Talk:Breathsavers

Image
The illustration is silly and irrelevant. It should probably be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.223.239.67 (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox
I find the infobox used in this article very unuseful and I think it should be removed. Most of the information in it is utterly irrelevant, like the size and dimensions (and pictures there off), the ingredient list and nutritional information. It seems to me it's just made as place to unload irrelevant and trivial information about the subject of the article. Some of it, like the flavor selection, manufacturer, year of introduction and taglines, may be useful information, but I see no reason to have it in an infobox, it could just as well be incorporated into the body of the article. TheFreeloader (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. We can't know what someone coming to this article is after, but the ingredient list and so forth might well be it. Since we can't know, it's best to keep as much info as reasonably possible, and the infobox helps organize it. Herostratus (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is supposed to encyclopedia, not a collection of all possible information which may be related to a subject (see WP:NOT, WP:NOTDIRECTORY point 7 especially). Just because something might possibly be useful to someone in some possible situation does not mean that Wikipedia should be the place to find it (WP:USEFUL). I just can not see any reasonable argument for that the volume and nutritional information for a mint pastille is encyclopedic content. Would you expect to see that kind of stuff in the encyclopædia Britannica (if they did an article on this subject)? TheFreeloader (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know. It'd be reasonable to argue that the subject of the article is entirely trivial and the article should be deleted, in which case take it to WP:AFD. If the article should exist, I'm not sure what information it should or should not have and reasonable people could disagree about that. But since the research has been done and the information added, why delete it? In this case, I don't see how taking away information helps the article. Herostratus (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there is something to be said for not cluttering up Wikipedia articles with trivial and irrelevant information. I do not think sort of information helps an article. It makes Wikipedia look unorganized and makes it harder for readers to see through to the notable information. You might be right that this whole article maybe on the edge of what is notable, but I don't think it is made better by adding trivial information. TheFreeloader (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wellll, OK. You make a reasonable point, although I don't agree. Since it's just the two of us, how about we ask for a Third Opinion? I'll be willing to abide by it if you are. Herostratus (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, alright let's just get some more to weigh in on this. You can also start a section on the issue at WP:Food.TheFreeloader (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know about expanding the discussion. It's not really a vitally important point, and not worth dragging in whole bunch of people. I posted at Third Opinion, someone will be along presently to make the decision. Herostratus (talk) 04:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and the diagram is apparently wrong, anyway. It shows a regular disc, and according to the article, that's not what they are. If you really must have a diagram (I'd say a photograph would be better), it should at least be accurate. Anaxial (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, and thank you for your time and consideration. I have removed the information you specified, and the graphic. Herostratus (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorbitol
This is just bullshit, this stuff about the side effects. It says that the amount of sorbitol in a mint is unknown, but "as little as 10g" of sorbitol can cause intestinal bleeding and other stuff. Well, no, I don't know how much sorbitol is in a Breathsavers, but the entire mint obviously weighs less than 5g, and probably less than 3g. And in how many people does this side effect occur? I went to the source in the article, and it says that the FDA only requires label warnings on those food products whose "reasonably foreseeable consumption may result in a daily ingestion of 50 grams of sorbitol." So a person would have to consume several packages of these to have any possible effect. And what is that effect? "The labels of such products must state: 'Excess consumption may have a laxative effect.' A "laxative effect"?  Damn, laxatives are illegal, right?  Oh, wait, they're over-the-counter medicines?  This is just asinine fear mongering, and I'm deleting the whole section, as a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT.


 * Incidentally, that source was not even an objective source, it was a scaremongering advocacy group. And even they were only able to document a single case (one "outbreak") of sorbitol induced diarrhea.  What a bunch of baloney. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)