Talk:Mountain Dew/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
White Out Slushie availability
White Out slushie is not exclusive to 7-11 stores. I work for a chain of convenient stores known as Sheetz, based in Pennsylvania, that offers the White Out slushie.
Canada Food and Drugs Act
Why is Mountain Dew prohibited from adding caffeine under the Canada Food and drugs act, while other soft drinks such as Red Bull, Monster, Rockstar etc. are not? Is this actually an outdated law that was sometime repealed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.174.171.14 (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have heard arguments that these products get around it by claiming fall under "Natural Health Prod uct." There are examples of non-cola beverages with caffeine, however: Dr. Pepper, Bawls Root Beer, and undoubtedly others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.229.119 (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Sperm count
Does it lower the sperm account? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.38.18 (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- The article used to address this urban legend, but I guess at some point it was removed. Anyway, the short answer to your question is no, it doesn't affect the male sperm count. You can read more on this legend and get the full research at: http://www.snopes.com/medical/potables/mountaindew.asp --Brownings (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- The male sperm count? Is there a female variety? -- Newagelink (talk)
Green label art
the alumin bottles aka green label have been around for longer than the article says i got one about 4-6 months ago the article says that they were released in July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.41.205.222 (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, they've been around longer than July. I think they actually started last fall sometime, around the release of the Halo 3/Game Fuel Dew, or at least that's the first time I saw one. I don't have any sources though, so I'll leave it up to someone else to correct. --Brownings (talk) 03:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
veracity of "namesake of code red virus" claim?
I'm calling shenanigans on Code Red Dew having much to do with the virus - there's nothing about it on the main Code Red page, there's no citation, first time I've ever heard of that idea, etc. Plus it's a fairly common pre-existing expression for an emergency situation, particularly a military one (e.g. a "we're under attack" scramble alarm). More likely they both got their names from the same idea, rather than one aping the other? Not to mention that Code Red is either Chinese, or was made to look like it was... 193.63.174.10 (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- As with almost every article on Wikipedia, citations definately isn't this article's strong point. The company that first saw the virus named it Code Red, because Code Red was new at that time and that's what they were drinking. The zero-day alert went out with the Code Red name, so that's how everyone and their brother picked up on it. Check out this July 2001 article from USA Today on the story: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2001-07-20-code-red-white-house.htm. I'll try to get the citation added to the article tonight. --Brownings (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Introduction update
in the intro it says, "As of 2006, Mountain Dew was the fourth-best-selling carbonated soft drink in the United States, behind only Coca-Cola Classic, Pepsi-Cola, and Diet Coke. Diet Mountain Dew ranked ninth in sales in the same year.[2]" i think this should be replaced with the article for the 2007 rankings at http://www.beverage-digest.com/pdf/top-10_2008.pdf. Tyler John (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the article starts with 'Mount Dew' instead of 'Mountain Dew?' I thought maybe it was currently known as or had previously been known as Mount Dew, but there is no other mention, so I wondered if it is just a typo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.95.135 (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
No green bottle?
I've noticed that there is no picture of the original bottle or can on here. Being encyclopedic, this seems like a shortcoming. When showing this page to people who are not familiar with Mountain Dew it leads to confusion (especially since the Dewmocracy photos are there). If someone has an original bottle in a "free" photo, it seems like it would be a great addition to the article.
