![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() Archives ( Index) |
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
![]() | On 3 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Mars, Incorporated to Mars Inc.. The result of the discussion was moved. |
No need for this split gidonb ( talk) 00:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
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)
When did Mars complete its acquistion of Banfield Pet Hospital, if ever? Acwilson9 ( talk) 05:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Elli ( talk | contribs) 00:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. ( non-admin closure) Dantus21 ( talk) 03:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
hardly ever referred to simply as "Mars", except in ususual, insider contextsis 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]., 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".
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?
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)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() Archives ( Index) |
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
![]() | On 3 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Mars, Incorporated to Mars Inc.. The result of the discussion was moved. |
No need for this split gidonb ( talk) 00:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
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)
When did Mars complete its acquistion of Banfield Pet Hospital, if ever? Acwilson9 ( talk) 05:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Elli ( talk | contribs) 00:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. ( non-admin closure) Dantus21 ( talk) 03:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
hardly ever referred to simply as "Mars", except in ususual, insider contextsis 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]., 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".
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?
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)