Misplaced Pages

Talk:Coca-Cola Zero Sugar/Archive 2

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Talk:Coca-Cola Zero SugarRedirect page

Redirect to:

This talk page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
  • From a page move: This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name.
When appropriate, protection levels are automatically sensed, described and categorized.

Merge proposal

Not obvious that Coca-Cola Zero Sugar is a sufficiently separate product from Coca-Cola Zero to warrant its own article. Coca-Cola's spinoffs often have slightly different names in different markets, but (e.g.) we don't have separate articles for Diet Coke and Coca-Cola Light.

The article itself notes that "Coca-Cola Zero Sugar is a reformulated version of Coca-Cola Zero." In other words, it weakens its own case.

If it were clearly separate, it would (possibly) warrant its own article, but as it stands, Coca-Cola Zero Sugar is a stub, and I don't think there *is* enough to say on it that wouldn't overlap with the existing content of Coca-Cola Zero.

Ubcule (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

All the information in the stub is also in the target article, in the lead no less. No need to merge, will simply redirect. Onel5969 18:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Coca-Cola Zero. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Move to Coca-Cola Zero Sugar

Administrators can you please move Coca-Cola Zero to Coca-Cola Zero Sugar. The current page is a redirect so I cannot and would request that since it’s now officially called Coca-Cola Zero Sugar, that it be moved. Thanks, TheUSConservative (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Can this proposal be discussed? Coca-Cola Zero Sugar has a different name, a different logo, a different formula, and a different taste than Coca-Cola Zero. Perhaps both drinks should share one article, like the Wright Brothers share an article. But we should not pretend that these are the same drink, as that is plainly false. — Lawrence King 04:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with your disagreement. The name is a slight variation at best, and varies in differing countries (just as Diet Coke is known as "Coca-Cola Light" in some countries). The logo is the addition of one word, and is not the first change in the history of the product. Formulation tweaks have happened before and vary from country to country, which is often the case with diet sodas, as the artificial sweeteners used depend on differing regulations. And taste is very subjective; I can only say personally that any change in taste was undetectable to me, but your mileage may vary, as the saying goes. It's clear from all marketing, and from evennactually reading the sources that this reformulation is not intended to be treated as separate products by The Coca-Cola Company themselves, and really, objectively, it's not. I was actually just going to put in a technical request last night but got pulled away from editing just before I could.
PS, though, just because the UK was the initial test market for the new formulation doesn't mean it should be listed as having a UK origin. It's still the product of an American company, and was formulated at their labs in Atlanta. It was created in the US, and should not be misleadingly listed as a British-originating drink. oknazevad (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I respect your opinion on the taste, but moving an article based on original research is never a good idea. Nor should Misplaced Pages rely on press releases from a corporation to determine what to say about that corporation's products. If you have solid, independent sources that indicate that "the taste change was indetectable" then those could be used as evidence in a public Misplaced Pages discussion about how to treat this matter. — Lawrence King 19:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that even if the reformulation resulted in a change in taste that is noticeable to some, it's not a sufficient reason to not move the article to the product's current name.oknazevad (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
If the product had changed its name, I would agree. But that is simply not the case. Nationwide press coverage describes people being upset that Coke Zero is being discontinued, and replaced with a different product. In January 2009, President George W. Bush was replaced by President Barack Obama. But Misplaced Pages did not move the George W. Bush article to Barack Obama. Instead, two distinct articles were preserved. — Lawrence King 06:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I think you guys are giving too much weight to Coke's marketing materials. You've got Coke's claim that it's refomulated, and anecdotal claims that people could tell the difference, but that seems emminently non-provable now. I think there's a high likelihood this is all driven by trademark law. Coke is STILL fighting with Keurig Dr. Pepper over its 2005-era trademark applications on whether the term "ZERO" is registrable, and given that KDP just appealed again in July 2019 to the CAFC because they want a finding that "ZERO" is generic, we're at least 2 and likely 3+ years away from that issue being settled. Coke claiming "Our research showed us that many people didn’t realize that Coke Zero didn’t contain sugar or calories, so we’re changing the name to Coca-Cola Zero Sugar to be as clear and descriptive as possible." is an obvious misdirection, as they're undoubtedly referring to a 2010-era survey they took and produced as evidence in the opposition proceedings that attempted to *show* that consumers saw "ZERO" as an indicator of source rather than a descriptive term. Coke rabidly fights worldwide on trademark issues, and it seems obvious to me that once you've lost on proprietary rights to "ZERO" in the US, you're going to switch over to a more obviously generic form so people can't strongarm you elsewhere with their possibly senior rights and your past positions in the KDP kerfuffle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.9.215 (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Reorganizing the page

As can be easily seen from the links in the third paragraph of the lede, U.S. media coverage is unanimous in distinguishing Coke Zero Sugar from Coke Zero. Some of the coverage discusses whether the two beverages taste similar or different; some of the coverage discusses the outrage at the replacement; but regardless of the details, none of this coverage makes any sense if the two are really one beverage with two different names.

