Talk:Prime (drink)

Promotional pap

This 'article' is promotional pap, and not even remotely compliant with Wikipedia policy. If people want to advertise, they should do it elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

How is this promotional material? It's just a simple wikipedia page about a notable beverage brand thats repeatedly selling out right now... It's clear you have some sort of problem and WP:BIAS with me considering you continuously attack any article I create or am part of. MicroSupporter (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that Prime wiki is promotional. The format and language in Prime wiki is no different than any other sports drink wikipedia page (see Gatorade#Advertising and publicity as example), if not far less promotional.

December 2022 edits

User:AndyTheGrump has significant issues with the layout and content of this page, due to biases (WP:BIAS) about the product. Tbf69! 17:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbf69 (talk • contribs)

I support the removals by ATG. The Competition section should be removed as poorly sourced and unnecessary. The Ingredients, Flavor, and availability sections should be removed, as they are WP:NOT what Wikipedia is for. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

See the thread I have started at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Prime (sports drink). I suggest Tbf69 reads up on relevant Wikipedia policies before replying. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

They're fine Tbf69! 09:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbf69 (talk • contribs)

Stating they are 'fine' when given policy-based reasons why they aren't isn't a remotely adequate response. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree, this article's notability is questionable given the lack of reliable sources. WP:NOTDIRECTORY may also apply. TimSmit (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" Tbf69! 10:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbf69 (talk • contribs)

Given the reliance of this article on content cited to questionable sources, and to the manufacturers of the product, I'd have to suggest that 'the world at large' seems largely uninterested. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Merge and redirect

What are the sources that establish this product as independently notable? It seems like it should be a small mention on the Logan Paul and/or KSI article. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

A good question. As it stands, there really isn't much evidence that WP:N is met. The limited media coverage there has been seems mostly to be on the lines of 'YouTubers launch drinks company' rather than any substantive discussion of the product itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, there are plenty of reliable, independent sources that document the product, including: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/prime-energy-drink-ksi-what-b2253966.html

Slightly subjectively, the product is widely noted online and on social media, and is selling out in major supermarkets therefore does seem to warrant it's own article. Tbf69 20:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Should a section detailing the flavors be included?

I would argue yes, but I'm happy to change my mind if others know better. Tbf69 19:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

What secondary sourcing is there discussing the flavours? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I support removing the section. Only the first few flavors are supported by a secondary source (The Independent), and WP:NOTCATALOG applies. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd argue that the rest of the article provides the encyclopedic context that would permit the list under WP:NOTCATALOG.

Also, the secondary source you provided, and there are others, does list all 7 flavors of the sports drink. As the energy drink was launched today, it is likely that secondary sources will become available that document the 5 flavors better than the primary source that the article currently uses. Tbf69 20:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Please do not rename the article without discussion

Renaming an article that is being actively edited by multiple people may be seen as disruptive. And I note that the justification given for the recent change (Given there is evidence the company is due to launch non-sports drinks in the future (energy drinks), this title fits better [1]) is unsupported by any source either in the article, or on this talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Streamy Awards nomination

The nomination for a this award, from YouTube, is sourced to YouTube's own website. Clearly YouTube isn't an independent source for this since they are awarding content they host, and unless one can be found, I can see no reason why the article should mention the nomination at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree, if no independent or objective source can be found soon, that section should definitely be deleted. Tbf69 20:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Should we add a criticism or controversy section?

I would argue a criticism or controversy section to make the article balanced and neutral (WP:NPOV), considering there have been several objective issues with the product.

Examples:

• The product isn't necessarily proven to be a beneficial or legitimate for what it claims to be - see [2], [3]
• The product isn't really "owned" or "founded" by KSI or Logan Paul, rather is more of an advertising arrangement with the two Youtubers, as the product is actually more of a business venture by "Congo Brands", and its controllers Max Clemons and Trey Steiger.
• People are being arrested for stealing Prime.[4]
• People have gotten into fights about getting the product, and is potentially ripping off youth.

