"often to do with exactly what you've just done by using the American POV word even if non-American english speakers object.

I'm not necessarily advocating a change, but ""confectionary"" doesn't seem anymore neutral to me than ""candy"".  From the American perspective, ""sweet"" is used much, much more than ""confectionary"".  Also, perhaps this is biased, but if there's a dispute as to which country's term ought to be used, shouldn't the fact that over 2/3 of native English speakers reside in the United States be factored into the discussion.  In other words, isn't the prevalent usage of a word in America essentially the more prevalent usage of the word in general?  
Absolutely not. Following your logic, then this would be usa.wikipedia.org. However, since it's en.wikipedia.org, it caters for all English speakers all over the world. The guidelines specifically say that no one national variety of English should be favoured over any other, in general - and where possible, internationally-neutral compromises should be used. The term ""confectionery"" is internationally neutral, as belongs in an international encyclopædia. If you want to start a usa-only version then be my guest: in the meantime, we all use the international one.  talk 

I really don't understand this discussion, I myself am not a native English speaker, but have had a thorough English education. There is different word use on wording and spelling in English as in other languages, language is never static and not invented by an organisation but spoken by people. Even dictionaries don't include all words immediatly on use. Is the word google a verb? Is it in a dictionary? Will it be in the future? I really see no need for this discussion, if there are many POV's (read wordings) the best way to be NPOV is to include all POV's with a note on where they came from and where they are used.  

I'm removing the 'list of candies' because it doesn't give you any information you wouldn't get by just clicking on the ""Category:Confectionery"" link.  Further, these category pages keep themselves up to date.  The list in this article only lists a fraction of the 'candy articles'.
 01:50, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

 Removal of branded names from candy types 
Should we remove such things as Reese bits from candy types? It's too specific, and, what's worse, brand specific.

 Candyarian? 
What's the adjective for someone who eats only candy?  

 Various options that spring to mind (depending on how long they've been doing this for) include ""fat"" and ""dead"". If you do have a reason to use the term, I'm sure there's no law against coining ""candyarian"" to serve. (There is some paranoia against using words that aren't in the dictionary, but I doubt most dictionaries include the word ""eats"". The important thing is if you're understood, and if it suits the context.) 

 Of course, ""candarian"" is a bit dangerous because it's based on a dialect-specific term; you might find Australians then discussing ""lolliarians"". Perhaps it could be based on ""confectionery"" which is dialect-neutral albeit formal, thus giving ""confectionerian"" (I imagine a ""confectionarian"" is someone who eats places that sell confeck, rather than the confeck itself—probably no better for your long-term health!).

— (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 

""Sweet-toothed"" ?   | Talk 

 Influence of Atitude 
This artcle fails to mention the considerable effect of the altitude of the place where the cooking is done to the temperature corresponding to the various ""stages"".  Are all people interested in candy ftlanders or lowlanders ?

 Candi, Crete 

Would this be important?

The Arabs installed the first industrial sugar refinery on the island of Candia or Crete around the year 1000.  The Arabic name for Crete, Qandi meant crystallized sugar.
History of Food, Maguelonne Toussaint-Samat,Translated by Anthea Bell [Barnes & Noble Books:New York] 1992 (p. 549-554)
(unsigned comment ArthurianLegend on 2006-08-03T04:17:00)

Alas, Toussaint-Samat is a really, really unreliable source, full of legends and misinformation, and since she doesn't footnote most of what she writes, there's no way of verifying it. (Take a look at the [htt