Talk:Cold Stone Creamery/Archives/2014

Menu?

...Maybe it's just me, but it feels like this page is more of an ice-cream menu than something about the company. I'm not sure how to fix that, but I'm just saying.

65.7.151.65 (talk · contribs) 06:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, the list of flavors can be moved into its own subarticle and information about the company and its development should be expanded. --AySz88^-^ 03:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I found the menu section to be a little sketchy, these stores offer more than just ice cream in three sizes. I am removing and re-writing the section on ice cream cakes as this is the spelling and grammar that was used, "The company also has a line of ice cream cakes and pies that are on and off site. most of the store offer custom cakes allowing customers to add their own mix on their cake." Not really acceptable for a wiki editor.Akuvar (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

But it is a game...

I did create this article, and I felt that a recent BusinessWeek article compelled me to do this. Well, I guess Stone City (game) could be moved there.

Logo

The logo underneath the title seems a bit out of place. Should someone move it? Tamajared 21:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed

Removed uncited claim. Add it later if you have the facts. Seems like a lot of the edits on this page are from Marble Slab corporate goons trying to use wikipedia to undermine their competitors. Nice job, guys. Real classy.

I removed the reference to Maggie Moo's, specifically that the granite slab was originally pioneered by Maggie Moo's and sister chain Marble Slab. Maggie Moo's first store opened in 1989 and Cold Stone in 1988. Although Maggie Moo's and Marble slab have merged as a company, Maggie Moo's doesn't deserve noting as the inventor of the granite slab concept over Cold Stone. Further, I feel this was just an attempt to get both the Maggie Moo and Marble Slab names into the Cold Stone article and make it look as if they were both pioneers in the field and that Cold Stone was just a copy cat of them both. I am continuing my research on this and the connection with Steve's ice cream's mix-in surface.Akuvar (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Caribbean

There are a couple stores in Puerto Rico and it keeps expanding.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BoricuaPR (talk • contribs) 04:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Neutrality

I just added the neutrality tag. There is nothing negative to balence out the positive in this article. --Umalee 02:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And this is a problem because...? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.144.60.229 (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Because we aren't a promotional service.--Drat (Talk) 09:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If there's anything specific you'd like added or removed from the article, please feel free to speak up. As it is, people aren't going to hunt around for random bad stuff to say about the company in order to "balance out" this article. I'm taking off the POV tag. Rhobite 05:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That snarky comment ("Because we aren't a promotional service.") sure explained why the tag was on there. Totally. Utterly. 74.225.130.13 10:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether the article sounds like a promotional piece has little, if nothing, to do with the neutrality tag. In the case that it sounds like a promotion or an advertisement, a better tag would be the {{advert}} tag. --13² 18:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

An article doesn't have to have a controversy or criticism section if there is no controversy or criticism surrounding the topic. The neutrality tag is meant for articles that have known criticisms, but they aren't mentioned in the article or people remove them when they are added. The tag shouldn't be used to try to dig up, or even make up, controversy about the subject simply because there isn't a section present. If there is no controversy, then there is no reason for including it. If there is controversy it should then, and ony then, be included. --13² 18:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality doesn't mean we need to put negative stuff in the article if it doesn't exist, or search for bad press like a bunch of muckrakers. All it means is we should avoid sentences like this one: "the average customer pays $4 for home-made super- premium ice cream." The words "homemade" (the ice cream isn't home made, it's made by a company not grandma) and "super-premium" (debatable) make the article sound like a commercial.

In that case, you use the {{advert}} tag, not the tag for neutrality issues. --13² 16:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Super-premium is actually a class of ice cream that contains large amounts of butter fat, I believe in excess of 10%. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 20:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Biased Opinion on Tipping

"Continuing in the absurdity of customer-facing tips jars for the remuneration of work already adequately compensated"

Does that comment seem to express an opinion that is unwarranted in this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.173.127.131 (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, but you've gotta admire the flourish. -70.233.249.81 (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Reservoir Dogs. Steve Buscemi. 199.214.17.91 (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So redundant

"Like other franchises, Cold Stone Creamery attempts to provide customers with similar service at every store by supplying instructional material and training videos to franchise owners."

