Talk:Aquafina

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands 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.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Food and drink: Beverages Mid‑importance

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.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Related taskforces:
/
	This article is within the scope of the Beverages Task Force, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

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: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

NPOV

Aquafina touts their water is "Pure" because of their "state-of-the-art" HydRO-7 purification system used to remove substances that "most other" bottled waters leave in.

The word I want to point out is "touts", because that can have negative connotations. Definition #4 from Merriam-Webster Online: "to make much of". (An example I found was in a certain forum, saying something like "The publishing company was touting their prize as a child prodigy.") I don't want to nitpick but it seems condescending towards Aquafina. If anyone agrees, what would be a good replacement? --Passerby Cat ^{talk cat} 18:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that whole paragraph is questionable. The use of parts of Pepsi's description in quotes makes it seems as if there's a reason to doubt it. Is there? We should either reword this entirely or use Pepsi's complete quote. -- Steven Fisher 19:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true - I think I have an Aquafina bottle around the house somewhere, and they usually say stuff about their purification system on the label. I'll go find it and replace it. There's no reason to doubt that they filter it. I'll replace the paragraph with the statement on the label for now. --Passerby Cat ^{talk cat} 21:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Edit: If I copied it word-for-word, it would read like an advertisement. I'll reword it.[reply]

The site

Most of the citations come from the site, but I desperately need a text version of it so someone seeking references could click on them and not search around or wait for the Flash to load. If anyone knows where there is a (official) text-only version of aquafina.com, please come forward! --Passerby Cat ^{talk cat} 21:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tap water.

There should be a section about the recent news that Aquafina actually bottles tap water. http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2007/07/27/aquafina.html 70.118.90.38 00:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been added about a dozen times in various forms. Most of the adds have been reverted because of the redundancy. People seem eager to add the info without reading the article first. And it's not accurate to simply say "tap water." It may come from a tap, but they do stuff to purify it before selling it. Ward3001 00:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All bottled water actually does either come from the tap or from the spring. I don't think there's any more benefit to drinking bottled water over tap water. The purifications systems don't always catch everything, and you can install the same system inside a home well. Right? Also, is there a section about Aquafina having the green Smart Choice label? On the back, it says, "Aquafina is a smart choice because every serving is calorie free and sodium free. Visit www.smartstop.com" Complex-Algorithm 23:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This website claims that every bottle now comes with the label PWS. Can anyone verify that? Is the source reliable? Kushal 16:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 22:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aquafina or Propel?

If this is an article about Aquafina, why is it called Propel? This needs to be explained in the article. 210.9.140.246 (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until it is clarified, I am reverting the edits changing the references to Propel. It was changed by a single unregistered editor. (D.c.camero (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

NPOV: Public not necessarily same as Tap

I have tagged the parenthetical statement: (meaning the same as tap) with a fact template.

What is a public source? It certainly may be processed tap water.

But it may also be water drawn directly from public rivers, springs or lakes, for example.

Pepsi does not specify. I am looking into published articles about this, but in the mean time, I think that this is a NPOV statement and deserves the fact template. Caltrop (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revision and Litigation Inquiry

With this edit made today, I've sought to bring this article closer in line with WP:GA standards. It may not be quite there yet, but is certainly headed in the right direction. I see it as important to note here that PepsiCo (the parent company which owns the Aquafina name) is a client of my employer which presents a potential WP:COI. Given this, I've been careful to follow the WP:NPOV content guidelines -- in fact the previous version of this article contained a few instances of overly-promotional phrasing such as "Aquafina uses PepsiCo's own seven-step purification system, which it calls HydRO-7." Text of this type (which sounds like it is coming from the company, not a neutral encyclopedia) has been copy-edited to convey the crucial facts -- just in a more neutral, dispassionate manner that meets Wikipedia's style guidelines. While I of course remain open to (and welcome) any thoughts on this update, I'd like to get some input on the litigation section which still remains. Taking a closer look at it, the lawsuit in question did receive coverage in reliable sources; however it appears to have been a somewhat frivolous lawsuit. From what I can gather,

Two men sued PepsiCo in Wisconsin state court in April, 2009, claiming that they had come up with the idea for Aquafina approx 15 years earlier.
Through some sort of procedural/administrative mix-up, PepsiCo wasn't aware of the case, and as a result they were no-shows in court.
Initially, judge says the two men win a sum of $1.26 billion since PepsiCo (the defendant) didn't show up
This was eventually reversed and the case was closed; no damages were awarded [1] "Dismissing Defendant Pepsico Inc (07-23-2010)" [2]

Based on the info above, does this section belong in the Wikipedia article on Aquafina? It certainly was newsworthy (and interesting), but in the long-term it doesn't seem to be all too important that someone claimed that 15 years ago they invented Aquafina. If this claim was proven true it would certainly warrant inclusion here, but since this is not the case what I'd like to get others' thoughts on whether to keep, remove or restructure this section. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aquafina. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707154306/http://www.aquafina.com/help.php to http://www.aquafina.com/help.php#minium1

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) 19:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]