Therefore, we cannot simply replace "Coke Zero" with "Coke Zero Sugar" in most portions of this article. For example, this article states:

Coke Zero was specifically marketed to men, who are shown to associate "diet" drinks with women.

This statement is backed by a footnoted reference. However, if we were to change it to the following:

Coke Zero Sugar is specifically marketed to men, who are shown to associate "diet" drinks with women.

the resulting statement would be false, because CZS has not been marketed to men. More importantly, there is no source that we can cite which claims that CZS was marketed in this fashion.

This applies to the entire Marketing and Christmas 2013 Campaign sections. They tell the history of CZ, not CZS.

I propose that this page be rearranged in historical fashion, as follows:

(Lede)

  • Coca-Cola Zero
    • Logo
    • Ingredients
      • Sweeteners and health concerns
    • Marketing
      • Christmas 2013 Campaign
  • Coca-Cola Zero Sugar
    • Logo
    • Ingredients
    • Marketing
      • 2017 Rollout
  • Variants
  • Distribution
  • References
  • External links

This organization would allow the information about CZ alone (ingredients, history) to be distinguished from the information about CZS alone (ingredients, history). The Variants section can remain unchanged, because no change is being made to the flavored versions (cherry, vanilla, etc.) The Distribution section can deal with CZS alone, since there is no need to preserve the archival distribution information.

Once this is done, some of the excess information from the lede can be moved to the subsections (for example, CZ being marketed to men is no longer lede-worthy, so it would go in the Marketing section).

Agreement? Objections? — Lawrence King 07:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea, not least because the change from CZ to CZS could still turn out to be the new New Coke. CZS is clearly a development of CZ, so the current titles is more appropriate for covering both versions. Nick Cooper (talk)
I was going to suggest something similar, largy because the material regarding the reformulation/renaming and its reaction is taking up too much of the lead. I still don't think we should have two infoboxes, or treat it too much like it's a separate product, if only because Coca-Cola isn't, and it's their product. Note that the new label reads "improved taste", not "all new". Also, the UPC codes are the exact same, meaning it's not a new product in terms of inventory. Also, the ingredients lists are identical, meaning it's just a tweaking of proportions (most likely in he essential oils or the sweetener proportions).
This isn't the first time a soda has had its formula changed at the same time as a rename. Yet we're still only have one article for Mr. Pibb/Pobb Xtra and Sierra Mist/Mist Twst. Those represent the precedent here. Honestly, the fan furor is always loudest immediately after there's a change in any product, so let's be careful not to fall into a WP:RECENTISM trap of acting like it's the last word. With that said, a restructure to cover the history better and more glowingly is not a bad idea. oknazevad (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Done. I rearranged as discussed. Most of the "outrage" bits I moved to the "2017 rollout" subsection, putting only a short mention in the lede, which is now short. (I love short ledes!) There are two blank sections -- the Logo and Ingredients sections of the new product -- but these should be easy to research and write. Anyone want to do that? — Lawrence King 03:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
And of course, at this point I withdraw my earlier objection to the moving of this page. It certainly should be moved to Coca-Cola Zero Sugar. — Lawrence King 03:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Anthony! — Lawrence King 19:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Reorganization undone

Oknazevad, it seemed to me that we had an agreement here on the talk page regarding the organization of the new article. Pursuant to this agreement, I rearranged the entire article , and then you completely rearranged the article to something else . If you objected to the new TOC, I wish you had said so on the Talk page. I don't feel like getting into a revert war, which is why I try to reach consensus on talk pages. I would not have invested the time it took to reorganize the page if I didn't think I was representing the consensus.

At present, this article is named Coca-Cola Zero Sugar, but it has a Marketing section which describes the marketing of a different product (Coca-Cola Zero) during a time that the title product didn't even exist.

Separate sections for the products CZ and CZS would make it clear what each subsection discussed. — Lawrence King 19:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I thought it was a good effort, but when I saw it in practice I realized that it created too many redundancies, and wound up looking like it was one article followed by another. It just didn't look that good.
I think it, again, comes down to treating it too much like a all-new product, which it is objectively not. As I said above, it's explicitly described as having an "improved taste", and has the exact same UPC codes. The rename is indeed part of the history of the product, and coincides with a tweaking of the formula (exact same ingredient list). This reference, from Coke themselves, describes it as an evolution and, to quote, "Coca-Cola Zero Sugar is the new and improved Coke Zero."
To say that they're entirely separate products that need entirely separate history, marketing, logo, and ingredients sections didn't hold up upon further scrutiny, nor did it make for an effective article. The name change is part of the single product history. oknazevad (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Entry added for Coca-Cola Stevia No Sugar

I assume this is the appropriate page to add an entry for Coca-Cola Stevia No Sugar. The product appears to be available only in New Zealand, where it replaced Coca-Cola Life in May 2018. As of September 2019 the 1.5 litre packaging size is no longer available from the major supermarket retail chains (the 6x250 ml can pack remains available); Coca-Cola NZ has yet to respond to queries regarding this non-availability or potential withdrawal of the product. PatrickDunfordNZ (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)