Talk:List of energy drinks
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Soft Drinks WikiProject, a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to all non-alcoholic beverages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. |
| List | This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Pepsi
Surely pepsi isn't stronger than red bull caffeine-wise? The '10' seems like an error... I would've thought it would be closer to 1.0! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CherryMay (talk • contribs) 21:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] If anyone is bored...
They could try and incorporate this list here: http://www.energyfiend.com/the-caffeine-database/
62.189.71.66 (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- The limitation is notability of a corporation or product, not a source. Also, that doesn't look like a WP:RS. Really, the best place to go for caffeine levels is the corporation's website. WLU (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] List other stimulants
This article could be improved if more information was given on other stimulants and their effects. For example, sugar has a well known stimulative effect, and has long been used in combination with caffeine. Significant amounts of B vitamins provide a stimulative effect, and so do ginseng, guarana, ginger, and a long list of other botanically derived or manufactured substances; each with unique pharmaco-toxicology and ethnobotanical traditions. The original formulation of Coca Cola, for example had a kick well beyond mere caffeine. Some of these compounds have additive effects with caffeine, others may have synergistic effects. Tea drinkers will note the difference in kind, not just magnitude, resulting from the stimulative effects of theobromine. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- The page is a list, not an article, you may want to bring this up at stimulant. List pages like this one have very little text or explanation. WLU (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Restrict to notable?
Should the list be restricted to notable drinks only? Only drinks with full caffeine or other context information? Otherwise this seems like a violation of not a misc. collection of information. WLU (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's a little hypocritical to on the one hand ask for help in expanding the list (with the {{Incomplete-list}} template at the top of the page) and on the other, reject new entries because they're not notable enough. For new entries going forward, we should request, at a minimum, an external link to a product page or (preferably) a link to the product's nutrition facts page, noting it's caffeine content. I think any drink that meets the criteria of an energy drink and these few rules should be allowed on this page. — EagleOne\Talk 17:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- You mean restrict list only to those that can reference the caffeine contents via product link? There's a line between being overly restrictive and letting the page get stuffed with hoaxes, dead products, and incredibly non-notable products. I think referenced caffeine levels would be a good way of navigating the between the extremes. WLU (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I mean. I agree, requiring a reference to the product's caffeine levels would be a good compromise between the two extremes. Here's another idea; we could create another section, for drinks which do not publish caffeine levels on their product websites. That way we can include the products in this list, with a disclaimer that the caffeine data cannot be established or confirmed. — EagleOne\Talk 16:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- You mean restrict list only to those that can reference the caffeine contents via product link? There's a line between being overly restrictive and letting the page get stuffed with hoaxes, dead products, and incredibly non-notable products. I think referenced caffeine levels would be a good way of navigating the between the extremes. WLU (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] NOS
The caffeine listings for NOS energy drink are inaccurate. The article claims there are 845 mg/L of caffeine in the drink, but I just bought a bottle that says it has 343mg in a 650mL bottle. This math obviously doesn't add up. However, the calculation of mg/fluid OZ is accurate. Don't know what's going on here. 99.249.189.179 (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
