Jump to content

Talk:Diet Coke/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Kitch deleted:

In 2005, the company released a new formulation called "Diet Coke Sweetened with Splenda". As indicated by the name, the sweetener Splenda (sucralose) replaces aspartame in this version.

And replaced with:

Plans are also in the works for a version of Diet Coke sweetened with Splenda.

I can personally verify that "Diet Coke Sweetened with Splenda" is not merely a plan in the works, as I was drinking one when I edited the article. They are for sale in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and presumably elsewhere. Brighterorange 03:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


Calorie Xero Coca-Cola?

I've never heard of the name, despite having been living in South Africa for the past decade and a bit. The beverage is marketed as "Coca-Cola Light" in the country. See this SAB page:[1] A Google search shows that all results for "Xero Calorie" points back to the Wikipedia. Can anyone find any other references? Biozinc (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Coca Cola Light

Whats the difference between this and Diet coke. I had it in Spain, and it definatly tastes different to regular Diet Coke. There must be a difference. Its much nicer, it's not as bitter tasting.--Richy 15:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Coca-Cola light is the name given to Diet Coke in most non-English-speaking markets. Strictly speaking, it IS Diet Coke. You don't find the two brands sold together. "Diet" apparently does not appeal to non-English speakers as much as "light" does.

However, you are right, the continental European version tastes much better than the version in the US (which tastes the same as in the UK). This mostly has to do with the use of cyclamates as a sweetener in Europe (stupidly banned 35 years ago in the US and UK), though I think the formula is also somewhat different. It was improved in 1995 to combat poor sales in mainland Europe; as Diet Coke already sold well in Britain they evidently left it alone (and, as I mentioned, cyclamates could not be used there anyway). As far as I am aware, the Irish version is the same as the British.

I've added a mention of this to the text; I hope it's fairly uncontroversial to say "fans of the drink often express a strong preference for the European version." I base this on a number of Internet discussions I've seen, and on a blind taste test I once carried out on some friends in the UK when I had some European Coke light with me. (All five much preferred the European version.) --ProhibitOnions 17:25, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

I know this is an old comment but Diet Coke and Coke Light are sold side by side in Iceland. Link to manufacturer (in icelandic). This should be mentioned in the article, it's not just a different label for the same product. gumol (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
This is true. The ingredients are also not completely the same; Coke Zero has E331 and E338, while Coke Light has E338 and E339. --RoyalFool (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

So Im not Crazy, thats a relief.--Richy 17:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

It's good

You need to point out the difference between coke and coke light in the article perhaps. I have tasted both (rubbish UK shops seem to import it as though it's a cheaper version) and coke light is, frankly, disgusting. I know they are both very similar but just as diet coke has a diet coke cherry page, diet coke should have a light page or at least a paragraph detailing the differences. Light tastes much more metallic than diet IMHO.--217.43.186.47 10:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yuck... you people are crazy... Coca-Cola Light is disgusting compared to Diet Coke. Coca-Cola Light is, if you ask me, a completely different formula from Diet Coke. It tastes just like a diet version of Coca-Cola. Which is what Coca-Cola Zero is. So when I went to Europe, I brought back a can of Coke Light, a can of Coke Zero, and compared them to a Diet Coke from here (Canada). The Coke Light and Zero were almost indistinguishable in flavour, whereas the Diet Coke tasted quite different (and *we* all agreed the Diet Coke was much, much better than the other two!) --99.240.106.42 (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Not-yet-existent flavors

The Internet doesn't talk very much about what Diet Coke's not-yet-existent flavors that could come into existence within the next few years are. Anyone know what flavors might come soon (chocolate, orange, etc.)?? Georgia guy 20:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Why? Wikipedia is not for speculation. Autiger 21:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Flavours

I was in the process of improving/expanding the 'Diet Coke Flavors' article, and I noticed that the 'Diet Coke' page contains a list and brief details of all the Diet Coke flavours. This raises the question, is there really a need for a separate 'Diet Coke Flavors' article, which can do no more than merely recount the same information, without resorting to opinion and conjecture? If so, I would welcome suggestions on how it could be further expanded, and I will endeavour to do so. JFactor 20:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Lemon flavor?

