Talk:Pepsi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good articlePepsi was one of the Agriculture, food and drink good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 28, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
August 14, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Help[edit]

I screwed something up on the page when I took something that was spam out of the article. I do not know how to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.67.220.27 (talkcontribs) 03:44, 3 February 2009‎

Flavour section[edit]

In reference to the flavour section, I figured the most likely way of portraying the various flavours were as one long list as it may become rather disputable to some if categorized another way. Of course this can become rather unwieldy though. I for one agree Code Red is virtually Mountain Dew with a variant kick, but I'm not so sure it may be the best way to go about it. Also, I see horizontal listing as obscurred when vertical makes it quite easy to see multiple flavours such as Pepsi, Pepsi ONE, Pepsi, etc. and cancel out all the Pepsis in my head rather having various colour patterns and trying to differentiate amoung how a group listing is separated. Perhaps this is all wrong though so I would like some council on what the rest of you think. Dtgm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtgm (talkcontribs) 00:25, 6 January 2004‎

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2019[edit]

Changing the many references to "blacks" in the Niche Marketing section to "black people". MaverickMapper (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The word "blacks" is used repeatedly in the modern sections of African Americans. Perhaps you would like to address this issue at the talk page for that article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

History Section Inconsistencies[edit]

There are inconsistencies between the Pepsi and PepsiCo pages in key timeline events like the first bankruptcy and in the Loft v. Guth case. Rather than aligning these, why not set up a redirect from the History section on Pepsi to the History section on PepsiCo? We could arrange to match the text, however that seems like an unnecessary duplication out of sync with Wiki's guidelines. GroundFloor (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea, because although the company's and the product's histories are so tied up, the soda predates the company by some thirty years – the bankruptcy was not the modern company, but was a key part of the founding of the modern company, if one considers the modern PepsiCo as the same company Guth founded when he bought the rights to the product; it only took current name upon the merger with Frito-Lay and the company has a lot more than just the soda in its portfolio.
Redundancies are inevitable, I think, but I would not agree with removing the history section for either article. After all, PepsiCo is a much larger company than just Pepsi and other sodas. There's the entire Frito-Lay and Quaker Oats segments, and numerous other products and business whose histories are irrelevant to a history of Pepsi as a product. That aspect, the irrelevance to Pepsi-Cola, is why I think there should still be separate sections, not just a pointer. Plus not having an actual section runs afoul of WP:SUMMARY; just a header with a link is not how sections are ever supposed to look. oknazevad (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Great points. Appreciate your insight. I will continue aligning the history sections to reflect events as recorded in sources of public record. Hadn't considered the nature of the two histories as distinct. Thanks again. GroundFloor (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Questionable source[edit]

In the History section there is reference to a Soda Museum [1] source that is extremely promotional in tone and does not itself cite any third-party sources. Some of the information from this source likewise does not align with details presented in the Guth v. Loft opinion of the Delaware Supreme Court [2]. As such, I think this source should be removed from the page and alternative sources found to verify historical information on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GroundFloor (talkcontribs) 19:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the source entirely. All the material it was used for is already sourced elsewhere with better sources (mostly the website of museum that contains Caleb Bradham's original drugstore where Pepsi was first created). Some rejiggering of that, and removal of a redundant passage, was sufficient to cover the article without the outdated fan site. oknazevad (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Would anybody please Add: Pepsi is currently the Regional Supporter of the African Cup of Nations 2010

Thanks

Sources:Chispy Egypt's Youtube

[3]