Talk:Popsicle (brand)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Not a lot of info

Hello my name is Christy and I did not find a lot of info!

Welcome, Christy. We look forward to seeing what information you can add to the article! - DavidWBrooks 19:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

References

Why leave the reference in if you delete the info?

Different use?

I lived in Toronto for a while and had the impression that over there they use the word popsicle for cans of softdrinks. Got that wrong? Nameme 23:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, "pop" is used to refer to cans of non-specific softdrinks/colas/etc. As in, "I'll have a sandwich and a pop, please." or "Gimme a damn pop or return my f****** toonie, you wretched machine!" -- NumbTongueInToronto --69.158.62.223 07:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah,leave the fab as it is. You can't mess with perfection. Ideally though, get a picture going on.

Agreed. Leave Fab where it is. Fab and Popsicle are both trademarked names by different companies, not generic descriptors.

Ice Lolly

This article directly states that the name "Popsicle" is a brand name of one manufacturer of ice lolly... and it is sold in the USA. I therefore propose that the article should be entitled differently. The word "popsicle" is not used in the UK at all. We should have a generic, international word. It's a bit like calling the article vacuum cleaner as "Hoover"! A Hoover is only one brand of vacuum cleaner... even though in the UK many people use the word as a generic term. It is not international, and it is not correct. Any thoughts? EuroSong ^talk 21:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No thoughts so far, I see. I'll wait until 5 days after my original post... EuroSong ^talk 19:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What else would you call it? "Ice lolly" is not used in the USA at all; most people on the left side of the pond wouldn't even know what it is. There may not be any generic term for this that's used worldwide. - DavidWBrooks 22:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well then we have a problem, because outside the USA, the word "popsicle" is not used. In fact, I myself only recognise it from having heard it in a film or two. I really object to the USA "taking over the world" through the media... because of the success of Hollywood, then the American culture is forced upon the rest of us. The fact is, the majority of native English speakers in the world do not use the word "popsicle". And yet, this article is entitled as such. There is only one English language Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) - not several, for different varieties of English. That means we must all share the site internationally, and find neutral compromises wherever possible.

It's made even more ridiculous, I think, because it is even a brand name. Let me ask you: what do Americans call these items which are not made by the "popsicle company"? Do you have any other words for them at all? EuroSong ^talk 11:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No, there's no other term used by normal folks (i.e., non-marketers). In the US, popsicle has become a generic term, like Kleenex.

I certainly see your point, although perhaps "ice lolly" isn't right, either: List of American words not widely used in the United Kingdom says Australia also uses "icypole" (which sounds kind of obscene to me) while New Zealand uses "ice block, sometimes popsicle". And who knows what it's called in India, which has more English speakers than all the other countries combined!

I'm not sure what to do, short of creating some silly generic title like frozen flavored treat on a stick so that nobody can accuse anybody else of cultural hegemony. Can we think of another article facing a similar situation, so we can see if there's a good precedent? Some other foodstuff or retail item that's exactly the same in multiple countries but known by non-overlapping names? - DavidWBrooks 13:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that your contrived example would be silly.. but yes, what to do? I look at other food related articles, where we call them different things: unfortunately though, it seems like the American Wikipedians have all but taken over and forced their own versions through, in all cases. See cotton candy (candy floss in the UK), and candy apple (toffee apple in ALL the rest of the English-speaking world). But.. no. If there are differences, it seems like the USA "wins" in all cases. This is quite frustrating for me to see. Please don't get me wrong: I'm not on some campaign to make all the Americans start using British English. I just want to see that on the internet - a supposedly international place.. especially on an international website such as Wikipedia, we don't just end up yet again deferring to the Americans' way of doing things. There are already many young people in the UK who say "movie" (the English word is "film") - which can be soley attributed to the fact that they hear the word all the time on TV. Anyway, I digress a little. Tell me.. if someone said to you, "Would you like an iced lollypop" - would you be totally confused as to what they meant?

