This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Caffeine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 365 days

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Caffeine is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 16, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 22, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 20, 2006 Peer review Reviewed September 7, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted December 9, 2011 Featured article review Demoted Current status: Former featured article

This   level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Pharmacology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology 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.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Chemicals Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs ( defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsWikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsTemplate:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsPsychoactive and Recreational Drugs articles Neuroscience High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience 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.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and drink High‑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 articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: history watch purge 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. Dietary Supplements Caffeine is part of WikiProject Dietary Supplements, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to dietary supplements. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Dietary SupplementsWikipedia:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsTemplate:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsDietary supplement articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[rate equation#First-order reactions|first-order kinetics]] The anchor (#First-order reactions) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

The article referenced, in the first paragraph, says that it is “unclear” whether error or injury is effected by caffeine intake for those with jet lag or work shift disorder (or whatever it was called) whereas the Wiki article states that error is lessened by use of a caffeine. The facts between the two pages are not in agreement.

Thank you Wikipedia 2601:98A:4200:5BED:4135:2C64:ABAC:A208 ( talk) 14:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Caffeine isn't a "mild cognitive nootropic" the wikipedia nootropic page classifieds it as a nootropic wrong information saying that it's a "mild one" James.Pater ( talk) 22:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply

 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. House Blaster ^talk 01:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hello Wikipedia Community,

I am writing to propose an update to the "Caffeine" article. Specifically, the current citation number 243 (" Some Common Questions". Eagle Energy. Retrieved 22 May 2017), which is permanently dead and no longer provides valuable information to the article's readers, with my own recently published article titled "Caffeine Inhalers: An In-Depth Look at Use, Effects, and Regulation," which can be found at the following URL: https://thegoldenlamb.com/coffee-science/caffeine-inhalers/.

This report not only provides a high level of detail on caffeine inhalers but also has been structured and written to meet the standards of reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia's guidelines.

Therefore, I propose that this article can be a suitable replacement for the dead link, thus improving the quality of the information provided on the "Caffeine" Wikipedia page.

I kindly request that a member of the Wikipedia community who has the ability to edit the page reviews this proposal and, if found suitable, replaces the current citation number 243 with the following:

"Caffeine Inhalers: An In-Depth Look at Use, Effects, and Regulation". The Golden Lamb. Retrieved 29 July 2023.

Please feel free to contact me if there are any questions or further clarifications needed regarding this request. Thank you for your consideration.

Best regards,

Kelsey HappyFhantum ( talk) 02:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

 Not done - your blog would not qualify as a WP:RS source; WP:PROMO violation and WP:NOTBLOG. Also, misuse of bold in your message. Zefr ( talk) 04:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Error in table under Products, last line 'Coffee-flavored milk drink': the value in the mg/L column reads 660-3290, should read 66-354 according to the cited source. Also, although the caffeine per serving values agree with the cited reference, the stated serving size of 250 ml does not match the citation. 80.216.216.86 ( talk) 21:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply

 Not done Cited material states The mean (±SD) caffeine concentration was 1930 ± 90 mg/L, the median was 1745 mg/L and values ranged from 660 to 3290 mg/L. -- WikiLinuz { talk} 21:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The sentence above from the body of the cited material is likely a typo. Refer to Table 3 of the same publication, where the stated values range from 6.6 to 35.4 mg/100 ml, i.e. 66 to 354 mg/l. 213.65.212.191 ( talk) 18:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply

 Not done: Or the values in the table are a typo. Given the situation, I'd take the text from the article body as more convincing, without some other RS saying otherwise. -- Pinchme123 ( talk) 03:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC) reply

I see several good reasons to believe that the values in Table 3 of the paper, rater than the Results, are more likely to be correct:

1) the 'Caffeine per serving' values reported in the paper (and also in this Wikipedia article) are consistent with the values per 100 mL given in Table 3 of the paper, but not with those in the paper Results

2) since the Results sumarise the information in Table 3, it is more likely that the text was composed after the table. It is unlikely that an error was first introduced in the table but then disappeared again in the Results

3) the information in the table is more detailed; the liklihood of getting 20 numbers (or 40, including the consistent 'mg per serving' column) wrong is much smaller than getting just two numbers wrong

4) the values in the Results are about an order of magnitude higher than for comparable beverages indicating an error

If this is not convincing I would suggest contacting the author for a clarification, or just delete this row from the table in the Caffeine page.

