Talk:Diet Coke

The definition says: "(uncountable, informal) A cola-based soft drink containing no or low amounts of sugar". I think this wrong in two ways (see: ): If Diet Coke has become a generalized trademark, the entry should say so. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Diet Coke is not a noun, but a proper noun.
 * 2) It's not informal, it is a trade mark of Coca Cola Company.


 * Delete - also it is countable ("These idiots will have two Diet Cokes please, but I'll have a proper drink.") SemperBlotto (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comparable (and IMO equally worthless in a dictionary, as non-genericised brands): Cherry Coke, New Coke, Vanilla Coke, Coke Zero, and variants of Pepsi, Fanta, Mountain Dew, Dr Pepper, Irn Bru, 7-UP, Sprite... oh, I could go on. Equinox ◑ 13:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: This RfD reveals the fact that we didn't have "diet" as an adjective. "Diet" is put in front of words and/or brands to denote something low in fat, salt, sugar or calories.  As such, I have created the adjective sense. Pur ple back pack 89   15:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'd be happy to see this entry be deleted if we can ensure the relevant sense is covered at diet. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @PBP: I think you're mistaken there, diet is a noun and a verb, and here it's being used as a noun modifier, not as an adjective. Donnanz (talk) 10:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're trying to make the case that diet is merely an attributive noun, I would point out to you than when diet is used as a "noun modifier" (your words), it's not used in a way consistent with any of the definitions of diet we currently have. That is why there is a separate definition of diet as an adjective, which has been attested. Pur ple back pack 89   13:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not saying diet is an attributive noun - it's a standalone noun. But when it's used to modify another noun, such as in diet cola, it becomes a noun modifier, not an adjective. But there seems to be two different schools of thought here, so if you insist in calling it an adjective in cases like this, it should at least be marked as "attributive". Donnanz (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought noun modifier is worth an entry, so it's now entered. Donnanz (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have very little doubt that the same people who use Coke as a genericized trademark also use Diet Coke that way. The question is, when they do so, do they spell it diet Coke (in which case it's SOP as diet + Coke) or Diet Coke (in which case it isn't SOP, but a direct genericization of Diet Coke®)? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WT:BRAND applies. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't buy the stuff, but shouldn't anything other than the brand be called "diet cola"? Donnanz (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say keep this entry. Supermarket brands such as Sainsbury's and Tesco (in the UK) tend to be called diet cola, and this could be entered as a synonym. The supermarkets wouldn't be allowed to call their product diet coke. Donnanz (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If we keep it without getting citations that show that it meets WT:BRAND, it can (and should) be RfVed. Let's skip the step and give this at least a month here to collect citations that meet WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 13:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe that's not necessary; all you have to do is check the product, which I did. Sure enough, the ® symbol appears next to the Diet Coke name on each bottle. Predictably enough the Pepsi product is called "diet pepsi" (that's the way it's spelt) but no ® symbol, even though Pepsi-Cola is a trademark. And Sainsbury's own brand is confirmed as "diet cola". How's that for an afternoon's work? Donnanz (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Abstain: not sure we need this and Cherry Coke, New Coke, Vanilla Coke, and Coke Zero (mentioned by Equinox above). But I would like to see Fanta and we have Pepsi. It can be deleted via RFV if it fails WT:BRAND, I think. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. An RfV might be advisable to determine if this meets WT:BRAND. bd2412 T 15:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)