(Yes, I think I would be confused. But I admit that "popsicle" carries even less inherent meaning. - DavidWBrooks 17:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC))

Ok, so the competition is open: can anyone else suggest a good generic term for these things? By the way, "popsicle" makes me think of an icicle which is about to burst. Certainly a far cry from the fruit flavoured frozen water on a stick :) EuroSong ^talk 18:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if you're interested in contrived compromises, take a look at fixed-wing aircraft. It's "aeroplane" in the UK and "airplane" in the USA. Although "fixed-wing aircraft" would be no-one's first choice, it is at least an acceptable compromise, using words which exist in both languages.

Perhaps "popsicle" could follow the example of Kleenex - an example you gave yourself, of a brand name which has become generic in America. This article clearly states the situation at the top, and then deals specifically with that one Kleenex brand. There is a link to the generic term facial tissue. What do you think? EuroSong ^talk 17:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fine, but I can't think of a decent generic term for popsi - er, these things. "Facial tissue" and "fixed-wing aircraft" aren't too weird; I've heard them used by normal people, particularly the former, so they're OK article titles, if not wonderful.

By the way, I don't think it's that the US wikipedians have taken over, but that wikipedia started as a US-only creation with an undersandable US bias, and as it spread to other English-speaking countries questions arose about how/whether to undo US-isms. (The battle over Georgia (state vs. country) was vicious!) - DavidWBrooks 17:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hehe... I think that Georgia is the opposite situation: instead of having one thing and disagreeing what to call it, there is one word with a disagreement over what it should apply to :) But that was easily solved, I see, with a simple disambiguation page. I can't imagine why any arguments were vicious over that: obviously a disambiguation was the natural way to go.

Wikipedia was started in the USA, yes - but it is now an international site. The fact that there are many different language versions of the site confirms that. Unfortunately though, there is only "en" for the English language. Maybe we should have a "gb" and "am", eh? Where articles are shared unless specified otherwise? :) EuroSong ^talk 18:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

In Australia popsicles are called ice blocks. Icypole is a brand name and is actually not the generic term in Australia. There are pleny of other makers of similar products. Ozdaren 10:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's been a while since I contributed to this discussion, but I have one question and one suggestion. The question is for any American reading this: What are non-Unilever-produced lollies officially called on their packaging in the USA? As far as I can tell, if Popsicle is a brand name - owned by the Unilever company - then only that company or its subsidiaries would legally be allowed to sell boxes of them with "Popsicles" written on the front. So what about other brands? Presumably Unilever isn't the ONLY company who sells them in the USA, eh? Come on people... what are the other ones called? :) And as for my suggestion: how about naming the article Ice lollipop.. because that's actually mentioned in the article itself as the first name by which it was known in 1922 when it was introduced. Any objections? EuroSong ^talk 17:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's been several days, and there are no comments to this so far. If no-one objects, then I intend to move it: but I don't want to do a page move which will cause some people to get annoyed; that's why I'm proposing it here on the talk page first, to give people a chance to comment. Please do so - otherwise I shall have to assume that my suggestion is okay with the majority. Thanks. EuroSong ^talk 11:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Just several days - be patient, it's summer! People are outdoors, away from their wikiholic-ness! I just bought some non-Popsicle popsicles yesterday and have no idea what they were called; I'll have to go check it out. - DavidWBrooks 18:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

non-Popsicle popsicles - hehe :) Is that what they're called on the box? :P

This situation isn't really worth comparing to "Kleenex" or "Hoover." In the U.S., nobody would call a vacuum cleaner a "Hoover," because very few would actually understand what that meant. On the other hand, a good number of people would still say "tissue" or "facial tissue," and most everyone would still understand. However, in the case of "Popsicle," there's simply no widely-used alternative.

The Popsicle company itself, along with a good number of generic brands, use "ice pop" to describe their product. [1] The aforementioned external link goes to a brief information page for the Popsicle company's most basic, flagship product, where they describe the product as an "ice pop." There's also a number of companies that use "fruit bar," or something along those lines. It seems like "ice pop" is the most widespread generic term used in the U.S. However, though I'd recognize what "ice pop" meant, I've never actually heard it used in regular speech. In addition, I honestly wouldn't have recognized "ice lollipop" and "icy pole" at all before I read this article, and "ice block" still simply makes me think of a block frozen, plain water.