The main Coca-Cola page said near the bottom that Coke Light with Lemon was discontinued in 2005, but it didn't say that Diet Coke with Lemon had been discontinued. Does anyone have more information on this? By the way, the section on the Coca-Cola page that said this was the "Types of Coke" section but I removed it, since there is a "Variants of Coca-Cola" box at the bottom of the page anyway. Philbert2.71828 07:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

On the page it says that Coke Light with Lemon still is being sold in Chile. I've been living here for a year now and haven't seen it anywhere. Anyone sure whether it's still being sold or not?

US / UK spelling/words

If Country of Origin for "Diet Coke" is USA, then should the "Football shaped bottle of Diet Coke" caption for one of the pictures be changed to "soccer shaped"? From a US-resident point of view, the caption stands out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.42.199.132 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC).

Football is the accepted term internationally, but then the U.S. contains the largest population of people who use English as a first language. Because English readers will primarily be from the U.K., Ireland, or the U.S., I think it can be changed to soccer ball. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.33.238.249 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC).

My concern was not so much the concentration of people in relation to language, but more that the country-specific use of "soccer" matches the country-specific country of origin already given. It's a minor thing, but again, stood out for me and perhaps will/has for others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.42.199.132 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC).

  • I disagree - the picture is of a British Diet Coke bottle (recognisable because of the size of Diet differs from the American one). English Wikipedia is not inherantly in American dialect, and the article suggests British spellings with 'advertising'. Since 'football' is the term used by the majority of the English-speaking world [2], I'm reverting back to 'football'. GoldenTie 17:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No health warnings?

Anyone reading this Wiki would assume by default that consuming Diet Coke is 100% risk-free. Not a single word is mentioned about its negative effects or health concerns. Is this an advertisement page for Diet Coke?!

That's because there are none, at least none proven by reputable science. The section on Aspartame needs a reminder that aspartame has been heavily and repeatedly tested by the FDA, and that no adverse health effects have ever been found (aside from those people suffering from phenylketonuria).--AaronM 13:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Odd that the Diet Coke article plays aspartame off as an addictive and unhealthy substance. The article for aspartame shows it in a different light. If FDA has actually dismissed these claims, this part should be removed. --68.14.228.19 (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this section of the article does not accurately depict the current scientific evidence. Namely, aspartame is NOT a health risk as a food sweetener. 66.235.9.195 (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC) I have taken the initial steps in this process, it's unfortunate when psuedoscience leaks into scientific debates. 66.235.9.195 (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Picture...

Sorry, but that picture is terrible. Look at the Coke Zero article for a good example. 80.47.25.23 18:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

DC Special

As a resident of Delaware for many years, I've never heard of Diet Coke referred to as "DC Special" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.175.93.137 (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

I hadn't heard of this term until a few months ago when some of my friends in Newark were referring to the soda by this name...maybe I'm just out of the loop, but now I find myself using the lexicon as well...


Don't know the DC Special? You've obviously never been to Kelly's Logan House or Cathrine Rooney's in Trolly Square then...I order it that way with mix drinks. Jack and DC Special sounds a lot better than Jack and Diet Coke...Get with the times.

Saw the name of the team in my West Chester volleyball league, I assumed it was a group from Washington DC that moved up north. They definitely looked special with those headbands on. Glad I found this entry...can't wait to go to Kildare's or Ryan's and order a Powers and DC Special.

Noticed a rowdy group at Wilmington's Scratch Magoo's on Friday night hooting and hollering about the name DC Special....next thing I noticed the bartender was doing a shooter with them of the same name. After working up some courage, I approached the group (who turned out to be a friendly group of characters). Turns out there is also a "DC Special" shooter....Captain and Diet Coke, chilled. Looks like this term is spreading faster than that monkey from Outbreak (film)....