Tbf69 21:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Separate 'controversy' sections are generally a bad idea, see WP:CRITS. If reliably-sourced negative content is merited, it should go in the relevant sections of an article. Before we can do that though, we need to sort out the fundamental problem with this article - which is that it cites far too much primary-source material. You don't rectify primary-source promotional pap by 'balancing' it with negative content, you remove it entirely, and stick to what independent sources (actually independent ones, not YouTube and organisations in sponsorship deals etc promoting themselves through involvement with the brand) have to say about Prime. Which as of now amounts to next to nothing beyond commentary about ridiculous levels of hype over a mundane product. Hype which is clearly being driven by the company's own marketing methods, assisted here by Wikipedia contributors who are either clueless about what a proper article should look like, or directly involved in generating the hype themselves. Cut out the primary-sourced flimflam and the shallow stories about people fighting over bottles of drink, and there is nothing of any substance left to indicate that this product even meets Wikipedia notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

What about when Prime Energy went under investigation by the F.D.A.? Shouldn't that also be included in this hypothetical section? (not trying to be rude or anything just pointing out another controversy) Ferretman1 (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The article already states in the 'Regulatory approval and legal status' section that 'On July 9, 2023, Senator Chuck Schumer urged the US Food and Drug Administration to investigate Prime due to its high caffeine content...'. Which as far as I can ascertain is as far it it went. If the FDA has released the results of any such investigation, please provide a link, and we can include it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 5 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus is that the reliable sourcing focuses on the drink and not the brand, and the article should reflect the same. Whether the article is taken to AfD or not is outside of this discussion (closed by non-admin page mover) The Night Watch (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

---

Prime (beverage brand) → Prime (drink) – Simpler disambiguation. Also matches other pages such as Battery (drink), Boost (drink), NOS (drink), Rio (drink), Sprite (drink). Sahaib (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be a fair bit of confusion over what exactly this article is supposed to be about. As far as I can see, the only truly independent coverage we've seen at all is concerns hype over the drink, so that would make sense. The company (or whatever it is, I'm unconvinced it is much more than a marketing deal between Logan Paul, KSI and the actual manufacturers) certainly hasn't been discussed in the sort of detail necessary to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). And unless we see more in-depth coverage soon, I may nominate the article for deletion. Waffle about queues in Asda etc is hardly evidence of long-term significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I strongly support the title Prime (drink brand) or Prime (beverage brand).

The product is not just "a drink", such as Vimto.

It is a brand of sports drinks, drink mixes, and energy drinks. Tbf69 13:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that independent sources have been discussing a brand rather than a specific product. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

From a quick internet search the sources below sources mention the word "brand" a couple of times.

But from sources on the website, and on other independent sources Prime Hydration, LLC clearly sells sports drinks, drink mixes, and energy drinks under the PRIME brand.

[5]

[6] Tbf69 17:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, they claim to sell other stuff, but where is the evidence that independent sources think it worth discussing? The media coverage is of the hype, not the product. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Prime recently launched a new energy drinks range, therefore it is now a brand, not just a drink.

Here are some independent, verifiable sources:

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12] Tbf69 17:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Your grasp of Wikipedia policy regarding sourcing is clearly lacking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tbf69 Please strike the third one on that list: a press release is, by its very definition, not independent. —C.Fred (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

My mistake!

That one is not independent. Tbf69 19:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

A quick look at the sources you list:

foodbev.com: A run-of-the-mill website reguritating Prime's publicity.

kamcity.com: As above.

prnewswire.com: Press release.

bevnet.com: Regurgitation.

dexerto.com: an entertainment-industry website, again regurgitating Prime publicity.

Clout: Regurgitation.

None of the sources listed have anything of significance to say regarding Prime that isn't ultimately sourced to Prime itself. Note that several include exactly the same quote as found in the press release. Websites which simply publish reworded publicity material (for payment or otherwise) have no merit as sources. Wikipedia content needs to be based on independent commentary from recognised sources, not marketing hype from obscure websites which make their income from regurgitation of primary-source material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERCONTENT for reasons why bald comparison with other articles is unpersuasive. It's worse here because Vimto probably has the stronger claim to being more than just a drink, as the company makes candies and popsicles. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom, whether the page should be deleted or not is out of scope of WP:RM.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The point of the parenthetical disambiguator is to ensure the article is not confused with others listed at Prime (disambiguation). "drink" serves that purpose, and its precise, concise, and natural. Sports drinks, drink powders, and energy drinks are all drinks, loosely speaking. I'd also be fine with Prime Hydration, though my anecdotal experience is that sources are more focused on the product than the company. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom, FFF and AtG. -Roxy the dog 10:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support the coverage is about the beverage, not the company or the brand. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2023 (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.