I don't really see a clear compromise term here, save for a possible "ice [something]" - though any term fitting this template is never, or only very rarely, actually spoken in the U.S. I'd probably wait for more input before deciding on a move, though I don't know what "more input" could actually add. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 21:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your useful comments, Rebelguys2. You're right: we should wait for more input now before deciding on a move/compromise. I hope you understand why I do object to "Popsicle": even though it may be the most widely-used term for the items in question in the USA, the fact remains that a) it IS a brand name produced by only one company, and b) the term is ONLY used in North America to refer to these items: in other English-speaking countries, the brand is not sold (as far as I know - never seen them here) and the word is not recognised at all. Hope you can understand why there is an issue which needs to be addressed. Thanks again :) EuroSong ^talk 22:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I proposed the move to ice lollipop on 2^nd August, and since the 7^th there have been no more contributions.. so I still propose to move it for the reasons given – if there are no more good counter-arguments. EuroSong ^talk 09:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Better late than never, but I believe the ultra-generic term is "quiescently frozen confection". I remember this mouthful from a straight dope article: [2] 24.87.114.179 11:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

icy pole vs ice block in Australia

I'm not sure of the source for icy pole being a generic name for ice block. Icy pole is certainly a brand name, however ice block is the normal generic term for a frozen water based treat. Most people from where I come from just say they want an ice block and then chose which brand or type. If the person who changed the article to icy pole again would like to give an idea of where in Australia people use this brand name as the generic term I'd appreciate it. Ozdaren 07:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Fab (ice lolly)

Whatever you do with Ice Lolly vs popsicle vs Ice Block vs Icy Pole, I don't see any reason for merging the Fab article, as it is a separate brand with its own history; and (while being a type of Popsicle or Ice Lolly) it should have its own page. Just as McDonald's, Burger King and KFC are not all forced to live on the "Fast-food restaurants" page.

I suggest that the popsicle merger tag be removed from the Fab (ice lolly) article - after all everyone knows how 'fab' they are! :P Woodgreener 11:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

In the central midwest of the united states, an "Ice Lolly" is an obscene term. I don't reccomend including it in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.175.242.13 (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Popsicle → Ice lollipop – As per discussion on Talk:Popsicle. The current article's name is only that of ONE brand name, in TWO countries in North America. The rest of the world do not call it as such. A more generic name should be used, and it is proposed as the original name for the product. No convincing objections to the proposal have surfaced in several weeks (see the talk page). - EuroSong ^talk 19:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC) this template added by SigPig 03:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support. See below. --SigPig 03:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - "Popsicle" is a brand name which is only used in North America. In the English-language Wikipedia, we need to have an internationally neutral title. See below.
• Oppose it's the common name used. I've never seen the term "ice lolly", or "ice lollipop", in fact, I've rarely ever seen the term "lolly" in reference to a lollipop. 132.205.44.134 04:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Guinnog 21:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Strongly Popsicle might be a less than ideal title because it is a brand name, but, it is the most common name used to refer to the subject of this article, regardless of the brand. At any rate, ice lollipop fails the google test miserably, and should not be considered for the title of this article under any circumstances.

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,180 for "ice lollipop"

