 | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | |  C | This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. | | | | This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-Class status: | |  Referencing and citation: not checked- Coverage and accuracy: not checked
- Structure: not checked
- Grammar and style: not checked
- Supporting materials: not checked
- Accessibility: not checked
| To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = <yes/no> | b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = <yes/no> | b3 <!--Structure --> = <yes/no> | b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = <yes/no> | b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> | b6 <!--Accessibility --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. | | | | High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. | | Food and Drink task list: | edit · history · watch · purge Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: - Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Food, Bread, Water, Beef, Curry, Drink, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yoghurt, Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom)
- Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: , Italian cuisine, Cuisine of the Thirteen Colonies, Coffee, Milk, Pasta, French cuisine
- Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status:
- Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
- Get rid of Trivia sections in articles you are working on.
- Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner to food and drink related articles to help bring them to members attention. It could encourage new members to the project too. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, click here.
- Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of food
- Review articles currently up for GA status: Burger King legal issues, Chocolate
| | | |
[edit] Canada Food and Drugs Act
Why is Mountain Dew prohibited from adding caffeine under the Canada Food and drugs act, while other soft drinks such as Red Bull, Monster, Rockstar etc. are not? Is this actually an outdated law that was sometime repealed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.174.171.14 (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have heard arguments that these products get around it by claiming fall under "Natural Health Product." There are examples of non-cola beverages with caffeine, however: Dr. Pepper, Bawls Root Beer, and undoubtedly others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.229.119 (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Sperm count
Does it lower the sperm account? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.38.18 (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- The article used to address this urban legend, but I guess at some point it was removed. Anyway, the short answer to your question is no, it doesn't affect the male sperm count. You can read more on this legend and get the full research at: http://www.snopes.com/medical/potables/mountaindew.asp --Brownings (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- The male sperm count? Is there a female variety? -- Newagelink (talk)
[edit] Green label art
the alumin bottles aka green label have been around for longer than the article says i got one about 4-6 months ago the article says that they were released in July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.41.205.222 (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, they've been around longer than July. I think they actually started last fall sometime, around the release of the Halo 3/Game Fuel Dew, or at least that's the first time I saw one. I don't have any sources though, so I'll leave it up to someone else to correct. --Brownings (talk) 03:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] veracity of "namesake of code red virus" claim?
I'm calling shenanigans on Code Red Dew having much to do with the virus - there's nothing about it on the main Code Red page, there's no citation, first time I've ever heard of that idea, etc. Plus it's a fairly common pre-existing expression for an emergency situation, particularly a military one (e.g. a "we're under attack" scramble alarm). More likely they both got their names from the same idea, rather than one aping the other? Not to mention that Code Red is either Chinese, or was made to look like it was... 193.63.174.10 (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- As with almost every article on Wikipedia, citations definately isn't this article's strong point. The company that first saw the virus named it Code Red, because Code Red was new at that time and that's what they were drinking. The zero-day alert went out with the Code Red name, so that's how everyone and their brother picked up on it. Check out this July 2001 article from USA Today on the story: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2001-07-20-code-red-white-house.htm. I'll try to get the citation added to the article tonight. --Brownings (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Introduction update
in the intro it says, "As of 2006, Mountain Dew was the fourth-best-selling carbonated soft drink in the United States, behind only Coca-Cola Classic, Pepsi-Cola, and Diet Coke. Diet Mountain Dew ranked ninth in sales in the same year.[2]" i think this should be replaced with the article for the 2007 rankings at http://www.beverage-digest.com/pdf/top-10_2008.pdf. Tyler John (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds good, I say make the change. --Brownings (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] No green bottle?
I've noticed that there is no picture of the original bottle or can on here. Being encyclopedic, this seems like a shortcoming. When showing this page to people who are not familiar with Mountain Dew it leads to confusion (especially since the Dewmocracy photos are there). If someone has an original bottle in a "free" photo, it seems like it would be a great addition to the article.
