Talk:Twinings

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Twinings article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Template:WikiProject Soft Drinks

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Hampshire Start‑class

	Hampshire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hampshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hampshire 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.HampshireWikipedia:WikiProject HampshireTemplate:WikiProject HampshireHampshire articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Lady Grey merge

I propose merging Lady Grey (tea) into this article, on the following grounds:

It is a registered trademark of Twinings, not a style of tea available from other sources.
It is one of many teas available by Twinings, and I don't see any evidence that it is even among the most widely-available or popular.
I see scant evidence of notability, see: [1]; I'm not sure this could survive WP:AfD as a standalone article.

I thought of being bold and just merging but I thought I'd bring it up in case anyone had any thoughts to share. I'd also be open to discussion of deletion, if someone would prefer it to merging. Cazort (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would make sense, if there were any discussion of their other product lines. Atm, it seems we should just add a single sentence here after the Earl Grey discussion, and delete the Lady Grey article. Modest Genius ^talk 22:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could put a WP:Prod on it; I wouldn't object. Cazort (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Against: Other Twinings-exlusive teas, such as Prince of Wales have their own articles --68.189.254.22 --Andresgmejiar (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And is there any good reason for them? I'd suggest removing these at all. As to the prince of wales tea, this google news archive search: [2] shows only sparse coverage, mostly fairly trivial...enough for a paragraph maybe on this page but not enough to justify a standalone article. That article, too, as it stands, is totally unsourced. Cazort (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst it is a registered trade mark it should have it's own page as many a person searching may not know that it a Twinnings tea. Precedent for this is the Windows article and Office articles not being part of Micrsoft's page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.242.59 (talk) 09:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, except there's easily enough material for a whole article on Windows or Office on their own. That doesn't seem to be the case for Lady Grey. Modest Genius ^talk 23:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against merging Lady Grey into the Twinings article. Twinings and Lipton has lots of teas, but listing them is not relevant or useful. Singling out Lady Grey simply because its trademarked is not enough. Im even for deleting the Lady Grey article all together. PS I deleted the Advert tag, as all the previous tea listings have been removed. Gnurkel (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a small section on Lady Grey on the Earl Grey page. It seems to me that it would be a more logical merge than into the Twinnings page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.233.152 (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer separate pages for the sake of searchability and modularity. I think these pages will grow with time.8 Jan 2010