Request for comment on the article as a whole

There are several glaring issues of the page, including (but not limited to) debates around notability, sources, conflicts of interests, neutrality as well as apparent edit warring.

Therefore I am opening a RfC on the article as a whole.

Please discuss over there. Tbf69 17:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a properly-formatted RfC. And where exactly is over there? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I removed the RfC tag. Tbf69, if there's a dispute here that has reached a standstill and needs further input, I'd be happy to help you consider which form of dispute resolution is best and craft a neutral RfC statement if needed. You may want to read WP:DR and WP:RFC. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Mary McCarthy quote.

Rather than edit-war over the quote, we should be discussing it here. The disputed sentence:

Mary McCarthy of The Independent said that KSI and Logan Paul were "monetising misogyny" and criticized them for the amount of influence they had on young boys.

Source (archived, non-paywall) [13].

Given that topic notability is established through independent commentary, and McCarthy's comments are one of the few such sources we cite, I think it appropriate to use it. I do however understand why some people may find this problematic, as it currently stands. We don't explain why McCarthy thinks misogyny is relevant, making it seem something of a non-sequitur. What we need to do, in my opinion, is give more context, and summarise what McCarthy is actually criticising: what she regards as a "cynical branded content deal" between social media influencers she sees as misogynist and having negative influence on their target audience - adolescent boys - and a "drinks empire making millions" aiming at the same audience. This is a critique of marketing, as well as misogyny, and given that the marketing hype seems to have attracted more comment than the merits of the drink itself, legitimate attributed commentary in an article. What do other contributors think? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, because I have in effect supported your edit, I agree with this assessment. (The successful marketeers must be rubbing their hands at the coverage we are giving them, if they've noticed it.)

Expansion of the article along the lines Andy suggest would seem the right direction. - Roxy the dog 15:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I've removed that section a couple of times now, because I have the following three issues with it:

• Information about KSI and Logan Paul should be on their respective pages, rather than Prime (drink).
• The statement feels a bit out of place, irrelevant, as it doesn't explain why marketing a drink is "monetising misogyny".
• As far as I am aware, the Reception section is completely negative, therefore not WP:NPOV, and effectively a WP:CRITS.

However, if these issues are rectified, then I am perfectly happy having content sourced to The Independent. --Tbf69 18:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand WP:NPOV. If the only significant commentary about Prime is negative, that is going to be reflected in the article - and I've yet to see anything more positive coming from independent sources. And no, McCarthy's comments about the way KSI and Logan Paul have been marketing Prime doesn't belong anywhere but in this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I've now rewritten the McCarthy paragraph, making it clearer what her comments were about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

'Advertising' section.

This section [14] consists of nothing beyond the routine reporting of commercial sponsorship arrangements of the kind engaged in to promote consumer products everywhere. No third-party analysis or commentary. Nothing to indicate that such sponsorship deals have any significance. It looks very much like fluff padding to me, and entirely undue, particularly when the article has so little to say about the supposed subject itself. I removed the section, but since it has since been restored we clearly need to discuss the matter. Can anyone point out relevant policy that suggests we dedicate a significant proportion of an article to reporting run-of-the-mill marketing deals? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe there is such a policy to be found Andy, or was the Q rhetorical? I have no idea how much of an influence this article may have on sales, but to me, we are part of a cynical campaign by marketeers to promote this stuff. These deals are a normal part of business life, but are they a normal part of encyclopedia reporting? I don't think so. Remove them. -Roxy the dog 19:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

IMO we're just an encyclopedia reporting on the drink. Part of this reporting is how the drink advertises. --Tbf69 19:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

