This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Slim and tall can
These are NOT exclusive to Domino's Pizza. They may have been once, but I can walk into any corner deli in Adelaide and buy a Coke Slim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chunda21 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Logo
Why is a fair use image being used here? It's my understanding that the plain Coca-Cola logo without all the background design is public domain. I could be wrong about that, though.-RHM22 (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
A plain logo would make sense if the article was about the company, but sense were talking about the actual Soft drink, a Label is more appropriate to convey to the reader what the article is about Jetijonez (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I see a section noting the use of cocaine as an ingredient, but no mention of the rather important fact that it wasn't a controlled substance at the time. It might be worth noting that... Explaining how this company used to put hard drugs in their product sounds pretty bad until you mention that at the time, it was legal and its effects weren't as well known. 64.178.129.122 (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Good point. Looking at Cocaine#Prohibition, Coca-Cola took cocaine out of the formula and switched to spent leaves over a decade before the drug was made illegal in the US. Worth making this change to the text?
Coca-Cola did once contain an estimated nine milligrams of cocaine per glass, but in 1903, over a decade before cocaine was outlawed in the United States, it was removed.
Support? Objections? —C.Fred (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it warrants a mention, and Fred's phrasing is a good start. Maybe a little more about the effects being unknown at the time. But overall, I say go for it. oknazevad (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
File:Coca-cola 50cl white-bg.jpg Nominated for Deletion
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
Is Coca-Cola about to be bought by Pepsi or is that just a rumor?
If this is true, I'm surprised it's not ENORMOUS news, but in that case the Article should report it.
If it is a false rumor, the Article should report that the rumor was circulated and then dispel the rumor with a Reliable Source.
Either way, the Article should answer this little True/False question. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia does not need to dispel every rumour that comes down the pipeline, especially the patently false ones. —C.Fred (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Define the patently part of "patently false." When one is in college and out of touch with newsmedia (as I am), a lot of things seem false but uncertainly so. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Conservatively assuming a 20% premium to market cap, it would cost Pepsi $180 billion to buy out Coca-Cola. Pepsi currently (as of the March 19, 2011 balance sheet) has about $4 billion in cash and short-term investments. It makes about $6.3 billion in annual income. And it's currently sitting on $21 billion in debt. So... you can do the math to figure out how (un)affordable a Coca-Cola purchase would be for Pepsico, even if it were permitted to go through by the anti-trust authorities of the US federal government (which it wouldn't be). Hanxu9 (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
"1943" illustration
The illustration purporting to be a 1943 Coke ad can't be from 1943. Coke didn't use the slogan "It's The Real Thing" until 1948, and then not again until 1969. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.156.138.2 (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Why the carmel Color
I heard the the reasoning behind the caramel coloring was so it resembled coffee, the most popular drink at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.254.22.50 (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Splitop
Is it true that Coca Cola is launching a new product under the name splitop? Or simply internet rumour? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.44.242 (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Brand portfolio: Vanilla Coke Reintroduced
Article does not specify WHERE the drink was reintroduced, needs amending. Presumably reintroduced to the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.248.23 (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it has been reintroduced in the UK too ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.120.148 (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Brands
All brands of Coke whether they are sugar free, caffeine free, or carb free are still brands of Coca-ColaJetijonez (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
As I said in my last edit summary, Diet Coke and Coke Zero have their own articles with their own equivalent charts. Listing them here is pointless and redundant.
More importantly, as anyone with a knowledge of the history will tell you, Diet Coke isn't merely Coke without sugar, but an entirely different product with an entirely different formula. It doesn't belong here any more than Sprite does. And, no Sprite doesn't belong here either. This is the article about Coca-Cola, the product, not The Coca-Cola Company; it doesn't list all of the company's products because that's outside the scope of the article.
Threatening me with 3RR sanctions when I actually bother with descriptive edit summaries (and not just the word "top") is tacky, btw.