Right; that's what a franchise is. 68.81.106.2 05:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Transfats

All of Cold Stone's ice creams (including milkshakes made from their ice cream) excluding the "sinless fat-free ice-cream" and sorbets contain significant amounts of transfat.

I removed this bit because the cited nutritional information does not indicate that there is a "significant" amount of transfat; only that there is some transfat. Perhaps a "significant" amount of saturated fat (as evidenced by the %DV)...but nothing about transfat. Verybigfish86 (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I added back the transfat citation, but removed the subjective "significant" note. It's not appropriate to arbitrarily remove cited information.. I believe the reason it was labeled "significant" in the first place is that, looking at the citation, they contain several, as in 2-4+ grams. The FDA recommends people consume no more than 2g per day, with a recommendation of ZERO consumption. The level in the ice cream averages 2-4 grams or more, which definitely qualifies as "significant." But you objected for some reason, so I removed that part.

Proof: The FDA did not approve nutrient content claims such as "trans fat free" or "low trans fat", as they could not determine a "recommended daily value", however the agency is planning a consumer study to evaluate the consumer understanding of such claims and perhaps consider a regulation allowing their use on packaged foods.

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/fr03711b.html Sailoralea (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the transfat paragraph because there is no reason to specifically mention the amount of transfat in Cold Stone ice cream. Trans fats occur naturally in most ice creams. Why not just list all of the ingredients and their nutritional content?Erickroh (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The natural amount of transfat in the ice cream (due to the dairy product) is negligable and generally non-harmful. You can compare the amount of transfat in Cold Stone's ice cream to Ben & Jerry's, Edy's, Haagen Dazs', Baskin Robbins', etc, and find insuffecient amounts to even list on the label, as opposed to Cold Stone's amounts far above the limit recommended by the FDA. I'm adding it back--it's pertinent information. Sailoralea (talk)

Can editor Sailoralea provide any citations or links showing that Cold Stone ice cream has a higher trans-fat content than its competitors? That is what you are saying in the article, and your argument for keeping it, can you cite references please? I am removing it until you provide references.Akuvar (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been looking into the trans fat issue and cold stone does have between 0 - 1.5 grams of transfat in their ice creams, usually depending on size. Maggie Moo's website nutritional info does not list Trans Fat anywhere (does that mean it is zero?). Marble slab lists all their flavors as having 0 grams of Trans Fat, however, they list three sizes all in grams. When you do the conversion, the small portion is just 3.5 ounces where Cold Stone's is 5 ounces. The largest listed under Marble Slab is 283 grams, which converts to 10 ounces and Cold Stone's largest size is 12 ounces. No matter what they are trying to say about their ice creams and Trans Fat content, the FDA recommends an intake of less than 2 grams per day and (assuming Maggie Moo's has close to zero as well) all three chains have low Trans Fat and that Cold Stone is "significant" cannot be justified. Here are the links:

http://www.marbleslab.com/nutritional-info/ice-cream-nutritional-statement.pdf

http://www.coldstonecreamery.com/assets/pdf/nutrition/Nutrition_Info_IceCream_06_03_09.pdf

Akuvar (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can provide a noteworthy reason why this should be included, you should not add it to the article. Anything you add will be original research via synthesis. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 02:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Just doing the research that another editor who originally added in was apparently unwilling to do. My analysis shows that there is no reason to have this in the article so, no, I'm not adding it!Akuvar (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I was not "unwilling" to do the research--I actually pulled up all the nutritional information of the major chains: Baskin Robbins, Carvel, ColdStone, DairyQueen, etc, and compared them; ColdStone had significantly more. ColdStone did not offer nutritional information until they were forced, by New York City law, to provide it. They have since eliminated a lot of it, but not all of it, and it wasn't -as- big of an issue.

