Talk:Top (rolling papers)

Merge
Strongly Oppose -- What exactly makes this material suitable for integration into the main rolling papers article, whereas numerous other brands retain stand-alone articles? Clearly, this article is a stub, but that certainly doesn't mean there isn't vast room for expansion. Merging the articles simply makes no sense whatsoever. If someone can present a reasonable case for the proposed merge, I'm all ears. --Raoul Duke 10:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You might want to take that up at the target article. I've put a more functional template on the page, that will take you there. brenneman  {L} 11:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Common name
I am seeing sources use all caps when talking about TOP so I believe TOP is the commonname,. Valoem talk contrib 17:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * There are a few reasons why I'd rather see this article at "Top". WP:TITLETM guidelines suggest the the title should follow "standard capitalization". The brand is is named after a Top, and is not an initialism for anything. And lastly, several of the articles own (archived) references use "Top". + m t  18:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)