Also, I have concerns with the images. They were tagged as NFCC concerns. All you did was re-upload the same images locally instead of at Commons with different names, some of which make absolutely no sense whatsoever, with intentional spelling errors and patalently false descriptions (like the New Coke can being listed as "New Pepsi". And you claim in those uploads to have created the work youself, when theres no evidence of such at all is lying. Seriously, there's so much wrong with that. oknazevad (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Really that's the best you have? A wrong file name, that's laughable.. I could put "pink crunch berry juice" if I want to, and I the CREATOR of the commons files, re-uploaded them here on Wiki, cuz the images may not be suitable for commons, with regards to the Coke Logo...But let's get back the issue at hand, you cannot just go around, making MAJOR arbitrary edits, without taking up on the talk page. Editors who have created this section are showing the Different brands of coke..and because the name coke appears on the product , and may have some of the same ingredients, that 's not redundancy. Any additional information relating to an article, is NEVER to redundant or pointless. Its giving the reader more insight and info. And that warning isn't a threat, its a way to get Blocked. Jetijonez (talk) 04:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
The original uploaded image of the Caffeine Free Coke can may have used the template, but the image itself was cropped from another image on a vendor's website. Proper attribution is given by a link in the file summary. That version also used to be in this article until your uploads of the images to Commons, where you then stated you created the work entirely by yourself. That's not true, and you gave Jo credit to the previous uploader. That's not only classless, it's against policy. oknazevad (talk) 05:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Once again I created, or I should say re-created these can images with Inkscape and converted them to JPEG"s from sizing, And I have NOT given anyone credit. Get your facts st8. Accusing someone of uploading someone else work, without evidence so such is also it's against policy Jetijonez (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
My apologies for my strident tone; I believe you were acting in good faith. But when you use a file uploaded at Wikipedia as the basis for new version, as I understand it you are supposed to give mention of the prior version to satisfy the GFDL and CC license requirements. I believe that this was an honest error on your part, and won't pursue it any further. My apologies.
As for the actual inclusion here of the additional varieties, I see what you're saying about the inclusion of "Coca-Cola" in the name as leading to a warranting of including Diet Coke and Coke Zero. It does seem to me, though, that the existence of similar charts in the Diet Coke and Coke Zero articles, where they are more directly relevant, leads to an unnecessary duplication of effort. Perhaps a text note at the beginning of the chart pointing to those articles would satisfy the need for mentioning them without resulting in duplicate efforts. Something like: "Not included here are Diet Coke and Coca-Cola Zero; variant versions of those no-calorie colas can be found at their respective articles."
Also, I do intend to remove the line about Coca-Cola M5; this was just a variant bottle design used in some European countries, and not a different product, similar to the "Cans of Summer" promotion in North America. The article already is a redirect to here, much as the former Coke Mini article. oknazevad (talk) 06:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok thank you for your civility, as do I apologize, for coming over the top. Any of my images, please use them in other Coke related articles. Jetijonez (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Caffeine content incorrect
the caffeine content listed is incorrect. See a can. I dont have a good reference though (other than my can), so i didnt change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.19.28 (talk) 00:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Health Effects irrelevant
The health effects are specific to HFCS, not Coca Cola. They belong under the HFCS section. Another reason for them to be removed is that they have been shown to be incorrect. The correct information under Health issue should diabetes and weight gain.
--Geekoid (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Santa Claus in Red
There are other advertisement images here, why not the Santa with the red cloak drinking Coke? 92.20.160.214 (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Clarification needed
The 2008 Ig Nobel Prize (a parody of the Nobel Prizes) in Chemistry was awarded to Sheree Umpierre, Joseph Hill, and Deborah Anderson, for discovering that Coca-Cola is an effective spermicide,[94] and to C.Y. Hong, C.C. Shieh, P. Wu, and B.N. Chiang for proving it is not.[95][96]
As the Ig Nobel Prizes are a parodic commemoration of the strange and foolish in science, it's likely that the prize was "awarded" for two studies coming to entirely opposite conclusions, and that both groups even studied such a thing in the first place. It's trivia given undue weight, so it can definaty be removed. oknazevad (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I think history of Coca-Cola deserves its own page, because there is so much to know about it.