-SColombo (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Line of spam
There's one line of spam for me under the Citrus sodas box, but i cant see it on the edit page. Can someone explain me why or just remove that line? --Willem Mulder (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I don't see it. Perhaps it's just something your computer is doing. Which browser do you use? --Brownings (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Lithium citrate
After reading the nonreg's source, it seems as if MD did have Lithium in it at the beginning, just like 7-Up and countless others. So, I believe the information should be added to the article. With that said though, I don't think it should just be lumped into a "removed ingredients" section where it'll probably be by itself forever. The Ingredients section should list only current ingredients because if you start listing ingredients that have been added and removed over the years we'll be here forever, and the list will never be complete. I believe that the Lithium citrate info should be added into the overall history of the brand since it's an important fact in the foundation of the brand. Oh, and the nonreg's ref is an excellent MD history read by the way. --Brownings (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Speaking of history sections, why the heck doesn't this article have one? --Brownings (talk) 23:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Several different ingredients have been removed/replaced over time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.202.113 (talk) 03:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- My point exactly. If you list one, then someone (you) will need to research and list them all. I think the Lithium bit is interesting and should be mentioned in the article, but in a history section, not just thrown in there as Removed ingredients. --Brownings (talk) 03:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, my point is that I started out at pepsi working on the original production line when I was 18. I spent 20 years making and another 20 years tasting, and only 3 ingredients have been changed/removed. Since Pepsi got the formula, and adding a history of mountain dew would be very very bad idea. Since, the History of mountain dew prior to pepsi owning it is very irregular. Some people say Pepsi bought it and others say pepsi stole it. Either way the 3 removed ingredients are easily proven.
- Sigh, you've missed my point completely. Seems you're hell bent on adding this and then forcing readers off of Wiki to go find out what really happened. By the time they read your Ref, they'll probably not come back to Wiki and move on, since most people have a short attention span. With working 40 years with MD, you'd be the perfect person to write a history, or at least summarize from other sources. While throwing Lithium up there makes perfect sense to you, you have to keep the casual Wiki reader in mind and expand on your idea. I saw that you've already added the listings back, which is fine. I'm not God here and this has taken up enough of my time already. I'm completely against this addition, but I'll let the other regualars around here chime in and make the final decision to keep or kill your edits. Oh, and just so you know, you said they've removed three, yet you only added two. --Brownings (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
New Mountain Dew logo?
Hello,
I'm the user MarioCRO from the German Wikipedia. I've a question: - Habe Mountain Dew a new logo, when yes from where is the source?
Good bye! --84.58.164.154 (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- The name "mtn dew" and the related logo were registered by PepsiCo with the USPTO so it is probable (but not certain) that this is the rebranding for Mountain Dew. It is also possible that they will change their minds an go with something else, given that all feedback I have seen is very negative.
- In other words, until you see it on shelves, or a PepsiCo owned website, it is not official, just possible. —MJBurrage(T•C) 16:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I found the (or at least a) new Mtn Dew logo at the supermarket today. It's based on the older (late 1990's/early 2000's) Mountain Dew logo:
Because of the quality (scanned in from a 12-pack, as you can see the contents info in the corner) and the fact that I'm a Wikipedia noob, I'm reluctant to make any wholesale changes to the article referencing the new logo. -Chops76 (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've been seeing 12 packs, 20oz, and 2 liters with the new "mtn dew" logo on it all over the place. The packaging doesn't say anything about a special holiday packaging or anything. In fact, it doesn't mention that there is a new logo at all. I guess the change is official. --Brownings (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
No It will not just be for the special holiday packaging. it will also have the new logo in 2009 as well as the 2010's.71.168.195.21 (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Mtn Dew
