Talk:Capri-Sun

To-do
Added a few more things. I don't think all of these need to necessarily be done before a GA nomination, though. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 22:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * add from ✅
 * (not required for GA) ✅
 * https://uconnruddcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2909/2021/04/IJPO_12791.pdf (not required for GA) ✅
 * canada why ✅, to the extent possible
 * sugar content in UK (where does this go?) ✅
 * India ✅
 * maybe one more sentence on Nigeria / West Africa ✅
 * Angola? ✅ leaning on primary source since it is mentioned in passing in the Réunion source (wasn't a todo but also ✅)
 * who actually sells this in Germany? Wild? seemingly yes, but probably not DUE to get into the structure more than we already do
 * Switzerland angle? ✅
 * Caprisongs (maybe also Caprisun Fun; unclear if DUE) Not DUE in this direction
 * tighten up the prose
 * bring int'l § together ✅
 * maybe revisit § names... or maybe 3 sections of like, "Origins in Germany", "North America", and "Outside of North America", in that order? ✅
 * https://www.google.com/books/edition/Germany_Garbage_and_the_Green_Dot/ufjWko3jsfQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22capri+sonne%22&pg=PA60&printsec=frontcover ✅
 * https://www.google.com/books/edition/Germany_Garbage_and_the_Green_Dot/ufjWko3jsfQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22capri+sonne%22&pg=PA60&printsec=frontcover ✅

Internal link or Wikivoyage link
See. I fail to see why we would send readers sneakily to Wikivoyage when the actual issue of the link, that Capri is a holiday destination, is explained at an internal enwiki page as well. Fram (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

