Talk:Bird's Custard

message: Regarding 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)
thread_title: True or not?

message: How 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)
thread_title:  Leavening agent? 

message: Custard 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Brand Name Vs Custard Powder 

message: Footnote 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)
thread_title:  Footnote 1 is a dead link (concerns origins) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Any additional comments:
* Pinging prior participants   for the split discussion -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  or (3) rewriting custard to accommodate "custard powder" and redirecting "custard powder" there. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Split apart (2016)

message: :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)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
* Pinging prior participants   for the split discussion -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  or (3) rewriting custard to accommodate "custard powder" and redirecting "custard powder" there. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion