From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated C-class, Mid-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge... Gmcbjames (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

<discussion> I propose that Dishware be merged into Tableware. I think that the content in the Dishware article can easily be explained in the context of Tableware, and the Tableware article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of Dishware will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned.Gmcbjames (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Though this isn't the most important issue I am dealing with on Wikipedia right now, I am not convinced that this is a good idea. I see tableware as a broad topic that would include a brief overview of all the nonconsumable items used in serving and eating meals. Then, we ought to have separate articles on dishware, silverware, glassware, table linens, salt and pepper shakers, cake servers, chop sticks and on and on. I am not saying that these are the exact article titles. Instead, I am speaking conceptually. To me, this seems a logical hierarchy, aand I see no benefit in merging dishware with the underdeveloped tableware article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to add your comments, I very much appreciate your comments as I wasn't looking forward to a move without some sort of discussion. Wiki does have separate articles on glassware, silverware, salt & peppers etc. With the exception of glassware, flatware (silverware), most other tableware articles are barely stubs with editing problems and some should be deleted for various reasons.
Dishware is not a universal term used either in Britain or in the US. I have never heard of the term dishware until finding it on Wikipedia. Dishware is very limited as the word is defined as crockery (a term used in Britain for pottery used for dining). Crockery is defined as "pottery." In the US, we use the word "dishes" or "china" to refer to the pottery (ceramics) used for dining. Dishware is defined as "the plural of dish" or then again the plural for "dish" is "dishes." Dishes is used as a term to refer to the different types of food served. Dishware is not a term used either in the US or Britain to refer to the pottery used for dining. Dish, dishes, and dishware are pottery items which exclude all other types of materials used for dining.
The common term for dishes or china for the table in the US and Britain is dinnerware. Most retailers sell "dinnerware" - as on the web, Wedgwood's product line includes dinnerware. Dinnerware could be an option for a move. However, dinnerware like tableware is sometimes used as a term to include glassware and flatware. Dinnerware often is used as a term for more formal tableware such as china, rather than plastics etc.
Which brings me back to tableware. Tableware is the dishes (pottery), dinnerware (ceramics and other materials), or china (porcelain) used for dining. Tableware can be meant to include the glassware and flatware used for dining. Tableware is a more global term. Global retailers today refer to tableware, dishes, dinnerware, glassware, and flatware as "Tabletop." BTW: tableware and dinnerware does not include table linens, though "tabletop" does.
The article Tableware would include glassware & flatware as sections with "see main article tags" - as these articles are too large to integrate and would have moved onto articles themselves anyway. Plates and bowls are large articles and would not be merged. Tableware items with stub articles would be eventually merged after consensus- i.e. Sugar bowl (dishware) or else they would also tagged as "see main article." Eventually if the tableware item grows to the point of needing it's own article then it can then be moved with a "see main article" tag applied, otherwise it can stay on the tableware page. Stubs could be merged, and tableware items can grow to eventually have articles themselves.
Tableware is a more global term - see worldwide view, includes different types of materials, and is more inclusive than the terms dinnerware, dishes, or dishware.
So there is my thoughts Gmcbjames (talk) 04:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

There are several good reasons to merge Dishware to Tableware which are in line with Wikipedia policy at wp:merge which states:

  1. Duplicate – There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject and having the same scope.
  2. Overlap – There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.
  3. Text – If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there.
  4. Context – If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it. For instance, minor characters from works of fiction are generally covered in a "List of characters in <work>", and can be merged there; see also WP:FICT.

Merging should be avoided if

  1. The resulting article is too long or "clunky" - not a problem as one is a stub and the other is short.
  2. The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross linked) articles - hasn't happened yet due to their limitations and duplicative information.
  3. The topics are discrete subjects and deserve their own articles even though they may be short. - all are "ware," tableware, dishware, and dinnerware.

The existence of two articles, one for dishware and one for tableware is like having two articles for cellphone and mobile phone (they are merged). I think a read of Wikipedia:Systemic bias would also inform this merger discussion. Gmcbjames (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia is not a dictionary, here are the definations of dishware, dinneware, and tableware to take into consideration regarding global and an inclusive topic - as defined by the Merriam Webster Dictionary:
Definition of DISHWARE
tableware (as of china) used in serving food
chiefly US: plates, bowls, cups, etc., that are usually part of a set
First Known Use of DISHWARE 1946
Definition of DINNERWARE
tableware other than flatware
chiefly US, plates, bowls, glasses, etc., that are used for serving and eating dinner
First Known Use of DINNERWARE 1895
Synonyms: tableware
Definition of TABLEWARE
utensils (as of china, glass, or silver) for table use
dishes, glasses, knives, forks, etc., that are used for serving and eating food at a table
First Known Use of TABLEWARE 1766
Synonyms: flatware, silver, silverware
Gmcbjames (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~

Discussion can be continued and is encouraged. Remember: Wikipedia decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions by reasonable people working towards consensus. Polling is only meant to facilitate discussion. WP:VOTE Gmcbjames (talk) 02:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Tableware, as a topic, is inclusive of different types of materials other than pottery, is not a term used only in the United States, has been in use since the 1700s, and covers the same subject and scope as Dishware - Tableware and Dishware should be merged.
  • Support Your analysis has convinced me, Gmcbjames. I trust your expertise here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

British English[edit]

In British English the term crockery is used, with dishware and dinnerware having no meaning/being unknown. I hail from Stoke-on-Trent and while it's true that 'dishware' is a very uncommon term, 'dinnerware' is widely used and understood, though the meaning may be slightly different from American usage. I'll modify the article slightly to soften the statement. --Ef80 (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC) - Discussion merged from Talk:Dishware Gmcbjames (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Tableware manufacturers[edit]

Most tableware manufacturing companies are listed in either categories or special list pages. These have been noted. If a company isn't on Wikipedia and are notable they can be added as a red link. Once they are categorized, then the separate entry can be deleted. Companies can be linked on the page when mentioned in text, if the information is encyclopedic and in the context of tableware. Gmcbjames (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Purpose of the page?[edit]

I found this page while looking for information on Fitz & Floyd pottery. I found myself wondering who would find this page useful. I think that contributors need to keep in mind a governing concept: "Eating and drinking". This can be considered down the centuries, geographically and culturally. The shifting terminology for the vessels and tools used to consume food and beverages then slots in naturally to possible sub-topics such as "ritual eating in pre-Columbian America", "fast food in 'Sixties California" or "upper class formal dining in England circa 1900". Then, there is little need to brood on the usage of words such as "dishware" if an example is cited from the place and time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthordare (talkcontribs) 19:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


According to both British and American dictionaries, tableware refers to crockery/dishes, glassware and utensils, OED In the UK, crockery refers to plates, bowls, cups, saucers and similar OED. isn't as clear, but it seems as though the term dishware is used as well as crockery, though it has tableware as a synonym. Either way, there is a separation between the two terms that isn't clear in the article.

I think this article should list different sections of tableware (crockery/dishware, glassware, and utensils), and allow those articles to describe individual sections.-- (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Dining culture in the United States?[edit]

I think there are some problems with this section. For one thing, it explicitly refers to the United States, which means it does not present a worldwide perspective. It also contains a few substantive statements that are not sourced, including: "In 1880, Victorianism had established itself in the United States, with middle class Americans enjoying the materialism and consumption of goods to express their identities." Aside from being unclear (what does "enjoying the materialism ... of goods" mean?), this needs a source.

Also problematic are sentences like, "Dining became a social event with various food dishes being served with various manufactured tableware shapes." Was dining ever a non-social event (did pre-Victorian Americans eat in isolation?)? Also, the comment about "various food dishes" and "various manufactured tableware shapes" is unclear. Did food dishes and tableware shapes become more varied during the Victorian period? I have no reason to doubt that this is true, but if so it needs to be stated more clearly and needs a source. Alternatively, does this mean that Victorians paired specific food items with specific tableware shapes? Again, I don't doubt the accuracy of this, but it isn't clear whether that is the intended meaning of the sentence.

I would propose some specific changes, but unfortunately I'm clueless about tableware. It would be helpful if someone who knows the subject well could look into this. Chalkieperfect (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This section is far more about developing dining culture, rather than tableware itself. While the former may well influence the latter, it's not even justification to give it such coverahge from that specific angle. I am therefore deleting the section. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Collections in museums[edit]

Is there any point to this section? It currently lists two collections, neither of which seem obviously more significant than, say, the Potteries Museum & Art Gallery or the Victoria & Albert Museum. There must be literally thousands of big museum collections around the world, and we obviously can't list them all, so I don't see the value of listing a random few. --Ef80 (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, deleted section. Gmcbjames (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)