Talk:Ricola

Why 19 to the bag?

Does anyone know why they put 19 in a bag? Not 20 or 15, but 19? And why not bags with more in them instead of only one size bag? GBC (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ads

Considering how thorough a part of popular culture they are, some mention should be made of the ubiquitous shout of "RIIICOLAAA" atop the alps.... scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"well known"

This sounds like advertising to me. In either case, it's omission doesnt change anything. I suggest we remove it from the opening sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.251.118 (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

US Bag

No idea how to add this (as per no primary research), but I'm staring at a US bag, and Linden Flowers and Wild Thyme are listed on the right hand side, second and fourth ingredients, contradicting the information stated in the article at this time. Clearly it is incorrect, but I have no idea what wacky alphabet soup of WP:LAWOFGOD to cite to make the edit. Can a team of wiki-lawyers descend on the case and figure out how to change something that is wrong by clear evidence? JabberWokky (talk) 06:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess the article is a bit confusing. It's supposed to make clear that although Linden Flowers and Wild Thyme are not listed on Ricola's website, they are indeed listed on U.S. bags. Feel free to change the wording. Have no fear. Wiki-lawyers bite, but they have no teeth. --Lensim (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Press release?

This whole article is unreferenced and reads like an advertisement or press release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.165.156 (talk) 02:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That is still the case - unreferenced except for links to the company website - and still reads like a press release. As it stands now, this article is pure marketing, which is prohibited by WP:NOT. The marketing includes a product list, which is not needed in an encyclopedia - they make cough drops, that's enough. The sentence in the lede about concentrating on herbs is just marketing nonsense - the product is a type of candy, and like all candy-makers they are all about sugar. Some sections that emphasize herbs might even come close to making medical claims - so should be greatly de-emphasized. In short, the article could be 10% of it's current size, needs reliable sources (and I will delete questionable sections that are not reliably sourced) and should be deleted entirely if reliable sources are not found. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Some of the stuff, including some of the history stuff, you removed could have been validly kept...considering that the company's site was being used as a WP:Primary source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Smallbones: Your repeated deletion of content violates several WP policies and guidelines:

• WP:PRESERVE
• Citations of the company's website do NOT violate WP:QUESTIONABLE, it is just not enough, and the editors should intend to search for more. Therefore the tag Primary sources has been added. And this is perfectly sufficiant. But this does not justify your repeated deletions of content. WP:DEL-CONTENT
• The given references are up-to-date, as well as the company's web site.
• WP:GOODFAITH
• see also: WP:WikiProject Companies/Guidelines

So therefore, as long as you do not have proven (aka cited) errors about the current text, there is no reason to delete it (and I will consequently restore it). Otherwise correct them instead of deleting whole contents, if you do not intend to violate WP:VANDALISM. If you have a personal problem with this company or their products, I propose to address it directly to the company's responsibles. -- ZH8000 (talk) 09:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)