Talk:Topps Meat Company

Untitled

Third largest recall, this should now be the third largest recall as there was a 143 million lb beef recall in California with the Westland company —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.240.206.205 (talk) 05:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Content removed from article

('ownership' and 'timeline' removed from here, since they duplicated what diffs are for) Anastrophe 04:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Moving disputed content to talk is specifically identified as appropriate in wikipedia policy pages. Please restore the ownership deleted subsection or explain what is to be gained by your censorship of the disputed section. Finding things buried in the history revisions is time consuming and difficult for latter readers and editors. WAS 4.250 04:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

referring to removed material as "censored" is offensive. please WP:AGF. we're trying to make a better article here. the diff system exists precisely for the purpose of determining what has changed, revision to revision. i don't find it time consuming or difficult. the reason for removal is notability, period. citing the founder of the company is reasonable. listing which children, grandchildren, whomever who owned the company in the great sixty-seven-year gap between when the company was founded and when it went out of business (where there is no content for the article, btw) is not terribly notable. Anastrophe 05:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

here is a link to the article with the timeline and ownership as they existed when this was disputed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Topps_Meat_Company&oldid=162898345

Anastrophe 05:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks. WAS 4.250 05:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Why was the above removed from the article? WAS 4.250 14:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

i explained why in my edit summaries. the timeline is overkill for this small an article. it does nothing more than reiterate the existing contents of the article. the history of ownership isn't significant or notable - the articles cites the company as a family company, which more than suffices. Anastrophe 16:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

following up on myself - i see however, that the recall of 2005 is not in the article. i'll see about folding that in. i still think a timeline is overkill though. Anastrophe 16:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The lead is for summarizing the content. Deleting summaries and adding details not in the body is inappropriate. Timelines serve a different purpose than a narrative and are a useful way of differently displaying data in a way one can easily grasp temporal rather than causal relationships. The company is still being investigated, so the current length of the article is no indication as to the eventual length. Family owned can mean one guy owns it or a trust representing a hundred owns it. "Family owned" is too vague to tell the reader much. WAS 4.250 17:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

the lead does not have to summarize the entire article. it's still got more detail than necessary. the timeline is still complete overkill, regardless of whether the investigation brings about more information. family owned is more than adequate, particularly for a company that was not noteable to begin with. certainly not notable enough to have an article before this incident. Were this article about the Johnson & Johnson company, a timeline and details of ownership would be appropriate. for this article, they are inappropriate. Anastrophe 23:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"one of the country’s largest manufacturers of frozen hamburgers" certainly IS notable enough to have an article before this incident. WAS 4.250 04:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

except that the article did not exist before the recent e. coli outbreak. which was my point. you created the first revision of this article on 30 september 2007. so, as evidenced by the edit history, the company was not notable before this incident. i'm not clear what your point is. Anastrophe 05:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

<<<You claim that wikipedia not having an article on something until a certain date proves that it was not notable before that date? WAS 4.250 05:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

this sort of bickering is not productive use of the talk page (or our time). the company is notable, but not significantly so. some of the content you added is overkill for the subject matter. on the other hand, much of the content you added is excellent - top notch in fact - accurately citing materials as is sadly too often uncommon. i'm interested in finding a balance between too much detail relative to the notability of the subject, and too little. as i've stated several times, i think the timeline is overkill. the details of ownership are interesting, and i suppose reasonably 'harmless'. given the choice, i'd swap the ownership details for the timeline, but that's personal preference. if you can find details of when ownership conferred to the various family members, that would be a useful addition to the timeline, rendering it more informative. otherwise....i'm basically done with this article. Anastrophe 17:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

We disagree on whether we are writing a finished article or are creating something that will be added to and changed and changed again and again and again. Since I believe from experience that things will continue to be added and moved and deleted long after you and I have forgotten this page, I think it best to source every claim so the source does not get "lost" as can happen as things are moved, deleted and so forth. Also adding data is useful as a context for further data to be added. So while I have no problem with your edits if this was to be printed and distributed, as an article in an everybody can edit wiki that is never finished, more data and more sources is very useful. Since you are done with this article and reading your comments makes me more certain than ever than the owner section and sources should go back, I'm going to replace them. On the other hand, if others have the same opinion as you and wish to revert; well, as you said, its not worth that much of our time ... and if others agree with you then maybe I'm wrong after all on this. It happens... WAS 4.250 17:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

fair enough. cheers! Anastrophe 18:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Topps Meat Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071008132756/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5igYUJVjgwiiOrvpL9-faEYHGJ4DAD8S2MI380 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5igYUJVjgwiiOrvpL9-faEYHGJ4DAD8S2MI380

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Spoken article

Per user request, I plan to record a spoken version of the article. 0101Abc (talk) 04:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)