Useless Thought

I saw Coke Light sold in Ensenada Mexico. Spanish words for the most part are pronounced like they are spelled. To a Spanish speaker "diet" is quite pronounceable. I must have tried to pronounce light for a half an hour. I think it would sound either like "league-tey" OR "lee-hayt"

--Jmohler1970 02:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dietcokenew.PNG

Image:Dietcokenew.PNG 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 02:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


"In most of Europe, including Germany and Italy, the drink is marketed as Coca-Cola Light, but often referred to as Cola. Coca-Cola has tried to discourage the use of this generic term,[citation needed] and commercials refer only to "Coke Light" or "Coca-Cola Light.""

Hm, what's this? I've never heard oc Coca-Cola Light referd to as "Cola", "Cola" here in Sweden is simply used to refer to any Coca-Cola, not Light exclusivly. 81.227.124.48 18:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nccc.jpg

Image:Nccc.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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 04:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's ascorbic acid not citric acid

I really don't want to be rude but I have to say this out loud:
Learn some basic science or dont't edit. Deathkenli 07:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Corporate edits?

Suspicious line? The section "Debate over health issues" includes the following line: "The Coca-Cola Company has reformulated its products so that the risk of forming carcinogens inside of soft drinks is eliminated." I have tagged this to indicate a citation is needed, but apart from being a giant sweeping statement with no evidence offered, it is phrased in corporate speak. Unless an accurate citation is offered, I suggest that line be removed. 121.44.88.9 (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

hey for this diet coke advert http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4uL-YMCJlRY what was the music? thanks, Mail10 (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Diet coke.

i have a medical condition called PKU.I cannot drink diet coke as it contains aspartame.I think diet coke should be sweetened with saccharin or sucralose.You will now think "Why change diet coke for one person" but actually there are many people around the world who cannot drink it. Like many people,I too want to drink a lower calorie Coca Cola but i can't.I have tasted a different brand diet coke and it is no different except it contains sucalose or saccharin(I'm sorry but i can't remember the exact one).I would be so happy if you would even consider this.I live in Ireland and reading you artical I read about Tab but I cannot purchase that here.I also saw about diet coke sweetened with Splenda but, yet again I cannot purchase it.

86.42.21.247 (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you cannot consume aspartame. However, unfortunately, the market being what it is sees aspartame as most popular or cheapest so they use it. I love the taste of Diet Coke and no matter what won't change. I sometimes wish though that they made Diet Coke with Splenda (even though I hear about it, I cannot find it) or other sweetner because I sometimes hear the bad stuff on aspartame.

99.246.7.143 (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If they'd change to using sucralose, they'd probably lose customers. At least me, I can't stand the sugar-like taste of sucralose. Surely I'm not the only one.--Cyberman TM (talk) 07:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Different caffeine contents

Check the labels of each type. For example I believe diet Coke has 50% more than Coke Zero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ykral (talk • contribs) 23:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Name in Scandinavia

The article currently reads: '"In many English-influenced non-English markets e.g. Chile and Israel, it is called Diet Coca-Cola. That was also the case in Scandinavia although the name Diet Coke was also used until it was changed recently to Coca-Cola Light."' I'm removing the latter part of that quote. In Norway, which is in Scandinavia, the drink has always been known as Coca-Cola Light (Cola light in common tongue). --Kvaks (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

DIET COKE IS GOOD!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.0.83 (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Meaty?

Why does the intro say Meaty on it? I don't think Diet Coke is meaty... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heero Kirashami (talk • contribs) 00:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Spoilage?

