Jump to content

Talk:Mars Inc.

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

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Proposed merge of Mars Nederland into Mars, Incorporated

[edit]

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

[edit]

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?

[edit]

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]

Requested move 3 December 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 00:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mars, Incorporated → Mars Inc. – WP:COMMONNAME (the "Inc." rendering is much more common than the longwinded "Incorporated" one [1]), WP:CONCISE, and WP:CONSISTENT (with most other articles that need this corporate designator for disambiguation reasons, e.g. Apple Inc., Adobe Inc., Time Inc., Canon Inc., Caterpillar Inc., Snap Inc., Panic Inc., etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:36, 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]
Why would that be preferred over the current title, considering WP:NATURAL? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NCCORP. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:45, 6 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]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removed unsourced claims about product lines

[edit]

This lists of brands/products near the bottom of the article 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

[edit]

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]

Requested move 31 December 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Dantus21 (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mars Inc. → Mars, Incorporated – This is a request to overturn the previous RM that was closed several weeks ago, per this discussion. WP:NCCORP explicitly states: 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. Likewise, whether or not to include a comma prior to the legal status should be governed by company usage. Contrary to popular belief, WP:COMMONNAME is not the only criterion we consider when deciding an article's name; WP:NATURAL states that when the most common name of a subject is ambiguous (emphasis added): Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title, is sometimes preferred. However, do not use obscure or made-up names.