It was claimed that "all the transfat was natural, as it naturally occurs in ice cream"--with no sourcing to back up that statement. Yes, transfat occurs naturally in dairy products (the non-harmful variety of transfat)--but he had no way of knowing whether or not the transfat in ColdStone's icecream had artificial transfat.

If you check ColdStone's website--their ingredients--they SPECIFICALLY list that they use artificial transfat.

http://www.coldstonecreamery.com/assets/pdf/nutrition/Ingredients_Ice_Cream_Sorbet_06_03_09.pdf

"Partially hydrogenated" *anything* is transfat. It's found in 10 of their recipes.

I deleted the citations I added because I realized that I couldn't win an edit war with a particularly motivated editor, such as yourself, as I don't know how to appeal to mods to override your glossing over of reality. The only reason I've bothered writing this is because you derisively dismissed my earlier concerns as if "I couldn't be bothered."Sailoralea (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in an edit war, I like healthy discussion about a topic. The only reason I said I did the research was that you had not posted in some time and I didn't want to wait. My bad, I guess? Wikipedia's article on trans fat indicates the natural trans fats in dairy products, so I don't feel obliged to prove that, and after you say I don't use sourcing to back that up, you admit to knowing it anyway. The only reason you have found that cold stone looks as if it has more transfat in its products than Marble slab is that their nutritional information is, well, let's say incorrect. Now that we all know that dairy products have naturally occuring trans fats, how can their products have zero across the board? Yes, you are allowed to round up or down by federal law, but the truth is that cold stone is simply reporting accurately at the risk of some consumers thinking they have more transfats than other ice cream shops. Also, if you review the link you attached, and then compared that with a cold stone menu, you would see that 80% of the flavors that listed "partially hydrogenated anything" are discontinued. Lastly, although I have probably incensed you to write a rebutal, I don't actually wish to debate it, I think it has no place in the articles of these ice cream shops because it is not what makes them "most noteable" in the public eye. Akuvar (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Your research is not allowed: By making all of the factual comparisons and present your results violates WP:No original research an is not allowable. Unless you can produce a source that meets the standards of inclusion, you cannot introduce such data to the article. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 02:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Umm...We are not conducted in original research. We were trying to verify or add citations to an editor's comments. Akuvar (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

I just edited the controversy heading in the article, after reading the Gibson article that was being paraphrased. I tried to clean it up. Then I realized this article is also referenced in the History portion of the article. It should not be referenced twice. I feel that the article is less "history" of the company and more appropriately in a section titled "controversy" so I am moving it there and deleting all my previous edits of that section in favor of the way it was worded under "history"Akuvar (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I just removed the "Controversy" section. It was a summary of an article from 2008 and seemed to be given too much prominence when compared with the overall history of the chain (i.e. skewed toward recent events). And even if it does belong somewhere in the article, it doesn't belong under a "Controversy" subhead, but either in History or some new subhead. Erickroh (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Tim Horton's

An editor made a change to the article regarding the description of Tim Horton's. It had been written as "iconic coffee house" which was probably a little over-the-top, and changed it to "donut shop" which is probably a little basic. If you visit the Time Horton's website www.timhortons.com they label themselves as a coffee store. To Americans the Tim Horton's chain isn't a big deal, but in Canada, it is the largest quick serve restaurant chain in the country and is a pretty big deal. I am going to change the entry to "coffee chain" because that is a little closer to a true description. I encourage all editors to make a discussion point before changing the article so that interested editors can weigh in before article changes are made. Akuvar (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Weather or not it is the greatest store in the universe according to Canadians, the use of the words iconic violates WP:NPOV guidelines. Additionally, the company advertises itself as a donut shop, not a coffee house. I would suggest that you familiarize yourself with original research guidelines before making a change based upon your personal beliefs as to what the company is. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 00:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I would familiarize yourself with reading editor's comments before telling me what is right and wrong. I REMOVED "iconic" because it didn't conform to guidelines, and I changed from coffee to donut because of what is on their website. You seem to be chastizing me for the CORRECT changes I made. Perhaps you are just backing up my comments, but it looks like you are blaming me for the original article. Am I misreading you? Akuvar (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were referring to me since you didn't say which editor did it. I am not mad in the least. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 00:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent, Major Revisions to Article

