Talk:Lambert & Butler

Tin
I feel that the wording should be changed, after sending imperial tobacco an email, I was told that the tin was a temporary idea only ever sold in specific clubs, bars and festivals and was never widely available and it was never considered to be on trial to become permanent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.121.60 (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * While obviously your communication with them cannot be included in the article, there is no reference provided supporting the belief it is being considered to become permanent; unless one is provided I can see no reason not to take it at face value as a 'limited edition' and have amended the text accordingly.--Chrisc le (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted “Controversy” section.
I deleted a section entirely “Controversy” that contained a few local news items that happened to be related to L&B (e.g. ‘Liverpool man caught selling fake cigarettes’) They were likely copy pasted from elsewhere, though properly edited and sourced inline, so perhaps some original work was involved. The issue was that from its use throughout Wikipedia, “Controversy” sections relate to the actions of or reactions to a brand, not news items where the brand involved is tangential. Further, it is not custom of the English Wikipedia to include full news items.

It would seem that the encouranging thing to do for an editor who followed the edict “be bold” would be to provide a better place for this work. Would editors with larger stake refer him/hir/sie to WikiNews as the appropriate space, or should we encourage this editor to make the stories cited one-sentence summaries and create a section such as “Crimes involving Lambert & Burton”?

Thanks,

17:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC) Petropetro (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)