Talk:Soft drink

Repeated sweetener edits
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 ." 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. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 13:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I added some sentences to the Health Concerns section as though I feel more information should have been there. The added information helps the reader understand more health concerns about soft drinks. I also added the section High Blood Pressure because high blood pressure is a health concern from soft drinks. Tuj14627 (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Definition
The top says it *has* to be a carbonated drink, but several dictionaries and such disagree with this definition. This might be a US-only look and thus be problematic as a definition. We're supposed to look at the world, so it should be a more nuanced definition.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/soft-drink https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/soft-drink https://www.britannica.com/topic/soft-drink https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=soft%20drink

It is notable that ONLY dictionary.com and Webster's disagrees and both are US-based. And of course Coca cola disagrees, but then that's a company that would have vested interest.

Given that 4 out of 6 dictionaries disagree, shouldn't the lead the the article be redefined to the larger consensus and acknowledge the nuance, rather than favor the nuance and then disregard the consensus?

I also have to point out on many US menus other things are listed under soft drinks habitually on menus, such as say milk, juice, etc, so while Dictionary.com (It's low on the hits though) and Webster's (Doesn't appear on the first page of hits) say it is carbonated, often menus within the US often list all non-alcoholic drinks under the label "soft drink." Given this, the article should reflect the reality...--KimYunmi (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Two things: First, a minor item. While I don't think we particularly want Coca-Cola corp.'s definition, I'm not sure there is any benefit to them in having their carbonated drinks considered "soft drinks". Additionally, they produce lots of non-carbonated drinks as well.


 * More to the point, I think you're on the right track with the wrong question. I see this article as being about carbonated drinks. Under Soft_drink we call them that (among other things). The name "soft drink" can certainly apply to LOTS of things that this article isn't about: fruit juices and fruit drinks, milk, flavored milk, etc. Perhaps the lead needs to do a better job of making it clear that this article is about carbonated, sweetened drinks?


 * This is a fairly common problem, arising from WP:COMMONNAME. Is "gas" the flammable liquid used to run many cars, a flammable gas used in stoves and heating appliances or a state of matter? Most instances are fairly easy to clarify, but the lead here does seem to be describing the term "soft drink", rather than defining the topic of the article. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Merge "Carbonated drink"
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.

you split this, do you have any comments? 94.21.204.175 (talk) 11:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * I favor the merge as well. AJD (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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, 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)

Oppose the merge. Carbonated drinks are notable enough to have their own article. Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 08:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)

Nomination of Portal:Soft drinks for deletion
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)

Terminology
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)

Production section: extraneous or misplaced text
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)

Development of flavors by Speakman (with Physick)?
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)

Meaning of "soft drink" around the world
It would be great if the page expanded on the differences in the term "soft drink" in different parts of the world, as types of beverages included in the term "soft drink" are different in the UK, Germany, Japan, etc. For instance, the term "soft drink" in Japan encompasses any beverage that has less than 1% alcohol in it, which includes tea, water, coffee, juice, etc. -Sanskaras 2019/12/24

Lemonade
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)
 * 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)