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,610,000 for popsicle

That is not a relevant test. "Ice lollipop" is proposed as a compromise name. See Fixed-wing aircraft: few if any people actually say this as a title, but it's a compromise. A better Google test would be Popsicle v. "Ice lolly" (124,000) - and yes, there are still more "Popsicles", but that is only because there are more Americans!! The population of your country is bigger, that's all. However, the point remains that this is the ENGLISH-LANGUAGE Wikipedia, which is an international website: it is not usa.wikipedia.org. In this case, the Google test is irrelevant. EuroSong ^talk 18:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Do the math. 2,610,000 is over 2000 times more than 1,180; and 21 times more than 124,000; neither is explained by differences in population of the relevant countries and usages. As far as Fixed-wing aircraft goes... what's the alternative, brand name or no? And, it gets a significantly respectable 730,000 google hits. --Serge 19:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Your maths are not relevant. It is not only wrong to assume that Google searches represent an unbiased sampling method, it is disingenious. If I google Cricket I get 78,200,000 hits, but if I google Baseball I get 284,000,000, does this proove that Baseball is over three times more populare than cricket? Does it bollocks. It's about the rate of internet uptake in the world. Cricket is by far the most popular sport in India, considered by some it's national sport (see Cricket in India) a country with a huge population (1,103,371,000 see India), but with relatively low amounts of internet provision due to poverty. Cricket is most certainly more popular as a spectator sport and as a participatory sport than baseball is globally. Google searches are biased in favour of North American culture, they prove nothing. All you have shown is that Google is as biased and out of touch with the rest of the world as you obviously are. There's quite a lot of us out there who do not accept that Americanisms are common names, they are merely local dialect words. You should also take into account WP:CN. Alun 04:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, see Band-Aid. --Serge 18:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support --Jamie|C 19:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -- If the common name for a thing happens to be a brand name, what's the problem? See Scotch tape. 130.132.94.174 20:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You ask what the problem is? Haven't you been reading? This brand name is only used in two countries, and this is supposed to be an international website. That's what the problem is. EuroSong ^talk 22:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Also: the "Scotch Tape" article is not comparable to this. That article is actually about that brand - and we have an equivalent one, Sellotape, which has become the genericised trademark in the UK. Wikipedia does have an internationally neutral article for the product at Adhesive tape.. so this example is not the same. The tape articles have done it the right way. EuroSong ^talk 00:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Euro, "Popsicle" is a problem. But the issue is whether renaming this article to the relatively little-used and WP:NC(CN)-violating "ice lollipop" creates just another problem, or a much larger problem. --Serge 23:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support with slight reservations - see my alternate suggestion below. ww2censor 20:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- The brand name is only the common name in two countries. I do not beleive the veiw of these two countries should overpower the term used in most other countries. Dukeseee 21:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Duke, your point, though valid, is not relevant since the proposed alternative is not the most common name used in any country, so far as I can tell. The other is, frankly, I've been to Europe, and Popsicles are much more popular in the states than over there. There is a reason we call those yummy French crescent rolls croissants and not "crescents"... --Serge 23:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Serge, I have yet to meet a single person who says "Fixed-wing aircraft" when talking about those things which we call aeroplanes, and you call airplanes. However, the Wikipedia article is entitled as such, because it represents an internationally-neutral compromise, using words which are understood on both sides of the Atlantic - even though they are nobody's first choice. The title of that article has gone through much heated debate, and a consensus was reached to call it by an international, neutral name. So there is a precedent for doing this, even if very few people actually say that title regularly. Similarly here, the word "Popsicle" is simply not understood outside North America. You propose that it stays entitled as such because there are more Google hits. Well how about I propose it gets renamed because there are more actual countries which don't call them Popsicles than countries which do? It's a matter of opinion which criteria one chooses to use. EuroSong ^talk 00:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support GordyB 21:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: use common name. Bubba ditto 00:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support It is clear that "Popsicle" is a US brand name and that the generic name for this product in America is "ice pop" so if the international term "ice lollipop" is not acceptable to Americans they should accept "ice pop" instead. But Americans cannot claim that "lollipop" is outside their vocabulary. Once again we have American members quoting Google as evidence: it ought to be obvious that Google reflects current internet activity only and is useless as a reference tool in its own right, it being merely a gateway to the actual references. Any arguments about use of English should be settled by reference to an acknowledged English source such as the OED. So-called American English is merely a dialect as is English spoken in Yorkshire or Somerset or wherever: the only difference is one of numbers. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support with caveats... I've only ever heard the phrase popsicle in movies - and I've travelled a fair bit... some countries just call them "ice's", and others call them "lollies" - i don't think using an American brand name as a generic one when it is not really even known outside of those borders is correct. I certainly wouldn't have searched for popsicle if I was looking for an article here...

The above unsigned comment was left by Horus Kol on 08:56, 6 September 2006

• The above vote does not count unless it is signed. Anyway, what one might use to get to this article is immaterial to what the title, since that can all be handled with redirects. Where the title matters is in specifying to the reader the most common name used to refer to the subject of the article. --Serge 16:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There.. I signed it for him. Happy? EuroSong ^talk 16:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support The generic name Ice lolly(pop) is better than using a trademark.

Support Agree with many of the included comments you can't use google or any other search engines for that matter as statistically there are far more american based and run websites than any other language. Followed up by some far eastern countrys I would think. So you would expect american search terms to appear higher than any other generic based terms. -- Shimirel ^(Talk) 17:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose This article should be about the brand of ice lollypop called Popsicle and not about the foodstuff in general. There should be an unbiased page which desribes the foodstuff with links to different brands, see my comments below for more info--NeilEvans 17:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Not perfect, but best proposed international compromise. Comments below re: Ice Pop. Verica Atrebatum 19:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - it's the best compromise and should prevent further arguments. michaelCurtis ^talk+ _{contributions} 20:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Should not use a brand name as a generic name for a product, especially where the brand name is only known in North America. TomPhil 23:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Use common names. - SimonP 23:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Sensible compromise broadly recognisable to many Eng speaking countries (whether you pick up on the "lolly" bit or the "pop"). And is that what a "popsicle" is? I'd heard it in films, but never understood! JackyR | Talk 23:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. - Ice lollypop is no more unbiased or country neutral then "Popsicle" (Madrone 01:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC))
• Support. Not only have I never heared of popsicle, was it made up as a joke for this article? But the level of ignorance about and arrogance towards the rest of the world by North American users on this page is breathtaking. The attitude just because it's what we call it then it must be the common name everywhere is clearly that of the very small minded with limited imagination. Next they'll be denying the existence of the rest of the world altogether. Alun 01:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. 128.214.19.8 12:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Marja
• Support. As good a generic name as we can get. Popsicle is most certainly not generic - it's a brand name that has become widely used as a generic name only in North America. There should probably still be an article entitled "popsicle" to describe this brand, but it shouldn't be the generic article. -- Necrothesp 15:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support - I'd expect to see an article specifically about a brand at the pagename of that brand. "Ice Lollipop" seems a perfectly clear and unambiguous term to me, and I *never* hear the term "popsicle" (outside of American media, films, television programmes etc) used in the country I'm in (England). Xmoogle 16:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• support seems like a good compromise to me. I'd be surprised if the term ice lollipop was that confusing. Besides, I assume there will be a redirect from popsicle to ice lollipop. David D. (Talk) 19:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The fact that it's a brand name isn't the issue, it's that "Popsicle" is a regional term. Therefore, moving to "Ice Lollipop" will not solve anything because that is also a regional term. I'm sad this has been polled with only this all-or-nothing option. In my view, lollipop is too suggestive of hard candy to be acceptable as a generic term. While a term like "Frozen Treat on a Stick" is bulky, it hasn't even been presented as an option in the poll, yet it would solve the primary crisis which is that nobody wants a regional term. Soltras 19:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"Frozen treat on a stick"? That sounds even more American than popsicle. A treat (in food terms) is something I'd give to a dog or cat, not a human being! Like many others, you're making the mistake of assuming that American terms are widely used outside America. They're not. -- Necrothesp 08:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, consider the spirit of my example rather than the example itself. As lollipop brings to mind a hard candy for me, treats bring to mind dogfood for you. This is good discussion. Please do not accuse me of making mistakes and assumptions. Of course I don't assume my regional terms are used everywhere. Heck, I'm used to driving just 100 miles in almost any direction and being in a world of entirely different lexicon. My point was that the poll only offered one option. I support a move based on the fact that Popsicle isn't the term widely used by all English speaking people. I don't support this move because Ice Lollipop doesn't solve the problem (it's certainly not a term widely used the English world over). Clearly there is no term fulfilling such a requisite, so the next step is to appease everyone by considering a generic construction, not accusing people of making assumptions. My example was simply "Frozen Treat on a Stick." Consider instead the more concise "Ice Pop" which has been proposed below. Soltras 01:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support move to ice lolly, ice lollipop or ice pop. As I understand it, a Popsicle is a brand-name (albeit one, a la hoover, which has entered the vernacular) and hence a sub-set of a more generic type of frozen lolly. Ergo, the title should reflect the most generic term. Badgerpatrol 00:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• 'Support a renaming to something, but absolutely not "ice lollypop", per the multiple other objections. There has to be some better generic term than that.