See WP:SISTER: "Sister project links should generally appear in the "External links" section, or where appropriate in citations. Two exceptions are links to Wiktionary and Wikisource that may be linked inline (e.g. to an unusual word or the text of a document being discussed)." As Wikivoyage is not included in the two exceptions, it follows the general rule. And certainly when an internal link can be given instead. Fram (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "Two exceptions". Not " the two exceptions". We can tell that there is not a broad prohibition on inline sister links because the guideline goes out of its way to truly prohibit inline links to Wikinews. In otherwords, the guideline divides sister project links into three categories:
 * Explicitly allowed (Wiktionary, Wikisource)
 * Explicitly disallowed (Wikinews)
 * Subject to a general expectation of appearing in the external links section or in a citation
 * A general expectation is of course, general. In this case, when theleekycauldron and I rewrote this article, we felt a link to Wikivoyage was beneficial to the reader, as it explained to the reader the state of tourism in Capri, something the article Capri doesn't adequately do. At GAN review, Guerillero (sorry to ping you twice in a day) objected to the direct link, which led me to replace it with a link to a soft redirect with navbox, at which point Guerillero passed the GA. I think it's reasonable to call that a consensus. And a local consensus is more than sufficient to find an exception from a "generally" in a style guideline.
 * So, if you think this link doesn't benefit the readers, let's talk about that. However, if your basis for that is simply that you view Wikivoyage as a "commercial" site, then, similar to what I said at the RfD, that is a broader concern and one it does not make sense to litigate on an individual talkpage; instead you should start an RfC to give Wikivoyage the Wikinews treatment. Do you have an issue with the actual content at Capri? Do you feel that it does not help readers understand the state of Capri as a vacation destination? That, unlike any misreading of SISTER, is relevant to the question of whether to link or not.
 * And to reiterate and elaborte, linking to Capri is unsuitable because a) Capri is already linked and b) the economy section does not give a holistic view of Capri's status as a vacation destination. It just mentions tourism briefly.
 * Or we could wait a week (or several) and see if the RfD closes as delete, which would moot all of this. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 17:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh well, if the link doesn't get deleted or retargeted at the RfD, I'll just turn it into a short article about tourism on Capri instead. It will be more productive than this discussion. Fram (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The RfD ended in a consensus to retarget the soft redirect, but said nothing about what to do to the internal link to that page, which would be beyond the scope of RfD. If an RfD ends in retargeting a redirect in a way that would make a specific backlink problematic, the solution is to bypass the backlink, which is what I did here. In all this, the only reason given to not link has been Fram's personal feeling that no one should ever link to Wikivoyage, which as discussed above runs contrary to guideline. A style guideline failing to exclude something in its non-exhaustive list of exceptions to a rule is not a prohibition, and can easily be settled by local consensus, which we have had here. Is there an argument why such a link is inappropriate in this context? Otherwise, I would again refer Fram to the option of an RfC to forbid inline links to Wikivoyage, as was done with Wikinews. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 17:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Tamzin I realize I'm a latecomer in this discussion, so I won't claim to understand previous discussion fully, especially regarding any local consensus.
 * All I can say is that WP:MOSSIS pretty clearly discourages an inline link to Wikivoyage, and I don't see a great reason to go against it. I'm also not sure I see any strong local consensus supporting it having been demonstrated - all I've seen is you and theleekycauldron supporting is as writers, Fram opposing, and Guerillero opposing a direct link saying it looks like an easter egg. So I think it's still easily mutable at this point (as others chime in, like myself).
 * I recognize that Fram has shown a bit of... hostility toward Wikivoyage in general in defense of his position before. I would like to say that I don't share that feeling, as I have little idea of what Wikivoyage is (this is my first exposure to it). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Guerillero can correct me if I'm wrong, but I got the impression that he prefers a direct Wvoy link to no link at all. (If EGG is the particlar sticking point, Wikivoyage inline is an option, as noted by Ivanvector at RfD.) As to the suitability of this article for an exception to MOSSIS' general guidance, I think that discussing a tourist destination as a tourist destination is the exact kind of situation where it makes sense to link to Wvoy.  would definitely be inappropriate, but Wikivoyage is a sister wiki about travel, and we're discussing people traveling to a place. If that's not a context that justifies an inline link, what ever would be? The Wikivoyage link directly elaborates on the claim made—that Capri is a popular tourism destination—in a way that the enwiki article does not. It's similar to a situation where one might link to the enwiki article on a book and then, when discussing some feature of its text, link to the enwikisource entry as well.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 17:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Truthfully, I think you're stretching that guideline a bit too much. In trying to sum up my thoughts, I keep coming back to: the guideline discourages it. Sure, Wikivoyage is not explicitly listed as a project to NOT link to in the body, whereas Wikinews is; however, Wikivoyage is also NOT given an exemption to "no inline links", whereas Wiktionary and Wikisource are. And the 2nd paragraph talks about including material from sister projects in the body, and elaborates only on "media", which I take to mean pictures and the like; trying to include an inline link in that context is too much of a stretch imo.
 * Basically, if there's not a pressing NEED to include something, and there's also a guideline discouraging inclusion, I feel like it can just be left out.
 * I don't think you've read 's opinion right, but perhaps they'll answer to that.
 * (And as a technical matter, Wikivoyage inline may be a misnomer - the documentation there says "It should only be used as an "External link", never as a citation.") PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No idea why Tamzin again tries to have a link to that very poor Wikivoyage page, despite the RfD and the clear text of the MOS. This is a page about a drink, not about the best hotels and boat trips on Capri. Please just drop it. Fram (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if you feel the need to elaborate on the status if Capri as a tourist destination, then add a reference to a reliable source about Capri as a tourist destination. This is not comparable to linking to the wiki-hosted exact text of some primary source, and is (one of) the reason that Wikivoyage is not an exception to the no online links rule, and wikisource is. Fram (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Logo is out of date
this is the current logo. Can someone please update it? ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 04:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I've uploaded it to Commons.  Schwede 66  10:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Logo
The logo is used exclusively on a blue background on packaging, shouldn't we also do that here? If they use a white background, they invert the color: https://www.capri-sun.com/assets/Legal-Files/English/2020_01_CSAG_GTC-of-Purchase-V2.pdf PhotographyEdits (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

marketing power comment
In the section 1991–present: Kraft Foods, the use of "former" and "latter" to distinguish how this would affect market share and marketing power for different corporate entities is difficult to follow. See Special:Permalink/1230841178.

My suggestion would be to go back to the way this is worded in Special:Permalink/1140351881. Fabrickator (talk) 07:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)