Talk:Soft drink

message: has made several problematic edits. I have reverted them several times, asking that they discuss the issues on the talk page. As they have not done so themselves, I'll start the discussion for them.
Edit #1, no edit summary, marked as minor. Please use edit summaries and be sure you are not marking as a minor edit any edit which changes meaning in any way. This edit added the italicized text: "The sweetener may be sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, fruit juice, sugar substitutes (in the case of diet drinks or healthier alternatives), or some combination of these." I am unsure what you are trying to say here. It seems to say that sugar substitutes are used in some drinks that are in some vague way "healthier" than diet drinks. By definition, however, drinks using sugar substitutes are diet drinks. "Healthier", meanwhile, is a vague relative term which could mean any number of things, depending on who is making the claim.
Edit #2, no edit summary, marked as minor. "The sweetener may be sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, fruit juice,[sugar substitutes (in the case of diet drinks or healthier alternative sodas), or some combination of these." Pretty much the same problems as above.
Edit #3, no edit summary, marked as minor. "Many sweeteners found in sodas are now healthier alternatives, such as Stevia https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/artificial-sweeteners/art-20046936." The source article here lists 23 "sugar substitutes". While it does list some "possible health concerns" for natural sweeteners and sugar alcohols, it does not identify any as "healthier" that sugar, let alone singling out highly refined stevia preparations (a novel sweetener) as "healthier". At best, the article identifies "possible health benefits" for artificial sweeteners and sugar alcohols, but not for novel sweeteners (including stevia) and natural sweeteners. Seemingly contrary to the first two edits, the article gives possible health benefits for diet sodas with artificial sweeteners over those with stevia.
Long story short: I don't know what you are trying to say, but you are using vague wordings and citing a source that seems to conflict with what you might be trying to say. - SummerPhDv2.0 13:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated sweetener edits 

message: The article Carbonated drink was , but even then it was "too tiny" and it has . Since this article has much more to say, it would seem sensible to combine them into section Soft drink#Carbonated drinks.
 you split this, do you have any comments? 94.21.204.175 (talk) 11:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, merging makes sense. It's essentially the same topic, and there is more detail in this article. — JFG talk 04:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

text: I favor the merge as well. AJD (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I favour the articles being merged under the title "carbonated drink". As explained in the comment from  above, "soft drink" is commonly used (at least in some regions, including Britain) to include all cold non-alcoholic drinks (e.g. juice, squash, iced tea and even water), whereas this article is clearly just about carbonated drinks. Static Sleepstorm (talk) 09:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

text:  Support the merge. This article in its entirety is about carbonated drinks. If you want to keep this article, truly expand it to "soft drinks" to include the origin of "soft v hard" drinks. Shouldn't that be enough votes to merge? --KimYunmi (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Support the merge in the originally proposed direction (not that suggested by KimYunmi). Carbonated drink is a stub and the optic is better covered at Soft drink#Carbonated drinks, where (as noted by others) there is also a lot of relevant material in other sections. Soft drink, on the other hand, has continued to expand and does include (on the page) non-carbonated drinks. Klbrain (talk) 06:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we could compromise by moving all the material on carbonated drinks to Carbonated drink, but keep Soft drink for other non-alcoholic drinks, with a hatnote to ensure the dominant US use of the term is recognised (pointing readers to Carbonated drink). Klbrain (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge "Carbonated drink" 

message: A discussion is taking place as to whether :Portal:Soft drinks is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Bottled water (it's part of a bundled nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 02:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination of [[:Portal:Soft drinks]] for deletion 

message: From the terminology section: ″In the United Kingdom and Ireland, the terms "fizzy drink" and the genericized trademark "coke" are common (though "coke" refers only to a cola of any brand)"
I don't really understand why coke is mentioned here? Sure Brits use coke to refer to cola flavoured drinks, but it's not a synonym for soft drinks. We also call fizzy lemon drinks lemonade, fizzy cherry drinks cherryade but they're not included here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.219.186 (talk • contribs) 16:03, August 4, 2019 (UTC)
::removed. Meters (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: The paragraph starting with "Of most importance is that the ingredient " looks out of place.  I can't tell if it is just out of place or if it just doesn't belong at all.  DaveShack (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production section: extraneous or misplaced text 

message: The article should include mention of Townsend Speakman, a Philadelphia druggist who was selling flavorings for soft drinks around 1808. He seems to have been working with a Dr Physick who was recommending carbonated water to patients. The flavoring made the medicine more palatable. (My printed source is Japanese, but I did find some supporting evidence on the Web (where I also checked the English spelling of his name based on the katakana version).) Shanen (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development of flavors by Speakman (with Physick)? 

message: This is completely incorrect. Within the UK there are two different forms of Lemonade. Neither Sprite or 7-Up fit either of these categories.
"U.S. soft drinks 7-Up or Sprite are called "lemonade" in the UK." 72.68.68.47 (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. Source didn't say they're called that, it said "would qualify" to be called that. Wasn't a great source either. Schazjmd (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lemonade