I found no information in this article about whether or not there were soft-drinks that came before Coca-Cola, maybe I'm just not looking at the article the right way. I have a question, why doesn't the history of coca-cola have its own page yet? There is so much to say since coca cola has evolved a lot during the years. I won't make history of coca-cola its own page since obviously I don't know a lot about it. But I'm still curious about what other softdrinks were introduced before coke if any at all. And I don't even trust other websites to figure that out. Even other websites can be as unreliable as this one. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, seriously, if nobody can help me out, I guess I have no choice but to make a YouTube video about it. BlazeTheMovieFan (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, man. I will do research and do my best to make that page. But the problem is I don't know what sites I can trust. BlazeTheMovieFan (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
"Coke concentrate"
"Coke concentrate, or Coke syrup, was and is sold separately at pharmacies in small quantities, as an over-the-counter remedy for nausea or mildly upset stomach."
Seems like nonsense to me, I cannot find any evidence of this currently being sold. 109.176.231.94 (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
That it's not currently sold does not preclude it having been sold in the past. —C.Fred (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree. It is not currently sold and has not been probably since 1886 or something like that. I don't know the exact date so I won't edit the page. Vmelkon (talk) 12:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
File:Coke c2.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
An image used in this article, File:Coke c2.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
An image used in this article, File:Diet coke.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
An image used in this article, File:Coke lemon.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 9 December 2011
What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
File:Black cherry coke can.png Nominated for speedy Deletion
An image used in this article, File:Black cherry coke can.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 21 December 2011
What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
In the section "Brand portfolio", I think the images of the Coca-Cola cans are not accurate. The early cans were slim and contained 290 mL (not sure of the exact amount) and in the late 80's, I believe the newer cans came on the scene which had 355 mL. The older cans eventually disappeared.129.42.208.183 (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Most of those images are US cans, which have been the same 12 fl oz size for decades. So they're perfectly accurate. oknazevad (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
calculation incorrect ...
quote "Coca-Cola contains 34 mg of caffeine per 12 fluid ounces (12.9 mg per 100 ml).[33]"
--> 12 fl ounces are 355 ml therefore: 34/3.55 = ~9.577 mg per 100ml
correct me if i´m wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.158.10 (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, according to the 2 liter I'm nursing right now it's 23 mg per 8 fl oz, so the fl oz number is correct. Following the conversions, though, I believe you are correct. Feel free to fix it. oknazevad (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Coke in over 200 countries?
A quick google search tells me that there are 196 or 195 countries. should the word "over" be changed? Is there Coca-Cola sold in every country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.120.156.56 (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
..oh, the source is Coke's own website? Now I'm really confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.120.156.56 (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
It maybe marketing exaggeration. But I think Thr Coca-Cola Company knows where their flagship product is sold, so it's probably still the best source. oknazevad (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Caffeine-Free Diet Coke
This isn't listed in the list of products with pictures... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.159.9 (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
It's on the Diet Coke page, if I'm not mistaken. oknazevad (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
what is it
I think the first line or so needs work to define exactly what coke is, what it's flavour is, what it's non brand name is etc Omni314 (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, it does call it a carbonated soft drink. As for the flavor, that's one of those things that's pretty hard to describe. We could mention that it's a cola (which is a flavor category), but that's probably too obvious to include considering its name and that it's well known as the original cola. (PS, it doesn't really have a non-brand name, unless the "cola" descriptor counts.) oknazevad (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
English Football League
The article states that Coca-Cola sponsor the english Football League. This is no longer the case - it has been sponsored by nPower since the 2010-11 season.
138.38.3.39 (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The end of the sponsorship was mentioned in passing at the end of the paragraph, almost as if it were tacked on. I rephrased it a bit to clarify the dates involved. oknazevad (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 18 May 2012
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Confusion over the current location of the recipe-- in SunTrust or the new vault?
