Talk:Keurig

message: Sales pitch alert!!!
--Simonf 21:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

message: Did a rewrite of the article to bring it more in line with the Wikipedia's style.
This thing could probably use the attention of someone with a better appreciation of coffee and/or Keurig. I'm curious as to how the K-Cups fit into the types of coffee preparation. It seems kind of like a drip brew, but it seems to rely much more on pumping hot water through the cup than simply letting it drip through.
The article as it stands now focuses much more on their coffee machines than the company itself.
I take it that this article was originally written by someone at Keurig and strongly encourage them to continue to help this article grow. EvilCouch 11:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  4 OCT 2006 rewrite 

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: I removed content discussing cross contamination or lack thereof from subsequent cups of coffee. Unsourced statements regarding this seem to be original research. Clearly the article could use improvement but we have to track down sources to do so. Gerardw (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  multiple cup contamination 

message: Several anons had been adding Wolfgang Puck as a brand for the K-cups, and it has been removed with the comment "not a brand".  The most recent anon claimed sources supported it as a brand, so I checked the Keurig website, and there is a Wolfgang Puck brand at http://www.keurig.com/explore/kcupbrands.asp?mscsid=LAF7KCB47T338G5QTQ5X91GWK75CAAB3 , so I restored the mention. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks for your detective work. I've now added a citation to avoid any further removals. --RexxS (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wolfgang Puck 

message: How much energy does the system use while in standby mode? Does it run a heater to keep water hot for quick dispensing? How much energy does it take to warm a cup of coffee using this compared, for example, to a coffee pot on the stove? --Lbeaumont (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discuss Energy Usage 

message: In addition to the direct energy questions posed above, it would be good to be able to assess the overall ecological impact of this system compared to a traditional coffee pot. What are the energy and ecological costs of manufacturing, transporting, and disposing of the K-cups compared to loose coffee? --Lbeaumont (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green Machine 

message: Seems to be missing from the article. In fact i'd swear the entire article either came from Keurig or was written by staff/merchants. After having looked myself into buying one of these machines you can't visit a website without see'ing numerous complaints about the ratio of defective machines. I've also heard a few stories through a family member who works at a store from patrons having to return the machines 2-3 times because the pumps go bad real quick. The sources for the problem(s) are endless and im really unsure why this section is missing. Woods01 (talk) 03:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, the section isn't missing.  Someone like you, who cares and apparently knows about it, just hasn't added it yet.  All you need is a reliable secondary source to add those complaint stats or reliability facts to the article.  I agree; a balanced view is best. --Ds13 (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia isn't a buying guide. The purpose of the article is to describe the company and its services. If there was a recall or some huge story concerning the issues you mention then yea that should be included. People shouldn't be coming here to help them decide whether they want to purchase the coffee machine though. Grk1011 (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  We must find good sources (they must be out there), not Amazon customer reviews, and expand the Criticism section to include consumer complaints.  As the article is now, it is not balanced; the good and bad in the article, versus the good and bad that's out on the rest of the Internet about the product that this manufacturer sells.  (I'm seeing it at about 80% good, but that 20% bad I think should be at least a small part of this article).  Oh, Grk1011, there is currently a recall as of this date labeled Mini Plus Brewer.    —Aladdin Sane (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various consumer complaints 

message: Whence the name? The article does not mention anything about this. The Seventh Taylor (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit that was one of my first questions on hearing the word.  I'm only seeing one relevant reference on Google, and it is internal to Wiktionary.  It does not link back to the device/manufacturer that is the subject of this article.  More research needed.    —Aladdin Sane (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

text: So, I found the word both in English and Dutch Wiktionary.  The Boston Globe article (8 pages) that goes over the history in this article to 2011 describes the etymology of the device for you.  However, the BG article says the word was taken from Danish not Dutch.  I can't find any evidence of the word in Danish.  On the third hand, there is a really great description of the Dutch word here:  Translate keurig from Dutch to English  Dutch Wiktionary tells us it means "erg netjes en beleefd".  Google Translate says that means, "very neat and polite".    —Aladdin Sane (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remember no original research. There should not be a section or subheading called "Etymology"; this article is on the company, not on the Dutch word. Also, citation needs to refer to the company; no original research, synthesis, analysis, interpretation, or evaluation allowed. Softlavender (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The etymology section is cited to an 8-page Boston Globe article on the company history (the larger section heading) that clearly states how the device/company got its name, on page one of that article.  I hope my cite to a reliable secondary source is adequate for the standard.  Etymology is the study of how words got that way, including the naming of brands and companies.  See also List of company name etymologies.  I left my original research for the Talk page, not the article.  On purpose.    —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: The opening line says headquarters is in MA while the right side says VT. Which is true?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.192.76 (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Without delving in to the issue too deeply, I read the article to state that Keurig is HQ'd in MA, and is also a quavering vassal of KGM, (formerly GMCR), HQ'd in VT.    —Aladdin Sane (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headquarters 

message: The list of every available model is not encyclopedic; Wikipedia is not a product catalog, and there are many other sites that are far better at this than Wikipedia will ever be. Let's focus on things that other sites can't do, such as provide more detail on the company's history.  --McDoobAU93 14:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Wikipedia is not a catalog, directory, or advertisement. See WP:NOTADIRECTORY and WP:NOTCATALOG. I did an update to the article and kept the models listing to a short brief list of the main current models -- no chart, no details; all that sort of information is on the Keurig website or at the citations. Softlavender (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Model listing 

message: Hi, could we get some opinions on the quality and/or appropriateness of this video?
As for myself, while I appreciate the time that went into making it, the quality in my view is poor -- it has instances of jerky movements (hands moving back and forth jerkily as if un-rehearsed, nervous, or uncertain). It also seems vaguely self-promotional (the credits at the end -- are those normal for a Wikipedia video?), and vaguely promotional of Keurig (although in my opinion it achieves the reverse effect -- the poor quality makes Keurig actually look bad). Does anyone else want to opine? I've removed the video for now until a consensus forms. (One alternative to this amateurish video would be to find a Keurig-produced video on YouTube or Vimeo, and add it as an External Link.) Also, whoever made the video could re-do it and avoid the problems in this current version. Or, we could skip videos entirely (which might be the best option -- I don't think the article should demonstrate the product in a video in the first place -- it is described in the section on Products and that should suffice, in my personal opinion). Softlavender (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that it's not really encyclopedic. I can understand a video of a common, generic device in operation, but this is far too specific.  --McDoobAU93 13:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's basically an ad for Keurig ... but a crappy ad (no offense intended to the creator). Softlavender (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I don't a video is necessary or even appropriate here. It (operating a Keurig) ain't rocket science. General Ization Talk    13:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video -- could we get some opinions? 

message: It was definitely in Good Faith! Most all of my editing has been correcting links when I find one that is either bad, dead, or the wrong topic for two different homographs. 
I am a rank amateur linguist, with emphasis on rank. I added the translation and reference because when I entered "Excellence" into Systranet.com (my usual translation program that I've used for years) and tried to translate it into Dutch, it came up with nothing close to "Keurig." The same happened in Google Translate. So, I entered "Keurig" into Systranet and it came back with "Neat." I verified this with Google Translate. I used the Google link because more people are familiar with Google than with Systranet, although they've been doing translations online long before Google. Google also put a list of translations on the right hand side of the page under the English translation. "Neat" was at the top of the list, and I assumed from the length of the bar next to it that it was the most frequent translation. "Excellence" is nowhere to be found in that list. "Elegant" shows up third on the list, although its bar leads me to believe it's the second preferred translation. 
Personally, although the Keurig design may be "Excellence," I think its design is more "Elegant," like an intriguing chemical synthesis or an "elegant" proof in Math or an "elegant" solution in Physics from my college days. :-D (Pardon the digression, but what I really hated in college was when a professor said a reaction or a solution was "straightforward;" either he assumed we knew what he meant, or it was a code word for "I don't feel like explaining this at the moment.")
I was going to call attention to the list of translations on the Google Translate page, but I couldn't find a way of working it in without being too awkward. Maybe I should have said, "There are many translations for "Keurig," but "Neat" seems to be the preferred one (see reference)." Maybe it could be construed as detracting from the content and deserved to be reverted, or, maybe it could be added as a second reference for the curious to the immediately preceding reference to the source of the name's origin. I think I have seen two contiguous references before. How do you think that would look, and would it add to the content (linguistically)?
(There: I learned how to use  today!)
Stargzer (talk) 06:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Stargzer, however in spite of all that and in spite of numerous discussions about this, including the fact that we don't know what dictionary John Sylvan used in 1992, all of that is irrelevant to the article. An administrator (who is a native Dutch speaker) has determined that we should not even have a footnote about it. Basically, it's WP:OR. I can dig up all of the previous discussions for you if you like. Softlavender (talk) 06:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

text: Just a short (possibly subjective) clarification from a Dutchman.  Keurig means neat, as in tidy; or doing an exam very well would be keurig.  There is also the association with sophistication, suggesting that that keurig is something for upper class and/or those who want to keep up appearances.  Probably this is not intended by Keurig—just a fun fact to those who share this association. Hulten (talk) 08:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of "Keurig" 

message: Reading this, it reads like a brochure for the company "The original single-serve brewer and coffee-pod manufacturing company, Keurig, Inc"  is a nice tag line, but isn't suitable for Wikipedia as it is not neutral in point of view.  At the very least it is very USA specific.  Nespresso made single serve machines for some 15 years prior as did Flavia and other brands, so Keurig isn't original, and at best is just suited to the US market.    This is clear on Wikipedia :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-serve_coffee_container  
anyway, the Nespresso article seems more neutral and this one doesn't really provide much information on what differentiates Keurig or the machines. Wiredrabbit (talk) 10:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The article also used to cover the DRM controversy but that has been removed and there's no mention of DRM anymore just something vague about anti-competitive design! 194.207.86.26 (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias? Advertisement?