I assure you, it is on shelves (I have in my hand right now a bottle of "Diet Mtn Dew"), and looks nothing like Image:Mtn Dew.jpg - so why isn't it in the article? --Random832 (contribs) 12:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why anyone hasn't pulled the trigger and made an update. It's not because the lack of references, a quick Google search turned up a ton of sites with articles on Pepsi's revamp of their product line (Pepsi, Mtn Dew, & Sierra Mist). I think the few people in the beginning who thought this was only "special" packaging have since seen that the change is here permanently. --Brownings (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- We can wait and see if it's a full rebranding or just a new logo (i.e. if we see offical ads that say "Buy Mtn Dew..." then it's a rebranding), but in the meantime the article should continue calling it "Mountain Dew" because that's what it's been called for years, so most people will still call it that. Although having the new logo is alright (let's just try to make a SVG logo instead of a pic of a can). [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 08:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- i think it was an experimental rebranding to try and cash in on the recent popularity of text messaging/the internet/the retardation of the english language. unfortunately it was a stupid idea and i'm almost certain that it failed as only the original flavor used the new logo, and all of the boxes/cans of original flavor that i have purchased within the last month or two have reverted back to the old logo. these were all purchased at stores which had "MTN DEW" previously so i know that it isn't just old stock from before the rebranding. it was a dumb idea, and people want to drink a soft drink because of the flavor, not because of a "Catchy new logo dude!".99.153.29.112 (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- I whole-heartedly agree. I drink Mountain Dew because I enjoy the flavour, not because I wanna be hip or cool. It reminded me of when Chuck E. Cheese updated their image to be "cool" and "edgy" with the younger kids which just turned me off of it. More to the point, this does bring up the topic of whether or not it really is a permanent change. As has been said I've seen plenty of bottles that don't have the new logo, so it may well be still in the "testing the waters" stage. Let's hope that it's just a phase and it passes soon. Dakmordian (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Replacement of logo by User:Download
Recently a user going by the name of Download replaced the picture of a "Mtn Dew" can in the infobox with another photo that showed a comparison of the old Mountain Dew and new Mtn Dew cans. I don't think that is a good idea for an infobox image, really the infobox should contain a SVG logo instead of a can picture. I reverted the edit just now, if the comparison pic is notable it can be added to the body of the article, but to me it seems redundant, as the old Mountain Dew logo is already disscused in the body of the article. Remember, an infobox is only meant to be a summary of key facts. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 09:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I replaced it because the new one had higher quality, and also because the old image was set for deletion. -download | sign! 01:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Possible unreliable reference
the current #5 ref (the one that lists health problems supposedly caused by the ingredents) CLEARLY lists wikipedia as it's main reference. correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't such references considered unreliable. --StoneCold 89 07:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The aforementioned reference and the addition to the article from it, has been deleted per Wikipedia policy. when adding a ref ALWAYS double check a reference's references to reduce the amount of inaccurate and/or unreliable content on wikipedia. --StoneCold 89 07:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- I had taken this to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, they said that adding references that trace back to Wikipedia is a "double whammy", :-) then they removed the reference. If a reference cites Wikipedia as it's main source then that reference is absolutely not reliable and should be removed. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 00:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Mountain Dew commercial
I would like to tell you that many people are upset with the new commercial for Mtn. Dew. BODONKADONK. PLEASE! This is degrading to women. Pepsi has always had very cool commercials but every time I hear this BODOONKADONK I want to scream. IT makes me sick! Please, get rid of this commercial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.157.93 (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry it offends you, but Wikipedia is not the place to make complaints about somthing related to the article's subject (i.e. we are not affiliated in any way with PepsiCo (the maker of Mountain Dew) or anyone else). I would suggest you contact the company themselves (find the contact link at http://www.pepsico.com) and complain to them (after all, they're who created the commercial). [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 08:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Game Fuel
Game Fuel is listed in the discontinued varieties and the new current varieties. I know that the new Game Fuel is called Horde Red even though they are the same flavor. Should it be removed from the discontinued varieties or should it be mentioned that it was re released under a new name. Also where its listed in the current varieties it has a caption of "has been release!" this seem vary unprofessional can we get a date it was released or at least a general time? Codeman177 (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Even though the current Game Fuel Horde Red is the same recipe/flavor as the old Game Fuel, I think generally people are counting them as two separate drinks. What makes the confusion worse is that Game Fuel Horde Red doesn't actually say Horde Red anywhere on it, both Horde Red & Alliance Blue just say Game Fuel. Oh, and thanks for pointing out the added bit on those two entries. I've cleaned both up, plus deleted a future listing that was for some reason in the current line section. --Brownings (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- In the current section it said that Horde Red is a promotion for World of Warcraft and Halo 3. I removed the Halo 3 since the new kind is promotion for World of Warcraft only. Codeman177 (talk) 04:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Redirect
to Mtn Dew, which is the name of the product officially now. Pointless voting for something that should logically be true. -Me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.201.58 (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- the product is named Mountain Dew, branded to Mtn Dew in the US for marketing reasons. World-wide it continues to be branded as Mountain Dew Flibblesan (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Diet Mountain Dew Ultra Violet
This should probably be added to the main page. Here's the link for it. http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/client/e3i9a9104a5cd2646569274ebcb535970dd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.156.221 (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Tone
This article has the tone and content of an advertisement. Does a person who wants to know what Mountain Dew is really need a comprehensive listing of various advertising campaigns and alternate packagings? Also, I added important information about the health effects of consuming too much of any product containing brominated vegetable oil and it was removed without discussion or explanation. This leads me to believe that someone is being employed to "monitor" this page and ensure that its message is consonant with the image of Mountain Dew concocted by its marketing people. While these people have a right to express their views, is it really appropriate for Wikipedia to lose its encyclopedic tone in order to provide free marketing for a corporation? 115.64.7.182 (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- The article is bad. It's a jumble, and as you mention sounds like an advertising arm for PepsiCo. History, flavors (active & retired), ingredients, health facts (real and urban legend) should remain, but the rest could be really cleaned up or deleted. --Brownings (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ranting about Brominated Vegetable Oil under the guise of calling it "important health information" is also not appropriate for the article and is just as disingenuous as the so-called Pepsico marketing conspiracy you mentioned. Brominated Vegetable Oil is not really an ingredient, it is used to oil the packaging machinery instead of WD-40 or other petroleum based oils, so that way if a drop accidentally drips into the bottle, it won't be poisonous. They just put it on the label in case of that one drop accidentally being inside a bottle. It is often listed on orange juice containers as an ingredient for the same reason. So, calm down, take off your aluminum foil mind-control protection helmet, and reseach these things in advance before you overreact. Jimindc (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Your explanation for the reason BVO is listed in the ingredients is completely wrong, as even a brief glance at Wikipedia's own page on the subject would tell you. That you couple this misinformation with insulting remarks about my sanity shows that perhaps you are the one who needs to think about how they react to things. 203.158.45.83 (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
UK relauch never happened
Reference #4 is unreliable, it is over a year old and Mountain Dew has never been relaunched in the UK. When pepsi has been contacted for comment they have stated they have no plans for a relaunch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revolution117 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
True, need to be removed, unfortunately. Soul destroying considering im a dew addict ¬¬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.219.19 (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Throwback
The new version of Throwback includes orange juice concentrate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.27.125.157 (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have a reliable source for this? - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything but it's on the ingredient list on the can, in those words. Basically, it's regular Dew with sugar and a slight re-proportioning of the ingredients (Ingredient lables go from the ingredient of highest content to the ingredient of lowest content). Perhaps I should take a digital photo of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.252.81 (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
mountain dew experimenting?
Mountain dew has been experiment from 1964 to the present days.They tried to make another flavor in 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidude36 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Disputed
The information about the UK re-release sounds very shaky. Although some sites (thegrocer.co.uk for example) seem to be reliable, Facebook definitely isn't and neither is Twitter. I can't find anything — press releases, pictures, brand logos — on the Britvic website, and I'm coming to the conclusion that the whole thing is false. The bulk of the re-release section was added by an IP with few other mainspace contributions. I'm tempted to strip out anything not reliably referenced. Brammers (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Mountain Dew Energy hasn't had a complete UK roll-out as of the 17th May 2010 but is available in all BP Connect stores and will be gradually introduced to Sainsbury's stores. Facebook is a reliable source of information, providing it has been posted to an official Facebook page (which the Mountain Dew UK is). Once the drink has a complete roll-out in the UK, I'm sure Britvic will update their website.
- A suitable source for information would be http://www.just-drinks.com/news/britvic-launches-mountain-dew-energy_id100358.aspx also. Flibblesan (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Flibblesan, please read WP:CIVIL before editing in future. Rudeness and name-calling does not help anyone.
- There is no indication that this Facebook page has anything to do with Britvic or Pepsico, and as such I do not believe that it satisfies the criteria for being a reliable source, since Facebook has many pages which have false information on them, and moderation is weak. One of the criteria for a fact's inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truthfulness, and so until we can verify it via a reliable website there is little point in including it, in my opinion. If you would like, we could take this to the reliable sources noticeboard and ask for further discussion. If you continue to make personal attacks, I shall request an administrator's attention. Brammers (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ok. The line calling you an idiot has been removed and I apologise. Besides one word cannot be seen as a personal attack. Flibblesan (talk) 01:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- This http://www.mysupermarket.co.uk/Shopping/FindProducts.aspx?Query=mountain+dew appears to be a reliable citation that Mountain Dew is available in the UK. It is a supermarket price comparison website, and when I accessed it on 23rd June 2010, it shows that Mountain Dew is available in Sainsburys but not any of the other stores it compares prices for. I don't have any citation to support this claim, but you can get it at most Chinese food stores, generally imported from Singapore or Hong Kong. Jonbryce (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I've just received a statement from the marketing company that's handling the launch to say it's all systems go. Will edit out any chaff from the section that has accumulated over the roll-out. Brammers (talk/c) 15:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Its definitely in the stores, I hold in my hand a bottle of it. Also, should be added, you have to be 16 to purchase the drink. 82.21.174.79 (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
New Logo
Hasn't voltage received the new logo already? If you look on Amazon.com, the 2 liter voltages have the new logo in the image. Bioniclepluslotr (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Mountain Dew Energy ingredient comparisons with standard Mtn Dew
Consider moving the last paragraph under "Re-release in the UK", to the section labelled "Ingredients". --86.142.238.18 (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Mountain Dew Commercial Ver. 2010
The new commercial has a picture of a cup/can from 1948, however, this article shows 196x for when it was founded or whatever. 71.87.115.188 (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Dates disputed?
Can someone please cite the dates of the introduction of this brand to help prevent future edit wars.--Topperfalkon (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Flavors and varieties - alternative representation options
Just following up on this brief edit I made to the Mountain Dew article. Taking a closer look at the Flavors and varieties section, two things are apparent:
- If recent history is any indicator, there will continue to be frequent changes in the Mountain Dew flavor/variety line-up - often involving so-called "limited edition" flavors that are produced for short, finite periods of time (often 8 weeks). This has led to a rather unwieldy bulleted list which is outdated in some places, inaccurate at times, and is suffers somewhat from a readability perspective.
- At present (Jan 10, 2011), many of the current flavor announcements are not cited, and several are based upon original research instead of relying on (and citing) reliable, verifiable sources
In the interest of addressing these two outstanding issues, what do others think of potential alternative ways of representing the continual evolution of Mountain Dew flavors within this article? My initial thoughts are perhaps in sortable tables separated by decade (as in List_of_Red_Hot_Chili_Peppers_band_members), or in a timeline (as in Timeline_of_the_London_Underground)?
As an aside, I'll note upfront that PepsiCo happens to be a client of my employer, which presents a potential WP:COI. I don't see this hampering my ability to contribute to this article in a way that complies with the highly important WP:NPOV policy; in fact, my intention is to instead add reliable sources where they are currently missing and otherwise bring this article up to Wikipedia's own standards. That said, in the event that I identify more substantive changes that I feel could help bring this article in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I'll propose them here on the Talk page in order to gain feedback and reach consensus instead of simply moving ahead on my own. Looking forward to hearing others' thoughts on the Flavor representation options/thoughts posed above. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Just following up on the above note -- after allowing some time for this to settle, the article has been updated to reflect the version the changes mentioned above. The primary changes, in a nutshell, involved two aspects:
- adding citations from reliable sources to previously unsourced content. I was able to borrow a fairly comprehensive book from the library (Special:BookSources/1-4196-6087-X) which was of help. While quantity doesn't always equal quality, the prior version of the article was lacking adequate sources and was not meeting WP:V. Though there are a few remaining minor areas of the article that could benefit from sourcing, by and large it is now well-sourced (going from 31 to 87 sources).