Not done: I don't see the confusion: according the article, and the cited source, the recipe is in the new vault. —C.Fred (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
DoneI see what the anon was saying; the new portions on the new vault were poorly integrated, and the first paragraph still referred to the SunTrust location in the present tense. I reworked it about to better integrate it. oknazevad (talk) 02:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
This article states that Coca Cola Classic was reintroduced on July 10, 1985; the Coca Cola factory tour states that it was reintroduced on July 11, 1985. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.119.107 (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
No there isn't. Coke contains no added salt at all and is labelled "very low sodium" (may actually be the only healthy thing about it). I think you are confusing the words "soda" and "sodium". You are incorrect. oknazevad (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Coca Leaves in CocaCola
CocaCola is the only product in the United States to contain Coca leaves as explained in this article: www.naturalnews.com/032658_Coca-Cola_cocaine.html [unreliable fringe source?]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.236.60 (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
This information was already in the article, in the Coca – cocaine section. Hoof Hearted (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Which came first, the bottling or the selling ...or the bottling company?
Towards the end of the 19th century historical origins section, the article states that Coca-Cola was "sold in bottles for the first time on March 12, 1894" Two sentences later, it says, "The first bottling of Coca-Cola occurred ...in 1891". Are we to believe that Coke was first bottled in 1891, then sold 3 years later? Maybe those first bottles were given away? Still later, it says, "in 1899, Chattanooga became the site of the first Coca-Cola bottling company". I can see the distinction in the last claim, that a bottling company was established after some pioneers experimented with it in smaller batches. But the confusion between the first two statements makes me question all these "firsts". Only the last statement is sourced, but it appears to be a primary source. Can a knowledgable editor please clear this up? Hoof Hearted (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
this may sound dumb but the holiday section doesn't include the annual polar bear campaign (which i suppose began as a non-religious focus away from Santa? never thought of that before.) although Santa is mentioned at the start of the advertising section, it isn't at all mentioned under holidays. additionally, there are tons of non-soda merchandise sold, i cant even begin a list ... and collectibles. maybe these are in another article and i have simply overlooked the link. Ukrpickaxe (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 2 January 2013
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Can you please update links to point to the current corporate site for The Coca-Cola Company? The recently re-launched site changed domains, so several links in this article should be updated with the new URLs.
Where does the first link provide a reference for the statement "Coca-Cola is a carbonatedsoft drink sold in stores, restaurants, and vending machines in more than 200 countries." I'll grant everything in that sentence is common knowledge but perhaps "more than 200 countries". Really the reference belongs on List of Coca-Cola brands. I'll move it there. Addressing the rest of your request shortly... Wbm1058 (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the second link, I don't see "the drop-down menu on the right", where I "Learn the rest of the history by selecting another chapter". And the archive url doesn't work. It appears that the original source for this statement is a booklet published by the company, which has multiple revisions, e.g. [4] and [5]. Historical facts cited from independent references would be preferable. But I did find a better source for the company publication and will change the link to that. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I see. The "the drop-down menu on the right" was replaced by a "History" button in the hatnote. Clicking that button takes you to the main History page, where the formerly-well-organized The Chronicle Of Coca-Cola pages are randomly lumped together with other random articles on Coke history. Keep clicking "LOAD MORE" to bring them all up. You'll need to do this several times.
MOVING WITH THE TIMES seems to have moved on, maybe I just haven't work hard enough yet to find it.—Wbm1058 (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
The system has several self-links back to itself (apologies to Yogi Berra). Offices & Bottling Plants (About Bottling) links to "The System" at the beginning of the second paragraph, and thus includes this page by reference. I'm not sure that the reverse is true, so I kept, but updated, the current link. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Done – How's the weather in Atlanta? ;) Wbm1058 (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Year of origin 'Holidays are coming' advertizement
Seems this campaign was temporarily replaced by the "Polar Bears" for a while.Friday Flashback: Coca-Cola – Holidays Are Coming. This ad campaign seems to be a bigger deal in the UK than the US, where I think the "Polar Bears" are more popular. Prefer to use independent sources, see {{third-party}}. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Coke is sold in Cuba
Coke is sold in Cuba - Varadero (Mexican Coca Cola) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.159.18 (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Nothing in the Mexican Coke article to indicate that it's made its way into Cuba. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Coke is definitely available in Cuba. I have a photo if you don't believe me. Please change the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.53.198.82 (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Is it legally available or did someone smuggle it in? Can you link to a Cuban newspaper or magazine advertisement for Coke, or upload a photo of a billboard advertisement in Cuba? You need to provide a good source which proves that this Atlanta Journal-Constitution article is in error or outdated. I note that it does say that "Coca-Cola first expanded outside the United States into Canada, Cuba and Panama in 1906." I'll assume that Coke complies with the United States embargo against Cuba. – Wbm1058 (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Historical origins section messy?
