Talk:Thomas Minton

Merge

We are bidden to discuss:

• Firstly, yes we should merge (I regret, when I wrote 'Minton', that the 'Thomas Minton' article had escaped me). However, the nicely illustrated Thomas Minton article is just three lines long and I can't make it any longer. Perhaps someone will.
• Secondly, there is much more to Minton than Thomas Minton as my article suggests. Just as there is much more to Wedgwood than Josiah Wedgwood but not as you would notice from the Wedgwood article.
• Thirdly, I believe the whole Minton - Hollins - Minton story, at least for the time being, would be best told in a single article called quite simply 'Minton'.

Please discuss NoelWalley 19:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has chosen to discuss in 19 days. The main three line paragraph in this article consists of identical wording to a three line paragraph in the external website. The illustrated willow pattern plate may well be Staffordshire, but no atribution to Minton is given, nor can it be deduced, so it is not suitable for a Minton article.

May I suggest that this article be deleted? NoelWalley 10:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You are free to bring up the article at AFD, but I don't think that it should be deleted. I came across this article though the missing encyclopedic articles project which has an article about Thomas Minton, which means another encyclopedia has an article about him. While existance in another encyclopedia is not sufficient for keeping an article it is still fairly good evidence that it should be kept. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 13:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a case for a separate article on Thomas as it could be used for material relating to the history of Stoke - I agree that info about the Mintons factory should be integrated where possible. --Alan 19:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest merging Minton into Thomas Minton. There are several Mintons around. I do not think that one of them should hog the bare surname. Maybe there is a case for a 'Minton family' (or similar) article. Maias 11:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no case for merger. The Minton article is about a pottery manufacturing company with the name of Minton and with 200 years continuity of manufacturing world famous fine bone china on the same site. The Thomas Minton article is about the founder of that Company. The name Thomas formed part of the company name for less than forty of those years. NoelWalley 19:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a strong case for merging 'Minton' into something. Maybe into 'Minton (pottery manufacturing)' but there is no excuse for the current 'Minton' to occupy the whole 'Minton' conceptual space to exclude the Mintons that are nothing to do with pottery. 'Minton' should at least be a disambiguation page. Maias 13:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

'Minton' ought not to be merged into anything, if it is renamed 'Mintons Ltd' as has now been sugested, then 'Thomas Minton' can be allowed to slumber in peace.NoelWalley 07:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. Does anyone else have any further comments? Maias 23:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge tag removed following no comment or objection. Maias 23:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)