- reformatting the Mountain_Dew#Flavors_and_varieties section with a focus on readability and accuracy. The prior bulleted list format was likely ideal in 2002 when only a handful of Mountain Dew flavors existed; however at present, with 30+ flavors and growing, a table is a better way to sort and display this information. Since several flavors are now limited-editions which are released for 8-12 weeks, put on hiatus, then released again, it made the most sense to order all flavors chronologically - since the usual current vs. discontinued designations do not adequately cover the subject in this case.
- As above, any and all feedback is welcome (both now and in the long-term). Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Mountain Dew Pager Campaign
Sometime around the mid-90's Mountain Dew ran a campaign that provided a free pager (beeper). It cost $19.95 plus 64 proofs of purchase and included free airtime during the duration of the promotion. You received pages Saturday mornings from a 1-800 number; when that number was called you were notified if you won any prizes. The grand prize was a Hummer H1 wrapped in vinyl Mountain Dew graphics.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.248.32 (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted images
I've marked many of the images used on this page as copyright violations at Commons. Please upload them locally here with fair use rationales. Adrignola (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Good catch -- many of those images were uploaded by me, before I became aware of the Commons image casebook, which has a section clearly explaining photos of product packaging. I'll take care in uploading them here on Wikipedia along with fair use rationales. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Why did you delete my picture without giving a chance for feedback? --92.79.130.184 (talk) 11:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Just an update regarding this edit, which corrected a bit of image formatting that had fallen out of place. A few images were removed only because they were quite blurry (to the extent that labeling was difficult to discern), and a note was posted on the submitting user's Commons user Talk page. On the topic of images, it is a challenge to take photos of Mountain Dew variants, since they are often sold for limited time periods, and in some cases only certain geographic areas. Does anyone have access/the ability to take a clear, simple photo of any of the flavors which are not presently represented with photos in this article? Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think the article uses way too many non-free images. —Mike Allen 10:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed; I think that is an accurate assessment. One of the unique challenges with this article in particular is that people are often confused by text descriptions of a given flavor, unless accompanied by an image. So while this provides reasonable justification for maintaining some images which have contextual significance, Wikipedia policy also indicates that editors should be judicious in selecting non-free images in order to avoid overuse. Are you familiar with any precedent for product packaging? Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think the article uses way too many non-free images. —Mike Allen 10:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Initially I felt that the individual flavor images were worthy of inclusion, as they do help to serve as a visual reference to each flavor, and many readers may not know the red flavor as "Code Red" without a corresponding image in place. However the Non-free content policy is clear in mandating that "Multiple items of non-free content are not (to be) used if one item can convey equivalent significant information", and following this to the tee is crucial given the aims of the Wikipedia project -- to produce a free encyclopedia.
So within the Flavors and varieties section, I suggest keeping the one photo with the caption that reads "Eight flavors of Mountain Dew in a grocery store display cooler", and removing the "Photo" column from this section. Do others agree? I'd like to get consensus before making a substantive change like this. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Since the article no longer contains the images previously in question, would everyone agree that it is appropriate to remove the copyrighted material flag at the top of the article? I believe this to be fairly straightforward, but thought I'd double-check to see if others agree. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Mountain Dew Energy
This section has been edited by somebody trying too hard to sound informational. Perhaps a registered user could clean up all the conjecture and uncited bollocks. 94.194.6.35 (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Current Wikipedia article claims that Diet Mtn Dew Supernova has ginseng, but it doesn't seem to in the U.S.
Current Wikipedia article claims that Diet Mtn Dew Supernova has ginseng, but it doesn't seem to contain Ginseng in the U.S.
The 12 oz can I'm holding in my hand doesn't list Ginseng anywhere on it. The ingredient list is: Carbonated Water, Citric Acid, Natural Flabor, Potassium Benzoate, Potassium Citrate, Aspartame, Pectin, Caffeine, Gum Arabic, Acesulfame Potassium, Brominated Vegetable Oil, Red 40, Blue 1. Caffeine Content: 54mg/12 fl oz
Nutrition Facts Calories 0 Sodium 40mg Total Carb 0 Sugars 0 Protein 0 Not a significant source of other nutrients —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.200.161.87 (talk) 10:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- You're correct -- this March 22, 2011 article from Bevreview says the following of Diet Mtn Dew Supernova: "In contrast to the original Supernova, however, it does not contain ginseng."
