Talk:Bubble gum

Move?

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved, requested at WP:RM/TR as uncontroversial. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

---

• "Bubblegum" is the adjectival form (used to describe pop music, etc.), "bubble gum" is the confection. McGeddon (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Swallowed (Here's the Answer,) STILL ALIVE!

I just swallowed a piece of chewing gum. Boo-ya! I'm still alive. So why Wikipedia you have to say that i get intensial blockage, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1:8801:B20E:1592:5524:3EB8:BC8A (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Bubble gum vs. chewing gum

Yes, bubble gum is a type of chewing gum. That said, adding material here from sources discussing chewing gum is similar to adding a source discussing "fruit" to Apple, Banana, Cherry, whatever fruit starts with "D"...

In the end, we wind up with two articles: Chewing gum and Bubble gum, but the second one is just a longer version of the first. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like an argument for merging the articles, rather than omitting factual information from this one. Do you think that they should be merged? This one is barely more than a stub, and if we don't want information that isn't unique to bubble gum, then more of it needs to be removed (e.g., the children's reactions to flavors probably apply to non-bubble chewing gum, too). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I [still think that bubble gum has basically no nutritional value, and that this fact should be stated in the article. Have you thought about it any further? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It's problematic in several ways. First, you're interpreting a primary source. While doing so, you are adding what the source says to a sub-class of what it is talking about (call it "comparing apples to fruits"). At the same time, I'm wondering why this article needs to explain the fairly obvious while the same source could be added with the same argument to virtually EVERY article we have about various candies and diet sodas (plus soda water, water ice, etc.). It seems rather pointless. I'd imagine anyone who needs to be told that bubble gum isn't a nutritional powerhouse would also need to be set straight on marshmallow peeps, Diet Coke, Rita's Italian Ice, and several thousand other products. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

"This has basically no nutritional value" is not quite the same thing as "This product has a particular legal status in the US, which is why your government-funded school is allowed to put chocolate candy bars, but not bubble gum, in the vending machines at school". I'm not at all certain that this legal restriction is "fairly obvious" to anyone except the school lunch ladies.

More generally, every single article about every kind of food should contain some information about the food's nutritional value. That information might be redundant with another article, but this is irrelevant, because each article should stand on its own. Therefore, there should be some information about nutrition in this article, even if it differs only slightly (or even not at all) from the nutritional information in chewing gum. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Synsepalum dulcificum does not give nutritional information for the berry. Should we add a source stating that a serving is considered a nutritious addition to school lunches in the United States with a ref pointing to a regulation discussing fruit? - SummerPhD^v2.0 11:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Have you found a regulation that addresses berries?

Perhaps more relevantly, I'm wholly in favor of expanding Functional chewing gum to connect it to the Chewing gum ban in Singapore, as that's another government regulation that is interesting, factual, and relevant to the subject (e.g., sales potential for a manufactured product). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Flavours

This article has a subheading "Flavors" (sic - I see that this article is typed up in American English) and then talks about flavours of bubblegum. There is a flavour of sugar-free chewing gum called bubblegum flavoured chewing gum, suggesting that bubblegum has its own flavour. Vorbee (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I have seen, and was even persuaded to try, "bubblegum flavour" ice cream. It was a vague, non-specific fruit flavour and it wasn't very nice. So, silly as the idea sounds, it seems that "bubblegum flavour" is a thing now. Just Google "bubblegum flavour" and you will see a mixture of people selling "bubblegum flavour" products and other people asking wtf this is all about. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: College Composition II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 11 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kayprender (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Lindseybean28 (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)