Talk:Mondelez International/Archives/2020

History and Kraft Foods Inc. article
I notice the History section of this article and the History section of Kraft Foods Inc. are almost identical. (Maybe they are identical, or at least they were until the edits I made just before posting this comment.) This seems like a potential problem. It's unnecessary, for one thing; for another, any edits will have to be made on both pages or else they will fall out of sync. It does not make sense for them to fall out of sync, though, because the history of Mondelez before 2012 literally is the history of Kraft Foods Inc. The history of that company, through all its mergers, acquisitions, and divestitures, is complicated enough as it is.

I understand that Mondelez is the legal successor to Kraft Foods Inc., but essentially the old Kraft Foods Inc. split in two, and the other half/legal spin-off kept the Kraft Foods name. I note that the article for the spin-off Kraft Foods does not include any history before the announcement of the spin-off.

I propose that this article's History section follow the pattern of the spin-off Kraft Foods and exclude everything before the announcement of the spin-off in 2011. That text would be replaced with a link to the predecessor company's History section, with something like "For the history of Mondelez before 2011, see..." (The spin-off company's article has a similar note, though it's at the top of the page, probably because of the shared name. A similar notice could be added to the History section of that article, as well.) Ideally, an editor would compare the text of the History section here with the History section of Kraft Foods Inc. and incorporate any improvements from this page that did not make it to the other page, and then delete that section here.

Thoughts? --EightYearBreak (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

(Follow-up: I have belatedly realized this discussion could potentially benefit from adding split/merge templates to both articles' History sections, which I have just done. --EightYearBreak (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC))


 * I went ahead and reduced the history section to just enough for some context. I also moved some of the controversies and recalls that applied to Kraft to the Kraft article. I think there might even be an argument to be made for merging the two articles, but I think this new format is good. – Brandon XLF  (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As a sidenote I basically just reverted these two edits in 2012 and 2013 ( and ) which just copied content from Kraft Foods Inc.. – Brandon XLF  (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I like it! This dropped off my radar for awhile, so I’m glad you picked it up. I think the way you’ve reorganized things makes a lot of sense. --EightYearBreak (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Nabisco brand
I recently bought a box of “Wheat Thins” crackers. Its label includes the Nabisco brand name and graphic logo. The box also is marked “Mindelēz International” and “MONDELEZ GLOBEL LLC, EAST HANOVER, NJ”. Nabisco (from National Biscuit Company) has long been a major brand name. Yet this Wikipedia article doesn’t mention it. I would have added it as an edit but could not figure out where that information should go.

I also noted that a table on the side of the article lists “Lotte” as the successor owner. I don’t think that is correct, although Lotte might own some Nabisco brand names in some parts of the world.Barry20147 (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Barry 20147


 * The reference to Lotte was added in . You should keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and notwithstanding claims that vandalism is commonly corrected within a brief period of time (perhaps a few hours?), the dirty secret is that  there are countless WP articles with erroneous content.  Perhaps it is best to treat such erroneous content in WP like an online version of geocaching!  (Notably, in geocaching, when you find a "cached" object, you don't reveal its location.)
 * Seriously, you can fix such things like this using your own discretion, but arguably, encouraging casual users to just fix things on their own would more than likely exacerbate the problem, because some significant fraction of users would make such changes simply based on their personal knowledge, i.e. giving people greater permission to fix things which they think are wrong would be likely to introduce more errors than it would remove.
 * Now as for the Nabisco problem, you can wag your finger at Mondelez, which presumably provides a list of its brands on the Mondelez brands page. However, many (most?) of the Nabisco brands will be missing. I will speculate on the "problems" that result in Mondelez's decision to only include certain brands on the "Mondelez brands page":
 * 1. As you point out, it's possible that Mondelez does not have worldwide ownership of some brands
 * 2. The number of Mondelez brands is "too many" to list on a single page, and only a fraction of the brands are available in any specific market.
 * 3. "Nabisco" is more of a "brand family" than a brand. (Note that on the main brands page, you will find Wheat Thins, but you won't find Nabisco.)
 * Mondelez does have region-specific brand pages, e.g. https://au.mondelezinternational.com/brand-family and https://us.mondelezinternational.com/brand-family. It does not seem that Mondelez has a "consolidated" page of Mondelez brands. Fabrickator Fabrickator (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC) updated: Fabrickator (talk) 07:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

list of Mondelez brands
A couple of recent edits have added to what was originally a "global" brand list from the Mondelez web site, but the web site actually has brand lists for around 20 regions. Can we do something better than this ad hoc approach of adding brands as editors "discover" omitted brands? This will eventually become unwieldy as there are probably over a hundred brands. It may also be of interest to track any "retired" brands as well, though this probably wouldn't be available from the Mondelez site. Suggestions? Fabrickator (talk) 07:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)