Editor Jeremy43 just made several, major changes to the main article without posting any material in the discussions page for other editors to review or discuss prior to the changes being made. Some of the new material is false, and the supporting footnotes do not reference the data so are not valid sources for the false data in the first place. Specifically, the new material now says that the headquarters was moved to Scottsdale AZ in 2005 (which is incorrect) and is immediately followed by a footnote taking you to the cold stone history page, where there is no mention of the headquarters being established in Scottsdale in 2005, or any other year. The statement was also added that that the ice cream contains a 16% butterfat content, which is also incorrect. No supporting footnote is offered for this information. Why were such sweeping changes made to the main article without discussing them with other editors? why is incorrect information being introduced complete with footnotes that do not support it? I urge all editors to discuss changes with other editors before changes to the article are made, or at least open a discussion area describing the changes you made and why you felt it was needed. I also urge editor Jeremy43 to revert these changes and create an appropriate discussion area for all editors to review the information. Akuvar (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you need to understand that you do not need permission to edit an article, or start a discussion when you do.

Second, you need to read the article a little better before adding rants such as this, your commentary is misplaced. That said, lets breakdown your two points:

1. The statement is that super-premium ice cream usually has a butter fat content of around 16%, not that Cold Stone's does. If you look at the adverb phrase you will see that it follows the comment about super-premium ice cream, thus modifying that particular item.
2. The link was present before I edited the article, please take the time read the diff and you will find out what I mean.

Your rant is the result of poor research on your part, not mine. What I added is properly sourced and documented, while the other changes I made were copy edits that just moved the existing content around to create a proper lead section and bring it in line with the standards of WP:Corp. What needs to happen here is that you need to really take the time and research anything you think is wrong and fix it instead of making comments like the one you just made. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 02:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(I moved his comment down here because it disrupted the formatting of my statements, I have not changed the content of his statements - Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!))

Reply- (The first comment is in response to my first point above - Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!))
Never said it was, I simply urged all editors to open discussions on changes so they do not make the poor decisions that you did. Akuvar (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

1. This article is not about super premium ice cream, it is about cold stone creamery. Either find the actual butterfat content of cold stone ice cream or remove this. It is clear that you do not know, since under this discussion page you also said "Super-premium is actually a class of ice cream that contains large amounts of butter fat, I believe in excess of 10%. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 20:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)" Akuvar (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
2. You edited the article and kept the link, now you have changed the date to 1997 and changed the link to a store location page on their website as documentation? There is nothing on that page that says when the headquarters was moved to scottsdale. Akuvar (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

How much research on this would you like me to do? Above you said "Your research is not allowed: By making all of the factual comparisons and present your results violates WP:No original research an is not allowable. Unless you can produce a source that meets the standards of inclusion, you cannot introduce such data to the article. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 02:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)" Akuvar (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think my "rant" is justified. You came to this page and made major edits to it, some of which are flat our false. It is insulting to other editors who try to introduce new, relevant, and factual material in a responsible fashion. How else am I supposed to address your poor edit choices? Akuvar (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

In reference to my comments about original research to you earlier on the page, the difference I am trying to teach you about is the distinction between research into the subject regarding its history, business practices, etc (what I am saying here) and original research, which is putting forth information generated by you (the gist of my original comments above). Basically what that means is that you can look at information about Cold Stone's ingredients and state that they have x amount of fat in their products because it is verifiable fact. What you cannot do is look at their nutrition information, then look at the nutrition information for Marble Slab Creamery, Maggie Moo's and Amy's Ice Creams then make a declarative statement based upon your research into the subject stating they each have w, x, y and z amounts of fats and thus so-and-so has the most fats of the ice cream chains. That is original research and is not allowed. Now if Consumer Reports were to perform the research, that would be considered a reliable, secondary source and making a properly cited statement based upon their research is allowable. Please use the links I provided below and on your user page to see what I mean.

