Talk:Cēpacol

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Business

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Cepacol also makes soothing throat lozenges as well as other troat relieving products.

The last line of this article seems like merchandising and provides no source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.223.56 (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cepacol is sole in countries other than the US - indeed, there is actualy a world outside of the US! The Cepacol brand is owned by different drug houses in diferent countries, ie in Australia it is owned by Bayer.... also, different formulations are avaliable in different countries —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.51.238 (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cēpacol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080103043712/http://www.cepacol.com/products/mouthwash.asp to http://www.cepacol.com/products/mouthwash.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership history mistake[edit]

This article's 3rd and 4th sentences currently read: "The brand was originally owned by J.B. Williams. Following acquisition by Combe Incorporated, Combe Incorporated sold Cepacol to Reckitt Benckiser in 2011." This is incorrect. It's true in terms of ownership from J.B. Williams and beyond, but J.B. Williams bought the brand from SmithKline Beecham plc in 1994, according to this New York Times article from the time; SmithKline Beecham had bought it from Marion Merrell Dow Inc. in 1992, according to the Chicago Tribune from the time -- and in fact Cepacol is currently mentioned in the intro to the Marion Marrell Dow wiki article, with a citation to the 1994 International Directory of Company Histories which notes Merrell Dow owning Cepacol prior to its 1989 merger with Marion Laboratories; and Merrell Dow's predecessor Richardson-Merrell Inc. seems to have originated the Cepacol line in 1965 based on this trademark application. So likely the brand's original owners were Richardson-Merrell, not J.B. Williams, who were at least 2 owners and almost 30 years removed from the original owners and creators. If we really stretch, I guess those aforementioned lines of the Cepacol article could technically just be saying "Cepacol was owned by J.B. Williams before it was owned by Combe", which is factually correct. But the way it's written now implies J.B. Williams were the very first owners. I assume that's what the original contributor believed to be the case when they wrote it, maybe they'd read Combe bought it from J.B. Williams and didn't see any prior info and assumed that's where it started. But since the evidence suggests otherwise, there's no real reason to start off by mentioning the brand's 3rd-most-recent owner and make no mention of its 2 or 3 other owners prior to that. In any case I think the current wording of "the brand was originally owned" is misleading, so this should be amended and updated in some way. --VolatileChemical (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]