--chris.lawson 21:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• 'Support 'Popsicle' is the Yankee word, 'Ice pop' is used everywhere else - I even saw it in Italy last week. Though with the compromise name may I suggest 'ice lolly' not lollipop as that kinda makes me think of the rock-candy dummies...--Lady BlahDeBlah 19:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose There thould be a redirect.--FrogTape 22:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• I've only ever heard the term "popsicle", either generic or as a trade name. As a matter of fact, I had no idea what to fill in the blank in the sentence "Popsicle is my favourite brand of _____". In retrospect I have heard the phrase "ice pop" in Canada, and "ice lolly" on British TV shows, so I think "ice lollipop" may be a good compromise (doesn't include "ice block", sorry!). Either way, I agree it should be moved to a more generic name. --SigPig 03:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• ice lolly sounds somewhat perverse... perhaps I've used usenet too much. 132.205.44.134 04:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The proposed move is to Ice lollipop, not Ice lolly :) EuroSong ^talk 10:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• from popsicle, you derive corpsicle... used to describe frozen dead people in crime stories. 132.205.44.134 04:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• popsicle stick bridge is a common structure built for competition, and popsicle stick structures are a common creative diversion. 132.205.44.134 04:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • What would you be callind that now? tongue depressors? 132.205.44.134 04:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• A generic name is an absolute necessity. The reason is simple: this is en.wikipedia.org, not usa.wikipedia.org. The name "Popsicle" is only used in North America: not in the rest of the English-speaking world. This is an international website, and internationally neutral names should be used. It is made even worse by the fact that "Popsicle" is one particular brand name. Okay, so it's the most popular one on one continent... but it's not sold at all in Europe, and people from the rest of the English-speaking world do not generally know the word... unless they happen to have heard it and remembered it from an American film. Whatever the new title shall be (even if people don't like Ice lollipop), it needs to be a more generic, international title. EuroSong ^talk 10:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Consistency with an actual naming convention like WP:NC(CN) is more important than choosing a title that is hardly used by anyone just because it is internationally generic. --Serge 18:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• An alternate suggestion: Why would we not consider the name "Ice pop"? This is the term used by Unilever Ice Cream itself, who are the makers of Popsicle to describe their large range of Popsicle products. Popsicle is a brand name[3] and they have 17 different "Pop" products and their own term for such products is "ice pop". ONe way or another the Popsicle page needs to be rewritten completely if this goes forward because it does not even mention anything about it being a brand name while the Kleenex page at least acknowledges the facts. ww2censor 20:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe this article can stay but the article just needs to state that Popsicle is the brand name and the original generic name was ice lollipop. As this article is about a specific brand then it should just talk about that brand and not the generic name which could be given it's own page. As there are different terms in all the English speaking countries then it's hard to find a happy medium, somebody is always going to be upset unless we can find a term which is not biased. If we can find an unbiased term and create a page with that title, then all the other terms like, ice lolly, ice pop, ice block etc could be redirected tot hat page where it was be explained that in the different countires different terms are used. The problem is finding a term which is truly unbiased.--NeilEvans 21:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, of course the article "Popsicle" has a place: it can talk specifically about Popsicle-brand ice pops and their history in relation to that company and its marketing :) EuroSong ^talk 22:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• I am not familar with a Wikipedia convention that article names should not be biased. I am familiar with the Wikipedia guideline that says article names should reflect the most common name used to refer to the subject of the article. See WP:NC(CN). Also, showing bias against a particular country's usage, even when that usage is overwhelmingly and inarguably the most common name used to reference the subject in question, is a violation of WP:NPOV. --Serge 22:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