Is it just me that finds the 19th century historical origins section under History looks like it's haphazardly cobbled together, with many seemingly arbitrary chronological jumps? I would clean it up but I still can't get the basic series of events down even after carefully reading it. Silvermael (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree the history needs to be made more clear. Also why does the corporate history seem to stop around the turn of the 20th century? There is virtually no discussion of the company's history after that. When did it become a publicly traded corporation? A lot of people got rich off Coca Cola stock. How did its business expand over the course of the last 100 years? -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Much of that material is found where it belongs: the article on The Coca-Cola Company. Remember, this is the article on the product, not the company, which produces many products. oknazevad (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Specification needed
Shouldn't this say Georgia, U.S., to specify and avoid confusion with the country?
The company is best known for its flagship product Coca-Cola, invented in 1886 by pharmacist John Stith Pemberton in Columbus, Georgia.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.162.243.207 (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Georgia was linked in the following paragraph. I've moved the link to the first paragraph of the history section, with the text you mentioned. Between the link and the infobox mentioning the US as country of origin, that should be sufficient. —C.Fred (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
"to be drank"
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This should read "to be drunk", of course. 75.210.104.168 (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Done - Thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 23:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
"none-the-less"
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the second paragraph, please change "Such bottlers include Coca-Cola Enterprises, which is the largest single Coca-Cola bottler in North America and western Europe." to be "Such bottlers include Coca-Cola Enterprises." Coca-Cola Enterprises no longer operates in North America. It was purchased by The Coca-Cola Company in October of 2011.
Mx5 94 (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Partly done: I removed that sentence entirely - without the context I don't think it's important enough to be included in the lead. --ElHef (Meep?) 13:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Cure for nausea
CocaCola syrup is still sold as a cure for nausea, though in most cases it is sold generically as "cola syrup"
John Elson★3Dham★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 23:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source for that? And really, is it the syrup made by Coca-Cola? (generic cola syrup would not be the same) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Then you deleted again. ? confusing. Is it that the ref you found didn't support the text after all? It doesn't.... Jytdog (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi User:Oknazevad - reader letters to a newspaper columnist are not a RS, sorry. I am sorry that my objection to this content is bothering you. As per my edit note, we need a reliable source - in fact a WP:MEDRS source - for this. My mom gave me clear soda (7-up) when I had a stomach flu; have never heard of taking cola syrup. Much less that pharmacies today sell cola syrup, much less Coca-Cola syrup specifically. I would be amazed if Coke actually had distribution set up to pharmacies. This may have been true back in the days when pharmacies had soda fountain counters but I can't see it today. As an experiment I am going to go to my local drugstore and ask the pharmacist for it. But even if they do carry it, we still need a WP:MEDRS source for this. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
just found this! http://www.drugstore.com/flents-cola-syrup/qxp80274 but this is not coca-cola syrup. With this ref I would let a claim stand that cola syrup" is sold over the counter. The claim is not believable that pharmacies sell Coca-Cola syrup for stomach upset. I do not believe it is true. You need a source specifically saying that Coca-Cola syrup is sold OTC for nausea. If you revert one more time you go over [{WP:3RR]].Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
That's the problem, you're looking at it as a medical article, when its not. Theis is simply a passing eference that flat, undiluted Coke syrup is used as an aid to settle upset stomach, and has been for decades, not a major medical article like acetaminophen or ibuprofen. We are just reporting that people use it as such, not commenting further on its effectiveness or any other such.
As for the column, it is a reliable source, not for medical claims (which again isn't the point), but that people do use it in such fashion, as it is subjected to the St Louis Post-Dispatch's editorial standards. That cola syrup is still sold for this purpose can easily be verified; here is a brand available at Walgreen's, the nation's largest pharmacy chain. While it may a generic brand, the idea of cola syrup to settle minor nausea has been well-established for decades.
