like the cereal.--Azslande 04:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I added it, but Mipadi removed it, claiming Not Encyclopedic before discussing the matter, if no one comments within a week, I will re-add it.--Azslande 06:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply not encyclopedic. It doesn't matter how it makes your urine smell. In fact, it's edits like that that make it hard for some people to take Wikipedia seriously. – Mipadi 16:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it is a fact of the cereal, something uncommon about it that is noteworthy. It is mentioned in the Asparagus article, why not here? Sure the mechanic's of why Asparagus alerts the smell is better known, but why should it be mentioned there and not here?--Azslande 22:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not noteworthy. It's not encyclopedic. – Mipadi 05:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I am not going to argue the point, I do not wish to start an edit war over something so trivial, but I wish we had other standpoints lol.--Azslande 18:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can provide a citation (thus providing verification and some minimum of notability) for this phenomenon, it would be worth including in the article (I'll just not read Wikipedia over breakfast).

Unreferenced, it's WP:OR, and for all we know that's not milk Azslande is pouring over his Smacks. / edgarde 20:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can try to find some type of verification via the web, its not quite common knowledge but the information is readily available if searched for, also, try it yourself once, I never really took noticed until a friend made mention of it. And I am from the Pennsylvania Dutch region, get my milk close to home, and if its not milk, I want to know what I've been drinking lol.--Azslande 01:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it can be cited, what makes it notable enough to appear in the article? There is no way such information is encyclopedic. – Mipadi 02:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's no less notable or encyclopedic than the discussion of the cereal's mascots. Both discussions are trivial in the grand scheme of things, but notable in the context of an article about this cereal. If you were reading an article about a brand of cereal, wouldn't a unique effect it has on the human body be of interest to you? It should not be included only if no legitimate source can be found to verify that it is indeed true. Amillion 17:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that be the case, then we should be going over to the asparagus article and removing any mention there of the same fact. As quoted from that article "Some of the constituents of asparagus are metabolised and excreted in the urine, giving it a distinctive, mildly unpleasant odor.". If it be true for that article then why not this article, that would be a double standard to include it in one article and reject it from another. Also, to make note, this is the only cereal I know of that does this, which would make it noteworthy.--Azslande 18:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can be encyclopedic, but notability is an issue. I'm thinking a better idea would be to identify the ingredient in Smacks that produces this effect. Especially if it's included in many foods, the urine smell information belongs on the page for that ingredient (rather than for every food containing it).

I'm modifying my opinion. If it's somehow rare or mysterious, and it's notable enough that a few references exist, it's worth including. If it happens with many foods but there is substantial attention to it happening with Smacks, it's worth including. If some blogger says "...and my urine smelled cos I had eaten Honey Smacks", that's not enough to make it notable.

Personally I'm hoping this isn't notable because it's disgusting. But WP:NOT#CENSORED. / edgarde 18:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never argued that the note about the scent of urine should be included in "Asparagus". I would not be disappointed if it was removed, and have thought about doing that, in fact, since you mentioned it.

As for Honey Smacks supposedly being the only cereal that alters the scent of urine: Just because something is unique, does not make it noteworthy—it could very well be trivial information. This isn't censoring information—it's just leaving out information that is unimportant and unencyclopedic, even if it is unique. – Mipadi 18:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... How about this... If it turns out one certain ingredient causes this to happen, it be listed on that article, if its not already. BUT if its a manufacturing process that causes this, and I can prove that this is the only or one of the few cereals that causes your urine to change, then it be added to the article, perhaps under a trivia section or an ingredients section. Also, If you like, I will also try and find why this occurs, thus adding some scientific background to the information.--Azslande 19:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking in hypotheticals, but yes, as long as it's also notable. (You really have your work cut out for you.) Trivia sections, however, should be avoided. / edgarde 20:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL this arguement is ridiculous

I vote to add the urine thing. I would never look up Honey Smacks on Wikipedia... except when I noticed this strange effect. Not talked about scientifically anywhere on the web. I spent an hour searching. Maybe someone will see it and do the research for verification. 160.39.177.112 (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is bullshit and I tell you why. I have been eating these forever but just today noticed the effect. I googled a bit to no avail then I was like "I bet the Wiki knows" It wasnt mentioned but then I thought "I bit some dick heads thought it wasnt important got edited out and talking about it here" sure enough... In some way shape or form it needs to be mentioned. 68.226.119.201 09:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to add my 2 cents. I contacted them to get a straight answer, they didn't have one. Here's the reply - "Regarding your concerns as why your urine smells like Honey Smacks after eating them. Different foods are processed differently in the body and can be affected by combination of foods eaten and the amount of liquid consumed. We do not have a specific answer for why you are experiencing this but if you have concerns you should visit your physician."Swarms 16:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ate a bowl of honey smacks at like 1130 a week ago and went to bed at 12. I woke up this morning and it smelt soooo much like honey smacks!...but i love that cereal so after smelling urine I proceeded to go down the stairs and eat an even bigger bowl. That process continued 2-3 times per day until today. Just figured i would put it out there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.223.156 (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no original research. If you can find a source to reference, then we can possibly add it. Kingturtle (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is absolutely ludicrous. Seriously. Aitherion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.150.239 (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what some may believe, the cereal Honey Smacks actually does contain a sweetened wheat ingredient that causes the urine to smell sweet, also sometimes called "sweet wheat." Like asparagus, the body can not digest this "sweet wheat" and ejects it using the kidneys, hence urine could smell like the cereal after eating it. Like alcohol and garlic, it could also be evaporated by the lungs (garlic breath, liquor reek, etc.). This concept regarding the body and chemistry is very bizarre and very possible.

Image:Honey Smacks.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Honey Smacks.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sugar smacks.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the 70s they were named Super Sugar Smacks, not just Sugar Smacks. Lots of references to this name on Google, but nothing citable...

Sbs9 (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about publishing this news in the article? That's the official source. --Razzairpina (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]