How about answering Andy's question? - Roxy the dog 19:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Advertising/promotion/sponsorship sections are common on drink articles such as Gatorade, Lucozade, Monster Energy, Red Bull, Rockstar (drink) and Vernors. Some parts of the section could be removed and the rest merged with another section but I don't think all of it should be removed. Sahaib (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree --Tbf69 22:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The articles listed by Sahaib are all substantially larger, making the sponsorship sections much smaller in proportion. And I'm not sure that I'd describe them all as policy-compliant either: the Lucozade article for example cites only one source, which relates to a 2008 sponsorship deal, and says little of consequence. So I'd ask again, is there any policy or guideline on this? If there isn't, maybe there should be, because it seems to me that the reporting of routine commercial arrangements in such contexts is undue, and promotional both for both parties involved. Which is of course the reason such deals are made in the first place. We don't report other routine forms of advertising, so why should sponsorships be handled differently? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I attempted to add a reference to the Super Bowl commercial, but it was removed. I may have not provided the best sources, but I believe that it's notable to include. Very few companies have a Super Bowl AD within the first year of its establishment. Since I don't want to commit a double revert, I found some more sources - including The Wall Street Journal - "YouTube Stars Run Ad for Sports Drink Prime", and also some criticism as noted by The Daily Meal and Mashed. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 05:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Page is incorrect

Says that it is sweetened with aspartame, which is untrue. The source link had corrected itself as well. 172.83.131.32 (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Fixed! 👍😊 --- Tbf69 P • T 16:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2023

The reference to no added Caffeine is incredibly misleading and needs to be fixed ASAP as could be considered as dangerous misinformation and constitute a health risk..

REPLACE THIS TEXT The manufacturers also state that it has zero added sugar or caffeine and has around 20 calories per bottle.

WITH THIS TEXT The manufacturers also state that it has zero added sugar and contains 200mg of caffeine, per 12 oz. can. PRIME Energy is not recommended for children under the age of 18, women who are pregnant or nursing or individuals who are sensitive to caffeine

Reference NOte: Reference from manufactures website: https://drinkprime.com/pages/faq#:~:text=PRIME%20Energy%20contains%20200mg%20of,Hydration%2B%20Sticks%20are%20caffeine%2Dfree. Jamestas (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The article now makes it clear that 'energy' Prime contains caffeine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Banned from schools in Australia

ABC Australia are reporting that highly-caffeinated 'energy' Prime is being banned from Australian schools. [15]. I'm inclined to think this merits inclusion in the article. Any comments, before I add it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Go for it: seems relevant to me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Same. Add. —Alalch E. 15:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I've now added a section. I'll keep an eye out to see if this develops further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The drink is not allowed to be sold in Denmark per [16]. Not sure if notable - if it is someone can add it to the article. Semsûrî (talk) 11:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The source you link seems to be a press release from the Danish Food and Drug Administration. Ideally, we'd want secondary sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, the link above is secondary as it's an article from the national broadcaster Danmarks Radio. The info about the illegal sale comes from the The Danish Veterinary and Food Administration (DVFA) which is the authority that has to approve the product before it can go on sale. Semsûrî (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

There's also a The Local article. There is enough sourcing to say that (1) Prime products have been sold in Denmark, (2) it is not approved for sale, (3) it has therefore been sold illegally. However, there are multiple such countries, with stricter-than-average regulations for energy drinks (France among others). Red Bull was also not approved in Denmark, and was "illegal" there for a long time. See Red Bull#Market approval and legal status. We could also have a section titled "Market approval and legal status" here, about these things.—Alalch E. 13:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Influencer is not superfluous. Who Logan and KSI are is critically important.

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: I contest your removal of this information (diff) which is some of the most important pieces of information in this article. Prime is what it is because of Paul and KSI, so it's natural that basic information about who they are needs to be given to the reader immediately (in the lead). Duly prominent. If you're insistent on removal, I'd like to see what other editors have to say. —Alalch E. 09:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The lede is supposed to summarise the article body. Unsourced claims about "tens of millions of followers" [17] don't belong in it. As for the 'influencer' description, it seems redundant - they are using their YouTube channels etc to promote the drinks, and the article says so. 'Influencer' is just the latest buzzword for someone who's selling stuff, and we don't need to pretend it is somehow new. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