Again, just because your mom didn't use it (neither did mine) does not mean it should be removed; tagging would have been sufficient.
One additional note: in searching for more thorough sources (which I still don't think we really need) look for "phosphorylated glucose", basically cola syrup without cola flavor. It's an alternative that still works on the same principle. oknazevad (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Really, you think write-in comments to a newspaper columnist are reliable sources for anything? Really? Much less a wikipedia article? Hm. Anyway I found wording and a source that I am OK with. btw ANY health claim in wikipedia needs reliable sourcing. Please read just the intro to WP:MEDRS - I don't want to crazy on this so I am accepting the "doctor home remedy" source you found as good enough since this is just a dietary supplement thing and as you say, it is a passing reference. Thanks for talking. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
"Flavor" should be plural
In the infobox sidebar, the title "Flavor" should be pluralised to "Flavors" as it is the heading of a list of flavours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.0.36 (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the template directions, I think it the change that needs made is to pare it back to just Cola as a flavor. The rest are variants in the brand portfolio. —C.Fred (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Logo Design
This section states that the logo font is Spencerian Script, whereas the Spencerian Script page states that it is in fact copperplate. Dodgygoth (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
That was an error that introduced original research in contradiction to the cited reliable source. It has been reverted.oknazevad (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Cuba and North Korea
The first sentence "Coca-Cola is a carbonated soft drink sold in stores, restaurants, and vending machines in every country except Cuba and North Korea" is incorrect. Coca Cola is freely available (as a grey import) in stores and restaurants in Cuba. We can source that.
Our source puts the point in terms of "countries in which Coca-Cola does not sell its products". Which is accurate: Coca-Cola does not sell its products in Cuba or North Korea. But our claim is wider - we claim that nobody else sells Coke in Cuba either.
I have written up a proposed change in the article, to make it clearer exactly what the claim is: specifically, I have made the first sentence a little vaguer ("throughout the world") and moved the detail of the claim to a separate section. Since the role of the lede is to summarise the article, I think this is better than trying to explain the point in detail in the lede. Kahastoktalk 18:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Who the hell is Charley? He turns up without any mention of who he is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.65.93.168 (talk) 08:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Good catch. Charley (or Charles Pemberton) is John's son. I have updated the article. Hoof Hearted (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2013
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Thank You! I just care that much.
69.65.66.13 (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Not done: Wikipedia's article on John Pemberton does include his middle name. I don't think it's necessary to add it here. --ElHef (Meep?) 01:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Original Recipe
Hi Wikipedians,
I am a noob to editing wiki, but here is one find regarding the original recipe from a reputable source:
Please check that out and if valuable, please include in the wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.213.140 (talk) 08:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2014
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Coca Cola was ranked as the top brand in India as well. Here is the link to it:
Possibly in the landmarks section, as a sign of the power the parent company attained, I suggest adding the following: "By the 1970s, Coca-Cola's parent company was so powerful that the popular The People's Almanac series of books actually listed the Coca-Cola Company, in tongue-in-cheek fashion, as a nation all too itself in a chapter otherwise filled with statistics and information about the world's countries." Source: David Wallechinsky and Irving Wallace, The People's Almanac #2, New York: Bantam Books, 1978, p. 257. The CCC isn't the only company listed in this section, but it's an interesting indication of its influence. I'm suggesting adding it to this article rather than at the actual Coca-Cola Company article because that article actually lacks any sort of history section. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Another idea I have for the page is to add "Wolf Cola" to the related products area toward the type of the page. Its the right cola for closure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.190.174.107 (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2014
This edit request to Coca-Cola has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: No edit request has been made. Zappa24Mati 03:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Coca-Cola Life
Coca-cola Life is also available in Chile — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.241.197.31 (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
As of September, it's also available in the UK and in select markets in America (Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and South and Central Florida). According to Coca-Cola's company blog, Coca-Cola Life's availability will be made nationwide in the US in all retail chains starting "by October." I would add the info myself, but alas, the page is in semi-protection. 209.129.155.253 (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm aware of that page's existence. What I am referring to is Coca-Cola#Brand portfolio, where it lists Coca-Cola Life. It states, "Only available in Chile and Argentina." This is outdated information, as it has been available in both the UK and Sweden and will be available on every food outlet in America in a matter of days, if what Coca-Cola says is true. 209.129.155.253 (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Infobox
