Talk:Squash (drink)

message: : Other dilutants such as lemonade may be used instead of water.
Maybe so, but is that the intention? I mean, you could dilute it with whisky or sulphuric acid, but so what? I'd also point out that diluting it with lemonade would likely result in more strength/sweetness than would diluting it with water, since the lemonade already includes sugar and flavouring. But the bottles don't mention this "use" at all. Fourohfour 14:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Other dilutants such as lemonade may be used instead of water" 

message: I'm a bit concerned about the use of the word 'syrup' here.  Most squash, in the UK at least, is not viscous as one would expect from a syrup (contrast fruit syrups popular elsewhere in Europe).  Sugar-free squash is also popular, which doesn't seem to jibe with the use of the word 'syrup' (usually implying sugar syrup) at all.  Maybe the word 'concentrate' would be better? 86.90.244.119 19:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; I changed this, and don't feel it affects the quality or universality of the article in a negative way. Fourohfour 14:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the word 'syrup' 

message: Did anyone realize that the article does not actually say that orange squash is made from oranges and lemon squash from lemons? Seems like an important bit of information. The whole article is poorly written and makes all kinds of assumptions about what the reader already knows. It needs a complete rewrite by someone who has a bit more cosmopolitan view of what real information is. This one is vague, non-informative about essential matters and is generally a failure.
Agreed.  The essential ingredients are water, fruit juice, sugar (or sweeteners) and citric acid.
"Squash, such as lemon squash made from lemons and orange squash made from oranges, is a juice-based drink popular in much of the world." That might make a better lead. 
The article also left out the vitally important detail that people frequently make their own squash at home from the fruit itself, and that restaurants (or food service providers, at least) sometimes serve squash made from actual fruit. It's as if real people do not exist without a corporation making a profit selling them something in a package. Halfelven (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not believe for one second that anyone in the world has ever made or drank "Squash Squash".  Citation needed. 46.17.161.251 (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's it made from? Pumpkins? 

message: Squash in Australia is normally a fizzy, cloudy lemon flavoured drink (sometimes referred to as lemon squash or club squash). Non carbonated flavoured drink concentrates are known as cordial (eg orange, raspberry, tropical fruits cordial...). Ozdaren (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Australia

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Coop squash advert.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Apart from being hard to read as it's just a long block of text, I seriously doubt the relevance or accuracy of most of the claims made.
The vitamin content of something that uses less juice shouldn't be listed as disadvantage - neither the lower content of sugar, which is the main reason for making it low-sugar in the first place.
Does anyone seriously count a fruity drink towards the daily recommended fruits/vegetables? I've heard this reason with regard to smoothies, but at least those are 100% fruit (or should be, I think?).
Also, the (far too large) part about artificional sweeteeners looks wrong to me. I've yet to see a convincing argument why artificial sweeteners should cause a craving for sweetness (I've heard about it being used for pig farming - they simply prefer sweet food, as do we).
The warning about Aspartame is, in my opinion, partly wrong and partly too much. Mentioning of phenylalanine is OK, but it's on every label anyway, I think. (It is in Europe, at least).
Maybe I picked the wrong template? Was my first time, wasn't sure what to use. First impulse was to delete it, but who says I'm right on all accounts?...
--Cyberman TM (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Disadvantages of low-sugar squash

message: By this definition, wouldn't MiO be a squash? MiO is pretty popular in America, we just don't call that kind of thing a squash, we just call it MiO, in the same way that people usually refer to searching the internet as "to google" even though you might be using bing or yahoo or another search engine... 67.4.226.55 (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a squash because it doesn't contain any fruit juice.  Apparently it doesn't even contain real sugar. Wahrmund (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So all squashes have to have real fruit juice. Ok. 67.4.226.55 (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Is MiO a squash?

