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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles 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.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the ((WikiProject Food and drink)) project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia 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.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
No need for this split gidonb (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge. Mars Netherlands has its own structure and history, and it's backed up by reliable sources, so I don't see the need for merging. There could be a UK article too, because we have distinct products over here. — Amakuru (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closing, given the uncontested objection and no support. Klbrain (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
M&M/Mars
I know that there was a time when the company was called M&M/Mars. [It was on the back of the labels of all of the company's products.] There is no mention of this in the article.2604:2D80:6881:7600:19E0:D29C:9BE:A357 (talk) 07:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to this press release, M&M/Mars is a division of Mars, Incorporated (or at least it was as recently as 2000). Insofar as the candy bars were long (still?) identified in marketing as products of "M&M/Mars", I'd expect it to be mentioned. But a quick search doesn't identify any information I could add that's more specific than what I just wrote here. Largoplazo (talk) 11:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a reasonable thing to add with that source. Doesn't need more than a sentence. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 03:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When did Mars complete its acquistion of Banfield?
When did Mars complete its acquistion of Banfield Pet Hospital, if ever? Acwilson9 (talk) 05:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See details and sources at Banfield Pet Hospital. Maybe some of that should be summarized better here. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 03:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: A number of them use a comma, such as Tesla, Inc., but this is entirely optional and superfluous (not WP:CONCISE), is not used consistently in sources or in Wikipedia for those companies, leads to punctuation errors, and should probably just be mass-removed from their titles (aside from things like bands, e.g. Funk, Inc., and titles of published works, e.g. Monsters, Inc., that use the comma form but are not corporations, and legal case names that include it, e.g. Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc.). And there are a number of articles at "Something Not Ambiguous[,] Inc." titles that should have the corporate designator removed, e.g. The Cannon Group, Inc. (most of them are "Foo Group[,] Inc." cases) and Encuesta, Inc., except where the acronym/initialism of the organization includes the "I" for "Inc.", as in Tele-Communications Inc. (TCI). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 03:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we would generally look at sources (and self-styling) to determine whether to include a comma or not, although I see the argument for not including it by default (e.g. per MOS:JR). — BarrelProof (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCCORP has the following to say about abbreviating and commas: If the legal status is used to disambiguate, it should be included in the article title using the company's own preference for either the abbreviated or unabbreviated form (such as Caterpillar Inc. and Mars, Incorporated). Likewise, whether or not to include a comma prior to the legal status should be governed by company usage (compare, for example, Nike, Inc. and Apple Inc.). I would say there's a case to be made to follow common usage rather than the company's own preference, but far-reaching changes should probably be discussed elsewhere than a RM for a single example. BegbertBiggs (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[Weak] Oppose: BegbertBiggs points out that the proposal is contrary to a naming convention guideline. Moreover, this article is cited explicitly as an example in that guideline, so this seems to amount to a proposal to change the guideline. But this discussion is not couched in terms of a proposal to change a guideline. As BegbertBiggs says, "far-reaching changes should probably be discussed elsewhere than a RM for a single example". — BarrelProof (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added "[Weak]" above. Maybe the guideline should be changed. I'm generally not a big fan of deferring to self-published material, and only expressed opposition based on the idea that we should follow our guidelines. — BarrelProof (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only example I notice there of not using WP:NATURAL disambiguation is Kashi (company). There is no explanation provided for why that one uses "(company)" rather than "LLC", but I suspect it might be because Kashi is a subsidiary and there is no separate article about the brand. I don't find any RM discussion about that subject that could provide further information about its choice of title. — BarrelProof (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The current title is long-winded and not beneficial to readers, while the guideline mentioned above seems to fall foul of general conventions regarding not using official naming. — Amakuru (talk) 20:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed unsourced claims about product lines
This lists of brands/products near the bottom of the articles were full of unsourced claims of non-notable things. We have neither articles on those things with sources, nor one or more sources cited in this article naming them as existing or formerly existing Mars products, so they don't belong in Wikipedia. Any random drive-by user could be adding things to those lists that either are not Mars products or which are joke edits about things that never existed at all. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 03:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forever Yours bar
Noticed this candy was missing from the article. It's not in the original list nor the discontinued list. This was my father's favorite candy bar which I remember from back in the 50s. Mars included it in their assorted 5 (6?) bar package. It was not produced for a time then brought back, first as Milky Way Dark and then as Milky Way Midnight. I believe they even had a version with nuts (yellow/orange wrapper??) back in the 70s. I suspect that is the possible reason it is absent, but that particular 'configuration' - dark chocolate, vanilla nougat and caramel - started life as Forever Yours as far as I remember. 69.57.43.32 (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]