Is there anyway to change "Flavor" to "Flavors"? I tried but it just makes that part disappear. If anyone ever does or you reply here please ping me. DangerousJXD (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
@DangerousJXD: I presume you mean the word "Flavor" in the info box, it's not possible, as far as I know to change these fixed parameters. Theroadislong (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
@DangerousJXD: Accoring to the documentation for the beverage infobox, the flavor field is meant to list the dominating flavor (of a single beverage). Perhaps we'd be better off listing the flavor as "cola" and listing the variants directly (as opposed to referring to the brand portfolio) the way it is done at Mountain Dew? Hoof Hearted (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
When had coca cola stopped using coca leaves in their mixture? Please state. 115.188.176.132 (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
They never stopped using coca leaf extract, but the version they use in the modern era (since the early 1900s, actually) is processed in a way that removes the narcotic compounds. It is done by the Stepan Company, as is already mentioned in the article; see Coca-Cola#Coca – cocaine. oknazevad (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
New formula for Canada
Due to semi-protection I am unable to add this information. Perhaps someone with an account could add it?
In January 2015, Coca-Cola Ltd. Canada announced that the Canadian formulation of Coca-Cola would change to reduce the sugar content, making it consistent with the international version of Coca-Cola.
This edit request to Coca-Cola has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
please change this line:
A typical can of Coke (12 fl ounces/355 ml) contains 39 grams of sugar (usually in the form of high fructose corn syrup), the equivalent of 9 1/3 teaspoons of sugar.[2][3]
considering:
source [2] "livestrong" is a very unreliable source. the replacement is from "United States Department of Agriculture", their "Agricultural Research Service ".
a much more reliable source and actually the source of the livestrong article, which manages to misquote the number.
secondly, source [3] isn't really a source, simply some pretty pictures along with no visible source for their information. It functions to provide a reference for the number of teaspoons 39g represents. this is unnecessary. a teaspoon is simply grams / 4.2
Done Good source. And you're right, the later needs no reference, as it's a routine calculation. oknazevad (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original orplagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
"In 2013, Coke products could be found in over 200 countries worldwide,". When you say countries, it would be assumed that you are speaking of sovereign nations, but there are only 196 independent countries in the world today (2015). You may want to change "countries" to "countries and teritories". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Welkiner (talk • contribs) 07:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Coca-Cola Irn-Bru ownership
Hi just an anonymous user not sure if this is the correct way to message about this, sorry. on the Coca-Cola is lists Irn-Bru as one of there product, as far as i can tell there are no sources to this and it is incorrect who ever edited that in may have confused the product with iron-bru which is a product owned by Coca-Cola, please review and/or edit, i cannot the page is locked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.72.74 (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2015
This edit request to Coca-Cola has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The purchase amount paid by Berkshire for coca cola is written as $592,540,000. It should be $592,540 instead.
Subhas985 (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Have actually removed the blurb altogether. I do not see the importance of this. It uses a primary source so we are not told this sale price/price per share is particularly notable or of any sort of relevance whatsoever. All it does is say that a holding company bought some shares, which is not particularly exciting Cannolis (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Additionally, I've seen no official link between Stepan company and Coca-Cola. It's not listed in either companies 10K financial statements. Coca-Cola, a publicly traded company, would be in a ton of trouble if they failed to officially disclose such a critical dependence on a single company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.96.210.190 (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
It's just a special brand of Coca-Cola Schuddeboomw (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Nope; it's an important moment in the history of not only the company but marketing as a whole (people still reference it as a seminal mistake by an established company, even 30 years later and, I daresay, American culture as a whole. Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose as strongly as possible. New Coke is incredibly notable on its own. oknazevad (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. There is a well-cited article on New Coke that makes a clear case for independent notability, both based on the product and the, well, fiasco of its release. —C.Fred (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. I agree that New Coke has sufficient notability for a standalone article. Deli nk (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with above, that New Coke deserves its own article. Elisfkc (talk) 20:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2016
This edit request to Coca-Cola has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
A maze challenge due for Coca-Cola from the 1980s my self - Justin Venable & Amy Lee
Neptuneideas (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Not done It is not clear what changes you are requesting. Please unambiguously state what you wish to change. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2016
This edit request to Coca-Cola has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Can somebody change the Start date and age template from the current {start date and age|1886} to {start date and age|1886|5|8} to correspond to Coca-Cola's official first serving date according to the article?
