Talk:Open-source cola

Cola under the GPL?
How can this be true? The GPL is a software license.184.17.173.136 (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Many written works, other than software, are licensable under GPL. Wikimedia Commons uses it widely as a licence for image files. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

"Andy Dingley"'s disruptive editing
A few common sense changes were made to the article in a series of edits on 28 April.. One of the edit summaries was "can never guarantee that an article contains the text anticipated by a link such as this. also inhibits easy re-use of the article text". "Andy Dingley" undid all the edits without bothering to explain why, a highly disruptive act.. He then had the cheek to continue to revert with claims like "unexplained deletion" and "inexplicable deletions". Reverting without explaining why, and falsely claiming that the edit you are reverting was not explained when it was, is frankly bizarre, and is clearly not intended to be productive.

For the benefit of anyone less dense who can actually understand what an explanation is and when one is necessary, here, again, is why the changes were necessary. One by one:


 * 1) Unlike the infamously secretive Coca-Cola formula - "infamously" is a label which is pure opinion. It violates WP:NPOV and must be removed.
 * 2) See Coca-Cola formula for a discussion of all four of these "original" recipes. - you can never guarantee that an article contains the text anticipated by a link such as this. It also inhibits easy re-use of the article text. The link should be removed, or replaced with a link in normal prose which does not constitute a self-reference.
 * 3) The section "Open colas" was formatted as a list. It is not a list and should thus be formatted as prose.
 * 4) The same section contains an external link relating to "HK cola", which violates the MOS, is not a reference, and seems to be there purely as advertising. The link must be removed.
 * 5) The same section also contains text claiming that a certain open cola is "sold as far afield as New Delhi and Dublin". The paragraph containing the text is indented, wrongly, and the unlikely claim is unsourced.  "Andy Dingley" inexplicably removed the citation request.  The claim must be sourced, or removed.
 * 6) A well-known cola often confused with open-sourced colas is Ubuntu Cola - I doubt many people have actually heard of it. The claim "well-known" is subjective and unverifiable, and constitutes a mere peacock term, which can be removed without any meaning at all being lost.
 * 7) Despite its name, which leads to confusion with the open-sourced Ubuntu operating system distro - its name does not imply that it somehow should be open source, and so "despite" is incorrect. Its name does not inevitably lead to confusion with the operation system, and so "which leads to confusion" is incorrect.  The sentence needs rephrasing for accuracy.  In addition, "open-sourced" is incorrect.  The "source" is a noun, not a verb.
 * 8)  (though it is a fair trade cola). - whether it's fair trade or not is irrelevant to an article about open source recipes.

As all of these changes are utterly uncontroversial and required by guidelines and policies, and as furthermore "Andy Dingley" hasn't bothered to try to explain his objections to them and has lied about other people not explaining their reasons, I am reinstating them. 88.25.205.87 (talk) 09:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You are edit-warring      on the basis that "wikilinks don't work". Now if that's suddenly the case, we have a rather bigger problem than one article! Your edit-warring crosses to other articles too "rm coordinates of places mentioned, not encyclopaedic", "don't be stupid." after being reverted.
 * This article refers throughout to the four historical Coca-Cola formulas, so it is essential to give some onward linkage to the article where they can be found. This was originally written as a shared footnote. Maybe it needs to be in the body text instead? Maybe they need to link to each recipe's section directly?  Yet we need some link to these formulae. To claim that "wikilinks can't be used as they are unreliable" is sheer nonsense.
 * "Infamous" is an adjective. They add depth to writing. But you don't like adjectives. Coca-cola's behaviour over secrecy for their formula has been widely attested to as infamous. " supposedly kept under 24-hour guard in a vault " as the Grauniad has it, even from what's already linked here.
 * A list? Three separate makers seem to me to be a list. I've no strong preference though.  We've also been much more lenient on ELs in lists as a convenience to the reader. If you want to format it as a ref, then go ahead.
 * Cube's worldwide reach is from one of their sources, although not cited on that line.
 * No, few people have heard of Ubuntu cola. However amongst the Linux geek community, the name is something of a joke and the assumption has been commonplace. Look at the computer trade press (a WiReD piece, as I recall) for more.
 * I am also puzzled as to why you are scare-quoting my name as if it is unreliable. Yet you edit from a variety of conveniently flexible IPs. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No, I am not saying that links don't work. Are you deliberately misrepresenting me, or did you really misunderstand the point so badly?  A link to Coca-Cola formula is surely useful.  So add it to the article.  A footnote saying "see X for more on Y" is not adequate; it assumes that the reader is reading the text only on Wikipedia or a complete mirror of it.
 * As for adjectives, again you either misunderstand or seek to misrepresent. Who ever said that adjectives per se were objectionable?  Opinions are not acceptable.  "supposedly kept under 24-hour guard in a vault" shows that the formula is secret, not that its secrecy is infamous.  Imagine replacing "infamously" with "sensibly" or "unwisely".  It's not the part of speech that renders them unencyclopaedic; it's the meaning.
 * You haven't explained why you removed a citation request.
 * You haven't explained why you didn't bother to explain your reverting. 88.25.205.87 (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC on linking an article on open-source cola formulas to the historical Coca-Cola formulas
Should a wiki article contain wikilinks to other relevant articles, or else not as, "you can never guarantee that an article contains the text anticipated by a link such as this."? See the section above. Comments on the other points are welcomed too. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What an absurd request for comment. The issue is obviously not whether there should be links.  It's that you were editing to force a self reference into the article, and reverting without explanation while doing so. "See article X for more about Y" assumes that the reader can click on links, and that the link to article X is available, i.e. that they are reading the article on Wikipedia or a complete mirror.  This assumption cannot be made.  Furthermore it obviously assumes that article X contains certain information, which it may or may not.  88.25.205.87 (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)