Talk:Innocent Drinks

This company is not currently called 'innocent Drinks', but simply 'Innocent'. This seems like a popular article, so I feel a little too new to change it, but... yeah, look into it. Something about the McDonalds deal would probably be relevant: their whole business model is looking ethical, and that was taken as dodgy. But, main thing is the title. Davordlot (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this just one big advertisment for the Innocent company? Surely an encyclopaedia should just mention basic facts, not delve into product detail and consistently highlight the apparent merits of the range.

Trimming the Fat

Whilst reading this article I was struck by the tremendous amount of unencyclopedic information included. I'm minded to delete some of this: I don't see the need for the recipes and a detailed explanation of the product range; this information is available on the corporate website, which is in any case the more appropriate place for it ( and where it will be regularly updated ). I'm also of the opinion that while we should refer to the company's jokey approach to marketing, there is no need to repeat jokes and laboriously explain them here. I await comments before acting. WMMartin 14:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hear hear! The explanation of jokes makes the page sound as if it is trying to explain them to some sort of mentally retarded 8-year old! --Arkracer 09:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Will whoever keeps capitalising 'innocent' please stop it. It is not 'Innocent'. Anybody who has studied the company in depth, and is therefore qualified to edit this page at all, would know that it is 'innocent' and not 'Innocent'.128.240.229.67 13:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)LLB

Oops - that was me - sorry. It just looks un-neat on the page when the beginnings of articles start with a lower-case letter, as it the article was written hastilly. JameiLei 23:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Understood - no problem and thanks for commenting. This article is getting better - maybe worth taking down the tag? LLB

Capitalisation

After reading the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, especially this bit, I think all sentences starting with innocent should be capitalised. I did this once before which was reverted and resolved here (concluding that as the company name it should be left uncapitalised). However, the Manual of Style dictates that even lower case trademarks should be capitalised at the beginnings of sentences. I'll leave this here for a while but if there's no discussion after a while I'll capitalise all the trademarks that appear at the beginnings of sentences. JameiLei 20:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've had a look at the bit you mean. I can see where you're coming from and clearly it's the way Wikipedia would prefer it. I prefer it written to correctly represent the company rather than Wikipedia because i don't think it's untidy - the article is now well-written and informative. It's part of their image and i think it's important to represent that here - what does everyone else think? 128.240.229.67 LLB

Wikipedia is not an advertising agency and articles should conform to the Manual of Style rather than to a corporate image. I strongly believe that the name Innocent should be capitalised at the beginnings of sentences; it can be left uncapitalised elsewhere though. JameiLei 21:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if it bothers you! I have one request, though, as a compromise for those of us who like it as it is. Can we leave the title as 'innocent' and the bold 'innocent' in the first paragraph. I think this would make the point that this is how it's spelt. But i agree it can be capitalised at the beginning of other sentences. Lolzars 12:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep that what I was intending anyway ;) - anyway ill go through now and capitalise it. JameiLei 20:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Blatant Advertising

Someone put an advertisement banner in the 'innocent ethos' section of the article. I've taken it down because everything in that section is factual and, i feel, written from a NPOV. However, if anyone does have qualms with the way it's written, they should discuss it first on this page so we can think about making suitable changes, and at least have the courtesy to explain their reasoning for the edit. Lolzars 20:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The three co-founders

I personally don't think images of the three co founders adds to the encyclopaedic content of this article. As of before I'll give a few days for people voice any objections, and then I'll take it down if there's no fuss. JameiLei 21:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I thought it might brighten it up a bit :-) philb 20:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah i agree. They do brighten it up and i suppose some people might be interested in seeng the founders - lots of wikipedia pages have photos and it adds to the comprehensiveness of the article, but i don't mind whether you take them down or leave them up! Lolzars 17:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the images as I believe them to be not necessary to the article as images of the co-founders do not help to describe the company nor the drinks. Thanks for commenting JameiLei 18:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, seeing as they founded the company, I think that's a good enough reason. Please add them back. Why bother asking for people's opinions if you're just going to disregard them anyway? 213.218.226.79 15:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What's wikipedia's policy on the matter? I think that they can be included if they add to the encyclopaedic content of the article, and it is fact, any one else got an opinion?