-SColombo (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Line of spam
There's one line of spam for me under the Citrus sodas box, but i cant see it on the edit page. Can someone explain me why or just remove that line? --Willem Mulder (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I don't see it. Perhaps it's just something your computer is doing. Which browser do you use? --Brownings (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Lithium citrate
After reading the nonreg's source, it seems as if MD did have Lithium in it at the beginning, just like 7-Up and countless others. So, I believe the information should be added to the article. With that said though, I don't think it should just be lumped into a "removed ingredients" section where it'll probably be by itself forever. The Ingredients section should list only current ingredients because if you start listing ingredients that have been added and removed over the years we'll be here forever, and the list will never be complete. I believe that the Lithium citrate info should be added into the overall history of the brand since it's an important fact in the foundation of the brand. Oh, and the nonreg's ref is an excellent MD history read by the way. --Brownings (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Speaking of history sections, why the heck doesn't this article have one? --Brownings (talk) 23:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Several different ingredients have been removed/replaced over time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.202.113 (talk) 03:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- My point exactly. If you list one, then someone (you) will need to research and list them all. I think the Lithium bit is interesting and should be mentioned in the article, but in a history section, not just thrown in there as Removed ingredients. --Brownings (talk) 03:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, my point is that I started out at pepsi working on the original production line when I was 18. I spent 20 years making and another 20 years tasting, and only 3 ingredients have been changed/removed. Since Pepsi got the formula, and adding a history of mountain dew would be very very bad idea. Since, the History of mountain dew prior to pepsi owning it is very irregular. Some people say Pepsi bought it and others say pepsi stole it. Either way the 3 removed ingredients are easily proven.
- Sigh, you've missed my point completely. Seems you're hell bent on adding this and then forcing readers off of Wiki to go find out what really happened. By the time they read your Ref, they'll probably not come back to Wiki and move on, since most people have a short attention span. With working 40 years with MD, you'd be the perfect person to write a history, or at least summarize from other sources. While throwing Lithium up there makes perfect sense to you, you have to keep the casual Wiki reader in mind and expand on your idea. I saw that you've already added the listings back, which is fine. I'm not God here and this has taken up enough of my time already. I'm completely against this addition, but I'll let the other regualars around here chime in and make the final decision to keep or kill your edits. Oh, and just so you know, you said they've removed three, yet you only added two. --Brownings (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] New Mountain Dew logo?
Hello,
I'm the user MarioCRO from the German Wikipedia. I've a question: - Habe Mountain Dew a new logo, when yes from where is the source?
Good bye! --84.58.164.154 (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- The name "mtn dew" and the related logo were registered by PepsiCo with the USPTO so it is probable (but not certain) that this is the rebranding for Mountain Dew. It is also possible that they will change their minds an go with something else, given that all feedback I have seen is very negative.
- In other words, until you see it on shelves, or a PepsiCo owned website, it is not official, just possible. —MJBurrage(T•C) 16:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I found the (or at least a) new Mtn Dew logo at the supermarket today. It's based on the older (late 1990's/early 2000's) Mountain Dew logo:
File:Mtn Dew.jpg
Because of the quality (scanned in from a 12-pack, as you can see the contents info in the corner) and the fact that I'm a Wikipedia noob, I'm reluctant to make any wholesale changes to the article referencing the new logo. -Chops76 (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've been seeing 12 packs, 20oz, and 2 liters with the new "mtn dew" logo on it all over the place. The packaging doesn't say anything about a special holiday packaging or anything. In fact, it doesn't mention that there is a new logo at all. I guess the change is official. --Brownings (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
No It will not just be for the special holiday packaging. it will also have the new logo in 2009 as well as the 2010's.71.168.195.21 (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Mtn Dew
I assure you, it is on shelves (I have in my hand right now a bottle of "Diet Mtn Dew"), and looks nothing like Image:Mtn Dew.jpg - so why isn't it in the article? --Random832 (contribs) 12:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why anyone hasn't pulled the trigger and made an update. It's not because the lack of references, a quick Google search turned up a ton of sites with articles on Pepsi's revamp of their product line (Pepsi, Mtn Dew, & Sierra Mist). I think the few people in the beginning who thought this was only "special" packaging have since seen that the change is here permanently. --Brownings (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
-
- We can wait and see if it's a full rebranding or just a new logo (i.e. if we see offical ads that say "Buy Mtn Dew..." then it's a rebranding), but in the meantime the article should continue calling it "Mountain Dew" because that's what it's been called for years, so most people will still call it that. Although having the new logo is alright (let's just try to make a SVG logo instead of a pic of a can). [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 08:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- i think it was an experimental rebranding to try and cash in on the recent popularity of text messaging/the internet/the retardation of the english language (OMFG MTN DEW LOL! GTFO). unfortunately it was a stupid idea and i'm almost certain that it failed as only the original flavor used the new logo, and all of the boxes/cans of original flavor that i have purchased within the last month or two have reverted back to the old logo. these were all purchased at stores which had "MTN DEW" previously so i know that it isn't just old stock from before the rebranding. it was a dumb idea, and people want to drink a soft drink because of the flavor, not because of a "Catchy new logo dude!".99.153.29.112 (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I