message: The article currently claims that squash is popular in Scandinavia, referring to a similar product known as "saft" or "saftevand" in Scandinavian languages. It should be pointed out, however, that in order for a product to be labeled 'saft' in Norway it has to contain at least 50% juice (by weight), which means it is arguably a different product, since my understanding is that there are no similar juice content requirements for squash. On the other hand, requirements are not as stringent in other Scandinavian countries and in colloquial Norwegian any fruit-flavored concentrated syrup diluted with water before consumption is typically called 'saft'. As such, I am not sure whether this really requires further clarification in the article, so I would like to get some opinions before I go ahead and change anything.Maitreya (talk) 11:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scandinavia 

message: "Squash is prepared by combining one part concentrate with four or five parts water (carbonated or still). Double-strength squash and traditional cordials, which are thicker, are made with two parts concentrate."
"When your squash is twice as strong, you use twice as much."
Hmm.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.224.63 (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The above is the wrong way around. "When your squash is twice as strong, you use twice as much." should be "When your squash is twice as strong, you use t̶w̶i̶c̶e̶  half as much." This mistake made it to the article "Double-strength squash [is] made with two parts concentrate." (implying the same amount of water). Zenopus (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double strength squash 

message: Is it just me, or is the 'Advertising' section entirely superfluous? Most of the advertising methods listed therein can be applied to virtually any product, and are not specific to squash marketing. 193.169.217.73 (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising section 

message: Barley Water is distinct from (or a subset of) squash.  It does not contain only the ingredients stated, but also finely ground barley solids.  Culturally it is associated with the Wimbledon tennis championships in the UK, via sponsorship and consumption as an energy drink. Jivingfrog (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barley Water 

message: '"Cordial", "dilute juice", and "squash" are similar products'
- is this the same as "dilutin' juice" in the earlier section?  Is it also called "diluting juice"?  I that some sources refer to "dilutables" to mean squash concentrates - http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/home/topics/dilutables-makeover/67723.article
"Squash should not sometimes simply be called "dilute" because it must be drunk neat."
- I can't make sense of this.
- I don't think it's the job of Wikipedia to have an opinion on what people should call things, though it's fine to quote a source with such an opinion.
- If sources use different terminology (dilute, diluting, dilutable), creating confusion, I think it's legitimate to clarify that.
Jivingfrog (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Respectfully disagree.  This article, in part describing the somewhat interchangeable uses of the terms 'squash' and 'cordial', both fruit- or fruit juice-based beverages, appears to be written from a British perspective and should remain as is for that reason.  However, in order to *accurately* cover the term 'cordial', as it is understood in the United States (along with possibly Canada and some other English-speaking countries), as a liqueur variant, a separate article for that specific usage would be in order, along with a broader disambiguation of the term that would define both usages equally, but, separately.  Additionally, the term 'squash', as a beverage, isn't used in the United States, so, to insert the US-based usage of the term 'cordial' into this article would be a mistake and would likely cause even more confusion.  They are clearly two separate drinks and do not belong in the same article. 2601:543:4200:73E0:5864:B375:D019:EBBC (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: Quote from the article on Liqueur:  
In some parts of the United States and Canada, liqueurs may be referred to as cordials, or schnapps.[3][4] This can cause confusion as in the United Kingdom a cordial would refer to a non-alcoholic concentrated fruit syrup, typically diluted to taste and consumed as a non-carbonated soft drink. 
This article should be edited accordingly. Oaklandguy (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Respectfully disagree.  This article, in part describing the somewhat interchangeable uses of the terms 'squash' and 'cordial', both fruit- or fruit juice-based beverages, appears to be written from a British perspective and should remain as is for that reason.  However, in order to *accurately* cover the term 'cordial', as it is understood in the United States (along with possibly Canada and some other English-speaking countries), as a liqueur variant, a separate article for that specific usage would be in order, along with a broader disambiguation of the term that would define both usages equally, but, separately.  Additionally, the term 'squash', as a beverage, isn't used in the United States, so, to insert the US-based usage of the term 'cordial' into this article would be a mistake and would likely cause even more confusion.  They are clearly two separate drinks and do not belong in the same article. 2601:543:4200:73E0:5864:B375:D019:EBBC (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology in the United States and Canada