Talk:Throat lozenge/Archives/2016

Strepsils
There seems to me to be no earthly reason why, alone among lozenge brands, Strepsils should have a separate section to itself within this generic article rather than - as other brands do - having a separate article. What is the logic behind this? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for talking! Part of a larger effort at WT:MED to consolidate spammy articles about specific brands to the generic thing.  We did it with Paracetamol, consolidating about a dozen, i think it was, articles into that. There was really no encyclopedic content in the Strepsils article. Discussion (just a bit, I know) was Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_78; the earlier discussion was Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_65.  You are, I believe, the first person who has objected to any of that. Jytdog (talk) 09:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously I'm not objecting to removing inconsistency. But, that is what I was doing, and which you have now reverted.  Again, I ask - why should Strepsils be treated differently from any other throat lozenge products which have their own articles?  If you intend merging the other articles - on which I have no strong view - I suggest that you carry out that action, rather than perpetuating an obvious inconsistency, which is what we have now.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Came here via JD's talk page. Strepsils are a well known brand here in the UK, like many of the throat sweets listed in this article which have their own articles, not sure why Strepsils should be an exception. (Candy/Candies is not really used in British english btw). Are the rest of the brands to be redirects too? Halls and Fishermans friends and some of the others are imho notable in their own right, like Strepsils, but they are all throat sweets, and marketed as such here. (Ghmyrtle, if you are UK based, I apologise) -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you're apologising - I agree with you. Yes, I'm in the UK.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I was apologising because if you are in the UK, you'll know all of this

A chap was in court for various sexual affences and the converstion with the judge went something like this:-

Judge To the man Right you are accused of having indecent sexual realations with the Butcher ,The vicar,The store keeper,and the woman next door,How do you Plead?

Man Not guilty You honour (Quietly)

Judge To the man Speak up I cant hear you.

Man Not guilty You honour (Quietly)

Judge To the man Speak up man I cant hear you,whats the matter with you?

ManI have a sore throat.

Judge To the man Have you tried Sucking a Fishermans friend?

Man to the judge--Dont you think i'm in enough trouble already!!!!!!!!

Roxy the dog™ woof 11:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

So.... the Strepsils section has now been removed by another editor as "blatant advertising". It only seems to be so because of the inconsistent insistence that the product does not deserve a separate article. As stated, this is one of the most widely known throat lozenge products in the UK. If brand-specific articles are to be merged into this article, it needs to be done consistently, not by singling out one example. I propose reinstating the separate article that existed before removed it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In the absence of any further discussion or action to resolve the inconsistency, I've reinstated the separate Strepsils article - which clearly needs improving, but meets notability standards. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)