whole-heartedly agree. I drink Mountain Dew because I enjoy the flavour, not because I wanna be hip or cool. It reminded me of when Chuck E. Cheese updated their image to be "cool" and "edgy" with the younger kids which just turned me off of it. More to the point, this does bring up the topic of whether or not it really is a permanent change. As has been said I've seen plenty of bottles that don't have the new logo, so it may well be still in the "testing the waters" stage. Let's hope that it's just a phase and it passes soon. Dakmordian (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Recently a user going by the name of Download replaced the picture of a "Mtn Dew" can in the infobox with another photo that showed a comparison of the old Mountain Dew and new Mtn Dew cans. I don't think that is a good idea for an infobox image, really the infobox should contain a SVG logo instead of a can picture. I reverted the edit just now, if the comparison pic is notable it can be added to the body of the article, but to me it seems redundant, as the old Mountain Dew logo is already disscused in the body of the article. Remember, an infobox is only meant to be a summary of key facts. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 09:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I replaced it because the new one had higher quality, and also because the old image was set for deletion. -download | sign! 01:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Possible unreliable reference
the current #5 ref (the one that lists health problems supposedly caused by the ingredents) CLEARLY lists wikipedia as it's main reference. correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't such references considered unreliable. --StoneCold 89 07:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The aforementioned reference and the addition to the article from it, has been deleted per Wikipedia policy. when adding a ref ALWAYS double check a reference's references to reduce the amount of inaccurate and/or unreliable content on wikipedia. --StoneCold 89 07:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- I had taken this to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, they said that adding references that trace back to Wikipedia is a "double whammy", :-) then they removed the reference. If a reference cites Wikipedia as it's main source then that reference is absolutely not reliable and should be removed. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 00:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Mountain Dew commercial
I would like to tell you that many people are upset with the new commercial for Mtn. Dew. BODONKADONK. PLEASE! This is degrading to women. Pepsi has always had very cool commercials but every time I hear this BODOONKADONK I want to scream. IT makes me sick! Please, get rid of this commercial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.157.93 (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry it offends you, but Wikipedia is not the place to make complaints about somthing related to the article's subject (i.e. we are not affiliated in any way with PepsiCo (the maker of Mountain Dew) or anyone else). I would suggest you contact the company themselves (find the contact link at http://www.pepsico.com) and complain to them (after all, they're who created the commercial). [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 08:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Game Fuel
Game Fuel is listed in the discontinued varieties and the new current varieties. I know that the new Game Fuel is called Horde Red even though they are the same flavor. Should it be removed from the discontinued varieties or should it be mentioned that it was re released under a new name. Also where its listed in the current varieties it has a caption of "has been release!" this seem vary unprofessional can we get a date it was released or at least a general time? Codeman177 (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Even though the current Game Fuel Horde Red is the same recipe/flavor as the old Game Fuel, I think generally people are counting them as two separate drinks. What makes the confusion worse is that Game Fuel Horde Red doesn't actually say Horde Red anywhere on it, both Horde Red & Alliance Blue just say Game Fuel. Oh, and thanks for pointing out the added bit on those two entries. I've cleaned both up, plus deleted a future listing that was for some reason in the current line section. --Brownings (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
-
- In the current section it said that Horde Red is a promotion for World of Warcraft and Halo 3. I removed the Halo 3 since the new kind is promotion for World of Warcraft only. Codeman177 (talk) 04:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Redirect
to Mtn Dew, which is the name of the product officially now. Pointless voting for something that should logically be true. -Me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.201.58 (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Diet Mountain Dew Ultra Violet
This should probably be added to the main page. Here's the link for it. http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/client/e3i9a9104a5cd2646569274ebcb535970dd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.156.221 (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
This article has the tone and content of an advertisement. Does a person who wants to know what Mountain Dew is really need a comprehensive listing of various advertising campaigns and alternate packagings? Also, I added important information about the health effects of consuming too much of any product containing brominated vegetable oil and it was removed without discussion or explanation. This leads me to believe that someone is being employed to "monitor" this page and ensure that its message is consonant with the image of Mountain Dew concocted by its marketing people. While these people have a right to express their views, is it really appropriate for Wikipedia to lose its encyclopedic tone in order to provide free marketing for a corporation? 115.64.7.182 (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- The article is bad. It's a jumble, and as you mention sounds like an advertising arm for PepsiCo. History, flavors (active & retired), ingredients, health facts (real and urban legend) should remain, but the rest could be really cleaned up or deleted. --Brownings (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
[edit] UK relauch never happened
Reference #4 is unreliable, it is over a year old and Mountain Dew has never been relaunched in the UK. When pepsi has been contacted for comment they have stated they have no plans for a relaunch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revolution117 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
True, need to be removed, unfortunately. Soul destroying considering im a dew addict ¬¬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.219.19 (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