It isn't unsourced information, it's sourced in the body. I agree with removing "influencer" from the body, but don't agree with removing other information about Paul and KSI. —Alalch E. 09:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, you are right about the sourcing - I'd clicked on the wrong citation I think. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I cant think of any reason why their nationalities could be relevant information in an article about a line of products. I'm not completely opposed to follower count being mentioned in the article body, as I suppose it gives additional context to the social media hype, but "popular YouTubers" conveys the same point; they're popular. And it certainly isn't some of the most important pieces of information in this article, so isn't appropriate for the lead. Their involvement is, their amount of fans isn't. I also think it reads like a promotional blurb I'd expect to see in a magazine, not an encyclopaedia. I doubt people will read this article and think, 'why doesn't it tell me where the YouTubers are from or how many followers they have?' People expect such details in a biography. – ².O.^Boxing 11:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I did not know anything about this topic. I also did not know who Paul Logan and KSI were. When I first read this article, the lead said The brand is promoted and partially owned by Logan Paul and KSI. I can tell you what the reader wanted to know: Who is Logan Paul and what is KSI? (Not even who is KSI, but what it is, as it had not been made clear that KSI is even a person, it might very well be a company or some other entity.) The second thing I wanted to know is: why does it matter who promoted it, every product is promoted by something or someone — what is the dueness of these names? Then I researched the topic and understood: These are YouTubers, but not just any YouTubers; they are mentioned in the lead because the whole concept of the product is based on them being the promoters. The product is a notable product because of who these promoters are: very famous social media personalities and influencers (yes I actually use that word; it's a 21st century reality that it has a distinct and clear meaning ... even if it's a sad reality). They have tens of millions of followers, and for this reason they were able to hype the product leading, down the line, to coverage in secondary sources, which is why we have the article about this. Per MOS:LEAD, the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Paul is from the US and KSI is from the UK. The product is sold and marketed primarily in the UK and the US. Financial Times starts its analysis with: "Dawn queues, carnage and price gouging. Reaction has been extreme since the release of Prime, the brightly-packaged flavoured drink launched by KSI, a British influencer, and his US counterpart and sometime boxing rival, Logan Paul." I don't want to go overlong, so I'll make a break here.—Alalch E. 17:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

More emphasis on nationality, number of followers, and social media influence in this source—Alalch E. 02:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Can't say I'm particularly impressed by the maths in that source. It adds up the 'followers' on YouTube, Instagram and TikTok, for KSI and for Paul, to assert that "Combined, these two men wield influence over nearly 100 million followers". It seems extremely unlikely that nobody 'follows' both people, and that nobody 'follows' on more than one medium. It has to be an overestimate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

You're right that saying "Combined, these two men wield influence over nearly 100 million followers" sounds as if we are talking about 100 million people, which can't proceed from the numbers because, obviously, there is a huge audience overlap. In the article I phrased it as "...with more than 40 million YouTube followers and approximately 100 million total social media followers combined..."; I believe that saying it like this should not lead people to think that we are discussing 100 million people. /edit: changed lead to say "... with a combined social media follower count of approximately 100 million."/—Alalch E. 12:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but a 'follower count' to me reads as a number of individuals, regardless of how it is worded. It is potentially misleading. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay.—Alalch E. 14:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Prime's biggest arrival into South Africa

ON the 1st of May 2023 Prime made the biggest arrival in South Africa at Checkers with the price of R40. This arrival really had everybody excited from the ages of 7 and above all were excited. Checkers made an enormous income with consumers purchasing this product. In SA Prime came in with 4 out of 9 flavours: Lemon and lime, Raspberries, Tropical and Icepop Lihlekay (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have mistaken this talk page for a free advertising platform. It isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not advertising i am telling news and by the way this not your platform and unfortunately you don't make the rules so it is an advertising platform if anyone wanted it to be one 41.115.44.172 (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't make the rules. Contributors do, by collective agreement, after discussion. And beyond that, the Wikimedia Foundation sets the terms of service under which you are permitted to use the facilities provided. And according to both, it isn't an advertising platform. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 4 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) :3 F4U (they/it) 08:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Prime (drink) → Prime Hydration LLC – Per WP:NATDAB. You can see it's the name of the company on the bottom of the website. 90.255.6.219 (talk) 09:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've seen little evidence that the company, as opposed to the product they sell, meets Wikipedia notability criteria - see WP:NCORP. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Andy (grump) —Alalch E. 11:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article is about the brand, not the company. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per others—blindlynx 18:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Weak Support. The official name of the company is Prime Hydration not Prime (drink) thus I think it should be changed to that.

CostalCal (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• The name of the company isn't relevant if the article is about the product. The company doesn't meet Wikipedia notability guidelines (we'd need much more sourcing for that), the product does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose To make Wikipedia relevant for the 'information' consumer, it is important that we choose the most notable doing-business-as/trade names of the things/orgs/companies rather than their official or registered names. And, we can always add the official names in the intro of the articles, if they are at all important to add to Wikipedia. It is the same case as with the names of the humans: William Henry Gates III is better known as Bill Gates, hence we use Bill Gates as the name of the corresponding Wikipedia article for him. I vote for PRIME, only. Adamsamuelwilson (talk) 07:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  The article isn't about the org primarily, it's about the thing and the thing is officially and registeredly called Prime. We are in fact using the official name. Of the thing we are writing about, which is a product. Commonly known as Prime. This is not a conflict between official names and natural language. —Alalch E. 17:10, 9 July 2023 (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.

add a section about the health concerns

especially because Logan advertised it and made kids and teens love it but it says its not made for children and many people say its bad for children's health. i dont know 2001:1970:55E8:7F00:3C5C:3526:9109:7C49 (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2023

Despacito 29 (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I just want to change the flavours their is ultra rare Glowberry and wwe prime that is rare

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep SpooderMan6920 Changes to the page

Hi, I made a few changes to the page which I think are important to list and keep note of as they were the new brand sponsors (FC Barcelona, Dodgers etc.), the Prime athletes (such as adesanya, haaland etc.) and the flavours and when they were released just to keep a bit of info about the products and when they were released. I understand writing wise they may not be 100% great but these can be changed by anyone at any time and updated to fit the wiki criteria better but they keep being removed for senseless and quite frankly silly reasons by another individual. Spooderman6920 (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Given that the content is clearly promotional, and unsupported by sources unconnected with Prime and/or the sponsors, none of it belongs in the article. As for 'silly', I've been editing Wikipedia since 2010, and clearly have a better understanding of the policies and purpose of Wikipedia than some random newcomer who's brief editing history [18] gives every appearance of engaging in promotional editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Clearly promotional I pray you explain how as stating the word and defining your use of the word are two different things and up to now you've just used the word. Sources unconnected with Prime? The official prime Instagram account? Ok then chief. If none of it belongs in the article why is the Arsenal sponsor in it then? And as for you saying all my edits are promotional (still haven't explained) tell me how me adding songs to a discography or fixing errors are promotional. I am just passionate about certain things on the website and adding to them/fixing them. No need to call me a "random newcomer" and then attack me also, shouldn't veterans of the site be helping newcomers, like myself who clearly want to do some good for pages, by guiding us along rather than being toxic and using power over us.

As for your removal of my additions I still believe they are unnecessary as I am trying to help grow this page and I just personally feel your reasons don't hold enough weight in my eyes as you haven't explained them. Spooderman6920 (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

If you are incapable of understanding why adding content sourced to an announcement which effectively says 'this company is paying us to advertise their product' is promotional, I'd have to suggest you might do better to take your passions elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

So that is the only thing you had to add to my message. Brilliant. What is with your toxicity. Can you not see that I am trying to just add things to maybe improve an article? I don't need a toxic wiki veteran breathing down my neck being toxic for no reason. Why not just help me rather than be bitter about it? And no I quite frankly don't see it like that as I personally feel that adding this to the advertising and sponsor section is important as they are quite literally adverts and sponsors the same as the arsenal sponsor. No I will keep my passions on wiki and improve articles the way I have been thanks. Spooderman6920 (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising. Adding content stating that concern A is being paid to advertise concern B, sourced solely to A or B, is second-hand advertising. It is not 'important'. Not for Wikipedia. It may well be 'important' for contributors who's editing history revolves largely around promoting KSI and/or Logan Paul and subjects connected to them, like yourself, but you don't get to decide what goes in articles. Wikipedia policy does. Policy that states that Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Here we go with the rudeness again. Why can't you see that I am trying to help? I added something I thought could be useful for the page and the general info surrounding the product yet I am met with toxicity and a fight over it. I am on wiki to help articles for things I care about such as KSI, Logan Paul, Prime, Misfits and other things around the YouTube scene among others, why is that such an issue with you? There's no need to deep dive into my profile over this, just say "Oh btw your edit may be a bit cluttered, incorrectly sourced and just too much info that isn't needed" instead I got "incapable of understanding" etc. I'll say it again it isn't advertising it is adding additional information. I don't get payed by prime quite frankly I think its overhyped, so why would I go out my way to advertise. I think the advertising stuff is more necessary than the flavours I added but this doesn't follow rules kindly told to me by two other editors, so I will die on the hill I created. Spooderman6920 (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I also support the removal of these additions. How the product is advertised is of very little encyclopaedic value, especially when run of the mill such as this. I would support the further editing of the Advertising section, merging the "Social media promotion" section into "Reception" and cutting the rest. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that Prime wiki is promotional. The current format and language in Prime wiki is no different than any other sports drink wiki page (see Gatorade#Advertising and publicity as example), if not far less promotional. In the case you can prove that this format is against the rules, then go ahead and remove advertising on all other sport drink pages. Otherwise, refrain in my view. Thanks for the open and fair debate. I am only referring to the Prime (drink)#Advertising and publicity section, which contains reliable sources. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERCONTENT. Given how little is actually sourced at all in the Gatorade section you link, I'd hardly recommend that as an appropriate model to follow. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. If Gatorade#Advertising and publicity model is inappropriate as you suggest, please express your opinion on Talk:Gatorade, remove Gatorade content as you see fit, or recommend more citations. I favor uniformity across wikipedia. If policies or certain standards are expected on one page, so too should they apply across the platform.BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that standards should be consistently applied. I am however in no position to deal with this all by myself, given that the English-language Wikipedia currently hosts over 6.7 million articles. Accordingly, and since this is a volunteer project, I deal with issues as I see fit, in whichever articles I chose to involve myself with. You are free to do likewise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2023

