Talk:Frappuccino
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Fragment
Can somebody finish the last sentence, please? RickK 06:34, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Original recipe
Actually, Starbucks states that the drink now served in stores originated in 1995 and that they simply use the name from Coffee Connection (rather than invent a new one), which would also explain the difference in taste that customers experience.Kaibab 07:00, 31 October 2005
[edit] Proposed Move
© doesn't belong in the article name. It's not even correct, as Frappuccino is a Trade Mark (™) not a copyrighted work. --Dystopos 00:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- I moved the article back to Frappuccino by your reasoning. Kusma (討論) 01:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- To be precise, it's a Registered Trade Mark (®). --Purplezart 07:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I have suggested that this page be merged with the Starbucks page, since "Frappucino" is a trademarked name for a Starbucks beverage, and is unlikely to be encountered outside of that context. There is also a lot of overlap in the information in both articles. Please contribute to the discussion on the Talk:Starbucks page. --Purplezart 20:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree with the proposed move. The two pages are quite long enough already (although they both need work). This content would be very out of place on the starbucks page, given that the starbucks page does not even discuss the contents (beyond sizes) of their regular espresso drinks. -The Gomm 03:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Most of the beverages available at Starbucks are not unique or trade-marked; Frappucinos are. Furthermore, I believe that most of the information on this Frappucino article is far too in-depth, and needs to be edited down anyway. --Purplezart 06:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'll second this. The article reads like a menu... GChriss <always listening><c> 06:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Most of the beverages available at Starbucks are not unique or trade-marked; Frappucinos are. Furthermore, I believe that most of the information on this Frappucino article is far too in-depth, and needs to be edited down anyway. --Purplezart 06:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] frappuccino recipe
I posted an external link to a frappuccino recipe. It's been removed from both locations I posted it, marked as spam. Is there a way I could post it and it not be considered spam? I get so many searches for this recipe (coming to my site), I thought it would be beneficial to post it. Would rewriting it to be more article-style be better? It's not my intention to spam. - Madaise 02:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- I was the person who removed this link. The problem with it is that the article is specifically about the Starbucks trademarked product. If the link somehow contributed to knowledge about that subject, then I think it would be ok. Maybe if it were the exact recipe used by Starbucks, that would be ok too. But that's not what it is. It's not feasible to have every possible related topic linked here. Ultimately that's what Google is for. ScottW 14:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tazo Tea Frappuccinos
They still sell these drinks in the UK. Perhaps mention of this can be made. Don't know what the situation is like in the rest of the world but Starbucks here in Manchester still do Tropical Citrus Frappuccinos which I believe contain the Tazo Tea. Last summer they did a variation using fresh Mango too.
- Maybe if you can get more info about these? Are they still similar to the old receipe or is it a modified version similar to some other companies make? (ie: Panera Bread, etc). Also what flavors are they currently available in right now? When gonig to the [Starbucks UK] site, and found the nutrition guide, all it mentioned was:
- FRAPPUCCINO® BLENDED TEA
- RASPBERRY TEA
- TROPICAL CITRUS TEA
- Nothing clear about if these are still using Tazo nor if they are just tea blended with ice (like a "Slushie" type of drink, anyone else have anymore info?) ZyphBear 17:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
In Case it wasn't noticed, the "Blended Juice" drinks were added recently. No Specifics on if they are different from the UK Versions. Anyone have any info?ZyphBear 10:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Complete Revision
This article was completely revised and had very valid, useful information removed and something reworded that now make no sense. I am suggesting a Revision back and some of these changes talked about before such a total rework with a "Minor" label tagged to it as well. I'm going to revert this back and then we can comment on what needs changed.ZyphBear 04:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I took the time to reword some oddly phrased areas, corrected capitalization, and grammar, then removed the “recommendation” about sugars, while leaving the nutrition information so people can decide how to interpret the information provided on their own. The previous edit was marked as being “minor” when in no way would that describe the edit. The Word count went from 3,178 to 2,764 due to full deletions of information. On top of that, some of the new paragraphs made no sense in relation to the content of the article. In some instances, where words were changed, the entire meaning of the paragraph was opposite of the intended information. (example: in the “Special versions”, the sentence was changed from The following are some of the popular drinks that have been made available to The following are some of the popular drinks that are available, this implies that these versions are still available, which in fact the point of the section is to dictate items that are NOT available any longer.)