173.73.242.76 (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
This edit request to Coca-Cola has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please add a line about "the bottling rights of coca cola that was sold for US$ 1 to Tennessee based business men Joseph B. Whitehead and Joseph A. Biedenharn in the year 1899" under the heading origins of bottling. (source: https://www.worldofcoca-cola.com/about-us/coca-cola-history/)
Mridulkat06 (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I have just modified 4 external links on Coca-Cola. 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, 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.
I noticed this drink listed here and on the list of clear sodas, but I can't find any reference to it outside of this article no taste tests, marketing or even pictures of a can or bottle. Are we sure this exists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:4AA9:5500:6006:9F63:8F1F:C999 (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2016
This edit request to Coca-Cola has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
As far as I can tell the line about Coca Cola Clear on the list of products refers to a product that doesn't exist. The user who added it has several warnings for inserting false information on various pages. Can this line be removed? Thank you.
The type of sugar syrup has not been stated. After checking the syrup injected into a cup from a coke vending machine in the 80s, my hunch is that the syrup is barley malt extract. The viscosity, aroma and flavor was very similar to the dark wort extract used in beer production. This type of caramelized sugar, mostly monosaccharide, has a stronger flavor than ordinary caramelized white sugar. After 130yrs you'd expect some simple analysis to be publicly available.61.68.161.48 (talk) 09:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
It's high fructose corn syrup or plain white sugar depending on the country. No malt extract. The presence of caramel coloring is what is throwing you off, as it is denser and stronger than the syrup alone. And analysis is not needed when it's stated on the side of every can in the world. oknazevad (talk) 13:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Must add info to "Criticisms" section
The article does not present sufficient information in regards to criticisms of the Coca Cola company. There is limited information under the criticisms section... and no mention of efforts made by the American Beverage Association (ABA), the trade group for major soda producers including Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and the Dr. Pepper Snapple Group,to fight against any "Soda Tax" local city initiatives in order to fight against diabetes and other sugar - related health issues.
Teyaneff (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)Teya Neff
Introduction Paragraph limited Citations
Must include citations for the first paragraph of the article and citations continue to be sparse throughout most of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teyaneff (talk • contribs) 23:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
More info on Health Problems
there is zero information on the negative health repercussions that have been proven to correlate with Soda consumption. It is necessary to present factual information on rates of obesity, diabetes, etc. that correlate with Coca Cola consumption. Teyaneff (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
thanks very much for your suggestions! Did you know that you can
edit Wikipedia yourself.
It sounds like you already have some reliable sources with which to edit the article. At the very least, definitely do share those on the talk page so that other passers by can act on your suggestions more efficiently, but ideally make the edits yourself first based on what you feel to be reliable sources, this being preferable to making calls for other editors to repeat the research you have clearly already done. Remember that health based issues on a food product such as Coca-Cola can often be contentious, so be prepared to follow the BRD - Boldly edit, Get reverted, Discuss on talk page format, when submitting your changes to the article. Many thanks!Edaham (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Not done: I don't see the confusion: according the article, and the cited source, the recipe is in the new vault. —C.Fred (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Partly done: I removed that sentence entirely - without the context I don't think it's important enough to be included in the lead. --ElHef (Meep?) 13:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Done Good source. And you're right, the later needs no reference, as it's a routine calculation. oknazevad (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Not done It is not clear what changes you are requesting. Please unambiguously state what you wish to change. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