prime is also official partners with Barcelona and bayren munich football club 49.36.233.143 (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Also see the discussion immediately above - I personally do not think this would be of any encyclopaedic value. If you resubmit the edit request I shall defer to an uninvolved editor. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Prime Hydration+ Powder?

Basically, for those who don't know, Prime announced a new product, Prime Hydration+ Powder, which comes in a 5-gallon tub. Should we find a way to talk about the new product in the article? Or should we skip it all entirely?

- The Master of Hedgehogs ^{(always up for a conversation!)} 17:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 18 November 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Prime (drink) → Prime (beverage) – I dont want the word “drink” to be confused with the verb drink قطة ذات عيون كبيرة (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: Sources seem overwhelmingly to refer to Prime as a 'drink' rather than a 'beverage', and there really isn't any scope for confusion that I can see. People coming to this article aren't going to be looking for an article on a verb. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand but if you are learning English and only know “drink” as a verb then you’ll be confused قطة ذات عيون كبيرة (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

How could we have any content here at all if everything we write is subject to the question, "What if someone who knows only a little English doesn't know that word, or that use of that word?" That can't be a consideration. I could just as easily argue on the other side that English learners are less likely to know the word "beverage" than the word "drink". Largoplazo (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CONDAB because "drink" is the common or close-to-common disambiguator for drinks, and while "beverage" also exists it's almost more than three times less prevalent. Examples: V (drink), Vault (drink), Mother (drink), Cocaine (drink), NOS (drink), Reload (drink), Rockstar (drink), Battery (drink), Tango (drink), Robinsons (drink), Urge (drink), Full Throttle (drink) ... —Alalch E. 22:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: I don't see what confusion could result. It's a disambiguator that will be taken as a noun, not a command to the reader. I don't, in principle, have a problem with "beverage" but, in fact, the product belongs to a class of products typically called (at least in the US) "energy drinks" or "sports drinks", possibly never as "energy beverages" or "sports beverages", so "drink" seems the more suitable word. Largoplazo (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose move and snowclose. There's no risk of confusion. O.N.R. ^(talk) 23:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose it also relevant that the article Drink is above beverages instead of being a redirect to Drinking, the verb, or a dabpage. Also, an attempt to move that article to beverage failed by a wide margin in 2007.--67.70.101.104 (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose, per WP:ENGVAR - "beverage" is "chiefly Canada, US" and should rarely, if at all, be used on Wikipedia. Also, as noted above, OP's proposal amounts to changing a commonly-used term for a far less commonly-used term on the assertion that is would be better understood, which is non-sensical. Dorsetonian (talk) 10:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Should we ever even use the "beverage" disambiguator? For example, it might be a good idea to move Sharbat (beverage), Popo (beverage), Moke (beverage), Aquarius (beverage), Cheongju (beverage), Sato (beverage) etc. (not sure about the ratio of beverage vs. drink when redirects are excluded but it's less than 1:3, and "beverage" typically redirects to "drink") to the "drink" disambiguator name. MOS:COMMONALITY#1 applies. Also, drinks topics with national ties to the US also use "drink", see Full Throttle (drink), Vault (drink) (Vault (beverage) is a redirect), Sparks (drink), Pimp Juice (drink), etc. —Alalch E. 14:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  I agree it would be good to have such a discussion. I am not sure where that discussion should take place, though - presumably it needs to be somewhere more general than here? Dorsetonian (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'll think about that.—Alalch E. 16:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  These are some mass RMs and a move-related RfC:

  • Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (video games)/Archive 1#RfC: "(gamer)" or "(video game player)"?
  • Talk:Ninja (gamer)/Archive 1#Requested move 12 January 2020
  • Talk:Bình Tân district, Vĩnh Long province#Requested move 24 March 2017
  • Talk:Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries (Ontario)#Requested move 1 October 2017
  • Talk:Arsenal W.F.C.#Requested move 15 November 2021

  @King of Hearts, BD2412, Elli, and Red Slash: Shoud a mass "x (beverage)" -> "x (drink)" RM be tried and where? Maybe an RfC (like the RfC in the first bullet above)? (This is not a notification to participate in this dead in the water RM, but simply a question regarding the mass move idea.) Thanks a lot for any thoughts.—Alalch E. 16:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Alalch E. a mass RM would probably be the right venue assuming it's only a few dozen pages. This isn't changing or establishing a naming convention (nor do I think that would be necessary given the relatively small number of drinks/beverages needing disambiguation), so there isn't a need for an RFC. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  I second Elli's analysis here. A mass RM (at any of the pages) would be better than an RfC. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with the above. A relatively small number of articles are effected one way or the other, so a mass RM would do. For the record, I would prefer "drink" for all. BD2412 T 18:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, "drink" is a perfectly fine term for this product. JIP | Talk 16:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose per MOS:ENGVAR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equalwidth (talk • contribs) 05:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, drink is a commonly used disambiguator and no real improvement. DankJae 23:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per most of this conversation, as it sounds like "Prime (beverage)" or "Example (beverage)" isn't as common, whereas "Prime (drink)" and "Example (drink)" are more common on Wikipedia. - The Master of Hedgehogs ^{(always up for a conversation!)} 18:48, 22 November 2023 (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.

Gold Prime $1M contest

Not mentioned within Prime article - Prime hosted a $1 million contest to whoever discovered the Gold prime bottle. Think it should be included? BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

References

South Park Parody

On December 20, 2023, South Park released Not Suitable for Children, an episode about a drink named Cred, a parody of Prime. User:Rockchalk717 reverted this twice and said "South Park is a parody and pop culture reference, it's not advertising, it's not publicity, it's just a parody", so I will not add again. I believe this significant event should be on the Wikipedia page? The other editors shall determine this. Another section can always be added that is appropriate for the topic. All the best, BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Obviously this isn't advertising/publicity. As for whether it merits inclusion in the article, the first question to ask is whether this episode discussed in depth elsewhere. The source cited just notes that a a South Park special includes content which is "apparently a jibe at Prime energy drinks". Per WP:POPCULT we need sources that demonstrate "significance to the article's subject", which doesn't appear to have been shown. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Here are new sources to demonstrate significance. I watched the episode and can assure you it was very significant for Prime. I will not add it until I hear agreement from others or someone else can if they choose. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 02:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, your 'assurance' based on watching the episode is of absolutely no significance here: we rely on secondary sources for that. As for Logan Paul and KSI's reactions, these aren't independent commentary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. Here are more new sources. The assurance was just to get people to look at the references. What I saw was a 40 minute episode of South Park devoted to PRIME. It looks like several of the references below provide independent commentary, and are good secondary sources that do not include Logan and KSI's reactions. Anyone agree? You guys decide for yourself. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Forever Chemicals in Prime Bottles?

So, we are concerned that Prime bottles might contain 'forever chemicals' and if this is true that it does, are we going to put on controversies for the plastics? This is an open discussion for now until the controversy is resolved. Resolvelution Tension (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles need to be based on citations to published reliable sources. If you have any, directly discussing Prime and 'forever chemicals' (PFAS), we can look into it. Without such sources, there is nothing to discuss. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)