Talk:Robitussin DAC
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is it really going to be necessary for there to be a article on Sugar-Free Robitussin? It strikes me that's kinda the sum of its parts. I know it's on the requested articles page, but I'm not sure, er, why. --Calieber 20:21, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- What's ironic is that Sugar Free Robitussin has more medicinal detail than the parent article... ugen64 03:24, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)
- Removed claim that people call all cough medicine Robitussin. This tends to remove copyright protection for the product, and such a claim should be sourced. I have never heard anyone say "Robitussin" to mean anything other than the name brand syrup or the generics and house brands with the same forumlation. There are lots of cough syrups with other formulations. Edison 19:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see how a common error removes a company's right to a trademark. If the error is broadcast, somehow, then they can sue (as in supplicate for a retraction). OTOH, I think if it is a common error, then it should still be sourced. I've long considered the stuff to be synonymous with guaifenesin, not DM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.234.170.98 (talk • contribs)
- Sugar free? No. Redirect it to category:sweetener if someone really wants to know about it. I think it's hard to put all that is to know about one ingredient into an article. Alcohol free? Then you'd be considering children and increasing the importance of the article, because guaifenesin is an alcohol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.234.170.98 (talk • contribs)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|