Now in regards to the comment about butterfat content in ice cream I added, you are still misreading the comment. The statement declares that the company's main product is super-premium ice cream, and then it goes on to describe what super-premium ice cream is. That is a description of the product they sell, the same style product companies like Ben and Jerry's and Häagen-Dazs sell in their stores. A similar statement about cars would be Cadillac manufactures luxury cars, vehicles that typically sell above $40,000. The statement doesn't say that all Cadillac cars sell for more than $40K, it states that luxury cars typically sell above that price point. In the original statement you are calling false I am stating that super-premium ice cream typically contains around 16% butter fat, not that all of Cold Stone's products contain that amount of butterfat.

As to your allegations of false information added by me, I would please ask you to provides some diffs that support your allegations. You won't be able to because I did not add anything false to the article at any point. When I added any data to the article, I took the time to look up the information in sources that met the standards Wikipedia has established about properly citing sources. The other information that you are stating I added was all ready there; I only moved some of it to the beginning of the article in order to create a proper lead statement as required by the guidelines for articles set forth in the manual of style. Saying that I deliberately added false or misleading statements is extremely bad form, especially when you failed to take the time to look into said statements in the first place. Additionally, your descriptions of my edits are uncivil and truly show a lack of understanding of how we conduct ourselves here.

When a contributor edits an article, he or she does so by being bold, there is no need to ask permission from other contributors before hand. There are exceptions, but as a matter of course that is unneeded. That being said, if a second contributor feels that the information added by the first is factually incorrect, it is traditionally accepted that the second can challenge the new information by tagging it with a template such as {{Citation needed}} or similar. If the information is patently incorrect, the second contributor is free to remove it on their own without saying. If there is an honest error, the second contributor is encouraged to correct it on their own or the contributor could simply mention it on the talk page with a statement such as "Hey, I think this might be wrong, could someone please fix it?". Calling on every other contributor to revert the first contributor's work is not only rude, it violates the spirit of Wikipedia.

When the first contributor adds data that has been properly cited, the onus of disproving that information falls upon the second contributor by properly researching the data in question and presenting a valid reason why they believe it to be false. If there is a true disagreement between parties, it is proper that a true discussion into the issues at hand be started, and not one where the first is seeks the second's permission to make an edit or where the second editor makes a personal attack on the first. If the second contributor's edits are reverted for what ever reason, a discussion questioning the inclusion of the data could also be started, however you should leave the section in question in place until the discussion is finished. To just remove a section because you feel it has no pertinence is blanking and is not allowed, especially with the data being sourced from a highly regarded publication as the Wall Street Journal and properly cited as such. When your edit is challenged by its deletion or reinstatement, you should to begin a discussion, or respond to one begun by another, as to why you feel that the data is irrelevant and why it should be excluded.

If you think the first contributor has done something wrong deliberately, it is best that you take a look at the page history and see what has transpired with the article by comparing versions in question to ascertain the facts before launching into a tirade as you have done here.

Again, what you need to do is take a look at the policies on reliable sources, verifiability, what constitutes a valid source, original research, synthesis and citing sources. I would also like to suggest that you to take a peak at our behavioral guidelines on assuming good faith, personal attacks, civility and general etiquette before you continue with this discussion.

This is the last response you will receive from me in this matter and any more comments in this vain will be reported to the appropriate admin board.