- The Wikipedia article has been updated accordingly; though if anyone has thoughts on a better way to phrase this flavor description, do share below. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Mountain Dew Grape.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|
An image used in this article, File:Mountain Dew Grape.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
|
| 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) 19:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
File:Pitch Black 2011.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|
|
An image used in this article, File:Pitch Black 2011.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
|
| 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) 19:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
File:Supernova 2011.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|
|
An image used in this article, File:Supernova 2011.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
|
| 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) 19:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
File:Ultra Violet.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|
|
An image used in this article, File:Ultra Violet.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
|
| 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) 19:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
File:Mountain Dew Red.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|
|
An image used in this article, File:Mountain Dew Red.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
|
| 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) 19:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
File:Baja Blast 2011.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|
|
An image used in this article, File:Baja Blast 2011.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
|
| 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) 19:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
File:Dew X-Treme.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
|
An image used in this article, File:Dew X-Treme.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC) |
File:Dew Sport.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
|
|
An image used in this article, File:Dew Sport.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC) |
Tennessee
Tennessee is misspelled in the chart of the different types of Mountain Dew.
````
May I edit this page?
-WEDTNM- (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Why yes, Ferraricali48--anyone is welcome to edit Wikipedia! If you are considering a more substantial change, it is generally a good idea (though not ultimately required) to talk about it first here on the Discussion page. Is there any way we can help you out? Jeff Bedford (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I want to add some photos to go with the different variations, seeing as most of which are gone.
-WEDTNM- (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from , 12 October 2011
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, my request is to update this:
The original Mountain Dew is only available either from eBay, Amazon, Selfridges or other specialist importers such as Stateside Candy.
To:
The original Mountain Dew is only available either from eBay, Amazon, Selfridges or other specialist importers such as Stateside Candy and American Goodies. (With a link to www.americangoodies.co.uk)
I believe this will add to the user experience, as our website also supplies the original Mountain Dew in the UK, but with more options. We sell as singular cans, 12 packs and 24 packs. We will also be expanding our range to include other variations of Mountain Dew to include
Voltage, Supernova and Throwback. Finally, we are currently amongst the cheapest in the UK.
I appreciate your consideration, Richard
Rich833 (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Not done, Wikipedia is not here for you to promote your company, making this change would be doing just that--Jac16888 Talk 11:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from , 15 October 2011
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, under the flavours and varieties section, I'd appreciate it if you could add American Goodies (www.americangoodies.co.uk) to the list of retailers.
See blow for original text:
The original Mountain Dew is only available either from eBay, Amazon, Selfridges or other specialist importers such as Stateside Candy.
Rich833 (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Not done, for the same reason provided directly above this in response to your previous request--Jac16888 Talk 18:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
File:Pitch black.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
|
|
An image used in this article, File:Pitch black.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC) |
The song version attributed to Grandpa Jones was actually written by Bascom Lamar Lunsford (q.v.), lawyer, banjo-picker, and folklorist. His contribution to the LoC archive of folk song is quite large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.17.18 (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
File:Diet SuperNova.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
|
|
An image used in this article, File:Diet SuperNova.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
{{Semi-Protected}} Polish Mountain Dew
I am from the US currently in the UK. Trying to find something better than Energy, I found a shop that sells foreign drinks. They sell Mountain Dew from Poland that tastes like the US version, and unlike what is says on the Wikipedia page about Polish Mountain Dew, it does not contain any extra ingredients. It comes in 330mL cans, 500mL bottles, and 2L bottles. Uses real sugar instead of HFCS. Rh111111 (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)rh111111
Game Fuel
The two flavors of the World of Warcraft themed Mountain Dew were representational of "factions" not "races" if I am correct. Horde and Alliance were the two names.