With regard to the common name, which, in the English language is more common, British English, American English or Australian English. If somebody can provide some info as to which is more common then maybe I'll accept the article as it is. But as I said earlier, this article should just be about that one brand known as Popsicle, and not as a foodstuff in general, even though popsicle is now the generic term. The one article I have found which support my argument is Cola. This describes the generic drink etc, and then goes on to mention different brands, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, with links to each, which then give the history of that brand. The same should apply to Popsicle that's the brand not the name for the item.--NeilEvans 23:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether British English, American English or Australian English is most common is irrelevant here. And no one is disputing your argument that Popsicle should not be used because it is a brand name. The dispute is about whether ice lollipop should be the name of the article instead. Ice lollipop should not used for the title of this article for the same reason that frozen colored and flavored water on a stick should not be used - neither are the names that are most commonly used to refer to the subject of this article. Finally, the cola example is completely irrelevant - since cola is indisputably the most common name used to refer to, well, cola. --Serge 23:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Serge, you keep talking about the "common name". But it seems that you're entirely missing the point. It is only the "common name" in ONE (or two?) countries. The rest of the English-speaking world does not even recognise the name at all... so how can it be a common name? Your entire argument seems to be based upon the fact that the population of the USA is greater than that of the UK, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, etc etc. The fact remains that Wikipedia is an international website: therefore ONE country's "common name" should not be allowed to override the rest of the world. EuroSong ^talk 11:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Euro, you are entirely missing the point. You reject "Popsicle" on the grounds that it is a name that it is supposedly entirely unknown in most any country outside one. Fine. By your logic, then, "ice lollipop" should be rejected for the exact same reasons, except that even fewer people are familar with that term. What you don't seem to recognize is your own WP:NPOV-violating bias against American usage, period, regardless whether it happens to be the common English name used to reference the subject at hand overall in the world, or not (which is what I mean by the most common name). --Serge 16:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Ice pops" are the generic name for these things in the USA. The Popsicle company themselves even label them as such. You can't say, surely, that that name is not recognised. EuroSong ^talk 17:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Euro, you're the one who proposed this move to Ice lollipop, not to Ice pop, and that's what this discussion is about: the term "ice lollipop" is virtually unknown in the U.S., and, as the google test results show, hardly used by anyone (2000+ times fewer English references than Popsicle, for example... 2000 times!). There is no objective basis to support this move. That your motivation is not the good of Wikipedia, but anti-American usage, at any cost, has been made all too clear. --Serge 18:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My motivation is not anti-American usage at all. My motivation is anti-USA-centric usage on an international website, where compromise may otherwise be achieved. EuroSong ^talk 19:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am English and live in England. I think of 'ice pop' as one of those things sealed in plastic (no stick), that you rip the top off and push out to eat. I had always associated the US 'popsicle' with the same item, but I was evidently wrong. Verica Atrebatum 19:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What about having an article titled Ice pop/ice lolly/ice block and then have Ice pop, ice lolly, and ice block redirected to that page which can explain all the different terms in the different countries, or would that title be too silly??--NeilEvans 20:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ohhh, dear. This is getting contentious. Can everyone take a step back and stop casting aspersions on the other participants, and instead discuss the merits of the arguments? Now, then, it seems to me that "ice lollipop" or "ice lolly" is right out as they are as much Britishisms as Popsicle is an Americanism. It appears from the Google results that "ice pop" is the generic term for popsicles in the US, however they are far more commonly called just "popsicles". So "Use common names" is in direct conflict with "Avoid systemic bias". =) Those advocating against this article being titled "Popsicle" need to understand that, US-centric or not, this is by far the "most common name" for ice pops across all English-language sources. That the US dominates those sources is, perhaps unfortunately, irrelevant; as the English-language Wikipedia, we have to judge all English-language sources equally. Those advocating for the "Popsicle" title, though, should also realize that it is a brand name and the meaning is not immediately apparent to non-US users; a compromise to a fairly common term ("ice pop", IMO) should not be considered unreasonable in light of the other side's arguments. Personally, I'm not sure I have an opinion either way, but I think this discussion (over a frozen confection, no less) shouldn't engender such vitriol. Powers ^T 21:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as somebody who was involved in this discussion much earlier, I think ice pop is a good choice, since it seems to be used as that long-sought generic term by the industry in the US, if not by normal human beings. Ice lolly or ice block seem too country-specific. The multiple title suggested two posts above would break a number of wikipedia conventions. - DavidWBrooks 21:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Support Lolly, Lollipop, Ice Lolly are the only terms I was ever brought up to use! People saying that Popsicle is the proper term is rediculous, if you translate the French, Spanish, Russian and German general names for such a thing, it translates as one of those terms (usually Ice Lolly) its like calling a Vacuum Cleaner a Hoover or Dyson, or a Dishwasher a Hotpoint or Electrolux, just because they are common brand names. This is just another way in which corporate branding is infecting our language. - Conrad Kruschev 7:55, 17 September 2006 (GMT)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consensus/compromise

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I think what is starting to emerge is this:

• The generic article goes to Ice pop
• Ice lolly, Ice lollipop, Icy pole and Ice block as redirects to that
• Popsicle becomes an article on the trademarked item of that name, obviously with a link to Ice pop

I realise of course that one definition of a compromise is something that leaves everyone slightly unsatisfied, but that seems to me to reflect wiki policy, common sense, and the majority of the opinions expressed here. The article itself states accurately that this is solely a U.S. term for this item, and I agree it seems to be almost unknown in the rest of the world. Thoughts? --Guinnog 23:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree... this seems very sensible. "Ice pop" sounds fine.. as fine as "Ice lollipop" would be. The "Popsicle" article can be as elaborate in describing those products of that company as people wish it to be. EuroSong ^talk 00:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. - DavidWBrooks 14:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC) (a USAian who has never said any term but "popsicle" in his life!)

Reason and logic... I like it. But I'm befuddled by those who support this and the current vote to change to the ridiculous "ice lollipop". Anyway, do we rename this particle to Ice pop and start a new article on Popsicle, or do we start a new article on Ice pop? By the way, here's Martha Stewart's recipe for homemade ice pops[4] --Serge 18:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea. Soltras 19:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it seems that this would be the best compromise and would satisfy most. michaelCurtis ^talk+ _{contributions} 21:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the "ice lollipop" votes can be ignored now - they came before ice pop was suggested, and were mostly anything-but-Popsicle votes! How to proceed depends on whether we want this Talk page to be carried over to ice pop - if so, once a conccensus is declared, I (or another admin) can Move this to ice pop, then recreate much of this article (without the Talk page) here. Otherwise, we can just create ice pop and cut-and-paste much of this text there. I'd prefer that idea; I think this Talk should stay with Popsicle. - DavidWBrooks 21:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Great there seems to be a consensus here. I agree that Popsicle should remain as an article devoted to that brand, and a new generic article Ice pop can be created with the various terms redirecting to that article, also the genric article can then have links to different brands of Ice pop, Icy pole etc.--NeilEvans 21:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I also agree: "Popsicle" for the brand; "ice pop" for ice pops and ice lollies in general. PoccilScript 21:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've created a stub for ice pop and made the redirects. PoccilScript 21:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well done. We can move some of the content over from this article to the new one I think. --Guinnog 21:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the "suggested move" box from the top of this page, so as not to confuse newcomers. - DavidWBrooks 00:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Since two or three editors have added their opinion about the move since then, I guess it didn't work! - DavidWBrooks 23:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This is kind of funny. I wonder how many people will continue to debate the move after it has been made ... - DavidWBrooks 09:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Another name that occured to me for a more generic title would be something like ice confectionery or ice sweets?. As Ice lolly, Ice lollipop, Icy pole, Ice block are all forms of ice confectionery? It just seemed to me to be better than Ice Pop which is still a term coined by a single company in the US? -- Shimirel ^(Talk) 13:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a generic term. See the recipe in the references section of Ice pop. --Serge 18:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Popsicle brand name is also used in New Zealand

Popsicle is an ice block sold in New Zealand by the Tip Top Icecream Company. Alan Liefting 04:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"Sicle" brand?

I remember buying Popsicles, Fudgesicles, Creamsicles, and Dreamsicles as a kid in the '70s; the wrappers had a logo similar to today's, with the "sicle" part of the name in a large red circle. However, this red-dot part (with the word "sicle" only) was reproduced on the back or edge in small print, like a corporate logo. Was there ever a "Sicle" corp or brand that marketed all these Foo-sicles? Thanks. -- SigPig \^{SEND - OVER} 21:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Popsicle stick bomb

There's huge discussion about the Stick bomb article (soon to be deleted), and I just added this simple illustration for clarity, since nobody knew about this simple arrangement. --Zeizmic 20:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ferrer K

Ferrer K is no longer a reference for this article b/c information on history of creamsicle was not included when the articles were merged--67.175.242.13 02:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Time line

I question the time line given. I just checked for the original patent and it was filed in 1924 (not 1923 as was written). Frank Epperson was my grandfather, and our family lore states that he sold the patent during the depression, which would be later than 1925 - the year after he received the patent. I don't see where the time line information comes from. --Ian Epperson, 27 June 2007