Talk:Chocolatier

Stub

Lets make a group to expand this! [[Special:Contr ibutions/203.63.9.181|203.63.9.181]] (talk) 06:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Just added tone tag. There are many instances throughout article, but examples are as follows.

• In just Education section: there are no facts in the whole first paragraph, it is written as a series of generalizations.
• We should avoid use of terms like 'generally', 'are said to' (by whom?), 'may be considered' (by whom?).
• In third paragraph, again, no facts, just opinion.

Does this need a complete re-write?--98.237.145.101 (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chocolatier. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090106062354/http://www.frenchculinary.com./chocolatier_school.html to http://www.frenchculinary.com/chocolatier_school.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chocolatier. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071105023828/http://www.ecolechocolat.com/chocolatier-school.php to http://www.ecolechocolat.com/chocolatier-school.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120126231957/http://www.worldchocolatemasters.com/en/competition/about to http://www.worldchocolatemasters.com/en/competition/about

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 03:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Would it be useful to include the French, British and American pronunciations of this word?--Johnsoniensis (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Tone doesn't suit Wikipedia

Hi! I've been slowly chipping away at fixing some grammatical errors on this article, but I feel largely that the overall tone doesn't really match with the style of Wikipedia articles. I don't feel confident enough to do large rewrites as I haven't been an editor long, but if someone more skilled than myself would consider taking a crack at it, I'd be appreciative! KesingtonGore (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Organizational Edits

Hello editors! I've spend some time reviewing the organization of this article. I decided to move the techniques section closer to the education section so that the readers understand certain techniques right after they are discussed. Does this change make the information easier to comprehend?

I also spend a great deal of time restructuring sentences within the introductory paragraphs. Is the difference between a chocolate maker and chocolatier clear still? I think that that distinction is very important and am hoping that my edits helped clarify it.

I reorganized the education section a bit too and deleted sentences that seemed repetitive. Overall, my main concern is that the reorganization edits I made improved the flow and clarity of this article. I would appreciate any feedback! PlantCharm (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Competitions content

discospinster, can you explain why you are edit warring to keep this content in the article? Whonting (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Why are you removing relevant cited information from the article? ... discospinster _talk 01:20, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Because a primary source and a blog describing the winners of one competition 20 years ago does not justify inclusion in a top level article. Why would this content support the statement "Leading chocolatiers include"? Why is this particular competition and its details singled out, and why the extra detail about one competitor's age and employment? Whonting (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

It's factual information relevant to the article. Any irrelevant bits about individuals can be removed but there's no good reason to take out the whole paragraph. If it's out of date then update it. It's not a BLP issue and it's not controversial content, it's cited and provides neutral information about individuals who are considered top in the field. ... discospinster _talk 15:16, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

An analogy to explain my perspective: if the article on "soccer" had half the section on "competitions" detailing one random top-level match from 20 years ago and its particular rules, describing several of the competitors as "Leading players include" cited to primary sources and blogs, it would have been removed long ago. Doing that with a more recent match is no more DUE imo absent absent secondary sourcing. I can drop a note at WP:3O if there you would like. Whonting (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@Discospinster, would you like me to put this to 3O? Whonting (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

If you'd like to, I have no objection. ... discospinster _talk 19:09, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

After reviewing the sources, this isn't sourced well enough to justify inclusion. If these people are leading chocolatiers it needs to be backed by a large amount of sources characterizing them that way. Nemov (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Nemov. Whonting (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2026 (UTC)