This article iswritten inAmerican English, which has its own spelling conventions (color,defense,traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from othervarieties of English. According to therelevant style guide, this should not be changed withoutbroad consensus.

This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Food and drinkHigh‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage offood anddrink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink High This article has been rated asHigh-importance on theproject's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge To edit this page, selecthere Here are some tasks you can do forWikiProject Food and drink: Help bring theseTop Importance articles currentlyB Status or below up toGA status:Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom),Beef,Bread,Curry,Drink,Food,Ham and eggs,Soy sauce,Sushi,Yogurt Bring theseTop Importance articles currently atGA status up toFA status:Beer,French cuisine,Sugar Bring theseHigh Importance articles currently atGA status up toFA status:Apple,Burger King,Fish Participate in project-relateddeletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please reviewWP:Trivia andWP: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 forCategory:Wikipedia requested images of food Consider joining this project'sAssessment task force. List anyproject ideas in this section Note: These lists aretranscluded from the project's tasks pages.

This page has been merged withflavoring because the two seemed most suited to be paired together, but if someone has an idea how to expand flavor in such a way as to create a distinct, decent sized article that doesn't overlap withtaste or flavoring, feel free to do so. Personally, I'd like to see more here about the science of creating new flavors (Jelly Belly is known for this), how scientists imitate flavors, etc.

This page is in bad shape. It either needs to be renamed toflavoring or more information needs to be added about traditional or ‘natural’ flavoring methods before food became industrialized. For one, there is thousands of years of historical flavoring methods that existed before chemical synthesis; for two, the traditional methods are still used in industry and is the sole practical method for flavoring in home cooking. The way this article is written seems to be a composite of (a) industrial flavoring, implying that flavor did not exist before so, and (b) a justification for the use of artificial flavors which is wholly biased and not what the article should be about.47.144.167.178 (talk)21:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article is entitled "flavor", I would suggest that the whole article should use that spelling rather than "flavour". The spelling difference is mentioned at the very begining of the article and I think that is lopaediasufficent.Wjousts13:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simply my habit of writing. No coup intendedSjschen00:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this article needs to be changed back to 'flavour' with 'flavor' being a redirect. Only specifically American articles should use American English. This is an international encyclopaedia and the commonwealth spelling is the internationally accepted standard. This is not an American article. Changes reverted.AntonioBu02:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"This is an international encyclopaedia and the commonwealth spelling is the internationally accepted standard." No, it's not.WorldWide Update21:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American English is abhorrent, only articles specifically about US subjects should have American English spelling all other articles should use correct English.--RMHED20:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) This sort of imperialism doesn't help Wikipedia. 2) There is no "internationally accepted standard." Indeed, most people on the planet (though not the vast majority) use some version of American English. 3) #2 is actually irrelevant: Wikpedia has clear guidelines on spelling. Please seeWikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. --Cultural Freedomtalk 2006-06-27 20:43 (UTC)

Those guidelines are exceedingly unclear, mostly waffle. I did notice this sentence though "If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article".

As the bulk of the Flavor article came from a merge with the Flavouring article then surely it should be called Flavour.--RMHED13:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Perhaps believing that "American English is abhorrent" is influencing you? --Cultural Freedomtalk 2006-06-28 13:41 (UTC)

Quite possibly, u know that u want to add that u really don't u.--RMHED18:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason American English is used by a 'majority' is that the majority of native born speakers are American. In most of the world's other nations British English is the standard. This is typical American cultural domination. Remember, American English was basically invented by Noah Webster, it was a deliberate mutation of British English. So shouldn't the original form be favoured in non-American articles. You people always get uncomfortable when it is suggested that your way isn't the best way. Only articles specifically pertaining to US subjects should use American English. There are entire articles that only offer an American POV, which is completely unacceptable, I'd change them myself if I believed I had sufficient expertise. Like it or not, wikipedia is overly Americanised. So I encourage all non-American, or non American biased experts to get in there and work at it!AntonioBu07:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes... And while you may point to established policy remember that policy needs to evolve if wikipedia is to continue improving.AntonioBu07:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the article titled "Flavor" yet it begins with the line "Flavour (flavor in American English)?" Shouldn't it be the other way around, i.e. "Flavor (flavour in British English)" or, better yet, "Flavor (or flavour, seeSpelling differences)" as I've seen it in several articles? That, or the title should change to "Flavour." I'd change it one way or the other myself but I doubt my changes would stick in an article where the spellingistas have set up camp...