By definition, natural disambiguation disregards the most common name, so in the case of proper names, we fall back to the official name. For titles of works, we use the subtitle even if it commonly omitted in sources; for companies, we use the official legal suffix. "Mars Inc.", however, is a made-up name using a made-up legal suffix (directly contravening NATURAL) masquerading as the company's official name. We can make things up if it's a common noun or descriptor, but we're now asserting that "Inc." (note the capitalization) is part of the company's name, which is false. There is no such company called "Mars Inc.", or "Mars, Inc.", or "Mars Incorporated". MOS:TM instructs us to modify trademarks that are stylized in a way that breaches our MoS; corporate legal suffixes do not, and none of our PAGs give editors free rein to arbitrarily modify a trademarked name without reason. WP:CONCISE discusses truncating excessively long names, not altering punctuation and inventing abbreviations. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose move. It's been less than a month, so this feels more like a WP:Move review situation than a proper RM. O.N.R. (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There was clear consensus in the previous RM to move the page, so an MR is not appropriate. However, consensus can change, and it is not all that uncommon for follow-up RMs to alter the outcome of a previous RM. There is also no restriction on how much time must have passed after an RM before another one may be opened. RMs that simply rehash old arguments are clearly unproductive, but this RM is anything but. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SNOW close If we had new discussions every time somebody objected to the outcome of the previous discussion that occurred just a few weeks or months ago that they didn't happen to participate in, we'd never stop discussing the same moves over and over; or else we'd never close a discussion for fear that somebody might come along with a point to make weeks or months later that completely changed the current apparent consensus. Largoplazo (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure how SNOW could apply when this RM has only just begun; perhaps you meant "procedural close"? In any case, consensus can change, and this RM is not merely a repeat of the previous one; in fact, I've laid out pretty clearly why the previous RM came to the wrong conclusion. Is there a part of my proposal that you specifically disagree with? InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously meant "speedy close". People sometimes get their jargon mixed up.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow close the discussion over at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(companies)#Use_of_comma_and_abbreviation_of_Incorporated does not support this move—blindlynx 23:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What does this have to do with you disagreeing with this RM? InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That discussion supports the previous move's close, re-litigating it for a third time is counter productive—blindlynx 15:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For all the reasons why this was moved in the first place. I wish I'd seen that Disney move when it was open, because WP:AT clearly tells us not to use official names but rather to defer to the common name on sources, both in that case and this one.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. All of the rationales (especially WP:COMMONNAME [2]) in the original move are correct. The supposed (and very disused) guideline at WP:NCCORP directly conflicts with more-used, more-cited, more-watchlisted, more-carefully-edited other guidelines and policy (i.e., material with a vastly higher WP:CONLEVEL), and the provision in question at NCCORP is under ongoing dispute. The nominator's premise is faulty for other reasons. E.g., there is nothing "unnatural" about "Mars Inc.", since it is provably the most common name, i.e. the most natural way to refer to the company in writing. There is absolutely nothing "obscure or made-up" about the most common name in independent reliable sources, by definition. "Natural disambiguation disregards the most common name, so in the case of proper names, we fall back to the official name" is thrice fallacious. Natural disambiguation usually is the actual common name, just not the most concise possible form of it (e.g. "English" is the most common short-form name of our language, and "English language" is the naturally disambiguated longer form, the most common in occurrences where it has to be distinguished from other meanings of "English" such as in reference to the people of England, the history of England, etc.). Second, "Mars Inc." is literally the most common name anyway, not a natural disambiguation, since it is hardly ever referred to simply as "Mars", except in ususual, insider contexts (and use of it provably outstrips "Mars Incorporated"). The nom has completely confused the WP concept of disambiguation between article titles, and natural-language handling of ambiguity. Third, we do not fall back on official naming as some kind of default; see WP:OFFICIALNAME and MOS:TM. We use the most common name, or a disambiguation of it. (E.g. under no circumstance would WP move Rhode Island to its official but disused long name "State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations"; if it were necessary to disambiguate, as it is with Georgia (U.S. state), we would use that same pattern, or conceivably (very unlikely) something else such as "State of Rhode Island", but never go with the long name simply because it's "official". This is just one example of why the NCCORP language, which virtually no one ever cites or even knows about (i.e. it is not serving the function of a guideline), is being refuted and is likely to be removed or very substantially changed. Blindlynx is correct that the nom's "per this discussion" makes no sense when the discussion indicates a lack of agreement with the nom's preference here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fact #1: "Mars" is the most common and concise name of the company. The claim that it is hardly ever referred to simply as "Mars", except in ususual, insider contexts is false; I just typed mars m&m's and mars snickers into Google News and found plenty of sources that use just "Mars", including [3] [4] [5] [6] [7].
    Fact #2: Because the primary topic of "Mars" is the planet, the company must be disambiguated.
    Fact #3: Natural disambiguation is preferred over parenthetical disambiguation. Since this is a trademark, the full name of the company is a suitable method of natural disambiguation.
    Fact #4: The legal suffix of the company is , Incorporated, not Inc. or , Inc. or Incorporated. WP:NATURAL says not to use "made-up names", as in "fully manufactured" or "fancifully conceived or falsely devised".
    So how is it logical to use Mars Inc.? Even if some sources use it, it is still an incorrect name, i.e. made-up. COMMONNAME doesn't override other naming conventions, nor did I suggest that article titles use official names by default. And consider the intent of COMMONNAME: to ensure readers can easily recognize and locate the topic they are looking for. Do you really think a comma and the expanded form of a word is such a large obstacle that would prevent readers from searching or recognizing the company that we should use an incorrect name instead?
    The Rhode Island example is misleading. If there is need of disambiguation, "State of Rhode Island" would normally be considered our top option, but stay with me. Only three U.S. states are currently disambiguated: Georgia (U.S. state), New York (state), and Washington (state). State of Georgia was rejected as a possible name because it causes confusion with the country (state) of Georgia. New York state and Washington state were also rejected because no one writes "Buffalo, New York state" or "Seattle, Washington state". So there is clearly special consensus for a special exemption of NATURAL for U.S. states.
    InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being able to find instances of the company being referred to simply as "Mars" is not dispositive in any way as to what the most common formulation is. In going over such material myself, I find that in most cases without a corporate designator, "Mars" is part of a larger corporate division name (Mars China, Mars Wrigley, Mars Snacking, etc.), so is not naturally ambiguous in the context, and in most of the rest it's immediately juxtaposed with either a product name or with "[-]brand" or with wording that indicates it is a company/corporation, i.e. again not naturally ambiguous in the material in which it is found. It's quite uncommon for any such publications to just use "Mars" without one disambiguation technique or another: either one of those just mentioned, or by including "Inc." or (rarely) "Incorporated". Ultimately, I don't really care whether this were moved to "Mars (company)" as a disambiguator instead, but "Mars Incorporated" (with or without a comma) fails both COMMONNAME and CONCISE. Your third point above is not a Wikipedia principle. There is no reason to use the full name of the company, when of all the ways to refer to the company it is the least common in reliable sources, and policy tells us not to use uncommon or unnecessarily long-winded names. Someone else already addressed your 4th claim, below, so I don't need to do it again.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NATURAL links "made-up names" to WP:NEO, specifically about neologisms. "Mars, Inc." is no neologism. Its occurrence in Google's corpus of books in English has surpassed that of "Mars, Incorporated" since the mid-1940s. Here's an example of Mars itself using it in an advertisement in Life magazine in 1963: [8]. It was natural to the company itself 60 years ago. It isn't made up. Your "Fact #4" is no fact. Largoplazo (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's an example of Mars itself using it in an advertisement in Life magazine in 1963 – With a comma. Again, if you are arguing that abbreviating "Incorporated" as "Inc." isn't incorrect, then that would support using "Mars, Inc." It doesn't make sense to take out the comma to create a made-up name. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no problem with moving it to Mars, Inc. I'm addressing the move that you've requested here and your arguments for that. Largoplazo (talk) 10:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that RS overwhelmingly use "Mars Inc." is really all there is to this discussion. WP:OFFICIALNAME arguments do not hold sway here. Trawling around in search results, "Mars Inc." is consistently found in major news sources, and "Mars, Inc." barely occurs in any RS at all (it's mostly found in social media posts and other low-end material, like anti-corporate activism websites), and neither "Mars, Incorporated" nor "Mars Incorporated" are frequently in RS, either. Just repeating "made-up name" over and over again after it's been refuted is not going to magically make anyone change their minds, just get irritated with you playing WP:IDHT games. The dominant name in the source material is not a "made-up name" by definition. And your entire premise that any of these are "different names" rather than different stylistic approaches to the same name, is extremely dubious to begin with.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<sigh> At Google Ngrams, in Google's corpus of books in English, "Mars Inc." > "Mars Incorporated". https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Mars+Inc.%2CMars+Incorporated&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Largoplazo (talk • contribs) 02:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mars_Inc.&oldid=1255331941"