I do. Put them back please! 82.163.181.198 10:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is of the drinks company, not the bios of the co-founders. Showing the founders adds nothing to the encyclopaedic value of the article at all, and doesn't improve my understanding of the company in any way. It is irrelevant. I'll see if I can find a Wikipedia justification for not having the images but until then, please refrain from adding them. JameiLei 21:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Corn starch bottles

I learnt about the corn-starch bottles today and was surprised. So I did a bit a of research and it's not all it's cracked up to be. The product used to make the bottles is Polylactic acid (PLA). On our article it says "Packaging made from PLA is bio-degradable and reverts in less than 60 days in ideal conditions. It normally takes 180 days to do so in commercial or municipal composting facilities. It will not degrade in landfills however.". So the heat produced in composting is what makes the material degrade and this does not happen in landfill. So just chucking the bottle in with the usual rubbish is not helping the environment. If it is sent to a commercial composting facility what happens? In this article it says - Trelawney Dampney, chairman of the Composting Association and managing director of a composting business in Dorset, said companies like his would not risk leaving any bottle in their compost. He said: "If we get a batch of garden waste in with bottles included they will be shifted out, we will not sort through to pick out biodegradable ones – we couldn't afford that. The only way it would work is if all households in the UK had a compost bin and on the bottle it is very very clearly marked as biodegradable." The article then goes on to question what happens if the bottle is put in with normal plastic recycling and states that if it ends up among other recyclable forms of plastic, it can damage the resulting product. Paul Davidson, plastics technical manager at the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), explained: "You don't need too much PLA to mess PET (Polyethylene terephthalate - what regular recyclable plastic bottles are made from) up, especially if you want to recycle it back into a bottle. It will only take a few percent of PLA to make PET non-viable and that is just another concern for plastic reprocessors to deal with." - so basically the bottles are only any good if you home-compost them so in fact not all that eco-friendly for the vast majority of consumers. Seems like a bit of a gimmick really. It looks to me like this is just another way for the US to get rid of its enormous subsidised corn surplus that is already damaging the world. See here. Jooler 23:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Article in the Guardian today - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/26/waste.pollution says Innocent stopped using PLA last year because of the poor chance of it reaching a composting bin. Also says that PLA is actually bad for the environment. Jooler (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion? Hangon

Whilst this article contains some materiel which could be considered advertising, the previous tag {{advert}} was sufficient to indicate the article needed improvement. The db-spam tag was placed on the products section replacing the advert tag, so what is expected here - just that section speedily deleted perhaps? Maybe the article shouldn't mention the products at all - hardly a practical suggestion for a company? As a whole, the article covers the company's formation, history, products, and a section on controversies such as ties with McDonalds; all with references. I'm sure someone with more expertise in the field than me, could come by and fix the products section and the db-spam tag could be quickly removed. Astronaut (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact the previous section in this talk page (about corn-starch bottles) contains infomation that could be added to the controversies section in the main article. Astronaut (talk) 11:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Agrred. Page is not a speedy candidate, although it needs a damned good scrubbing to remove the tone! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Major edit, removing advertising like statements and making it more encyclopedic

Please before anyone quickly tries to revert or restore content that was removed discuss it here first and explain why it's encyclopedic and from a NPOV standpoint. This article should NOT read like a promotional billboard for the company like it did before. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Image

I have an image that might be of use but don't want to add it unless it adds to the article. I'll let others decide...

Jaqian (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It was removed from the article when the bulk of the advertising and fluff was removed. I think it's probably not going to add anything to the article as it currently stands. A good image of the official logo might work for in the infobox with fair-use rational. Donno about the van pic. I'll let others weigh in. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)