Talk:Unicorn Frappuccino

Ingredients
It's made with more than that. I'd like to see it included. Thanks. Savvyjack23 (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Icarus of old (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Updated appropriate size referenced in article from 20 ounces to 24 ounces Baristapaints (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC) baristapaints

No reason to delete/merge article...
...just because one IP consistently seems to find it irrelevant. Icarus of old (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not just one IP. I've been biding my time because I know that this subject isn't notable, but I want to give it enough time so I can show it's not notable and should either be deleted or redirected. Primefac (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Best of luck "biding" that time! Icarus of old (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The nice thing about waiting is that it involves no effort! Primefac (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Um... what merge? There is no proposal. Primefac (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The title is this section is "no reason to delete/merge article", to which I am agreeing. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I am curious, why are you editing this article as part of your work with the Wiki Education Foundation? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I received an alert that it was up for proposed deletion because a student had edited it at one point in time. Upon looking at the article I can see why it was tagged - the coverage for this was pretty slim and while it deserves a mention in the parent article for frappuccinos, that's about it. It caused a bit of a media frenzy while it was out, but the majority of the coverage was of the "slow news day" variety and tended to revolve around the same thing - that the drink released, sold out quickly, and was seen as a quirky thing to take photographs of - and all of the coverage is from the same 1-3 week time span, so there's no true depth of coverage. I'm not going to revert anyone if they decide to restore it, but I don't really think it's ultimately all that notable in the grand scheme of things. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. Shouldn't there be a tag on this talk page to show work by a student editor, or enrollment in a class project, or something? I don't know the details of your role at Wiki Ed, but just a suggestion: you might consider working via talk page discussions instead of single-handedly deciding to redirect pages, etc. Also, I must disagree, as I find this subject notable. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I was just following WP:BEBOLD since I didn't think that the page history should be deleted. If you want you can restore it (which you have), that would also fall within BEBOLD. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Twas just a suggestion. Again, I don't know the specifics of your role, but I'd recommend starting talk page discussions and getting consensus for major decisions. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Coffee drink?
Despite its latter name, according to Starbucks' website, there isn't a drop of coffee in its ingredients and should not have the pertaining category attached to this article. You can find that source here. Savvyjack23 (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This "frappuccino syrup" isn't made with any coffee. Savvyjack23 (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)