The article mentions using saccharin to extend shelf life - does that mean it could actually spoil? If so, how would the taste be affected, anyone know? I've seen a german website where someone claims it gets a nut-like aftertaste, but so far I found no further evidence(apart from a bottle of coke light that definitely has a nut-like aftertaste, standing on my desk right now).--Cyberman TM (talk) 07:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction tag

The contradiction tag was added to this article: 13:10, 14 September 2008 Russoc4 (10,936 bytes) (1982/1983 in the introduction is contradictory)

No contradiction exists as Diet Coke did come out in 1982, but started using aspartame in 1983. I added inline citations to support the two years in question.

Since no contradiction exists, I removed the tag. If you still feel there is a contradiction, feel free to add a fresh tag and discuss it in this section. Thanks so much. Kjnelan (talk) 06:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Reference #12

Reference #12 http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2002/10/14/5722/

"The evils of drinking Diet Coke: Addiction and objectification" By AILEEN NIELSEN COLUMNIST

Published: Monday, October 14th, 2002


This is not a published study nor does this commentary refer to any study or findings. Reference #12 should be removed.

This is unsupported. "Recent studies conducted at Princeton University state that the artificial sweeteners, such as NutraSweet, that are present in Diet Coke are actually substantually more sweet than natural sugars, making your body crave sugar more, due to the absence of the natural sugar.[12]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by J23 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Raspberry Diet Coke in Bosnia and Herzogovnia?

I can't find anything which suggests this is true. Anyone have a cite? DNL (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Is Diet Coke / Coca Cola Light being Discontinued?

Is Diet/Coke Light being discontinued by Coca Cola in order to shift consumer preference to Coke Zero? I recently been to Taipei and Singapore and Coke Light is nowhere to be found. Therefore, it has been effectively discontinued from those markets. Maybe a reference to those facts can be included in the main article.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.68.59.76 (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

First New Diet Coke Logo Debuted in 1988

The first new logo for Diet Coke was introduced in 1988. [3] Watch this commercial at the 0:17 mark to spot the new logo. WikiPro1981X (talk) 10:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Is the logo out of date?209.213.155.25 (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Diet Coke one is correct, from what I can see at dietcoke.com. The Coca-Cola Light one seems to be the current one at the Coke corporate website, so I think we're okay. Any reason you think they're outdated? oknazevad (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources

i've noticed how unreliable the article used to support the statement of sodium benzoate causing mitochondrial damage is, or rather how unclear it is. there is no reference to the study performed nor is there any mention of the toxicity levels required to have a damaging effect. stating simply that sodium benzoate was found to cause harm to mitochondrial DNA all by itself seems misleading. for all we know, one must drink two dozen gallons of diet coke in a 6 hour timespan to have any harmful effects from sodium benzoate.

one useful source i've found is from inchem.org: http://www.inchem.org/documents/cicads/cicads/cicad26.htm the study seems to contain an abundance of related information. here's an excerpt: 

   "In humans, the acute toxicity of benzoic acid and sodium benzoate
   is low. However, both substances are known to cause non-immunological
   contact reactions (pseudoallergy). This effect is scarce in healthy
   subjects; in patients with frequent urticaria or asthma, symptoms or
   exacerbation of symptoms was observed. A provisional tolerable intake
   of 5 mg/kg body weight per day can be derived, although benzoates at
   lower doses can cause non-immunological contact reactions
   (pseudoallergy) in sensitive persons."

other related information would be the current FDA regulations on sodium benzoate, 0.1% by weight if i remember correctly (don't quote me,) as well as the the current amount of sodium benzoate found in diet coke.

it may also be useful to attempt to differentiate correlation and causation in the claim "Research published in 2007 for the British government's Food Standards Agency suggests that sodium benzoate (E211) is linked to hyperactive behavior and decreased intelligence in children" since it is not clear which one is being suggested. the article might require some digging up, since the link has rotted. perhaps more recent information in general should be used instead, as the artical dates back to 2008.