You nailed it. There's no point in changing it, too many spelling zealots.Sjschen17:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand why an American site should use "International" English at all, even if it has international articles.

Since when is it an American site? An the theory of most English speakers living in the US is not really valid. Under that precedent maybe we should change the internet all to Mandarin?Shaizakopf08:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the many reasons Scholars laugh at Wikipedia. Personally I say stick with "Flavor", as that is what the article started as. I will be changing anything otherwise, and if I see an edit war, I will be contacting admins. this is inexcusable elitist garbage.Sneakernets19:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an American site; founded, based, and run out of the States. It is only logical that it primarily uses American English. If the item of focus has a direct correlation to the UK or Canada, then it should of course use the native spellings. However, 'flavo(u)r' does not fall under that category, and should thus default to the American English spelling. To suggest otherwise is purely nationalistic pride speaking and has no place here.65.80.155.102 (talk)09:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not possess the educational background to comment on the differences between artificial and natural flavoring, I believe it is necessary to create separate sections (or separate new pages) providing knowledge on these two types of flavoring. Currently, both types redirect to "flavor" and little information on the differences exist on this page.Colorblindmike19:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a search on wikipedia for "natural flavor", and got redirected to this. Disappointing. The term seems so vague. Would love to know what it legally means.YellowAries2010 (talk)17:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't really a difference. Artificial flavor is just flavor obtained from chemical reactions in a vat or test tube rather than in a living thing.4.88.42.140 (talk)03:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there's a better definition that that. I know that's the gist, but so many products in America have "natural flavor", I'm sure some consumers would like to see the term explained.YellowAries2010 (talk)17:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no scientific definition of "natural flavor" so I fear you will be disappointed. Regulations vary from place to place and product to product as to what can be labeled "natural". Usually anything obtained originally from a plant or animal source and is processed using only physical (e.g. distillation, filtering) or chemical processes usually related to traditional food preparation (and this can be very broadly interpreted, e.g. heating, fermenting, etc) could be labeled as natural.Wjousts (talk)19:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a consensus was really reached here. As I see it the most widely used version in multiple English speaking countries should be used, instead of the one that is mainly used in America only. Except I do not know which one is more widely used outside of America. I think a clear consensus has to be reached and left as a note on top of the talk page, on all these alternate spelling articles actually, because right now for the flavour article at least the reason for choosing one over the other seems to be a little "up in the air"JayKeaton (talk)14:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SeeWP:ENGVAR. The consensus is that the article started with the spelling flavor and therefore should continue using that spelling. I added an internal note to the article in this regard.VMS Mosaic (talk)17:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I can't find on that link the consensus that you mentioned. Where should I be looking?JayKeaton (talk)02:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the overall Wikipedia consensus which is defined by WP:ENGVAR. This article clearly started with the spelling "flavor", and therefore WP:ENGVAR requires it continue to use that spelling unless some part of WP:ENGVAR allows it to be changed (e.g. if it was an article covering a British subject).VMS Mosaic (talk)18:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't really help, someone could just change the starting of the article to "flavour" and then the rest of the article would have to change to comply.JayKeaton (talk)04:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the article edit history. When the article was created, the spelling "flavor" was used.VMS Mosaic (talk)02:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it means it was created by a user of American English, that shouldn't be precedent enough to decide which is correct for the English speaking world at large.JayKeaton (talk)07:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the consensus defined byWP:ENGVAR says that it is precedent enough. In any case, I am not going to debate WP:ENGVAR here. It is what it is. Please also read the third paragraph ofWP:MOS and its footnote concerning an arbitration request (passed 6 to 0) on this issue. The consensus here is very strong, very clear and long standing.VMS Mosaic (talk)20:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who is often editing food articles on Wiki, I'll throw in my bit as well. My feeling is that the spelling is in transition globally to an American spelling. Most of the globe is reared on the English spelling as 'flavour' because most of the former Bristish Commonwealth countries would be Oxford Dictionary based. However, the spread of PCs, with American based dictionaries is meaning that most people on the planet are exposed to American spelling nowadays. For example I'm in Australia where we spell it "flavour", but my spell check says "flavor". It's the way the cookie crumbles...Also, although it's international ..wiki is American in origin ...let's get over it.John Moss (talk)05:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank God someone is finally thinking logically. I can understand it can be frustrating, but we're trying to build an encyclopedia here, not a English pissing contest.65.80.155.102 (talk)09:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So does America win?Brancron (talk)05:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Brancron[reply]

