Talk:Tieguanyin

message: I bought this great wild Chinese monkey picked tea that stated that another name for it is Ma Nau Mi Ti Kuan Yin. I tried to find out more about it and if there was similar kinds of teas but only found that Ti Kuan Yin part of the name. It is sold by edible.com at price of £14.00 per 57 grams so it's around £4000 per kilogram. Is this tea considered to be Tieguanyin or something else? And is monkey picked Tieguanyin so popular that it should be added to the article?--Custoo (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Ma Nau Mi Ti Kuan Yin

message: Removed section Value.  It cited news articles with false claims such as Tieguanyin being the most expensive tea.  Some Pu'er teas are far more expensive as is Da Hong Pao which was also mentioned in the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.237.38.23 (talk • contribs) 
:I've restored it with some editing. You're right that the section was over-stated (what, all the varieties are the most expensive kinds of tea?), but it's worth discussing the most expensive kinds - if only to demonstrate that tieguanyin is a top-tier variety of tea that ranks among the best (or at least, most expensive) kinds of tea world-wide. --Gwern  (contribs) 19:57 11 January 2012 (GMT)
::Good points and something is definitely worth mentioning about the price.  I'm still not satisfied with the source (journalist -> Harrods?) about TGY being the most expensive tea sold in Britain and added some reservations to the text (and why is the price in Britain so important?).  I also moved the section to the bottom as I feel this article (and teaculture) is more about the tea and less about the money.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.237.38.23 (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Value

message: If you aren't going to give me credit for writing/compiling this version of the myth behind the tea, then I have to remove it.  Text removed due to removal of reference section.  -GG
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tieguanyin&action=edit
Edit this page
This article badly needs elaboration :(  A-giau 11:44, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess thats done now. --Iateasquirrel 22:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Correct. i made the edit. Mtl1969 (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Shouldn't it be mentioned that these tea leaves are roasted during processing? --Badagnani 01:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that inherent in it being an oolong tea? --Gwern  (contribs) 02:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true, but it's probably a good idea to put it down, just to cover the basics. Sjschen 03:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Roasted

message: ”We recommend”? Please take care of this section ... I’m sure Wikipedia doesn’t recommend either way on brewing this tea. Who is it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bossk-Office (talk • contribs) 23:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Brewing

message: This may be my personal opinion, but the "Benefits" section of this article should either be removed entirely or rewritten in a more concise manner.  Right now it reads like an ad promoting the tea, and that's not what Wikipedia is for.  The "Legend" section should be rewritten so it sounds less like a storybook, too.  Also, there should be more references and citations, and the map of Fujian province should either be removed or placed elsewhere in the article so it doesn't create a gigantic gap between the top of the page and the beginning of the article. - 69.110.72.178 (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed "Benefits" section. Having a copy of another web page in the article makes no sense. The link is now under external links. Uxh (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Benefits" section too similar to ad 

message: I removed all sources from this page...they were all self-published, one blog, two on company websites.  I don't think these meet WP:RS--if they are to be used I think they need specific justification here as to why these particular sources are acceptable.  The article currently has no citations.  Here's perhaps a starting point if people want to find more sources: google books search:  shows a lot of results.  Cazort (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources 

message: Should this article not be moved to Tie Guan Yin as it is usually written? Same name, only adding spaces. --Kaminix (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article's name is correct as per WP:NC-CHINA. Chinese naming conventions dictate all syllables of a word should stick together. The article really needs to be wikified further with naming changed to Tieguanyin or use the English translation which is  Iron Guanyin and added with solid references. --Visik (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tieguanyin is a better name for checking and reading, also a typical name translated from Chinese. Walter Grassroot  |talk 03:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also consider Tieguanyin misleading and would preder Tie Guan Yin as in Da Hong Pao for example.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.237.38.23 (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename article