Talk:Fiesta (dinnerware)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name of article should be changed. FIESTA vs. fiestaware[edit]

As the main article is about the line of dinnerware, invented and designed by Frederick Hurten Rhead while he was Art Director at Homer Laughlin China Company, and is still produced and marketed by that same Homer Laughlin China Company of Newell, West Virigina, I strongly suggest that the name of this article be changed to FIESTA from its current Fiestaware.

The official name of this line of dinnerware was originally, and is still, and has always been simply FIESTA. The term *fiestaware* is a nickname which the consumer public adopted early on, and collectors still casually use, however that term (fiestaware) can also and does also have a generic meaning when used casually. Because of FIESTA's extraordinary success from its very first introduction, the consumer public early on began to refer to ALL solid color dinnerware as *fiestaware*. And in that category they lump the other solid color lines of HLC such as, Harlequin, Riviera, and even Jubilee, Serenade, and Rhythm, as well as most other manufacturers' solid color dinnerware. Competitor manufacturers seized on this popularity to the extent that in the early days, HLC brought a lawsuit against some other manufacturers and tradmark registered the word/name FIESTA, along with the logo created by the script. So in view of the fact that this article is about that specific line of dinnerware, I ask that the name of this article be changed to FIESTA, and let the search term *fiestaware* redirect to it, instead of the other way around.

As an alternative, if the name of the article be kept as it is, then the entire current article about FIESTA must become a subsection of a larger article, which may grow quite large, as other subsections on the varous other historic and colletible solid color wares be added to it. I encourage the first change (rename this article to FIESTA) and let the other solid color glazed dinnerware and pottery be described under their own manufacturers' or specific named articles. JackME 14:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's now Fiesta (dinnerware). BTW, it's not "FIESTA" because the Manual of Style for trademarks indicates lowercase. ENeville 18:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for moving/renaming this article to reflect the proper name of this dinnerware line. In my argument comments here in Talk, bold capitalization of the name was used to emphasize the distinction between Fiesta and Fiestaware, as experience has proved that this distinction is lost on many and that was the point of my arguing for a change to the article title.
On the removal of all bolding from the text body, while I can appreciate that some would prefer the current "debolded" article, I ask for a reconsideration of this specifically on the names of the colors.
It is my opinion that many who are interested in Fiesta, are indeed first interested in the names and descriptions of the colors, therefore that is essential primary information. Without the bolding, the names and descriptons of the original five, and subsequent additional sixth color of the vintage are lost in the text. As is the later additional colors of the 1950s and 1960s. And the same can be said for the names and descriptions of the colors of the new era Fiesta. By bolding the color names as they were, the article text was essentially given an easily and quickly scanned visual outline, without actually having to repeat information of dates and time lines of each color in a separate section of the article. As it stands now, in my opinion the article will need a separate chart or listing of all colors with each corresponding date of manufacture. Ultimately I would think that would take up more encyclopedic room than simply bolding the color names as they are presented and described in the article body text.JackME 01:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good argument. I think bolding the colors is a plausible approach, though I do think alot of bolding impinges on readability, and perhaps listing the colors with bullets (*) would be better, and nicely break up the blocks of text, to boot. Also, I think a chart may a good idea, now that you mention it. ENeville 16:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Question: Does modern Fiestaware (the kind currently being produced today) contain any uranium in its glaze or possess any detectable radioactivity? If so, how does the amount compare to the original kind from the 1930s?

I am not speaking in any official HLC company capacity, but I don't believe any contemporary Fiesta glaze contains Uranium. They definitely do not contain any lead. JackME 01:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Fiestaware doesn't contain radioactive materials. I think that it was vanadium that was used in the old glaze, and uranium ore is found nearby vanadium deposits, so uranium got into the plates. Anyone have any information on this?

The ingredient was Uranium Oxide and was used heavily in the composition of the "red" glaze and less so, bt also some in the Ivory glaze. JackME 11:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The article downplays just how radioactive the Fiesta Red was. It is far more than just detectable, especially in Beta radiation. I took a bowl into work and measured 1.8 million dpm/100cm^2 on contact and 100,000 dpm/cm^2 at 30 cm. Using a survey meter I recorded 23 millirem/hour of Beta on contact. While this isn't flat out hazardous, its not something to sneeze at. DieselDude (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fiesta(ware) by Chance Brothers[edit]

Just to confuse matters a little, Chance Brothers in Smethwick, England, also produced a range of Fiesta glassware (coined Fiestaware in my book, Chance Expressions) from 1951 to 1981, and then by Fiesta Glass Ltd from 1981 to c.2002. See my website www.chanceglass.net. I will update when I have a little more time. GlassyEye (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

This article can be much better. The article appears largely to be original work, an serious missing references to support its biggest contentions. This is a big Wikipedia no-no. Given the prevalence of the dinnerware and press coverage, it should be possible to find references for the bulk of the material. Otherwise the article is conjecture -- far from the aim of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Feedback here would be good. Otherwise, let the editing commence. 842U (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although they are somewhat limited, I would note there are some references. I've referenced every contribution I've made, for example. I would agree there is a need to supplement them. --Drmargi (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that on April 20th 2006 the article was expanded significantly -- without references -- and the information remains in the article without regard for the Five Pillars. Where did this information come from, how accurate is it, how is the reader expected to vet this unsupported, unreferenced information? This portion of the article, which extends past the introduction to the very end of the article is now loaded with original work, weasel words and peacock terms. Let's wikify this article. 842U (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


You might do well to remind yourself of the Pillar regarding assumption of good faith. The original template used was inaccurate and therefore removed. Your response, and extreme and draconian savaging of the article, neither meets the spirit or the letter of that Pillar nor encourages users to make corrective edits and provide references needed. A single, accurate replacement template would have done the job and fostered more good will. As it is, my reaction (in all honesty) is more along the lines of "who do you think you are?" I certainly have no expectation that, were I to undertake the job of locating references, my work would be respected by someone who, in a very short time, has appointed themselves quite the expert editor but made precious few original contributions. You might want to rethink your approach just a wee bit. --Drmargi (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]



It's probable the editor who increased the bulk of the article tenfold in April of 2006 acted in good faith. And while Wikipedia can have the appearance of ruthlessness, anyone suggesting to great effect that certain edits are an extreme draconian savaging might actually cite something specific that's either extreme, draconian or savage; otherwise these are dramatic words of little meaning. Nothing written here thus far has suggested the original April 2006 editor acted in less than good faith. That's an inference as inaccurate as it is ungenerous.

More importantly, assuming the editor made this contribution in good faith — or not — doesn't qualify the material for the article. 85% of the article's volume — pumped into the article in a single edit, a block of original research without reference, representing one POV (i.e., not encyclopedic) — remains for the reader to accept at face value, sans verifiability. A sound alternative would be to remove uncited, original work, since it doesn't belong, and rebuild the article on the foundation of verifiability.

Hence the discussion here. In good faith.

842U (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


June 2008 addition of tags for "citations" and "original research"[edit]

Without wanting to offend anyone, I've added "citations needed" and "original research" tags where appropriate. Please do not remove these tags until the article meets Wikipedia criteria. If the tags are too much, I'd offer that one of each could be placed at the head of the article — the intro paragraph is the only paragraph in the entire article that carries citations for the bulk of its contentions.

This isn't personal, the article simply doesn't come close to meeting WP guidelines. Anyone wanting assistance in finding and adding references, there is help available. 842U (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Significant citations have been added to support the content. "Original research" has been removed. The main source for the article is from Huxford's Fiesta book (many editions since its first introduction). Any material questioned should be noted with the {cite} tag rather than the blanket "hat." This will help in identifying any material needing to be sourced - though most - if not all - can be sourced by Huxford's book. Gmcbjames (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture travesty[edit]

Pop culture references really should consist of something more than being used as a prop. Had Charlie Sheen been an avid collector of fiestaware, then maybe we should mention two and a half men, but this is just ridiculous. Imagine an article on Ford that mentioned every movie and TV show where one was driven by a character.--67.174.47.144 (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Refs moved here:
  • In the sitcom Two and a Half Men, Charlie Sheen's character Charlie Harper uses Scarlet Fiesta.
  • In the TV show The Big Bang Theory on CBS, Sheldon and Leonard use assorted colors and pieces of Fiestaware in their apartment.
  • In the Folgers coffee "Wake Up to Good News" hub on MSN, the host of all the videos, known simply as "Michelle", uses a Scarlet Fiesta Java Mug.
  • In the TV show The Mentalist on CBS, Patrick Jane drinks tea from a Turquoise Fiesta teacup/saucer.
  • In the TV show Breaking Bad on AMC, Walter White makes a bologna sandwich on a Sunflower Fiesta plate in season 1 episode 3.
  • In the TV show Home Improvement on ABC the Taylors had Fiestaware in the glass-doored cupboard on the back wall (that lead to the garage).
  • In the TV series Frasier, a large Turquoise Fiesta jug is frequently seen on the shelving unit between Frasier's kitchen and living/dining room.
  • In the TV series Buffy, the Vampire Slayer, Fiesta bowls and plates are used when the Summers family and friends are having meals at the dining room table.
  • In the TV series The Walking Dead, Lori Grimes is served a meal in Hershel Greene's farmhouse on a Rose Fiesta plate in Season 2.
  • In the TV Series Modern Family, Cam and Mitchell try to give over-sized stuffed animals to a charitable organization, which will not accept them. Meanwhile, Cam brags about finding a Fiesta pitcher at a great price with the remark, "They didn't know what they had."
  • In A Christmas Story, the Parker family is seen eating on Fiesta dinnerware in a dinner scene.
--Badger151 (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references ![edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "smithsonian" :
    • {{cite web | title = Legacies: Collecting America's History, Fiestaware, about 1940 | publisher = Smithsonian Institution Press | url =http://www.smithsonianlegacies.si.edu/objectdescription.cfm?ID=223}}
    • {{cite web | title = History of Homer Laughlin Pottery | publisher = The Collector's Encyclopedia of Homer Laughlin China, Joanne Jasper at Missingpiece.com | url =http://www.missing-piece.com/HLC_HISTORY.html}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I separated the "smithsonian" reference from "jasper" (the reference name I just added for the second citation), but at this point both referenced links are not available online. (I used archive.org to check out the content previously available at those links.)
Firasdurri (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fiesta (dinnerware). 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fiesta_(dinnerware)&oldid=1206332467"