Depends on how narrow minded you are65.80.155.102 (talk)09:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how it's spelt.Aluminium andPlough sit alongsideColor andFlavor. Some you win, some you lose- and a trully 'International English' would rightly use spellings from different variations.77.86.22.8 (talk)14:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article should talk about the evolution of flavor from the moment a comesitible enters into the mouth till it is swallowed and after. The most common word people use is "aftertaste", but wine tasting descriptions cover a more detailed "envelope" or "profile", with words like "upfront" "mid palate" "finish" and "aftertaste" and probably a lot more.69.203.73.99 (talk)21:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The US regulations pertaining to natural flavoring is outdated, and the citation goes to a dead link. The current revision of the CFR found at[1], but I don't know how to work the phrasing in to the article, as it doesn't give a specific definition, only states what types of material may be used, and then gives a long list of sources from which they may be derived. The current version is accurate, but outdated.—Precedingunsigned comment added by69.97.250.169 (talk)02:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please fix interwiki on this article, it has wrong interwiki and cannot be sync automatically by bot.Aris riyanto (talk)12:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page is badly in need of citation, is far from meeting Wikipedia quality standards. Please do not revert "citation needed" tags, instead help improve the article by adding citations for each factual statement given.— Precedingunsigned comment added by24.87.34.107 (talk)06:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cam here looking for information on when it began to be used, etc. Failed.Dougweller (talk)11:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I came here for the same reason: to get an idea of the history and the definition from both government and industry of Natural Flavor or Natural Flavors... It either needs to be a part of this discussion or have its own article... But I believe that various governments have regulations and have made determinations as to what this is?Stevenmitchell (talk)02:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction to thisFlavor article references seven basic tastes. However the referencedBasic tastes section of theTaste article states that there are five basic tastes -umami being the fifth taste recognized. TheBasic tastes section goes on to note that in Chinese influenced countries pungency is traditionally considered a sixth taste. "Metallicness", listed in thisFlavor article as one of the seven basic tastes, is listed in theFurther sensations section of theTaste article (along with pungency, coolness, and six other taste-related sensations. I recommend modifying thisFlavor article to reflect the five basic tastes statement of theTaste article.Penelope Gordon (talk)06:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link onFlavor. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20080227052412/http://www.norden.org/pub/ebook/2003-516.pdf tohttp://www.norden.org/pub/ebook/2003-516.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set thechecked parameter below totrue orfailed to let others know (documentation at{{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC 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 withthis tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)18:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links onFlavor. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20080720091222/http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/flavourings_user_guide_0802.pdf tohttp://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/flavourings_user_guide_0802.pdf
• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20110826044631/http://www.cspinet.org/nah/04_01/ tohttp://www.cspinet.org/nah/04_01/

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 byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC 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 withthis tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)05:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article, you will see that it actually is about food additives, rather than about sensory impression. About the sensory perception we already haveTaste andSweetness (andOdor andSense of smell as well).

This article may be renamedflavoring orfood flavoring. I would prefer the last.--Wickey (talk)16:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The current article's content is entirely about artificial flavorings. Unless it is expanded to include natural flavorings, it should be moved toartificial flavorings. If itis expanded to include natural flavorings, I agree thatfood flavoring would be a more suitable name. --Macrakis (talk)17:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is not correct. Their is no exclusion here, neither there is a separate article about artificial or natural flavorings. Also the dictinction itself is artificial. :-) --Wickey (talk)17:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rreagan007 persists inremoving flavor and flavour as synonyms. As I have already showed, they are genuine synonyms[2],[3] and it is easy to give plenty other examples.[4],[5],[6],[7],[8].

This article has suffered from this confusion for a long time, has caused many wrong wikilinks and wrong interwiki links as well (the last are corrected now). --Wickey (talk)13:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia articles that use American English
• Start-Class Food and drink articles
• High-importance Food and drink articles
• WikiProject Food and drink articles