Talk:Tooth-friendly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject Dentistry (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Dentistry. If you want to participate and/or join, please visit the project page, or ask questions on the project talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Stevia toothfriendly?[edit]

Although I agree that stevia is "tooth-friendly" I can't find any evidence that Toothfriendly International has ever certified it with the label toothfriendly. A search on their web site for stevia yields nothing. =Axlq 22:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


HUh?[edit]

who keeps deleting the history page...? i've edited this article at least 4 times... --Buf Sabres Fan 22:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I see one edit from you. I recall having this problem occasionally when my browser gets all quirky caching pages. Try clearing your browser cache, and if you're running a proxy that disables anti-cache directives, turn that off too. =Axlq 22:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Happy tooth toothfriendly sweets.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Happy tooth toothfriendly sweets.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What IS "Toothfriendly"??[edit]

There are several issues I find with this page: (hence why I added a few templates)

  • The sweets listed (mints, chewing gum, lollipops, and chocolate) are not necessarily tooth-friendly. They may be, depending on their composition, but they are not categorically safe for teeth. Such a bold claim needs to be made more specific and cited.
  • There are several claims that need to be cited properly. (Probably more than already have the citation-needed template.)
  • It is not clear whether the article title "Tooth-friendly" refers to an organization (Toothfriendly International or the Toothfriendly Foundation), a movement, or to a trademark/endorsement ("This candy bar has been certified to be toothfriendly by ACME, Inc.).
  • The article should be organized into sections, e.g. "History", "Toothfriendly sweeteners", and/or "Corporate connections".
  • I suspect that the original author(s) was related to one of the toothfriendly organizations, due to the lack of third-party sources, the single external link, and the emphasis of the company and foundation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vreezkid (talkcontribs) 19:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Just popped in via Random Article and found this. Gut impression is that it reads like a blurb, and then gets into dense, practically-obfuscatory science. Did some minor edits. Still probably needs a bit more. 108.50.51.25 (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Registered Quality Mark[edit]

  • Okay, do we really need those two words? I get that it IS a distinction, but I frankly doubt its RELEVANCE to the discussion of the status of toothfriendliness. Figured I'd bring it up here for the next person editing. 108.50.51.25 (talk) 05:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)