Talk:Alfred Dunhill Limited

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Watches, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of watches 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.WatchesWikipedia:WikiProject WatchesTemplate:WikiProject WatchesWatches

Brands Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fashion

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion 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.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Who wrote this entry--the Dunhill marketing department?? The company should be ashamed of themselves for spamming wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.252.220 (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV

This article was written by a user called "Dunhillonline", and it kind of shows in the obvious slant it takes. Sarge Baldy 09:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already removed all the "advertisorial" - If you have any objections to the present content please can you elaborate? Thanks. --Richhoncho 09:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraph reads like a Horatio Alger story. Sarge Baldy 09:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment, but that's nothing to do with POV. --Richhoncho 09:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. I believe it's POV to treat the topic of an article too sympathetically. But I think it's fine now. Sarge Baldy 09:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. Thanks for that. Maybe stub should be added. --Richhoncho 10:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Terms & Conditions on the Alfred Dunhill website states "ALFRED DUNHILL does not authorise linking to its Web Site from a third party web site without its prior written authorisation." I wonder if Wikipedia has such written authorisation and if not whether the extlink to their website should be removed?

"The Homes of Alfred Dunhill aim to represent the experience of luxury, allowing the customer to live the brand." Does this sentence actually mean anything to anyone who doesn't work in marketing? If so, could it be explained; if not, it really shouldn't be here. AuntFlo (talk) 09:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extlink to dunhill.com

The Terms & Conditions on the Alfred Dunhill website states "ALFRED DUNHILL does not authorise linking to its Web Site from a third party web site without its prior written authorisation." I wonder if Wikipedia has such written authorisation and if not whether the extlink to their website should be removed?

I very much doubt that they have the authority to enforce such a restriction, in any jurisdiction. Earthlyreason (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi:

I guess someone doesn't know how the internet works. I wonder if we should post a link to Fark or Slashdot about this?

Andy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.179.211 (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No 'Ltd'

Surely the item name should be 'Alfred Dunhill'? It is not Wikipedia practice to include 'Ltd' after company names. This is surely a legacy of the original contributor who was apparently associated with the company. Earthlyreason (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't Dunhill one of James Bond's favourite brands?

I have a hazy recollection of the novels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.184.139 (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dunhill luxury goods and Dunhill cigarettes

Is there / has there ever been a connection with the two companies? I know that Alfred Dunhill luxury goods makes lighters and smoking requisites (White Spot Alfred Dunhill), so I can't be the only one to assume that the DUNHILL that makes these things also has a connection to the tobacco company? Incidentally, most of the cigarettes I can think of do not have a website. Try and find Marlboro dot com or Lucky Strike dot com. Type Dunhill in Google and you get the luxury goods company Alfred Dunhill, and British American Tobacco eventually. But there's no specific DUNHILL cigarette website. Or Marlboro website, etc.. Odd. Anyway, I digress. Connection with the two companies? Please enlighten me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.126.177 (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DUNHILL tobacco products (not pipes, but cigarettes and pipe tobaccos) went under control of Carreras (Craven "A" cigarettes) in 1967, and Carreras was later (1972) taken over by Rothmans, Rothmans in 1999 by BAT (British American Tobacco). BAT own the trademark DUNHILL for tobacco products and have full control over manufacture. 217.110.124.98 (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rollagas

you know, it would be far better if this article actually said what it is, and how it works, rather than just information on a single type of ridiculously priced lighter. --UltraMagnus^speak 19:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Dunhill

I have completely edited this page. This page is about Alfred Dunhill, the man who lived and his contribution to the world of pipes and pipe smoking. If Alfred Dunhill LTD wants to have a page of their own, I suggest they make one for their company, Dunhill LTD.. --Jsderwin (talk) 08:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you did was cut and paste from another website. I restored the other article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.62.158 (talk) 08:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SineBot

This bot is a joke. Totally destroys an article about Dunhill because I am not going to re-write perfectly good material already available. ERGO: Wiki continues to have irrelevant information because it's a little afraid of some copy n paste. Not to mention it allows a corporation to use it's pages for blatant advertising. Bravo. --Jsderwin (talk) 09:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You knew damn well what you were doing was wrong so don't be shocked when it gets removed. WP:COPY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.62.158 (talk) 09:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're a human. That's pretty disturbing. I can understand a bot making automated changes, but a human pretending to be a bot is just creepy. --Jsderwin (talk) 09:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Some of the article, especially the part in list format, seems like it needs to be rewritten, taken out of present tense, made less puffy, etc. I'm hoping to do this. Any objections? Likeanechointheforest (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting the name

As a British company, the name is incorrectly formatted in the title of this article. As in the first paragraph, the company's name is Alfred Dunhill Limited - no comma, not the shortened Ltd (and as it's British the contraction wouldn't have the full stop at the end in any case). The legal name can be seen on the company registration at https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00191031

I propose that this be moved to Alfred Dunhill Limited - I take the point made by User:Earthlyreason above (in 2008!) that most companies don't include the "Limited" or similar, but here we have to differentiate with the article for the person.

If there are no objections I'll Be Brave and move this in a week or so. Tim (Xevious) (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]