Regardless of the above, the serving size listed in the Wikipedia article table (250 ml) does not match the serving size of the paper (300-600 ml) from which the 'Caffeine per serving' of the Wikipedia article are derived. So either the serving size stated in the table should be changed, or the caffeine per serving in the same table recalculated. Joakim da Silva ( talk) 11:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC) reply

 Done - the values as they were are very obviously wrong. It appears the reason for the issue was likely that while converting from mg/100mL to mg/L, they multiplied by 100 instead of 10. Tollens ( talk) 18:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the last paragraph of the introduction it says "A cup of coffee contains 80–175 mg of caffeine, depending on what "bean" (seed) is used, how it is roasted (darker roasts have less caffeine), and how it is prepared (e.g., drip, percolation, or espresso)." and cites here ^[1].

The claim that darker roasts have less caffeine isn't supported by the article, which agrees that the numbers are not statistically significant.

I suggest that this should either be reworded to reflect this, use a different citation, or be removed altogether.

Additionally, and I know this isn't a source, but I was a barista and learned a lot about coffee, I know that this isn't true - the type of bean matters way more than the roast for caffeine content. Padrillium ( talk) 14:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC) reply

in the article it cites, it says, "it showed a positive correlation between the caffeine levels with the degree of roasting till a certain point where the levels dropped in the dark roasted coffee." so maybe just removing the darker roast part but still keeping the rest of it; like, "...on what "bean" (seed) is used, how it is roasted, and how it is prepared...". Frost.xyz | ( talk) 16:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC) reply

 Already done by MtPenguinMonster. -- Pinchme123 ( talk) 04:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply

@Zefr I am seeking other references about this death and I am thinking about a re-write of what I posted. I purposely avoided mentioning the origin of the drink and the law suit to avoid my post looking like news. Additionally, I argue my post does not fit squarely into any of the four categories listed in WP:NOTNEWS. While it might be difficult to find a case study on this event, my purpose was to draw attention to the additive effects of other chemicals and/or preexisting conditions that might lower the amount of caffeine necessary to cause heart damage or death, and therefore I used a reference that I could find. Using this specific event in this context does seem like a good example of additive effects. Lastly, I would like to communicate that point without casting a shadow on energy drinks in general. You might know there continues to be debate about the health effects of "energy" drinks. If you have any ideas or references I would be glad to follow up. I have searched PubMed and the CDC so far and found it will take more research to find a non-newsy reference. Perhaps a good re-write and the use of multiple references, including some from peer-reviewed research, might work better. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstengel ( talk • contribs) 05:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply

The first picture of the structure does not include the 3 “CH3” groups in the molecule 149.88.21.138 ( talk) 12:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I see dead-end lines, which are the standard skeletal structure representation for methyl groups. DMacks ( talk) 15:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

All sources mentioned physical dependence. It was not specified that physical caffeine dependence is classified as “low-moderate” in the DSM-5, specifically “Functional Consequences of Caffeine Withdrawal.” “Caffeine Withdrawal Disorder” was rated as Moderate 13% and I modified it and it was removed after a short period Frome page. Yungocdy ( talk) 22:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It's a locked article so I can't edit it myself, but one of the sources in the caffeine article is wrong, specifically citation 24. /info/en/?search=Caffeine "Caffeine is the world's most widely consumed psychoactive drug.[23][24]" It does not say anywhere in the paper that it's the most widely consumed psychoactive drug.

An alternative source that actually makes that claim can be eg. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3680974/

Link to the faulty paper in question https://academic.oup.com/jsh/article-abstract/35/2/269/965314?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false (edited) 82.147.167.3 ( talk) 23:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)  Done GrayStorm ( talk) 01:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2024 and 4 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kph7917 ( article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Kph7917 ( talk) 22:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply