Talk:Fiesta (dinnerware)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Name of article should be changed. FIESTA vs. fiestaware

As the main article is about the line of dinnerware, invented and designed by Frederick Hurten Rhead while he was Art Director at Homer Laughlin China Company, and is still produced and marketed by that same Homer Laughlin China Company of Newell, West Virigina, I strongly suggest that the name of this article be changed to FIESTA from its current Fiestaware.

The official name of this line of dinnerware was originally, and is still, and has always been simply FIESTA. The term *fiestaware* is a nickname which the consumer public adopted early on, and collectors still casually use, however that term (fiestaware) can also and does also have a generic meaning when used casually. Because of FIESTA's extraordinary success from its very first introduction, the consumer public early on began to refer to ALL solid color dinnerware as *fiestaware*. And in that category they lump the other solid color lines of HLC such as, Harlequin, Riviera, and even Jubilee, Serenade, and Rhythm, as well as most other manufacturers' solid color dinnerware. Competitor manufacturers seized on this popularity to the extent that in the early days, HLC brought a lawsuit against some other manufacturers and tradmark registered the word/name FIESTA, along with the logo created by the script. So in view of the fact that this article is about that specific line of dinnerware, I ask that the name of this article be changed to FIESTA, and let the search term *fiestaware* redirect to it, instead of the other way around.

As an alternative, if the name of the article be kept as it is, then the entire current article about FIESTA must become a subsection of a larger article, which may grow quite large, as other subsections on the varous other historic and colletible solid color wares be added to it. I encourage the first change (rename this article to FIESTA) and let the other solid color glazed dinnerware and pottery be described under their own manufacturers' or specific named articles. JackME 14:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's now Fiesta (dinnerware). BTW, it's not "FIESTA" because the Manual of Style for trademarks indicates lowercase. ENeville 18:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for moving/renaming this article to reflect the proper name of this dinnerware line. In my arguement comments here in Talk, bold capitalization of the name was used to emphasize the distinction between Fiesta and Fiestaware, as experience has proved that this distinction is lost on many and that was the point of my arguing for a change to the article title.
On the removal of all bolding from the text body, while I can appreciate that some would prefer the current "debolded" article, I ask for a reconsideration of this specifically on the names of the colors.
It is my opinion that many who are interested in Fiesta, are indeed first interested in the names and descriptions of the colors, therefore that is essential primary information. Without the bolding, the names and descriptons of the original five, and subsequent addtional sixth color of the vintage are lost in the text. As is the later addtional colors of the 1950s and 1960s. And the same can be said for the names and descriptions of the colors of the new era Fiesta. By bolding the color names as they were, the article text was essentially given an easily and quickly scanned visual outline, without actually having to repeat information of dates and time lines of each color in a separate section of the article. As it stands now, in my opinion the article will need a separate chart or listing of all colors with each corresponding date of manufacture. Ultimately I would think that would take up more encyclopedic room than simply bolding the color names as they are presented and described in the article body text.JackME 01:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a good argument. I think bolding the colors is a plausible approach, though I do think alot of bolding impinges on readability, and perhaps listing the colors with bullets (*) would be better, and nicely break up the blocks of text, to boot. Also, I think a chart may a good idea, now that you mention it. ENeville 16:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

-Question: Does modern Fiestaware (the kind currently being produced today) contain any uranium in its glaze or possess any detectable radioactivity? If so, how does the amount compare to the original kind from the 1930s?

I am not speaking in any official HLC company capacity, but I don't believe any contemporary Fiesta glaze contains Uranium. They definitely do not contain any lead. JackME 01:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

New Fiestaware doesn't contain radioactive materials. I think that it was vanadium that was used in the old glaze, and uranium ore is found nearby vanadium deposits, so uranium got into the plates. Anyone have any information on this?

The ingredient was Uranium Oxide and was used heavily in the composition of the "red" glaze and less so, bt also some in the Ivory glaze. JackME 11:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

This article can be much better. The article appears largely to be original work, an serious missing references to support its biggest contentions. This is a big Wikipedia no-no. Given the prevalence of the dinnerware and press coverage, it should be possible to find references for the bulk of the material. Otherwise the article is conjecture -- far from the aim of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Feedback here would be good. Otherwise, let the editing commence. 842U (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Although they are somewhat limited, I would note there are some references. I've referenced every contribution I've made, for example. I would agree there is a need to supplement them. --Drmargi (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that on April 20th 2006 the article was expanded significantly -- without references -- and the information remains in the article without regard for the Five Pillars. Where did this information come from, how accurate is it, how is the reader expected to vet this unsupported, unreferenced information? This portion of the article, which extends past the introduction to the very end of the article is now loaded with original work, weasel words and peacock terms. Let's wikify this article. 842U (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


You might do well to remind yourself of the Pillar regarding assumption of good faith. The original template used was inaccurate and therefore removed. Your response, and extreme and draconian savaging of the article, neither meets the spirit or the letter of that Pillar nor encourages users to make corrective edits and provide references needed. A single, accurate replacement template would have done the job and fostered more good will. As it is, my reaction (in all honesty) is more along the lines of "who do you think you are?" I certainly have no expectation that, were I to undertake the job of locating references, my work would be respected by someone who, in a very short time, has appointed themselves quite the expert editor but made precious few original contributions. You might want to rethink your approach just a wee bit. --Drmargi (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)



It's probable the editor who increased the bulk of the article tenfold in April of 2006 acted in good faith. And while Wikipedia can have the appearance of ruthlessness, anyone suggesting to great effect that certain edits are an extreme draconian savaging might actually cite something specific that's either extreme, draconian or savage; otherwise these are dramatic words of little meaning. Nothing written here thus far has suggested the original April 2006 editor acted in less than good faith. That's an inference as inaccurate as it is ungenerous.

More importantly, assuming the editor made this contribution in good faith — or not — doesn't qualify the material for the article. 85% of the article's volume — pumped into the article in a single edit, a block of original research without reference, representing one POV (i.e., not encyclopedic) — remains for the reader to accept at face value, sans verifiability. A sound alternative would be to remove uncited, original work, since it doesn't belong, and rebuild the article on the foundation of verifiability.

Hence the discussion here. In good faith.

842U (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)