- Plus the reference of '"It is currently available in three sizes: Tall (12 ounce), Grandé (16 ounce), and Ventí (24 ounce).” They are typed like this due to being trademarked terms by Starbucks, the capitalization and punctuation is required since they are part of the trademark. Please do not change these. These are also typed the same way in the Starbucks article. (you wouldn’t change ‘’’iPod’’’ to ‘’’ipod’’’, same difference. Thank you. ZyphBear 14:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
Since this article has been revised, it has lost its former NPOV. Parts of it read as though written by someone disgusted by the company and parts by someone enamored of the company. Addtionally, there are currently anachronistic strings, such as CBB mentioned with the Tazo Berry and Tazo Citrus.@KaibabTALK 03:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- I would ask to clarify where the NPOV you are referencing from when the article was expanded.ZyphBear 10:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- The history section seems particularly like a POV rant. Unless reliable sources can be added, I think this entire section should go. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed some of the more subjective POV, (i.e. the reference to quote "originality" unquote in regards to Starbucks) because they served no purpose in the article and only contributed to overall bias. The article simply needs to talk about the frappuccino, not make go out of its way to convey the opinion that the author shares about Starbucks. No one cares about that and it only serves to take away from the reliability and integity of the article as a whole. Lauren 18:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Large Bottled Frappuccinos
I saw Large Bottled Starbucks Frappuccinos for sale at a 24-hour gas/fastfood/truckstop near Youngstown, Ohio on Tuesday 25JUL2006. Off of I-80 (maybe Exit 223).
The bottle was about 15 or 16 oz., as best as I can recall (regretably, I did not buy it).
I presume that the large bottle is being test marketed in Ohio or that part of Ohio.
Anybody with any info on this Large-sized Bottled Frappuccino, and if and when it will be marketed nationwide - please post.
Thanx.
72.82.164.29 04:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Milkshake?
The second sentence of the first paragraph states:
It is sold as a coffee beverage but is in actuality a milkshake.
However, the milkshake article indicates that there is no consensus definition on what exactly constitutes a milkshake. The basic recipe varies in the US, UK, and New England. A Frappuccino might be similar to a milkshake in the UK, but they're nothing like milkshakes in most of the US. The term should be dropped from the definition.
- I agree. Putting milk into a blended ice drink does not make it a milkshake. -The Gomm 21:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Java Chips
Note**** Java Chips are in fact the exact same thing as Mocha Chips, the name was changed for marketing reasons, and therefore all of the drinks (except the POWER ones) can still be made at a Starbucks upon request
Why does that note exist? It should be incorporated into the actual java chip section of the "Discontinued Section". Maybe something like "While some argue that Mocha Chips and Java Chips differ in texture and taste, they are in fact the same. The name was changed for marketing reasons."
But as far as I know, that's unsourced anyway. Just like much of that section, now that I look at it. It's a little bit NPOV, and a lot uncited.
but many people could tell the difference and no longer got that type of blended coffee.
According to who?
Kendall 05:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Extremely POV
This article is in need of some serious revisions/deletions. It's also chock full of original research (the parts about what the syrups taste like). It's really long for a description of one company's coffee drink product.
I just posted a comment like this yesterday. STOP DELETING DISCUSSION COMMENTS. Dukie010 01:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- I removed your comment just now from the article itself: no harm, no foul. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 17:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] No article accompanying the title "decaf"?
There is no article after the title "decaf". So I guess I'll try to look up something about decaf frappuccinos. If I can't find anything, it would be nice if someone else could. Thanks,CreamOfTheCrop 20:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)CreamOfTheCrop
Oh yeah, and can someone please tell me: is there a reason it would have no article? Because I know that sometimes it’s okay for titles not to have articles, so is it really necessary for there to be an article below "decaf" or is the word self-explanatory enough?
[edit] Why is there a subject for "varieties" and "avaliable versions"?
They contain some of the same topics. Can someone combine the level-two headlines and double-topics into one? CreamOfTheCrop 21:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)CreamOfTheCrop
