Talk:Throat lozenge/Archives/2013

Horehound

Horehound throat lozenges should be mentioned in the article. Badagnani (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

lozenge what? suggest rename to cough drops

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Throat lozenge → Cough drop – Where in the world do they call them throat lozenges instead of cough drops? Isn't cough drop the more common name? They call them cough drops on the bags of them sold in America. The article Cough drop was made before the throat lozenge article, and both cover the same information. Who is in favor of renaming this article cough drop? Dream Focus 20:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support: I've never heard it used that way either pbp 03:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose seems like a WP:ENGVAR issue. The first non-stub version was at "throat lozenge" so per MOS:RETAIN. The cough drop page was always unreferenced. Here's the Government of Canada statement on throat lozenges -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment if this is renamed, the history at cough drop should be histmerged to this article. -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

  So, Canada, population 33,476,688, calls it throat lozenges. America, nation of 316,842,000 people, calls them cough drops. If nearly ten times as many people call it by one name, then that's probably what we need to go by. Anyone know what the United Kingdom, population 63,181,775, calls it, or other English speaking nations? And the age of the article counts, not whether or not they had references, since most articles didn't bother with that back then anyway. Dream Focus 04:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Always known as throat lozenges in the UK, never as cough drops (though the term would generally be understood, it would be seen as an Americanism). WP:ENGVAR issue as the IP says. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

  So over 96 million people call them lozenge, while more than 316 million people have never heard of that word and don't even know how to pronounce it. Dream Focus 13:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

DreamFocus: First: your count is off. U.S. born and raised, I am quite familiar with the word "lozenge". I can pronounce it and everything. More to the point, your argument through population counts of selected countries runs counter to the broad, established consensus at WP:ENGVAR. If you wish to overturn ENGVAR (as your argument would also apply to Aluminium, Theatre and countless others), you will need a much broader consensus than you will be able to establish here. If you believe ENGVAR supports your view or doesn't apply, you'll need to explain that. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: The use of "throat lozenge" is not really that uncommon in the US, and "cough drop" seems a bit informal in tone. Another common term in the US is "throat drop" or "sore throat drop" (found on some current US packaging of common brands such as Luden's, Ricola, and Smith Brothers). As far as I know, the term "throat lozenge" is acceptable just about everywhere (regardless of whether it is the most common everywhere). Attempting universality seems desirable, and stability also has value (WP:RETAIN). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I have to agree with 76.65.131.217, I am pretty certain this is an WP:ENGVAR issue. If someone can show otherwise I will certainly retract my comment.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: OP is making an unsubstantiated assertion: "Isn't cough drop the more common name? They call them cough drops on the bags of them sold in America." —with no reference other than his supposition. Please see WP:FORUM. If you're serious about this, please find some third-party verification for your claim—otherwise there is nothing to review. Lexlex (傻) (talk) 06:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  Walmart is the largest retailer in the world. 80 results on their site for cough drop.[1] You can see the names on the bags for all these common brands. A search for throat lozenge has 35 results. [2] No way I know of to check to see which brands sell the most in English speaking markets. Category:Cough_drops list some of these brands, but not their dominance on the global market. Both names are used on products commonly sold. My point was though, both names are valid, and the article cough drop was created first in February 2005‎, while throat lozenge was created in 20 October 2005‎. When you have something where either name would work, you usually choose which name was used first, which was cough drop. We also have Dream Focus 07:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Your Walmart point is your invalid populations argument with a slightly different approach. Until proven otherwise, this is an ENGVAR issue. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:ENGVAR issue. While I do think "cough drops" would be understood, and sometimes even used, in the UK, "throat lozenges" or "cough sweets" are far more common. No reason to move. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is clearly a question for WP:ENGVAR. Taking a look at what the guideline says:

• "Opportunities for commonality" - I don't see an answer here. "Cough drops" doesn't seem to be particularly common in the UK, "lozenge" (though apparently less common than cough drop in the U.S.) isn't unheard of.
• "Consistency within articles" - Not at issue.
• "Strong national ties to a topic" - Not at issue.
• "Retaining the existing variety" - This is the only section being raised. The actual history shows that "Cough drop" was established first. It lasted as a stub for about 3 months before being merged out of existence. Several months after that, this article, Throat lozenge was created. It now has a solid 8 years of history. To argume in favor of "the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default", we need to believe that these three sentences are not a stub. That seems fairly absurd. (Actually, it's four sentences, if we count the only sourced one which discussed the history of the word "lozenge".)

"In general, disputes over which English variety to use in an article are strongly discouraged. Such debates waste time and engender controversy, mostly without accomplishing anything positive. When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change." This discussion is a waste of time. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.