--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should review those same sections yourself since intimidation is not very polite. Your posturing doesn't excuse the fact that in the last 4 days you made changes to the article that were incorrect, specifically the date of moving of the headquarters to scottsdale. You first listed the date as 2005 and then changed it to 1997. As a defense, you say you used information from older pages, but if you didn't know, why would you find it relevant to re-add it, and then change it. Neither of the sources listed for the 2005 or 1997 date had anything to do with that information. I also asked you to site your source for 16% butterfat, since in an earlier statement you said it was 10%, instead you give me an analogy on the price of cars. Rather than address my two concerns, you wrote four paragraphs on how I should be a better editor, even throwing in a red herring about the Wall Street Journal used as a source. Both my questions to you involved citations linking to the cold stone website, not the WSJ. I do not think your "discussions" with other editors should concentrate on belittling them and reminding them to read wiki policies and implying that I don't think the Wall street Journal is a reputable source. Akuvar (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

In Akuvar's defense, reading the current version of the article (as I write this), I would infer that the article is stating that Cold Stone's ice cream contains 16% butterfat. Jeremy, I understand that it wasn't your intention to do so, but I think that anyone would draw that same conclusion. If you're not trying to suggest that, then you need to rewrite it. It currently says:

The company's main product is super premium ice cream, or ice cream made with approximately 16% butterfat, that is made on location and customized to order for customer at the time of purchase.

If you're not trying to say that Stone Cold ice cream is 16% butterfat, you might wish to instead say:

The company's main product is super premium ice cream that is made on location and customized to order for customer at the time of purchase. Most brands of super premium ice cream are made with approximately 16% butterfat.

Even the example you gave about Cadillac cars seems to be saying that Cadillac sells cars above $40,000. Again, I don't think Akuvar is misreading anything, the problem is in how it is written. I might also suggest leaving out the whole 16% butterfat information altogether. I don't see how that exact figure is supported, you don't have a source for that either and other articles discussing that kind of ice cream such as Häagen-Dazs, Turtle Mountain (company), Steve's Ice Cream, Graeter's, and so on don't confirm this fact either. Graeter's says that it has 16%-18% fat, Häagen-Dazs and Turtle Mountain only claim to have "high" buttermilk fat content and Häagen-Dazs also claims to have "low-air", Steve's says that it has "low-air" but doesn't mention the buttermilk fat content, etc. So perhaps you should just change the general definition of the ice cream to one that has high fat content and low air?

As to the Scottsdale move, there are currently no sources showing the year that took place. It's curious that you lecture Akuvar about original research but actually engage in it yourself. Where do sources confirm that information?

I see both you of claiming incivility of each other, yet I don't see that happening. I see a simple content dispute here. Ironically, the only incivility being done are accusations of incivility without cause. You can disagree without bickering. This is just a content dispute, and you can resolve this without turning this into something more. -- Atama頭 02:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Minor Victory for the Article: Ok... about the moving date, is it at least agreeable as it is? Moved in 1997, new offices in 2005 would prove both the current source and the archived company page. Technically that archive never said they moved to Scottsdale in 2005, but that is had a new office. Confusing, yes... but I really don't know why they wouldn't have either clarified or corrected it on their company history page instead of just deleting it like they did. I feel really absurd I did an undo regarding the move date of an ice cream company, but as it stands now seems to match all information available, correct? No fighting! It's ice cream! :) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 20:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ice cream is big business, billions of dollars. We New Englanders eat more than any other group in North America, we take it seriously. Nummy. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 23:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

the video game

Someone made a video game for the Wii licensing their name, where you run an ice cream parlor. Look here: http://kotaku.com/5439604/cold-stone-creamery-scoop-it-up-so-you-dont-have-to --69.151.15.152 (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional Info

Hi Wikipedia Editors, As a representative of the Cold Stone brand, I wanted to provide a couple links to additional information about the brand in an effort to make the article more complete. I was told by the Wikipedia help team that the discussion page was the proper venue to do so.

These first 2 links are to articles that contain additional information about the brand's history: http://www.qsrmagazine.com/issue/55/birthday/cs_creamery.phtml http://www.icsc.org/srch/sct/sct0103/page25.php

These next links are to articles that provide information about our Tastemaster - the person who develops Cold Stone's menu offerings: http://www.foodchannel.com/stories/1602-karam-takes-cold-stone-into-new-territory http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2007-09-27/best-of-phoenix/tasty-freeze-ray-karam/

Do with them what you'd like, I just wanted to provide some resources to additional information about the brand.

Thanks! (JoanTeller (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC))