Talk:List of cigarette brands

Brands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A barren article

I started this thinking that passing decades would make it more and more interesting. But, I never expanded it because looking at the packages reminds me of the smoke and that makes me feel ill. Is this article too broad? Should it be deleted? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comment: Too many brands are missing. Where is Herbert Tarrington? The dates available would make this valuable. It's lame as-is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.160.38 (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change

Proposal to re section the article by country of origin. Let me know different views/ideas. Regards David Aaron ^talk 22:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

I am totally rewriting this article, as bits are out of date. Lots of information and brands are missing. It looks messy and the images just get in the way, plus not sure of any legal implications of showing packaging under different laws around the world. Mark999 (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of cigarette brands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006082710/http://www.ntcind.com/pdf/ANNUAL%20REPORT%202011-12.pdf to http://www.ntcind.com/pdf/ANNUAL%20REPORT%202011-12.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing

Missing brand(s): King Sano (http://www.cigarettespedia.com/index.php/BrandKing_Sano) 14:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC) REAL brand by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company marketed in the 1970's if I recall correctly; I have a deck of advertising playing cards that look like the original box

Cigarette brand missing

Old Gold Brand missing …. 2604:CB00:40D:AE00:8C9C:547C:AC2A:C6A4 (talk) 11:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also missing: King Sano, Kim (Both US)Kdammers (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly unsourced

There are few citations and little way of verifying content, e.g. wp:verifiability. Much could be made up for all the reader knows. Adakiko (talk) 07:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, all brands that do not have an article or are not considered notable should be removed. Ajf773 (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The more exhaustive this list is, the better. I actually use it in my job and it's very helpful for checking what brands exist. Nakonana (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those brands that lack in-line citation usually have their own wikipedia article and the information can be found there. Nakonana (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If they have their own article, that is fine. Ajf773 (talk)