Note: if planning to dive into that source, one would probably like to stick to the executive summary so that searching through the whole thing isn't necessary. Wulframm (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diet Coke. 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: 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) 22:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep or remove images from product variations infobox

Please vote keep or remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheUSConservative (talk • contribs) 20:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep or remove images from product variations infobox

Images removed per consensus here. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Keep or remove photos in the product variant Infobox section? TheUSConservative (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Remove as per User:Black Kite - I have poor knowledge with the whole NFCC however as he says no info is lost at all- The images could easily be added to the individual articles, Not only that but having this table could set a precedent of having this table on every single drinks article which would cause a tons of problems, Anyway as per BK they should be removed. –Davey2010Talk 13:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Huh? Delete by policy. The images fail at least two parts of WP:NFCC, overuse (they're already used in the sub-articles) and significance (a picture of a can doesn't improve the readers knowledge). I won't revert this straight away, but these need to go. Black Kite (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Not in infobox. My opinion. The images are in the table in the article, so putting the same images in the infobox is not needed and would make the infobox too crowded. I think the images are helpful to display in the article as part of the product information.CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Hello User:Black Kite, could you please explain, what is the failure? If the image is not free, and is copyrighted, and the image is copied multiple times, is that the overuse?
For Caffeine-Free Diet Coke I see one image in the Brand table in this article, and a different image in the Caffeine-Free Diet Coke article. If the images are different, is it overuse?
Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Please read WP:NFCC, notably 3a, and especially WP:NFCC#8 - "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." If you remove these images, no information is lost because the reader can simply click on the link to find out about the subject, including a non-free image. Apart from the policy, the guideline WP:NFC says "Articles are structured ... to minimize the total number of times items of non-free content are included within the encyclopedia" This clearly doesn't meet that. And most notably. "In articles and sections of articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic ... it is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section." not to mention "The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable". That's pretty clear, I think. Black Kite (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Update, per User:Black Kite's explanation of WP:NFCC above, I rely on Black Kite's knowledge to determine the images to be removed. Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


  • Not in infobox - Summoned by bot. There are too many product variants to fit each can into the infobox, especially since the article is about the main Diet Coke. I think the tabular approach in the body of the article is more than suitable, especially since the variants are already listed in the infobox. Also, I started to remove some circular references, and as I did and saw the other articles, I realized that most of those limited and unsourced individual articles could and should be merged back into the main table. There's room. Timtempleton (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • No images in the table. Is this RfC correctly worded? The article's history shows that the recent disagreement has been over the use of images in the Brand Portfolio table, and not in the infobox. Assuming that we really are talking about the table in the Brand Portfolio section, the issue is addressed in WP:NFTABLE, which requires a very good reason for having the images. And no one here has given a good reason. NewYorkActuary (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • No - We must limit use of nonfree content to protect the project from law suits. I do not think nonfree product images enhance this article sufficiently to justify their use. Jojalozzo (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Diet Coke. 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) 13:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

redirect Tom Petty ???

redirect Tom Petty ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tex232 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Already reverted vandalism. oknazevad (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Redirection problem

Why on Earth does searching for "diet coke" (only in lowercase, uppercase works) redirect to the article for Codename: Kids Next Door? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlanetDeadwing (talk • contribs) 12:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It was left over from vandalism. oknazevad (talk) 12:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Davey2010 please self revert, I can find no evidence the brands were available there. This is ancient vandalism from 2007. Sro23 (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Whoops apologies Sro23, Many IPs use all sorts to remove content so it's easy to assume here, Anyway I've self reverted thanks for spotting that!, Thanks, –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 01:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Formatting issues

When viewing the page, the sentence beginning "Diet Coke does not use a modified form of..." contains a link to Coca-cola recipe which does not display correctly (it displays as markup, albeit it correct markup). If you try to edit the page, the visual editor does show the link correctly, so not sure how to fix.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NeorxenoSwang (talk • contribs) 01:07, January 21, 2022 (UTC)

@NeorxenoSwang:I fixed it in raw wikicode. Thank you. Don't forget to sign your comments with ~~~~ ! — Smuckola(talk) 07:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diet_Coke/Archive_1&oldid=1144613091"