Talk:Bird's Custard
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
True or not?
editRegarding this sentence;
- Currently (2006), the General Foods Corporation is owned by Premier Foods.
Whilst it's clear from a websearch that Premier Foods bought the Bird's Custard and Angel Delight brands, I'm having trouble finding evidence that they actually bought the whole "General Foods Corporation" from Kraft (if that even exists as a distinct entity any more). I've decided to replace this sentence with the more verifiable former fact until someone can provide a citation. Fourohfour 20:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Leavening agent?
editHow did this get categorized as a leavening agent? Is there some kind of baking in which this stuff is used to rise the dough? If so, the article should mention something about it. Otherwise, it probably doesn't belong in that category. — Wwagner 04:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Thickening
editArticle currently says:
- when mixed with milk, it thickens to form a custard-like sauce.
It's not heated?? Surely even the English don't eat cornflour raw? --Macrakis 19:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ha ha, well spotted :-)
- I'll fix that... Fourohfour 20:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Brand Name Vs Custard Powder
editCustard Powder currently redirects here. I have nothing against Bird's Custard Powder, and it is certainly by far the most common custard powder (at least in the UK) but it's not the only custard powder. As example I offer you "Moirs Custard Powder". There's nothing wrong with having an article about Bird's Custard Powder, it's certainly notable, but I don't think Custard powder should redirect here. This page should be for Bird's specific stuff and "Custard Powder" for facts true of custard powders in general. Yes I do take this too seriously. IanOfNorwich (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Can we translate back from other languages to English for the generic article for custard powder? I believe that Bird's Custard may not be common outside UK. -- Tomchiukc (talk) 06:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Footnote 1 is a dead link (concerns origins)
editFootnote 1 confirming the origin of Birds custard is a dead link (as of 2nd July 2010) and so its origin story is not confirmed. There is an alternative origin story where the youtube video maker (whose video explains how to make traditional custard) states that Bird didn't know how to make traditional custard and that when his wife was ill, being a chemist, he came up with the cornflour/colouring alternative instead. \\\\\\Werebus (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Requested move (2014)
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Discussion of the redirects or possible splits should continue after this move discussion. Dekimasuよ! 17:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Bird's Custard → Custard powder – The generic name should be the title.
Tony (talk) 09:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- I understand the logic behind this nomination, but at the moment the article is pretty much about the brand and not the general product. I believe that the specific brand would still be independently notable, so I'm not sure this is the best solution.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per User: Yaksar. The article is about Bird's, not custard powder in general. From 2003–2005, this article was about both Bird's and Alfred Bird.[1] In 2005, the article was split and, since then, the article has been about Bird's.[2] An attempt to add generic custard powder info moved from the custard article[3] was reverted by User:Pigsonthewing, the article's creator.[4] Clearly the article was intended to be and has been about Bird's only. My suggestion would be to take the last paragraph of the Bird's Custard and cobble it together with some info from the custard article to make a new article on custard powder. But this article is already in the right place. — AjaxSmack 23:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment the redirect custard powder should be repointed to custard or split off as a separate article. This article is incorrectly functioning as the "custard powder" article. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. Worthy of its own article, but custard powder should indeed be a separate article, as the two are not synonymous. There are other brands on the market. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. Bird's Custard clearly meets WP:GNG; and is not always sold in powder form. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Split I'd split this article into two parts: one about custard powder in general, the other about Bird's brand and company. --Macrakis (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Split apart (2016)
editIt has been suggested that this page should be split into a new page titled custard powder. (discuss) |
per the 2014 discussion, this article should be split in two, since it incorrectly advertises Bird's Custard as the one and only custard powder. The current situation would be akin to redirecting cola to Coca Cola, which is clearly wrong. A new article is needed for the topic of custard powders, instead of the product and brand history of a particular one. - 65.94.171.217 (talk) 11:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Survey
edit- Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with
*'''Support'''or*'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
- Support I am the nominator -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support a split but then merge the custard powder material into custard per below. There is too little non-Bird's material for a separate custard powder article and many people call it simply "custard" anyway. — AjaxSmack 03:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
edit- Any additional comments:
- Pinging prior participants @Macrakis, Necrothesp, AjaxSmack, Yaksar, Tony1, Pigsonthewing, and IanOfNorwich: for the split discussion -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Bird's Custard also comes in a ready-to-serve format [5] (tinned custard; like Ambrosia) so this is not a "custard powder" article, since the Bird's Custard brandname is also used for non-powder products, and non-Bird's powders exist [6] so "custard powder" redirecting here is wrong on both counts (this is not the only custard powder, and Bird's isn't only a powder) -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- This doesn't need an RfC. If you want to create a generic "custard powder" article, be bold! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- This isn't an RFC, it clearly is a split discussion. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Most of the content in this article is really about custard powder in general. Bird's happens to be the original and best-known brand. In 2014, I suggested that there ought to be two articles. On reflection, it seems to me that one article entitled "custard powder" would be clearest. But two articles would be OK if there really is enough to say about Bird's specifically that isn't equally true of custard powder in general. --Macrakis (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- The problem with that (only having one article, at "custard powder") is the 2014 discussion that said we should not get rid of the "Bird's" article (and also the fact that "Bird's Custard" is also used for a ready-to-serve tinned product which isn't a powder) Thus we hare left with the option of (1) having two articles, or (2) deleting custard powder or (3) rewriting custard to accommodate "custard powder" and redirecting "custard powder" there. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Most of the content in this article is really about custard powder in general. Bird's happens to be the original and best-known brand. In 2014, I suggested that there ought to be two articles. On reflection, it seems to me that one article entitled "custard powder" would be clearest. But two articles would be OK if there really is enough to say about Bird's specifically that isn't equally true of custard powder in general. --Macrakis (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)