Talk:Cheerwine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Cherrywine"[edit]

cheerwine was created by a klutz People often refer to the drink as "cherrywine," and many people think it is an actual alcoholic beverage.
Is this true? I've lived in the Southeast all my life, and I've never heard it called "Cherrywine", nor have I ever met someone who thought it was alcoholic.

I've heard this, but I believe that it was called that due to the horrible dialect of the area that I'm originally from. Suamme1 19:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What horrible dialect? (I suspect you mean accent.) People speak normally down here -- it's everyone else that has a horrible accent (or dialect). LOL 138.162.128.53 (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard anyone refer to it as "cherrywine," but their current ad campaign (at least on radio) revolves around a convenience store clerk that refuses to sell the product to minors (and is shocked to learn that there is no beer in root beer). It would definitely fall in line with why it's called Cheerwine in the first place (according to the article anyway). - TM

I have lived in Florida or Georgia my whole life, and had never heard of this stuff till yesterday, when I saw it at an Ace hardware store of all places.

Fair use rationale for Image:Cheerwine.jpg[edit]

Image:Cheerwine.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its now in california. and its caffinated.[edit]

one should note that this is one of the few (or maybe only?) fruit flavored soda that is caffienated. grape, lemon, orange, strawberry and other fruit sodas are never caffienated. also Save Mart Supermarkets, a chain of grocery stores in the central valley of California now stocks it regularly on their shelves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.249.246 (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it available in Southern California? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.112 (talk) 08:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Odd, it seems to only be available in North and South Carolina. Maybe it's imported? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PotatoTheThird (talk • contribs) 00:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity outside the South[edit]

This is probably less the case with increased distribution, but for some time Cheerwine enjoyed a certain novelty status outside the southeast. It was coveted by northerners and this even figured into one of Cheerwine's ad campaigns ("Yankees Hoarding Cheerwine"). Anecdotally when I visited a friend in Boston he asked me to bring "a lot of Cheerwine" because of the novelty appeal. If I recall Cheerwine was also cast in a similar light during a cameo of sorts in an episode of King of Queens.

A Pop Culture section might make sense for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.132.137 (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn't. Mjpresson (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's one hell of a well-reasoned argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.225.157 (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia[edit]

I removed a lot of inappropriate promotional nonsense from this article. Wikipedia is not a vehicle to advertise your product. And 2 non free images? C'mon...Mjpresson (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it stated that an article cannot have two non-free images that each show something different and are both relevant? TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 04:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The second pic is irrelevant. Why do insist on the article being an advert?? Mjpresson (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. The second image shows products related to the softdrink. It doesn't list prices or anything like you would expect in an advertisement, it talks about the product. Why is the related product section promotional? TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 04:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be clear to most that the entire article is promotional. Mjpresson (talk) 04:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really, Thirteen, a section telling you which stores you can buy it at??? Great contribution. Mjpresson (talk) 04:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The section had extra information that could have been removed itself without having to remove the entire section. The products are related to the softdrink are they not? You also removed both images at one point, obviously one non-free image to show the product is better than none and is allowed. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 04:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also on that note, one could easily crop File:Cheerwine-icecream.jpg to only show the actual bar on the right, which would then be a valid image. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 05:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits are clearly explained[edit]

User Th1rt3en is restoring promotional material to this article such as non free images and promotional statements. This article was an advertisement and I fixed it. User Th1rt3en is attempting to restore it to an advertisement. Mjpresson (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the current sections and have provided some refs. I'll look for more over the weekend as I cleanup the article. It's much better to tag and clean up an article rather than blank most of it and leave it a stub. Please do not accuse me of restoring only to make it an advertisement. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 05:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that you have improved the article with a better approach than mine. I'm a bold deletionist when it comes to promotional and unsourced edits. My only problem would be the placement of a second non free image that hypes the product. People looking up Cheerwine in an encyclopedia aren't looking for a picture of a tasty popcicle that makes you want to buy the product. Mjpresson (talk)
Ah, but what about the picture of an ice cream bar makes it "tasty"? But again, the second non-free image was showing the existence of the products, which is why it combined the sherbet and the cream bar boxes and the actual cream bar. Just because the photo shows the product, doesn't mean that it's trying to be promotional. For instance, the Coca-Cola article shows several variations of copyrighted and trademarked packaging, many of which are in cans which don't allow you to actually see the cola. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 16:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image issue isn't as important to me as the cleanup you and I accomplished. Onward I say! Mjpresson (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NYTimes coverage[edit]

Some coverage in a NYTimes article: For Some Foods, You Just Had to Be There By SARAH MASLIN NIR Published: August 17, 2010 Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheerwine's Captain Morgan endorsement[edit]

Hello Cwobeel. I recently edited the Cheerwine wiki page so that the sentence that said: > Cheerwine pairs well with Captain Morgan, otherwise known as the "Whining Pirate." Instead said something like > Cheerwine is often mixed with Captain Morgan to make a drink known as the "Whining Pirate." The former is subjective, and smacks of endorsement. It smells like something put in the page by a marketer; a quick websearch for the 'whining pirate' (sans quotes) brings up nothing about cocktails on the first page. My edit was conservative, removed no information except the subjective judgement of an unknown personality, and left the dubious endorsement in place only slightly nerfed. I don't know what you thought you improved by reverting my effort, but I encourage you to think again. I don't have wikipedia editing as a hobby, and don't care to get involved if I'm going to be dealing with reverts on something as un-revert-worthy as this. Instead, I encourage you to do two things. 1) Edit that sentence yourself to remove the endorsement. Perhaps you could write something like "The Cheerwine company has said that the only acceptable alcoholic mixer for...Captain Morgan" (This may be true) or some other phrase that does not equal saying "Wikipedia says that these things taste good when mixed together" (unambiguously subjective and unambiguously an endorsement; well done.) 2) Consider having a little more input and a little more care as to what you revert. If you're reverting things just because they seem to not improve things, perhaps it's because you're not paying attention, didn't take the time to read carefully, or are biased? Or perhaps you, in that particular instance, are none of those things and had a good reason that you didn't explain. As a result, I'm annoyed and, rather than waste more time, I'm leaving you with your ball, giving you a lecture on how you're not making Wikipedia any friends OR improvements here, and going back to my own pastimes. I wash my hands. I don't need or want a response. I just encourage you to consider the above. (Pasting this to the talk page of Cheerwine as well as your own talk page, because while I believe your actions were casually dismissive and inattentive rather than malicious or biased, I may be wrong and would give the community an opportunity to notice if your flaws are otherwise.) 72.130.91.250 (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)FFFFFF[reply]

Blah blah blah, but you're right about the change so I restored your language. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cheerwine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cheerwine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Needs photo of this beverage[edit]

Needed in this article: a photo showing what this beverage actually looks like (!) 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opening text doesn't quite make sense[edit]

"Cheerwine is a cherry-flavored soft drink by Carolina Beverage Corporation of Salisbury, North Carolina. It has been produced since 1917, claiming to be "the oldest continuing soft drink company still operated by the same family"." So a drink is making a claim? And a drink is a company that is operated? What are we really trying to say? Equinox ◑ 00:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ingredients incorrect[edit]

cheerwine bottle says it's made with real cane sugar, there is no corn syrup 2603:6010:5E26:6100:10AC:3107:2A6:F259 (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cheerwine&oldid=1200814679"