Talk:Mondelez International

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

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

From where comes the "latvian" "ē"?[edit]

The name of the company is often styled "Mondelēz". The "e" with something above is a letter unique for the Latvian language. As far as I know it has no real function in this name. It is only seen in the logotype and should not be there in "normal" script. The company has no Latvian connection and even in that country it is written without it in normal text. Can anyone explain where it comes from? I have not found any information about that. --Andhanq (talk) 10:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most people would recognize that horizontal bar as a phonetic symbol indicating to prounounce the vowel in its "long" form. I believe that the intent here is to suggest that Mondelez products are "deleecious"). The technical name for the symbol is the macron. Fabrickator (talk) 07:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to note that the e with a macron (the bar) on top of it isn't unique to the Latvian language; it's also used in a number of Polynesian languages. Also, according to wiktionary, it usually refers to an elongated e sound the way talk describes. I think we can more or less be certain that there is no connection between the e and Latvian. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed there’s no connection with Latvian, see this article from Bloomberg that explains why there’s a macron. Thibaut (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of uncited text[edit]

I have a removed an uncited and unverifiable claim about a merger from this article, Keurig Dr Pepper, Jacobs Douwe Egberts, and Peet's Coffee. Another similar edit by the same user on Kraft Heinz has already been reverted for the same reason. Feel free to restore if you can find a reputable source. DDFoster96 (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update Outdated Logo and Office Image[edit]

Kevdev1 (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevdev1: Yes you may update the logo. For the exterior shot, I do not think you should change a publicly-licensed image with an image from their website. If the compnay owns the image, they may choose to give permission for Wikipedia to have the image by sending an email to the Commons:Volunteer Response Team. Z1720 (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History section has an 80 year gap.[edit]

Reading the history section, I was up to the year 1930, when National Dairy retained their name. I thought the next thing I was going to read would be information about the name change to Kraft. Instead, it goes directly into the year 2009, almost 80 years later. I understand that the details I was expecting are probably in the article on Kraft. However, I feel that there should be a brief, selected history here as well, that at least touches on the relevant chronological developments. Worldbook1967 (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where to put the "traffic incident"?[edit]

The traffic accident mentioned in the article under "Business with Russia" was introduced in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mondelez_International&diff=1092562438&oldid=1091529881 is irrelevant to the subsection. Mako001 reverted an edit subsectioning this as "Other controversies" citing [sic]"Hardly a controversy". The author of the edit previously named the section "Other criticism", so maybe we use that? 27.75.91.230 (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial on TV[edit]

You are showing a TV Commercial which is not true. Santa is not a black guy! Redo the TV Commercial with the true story, Santa is a white guy 216.189.165.66 (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Disregard this post - I see a similar previous post was answered some time ago.

Kevdev1 (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Controversies" section[edit]

@Kind Tennis Fan: Why is this section's neutrality being disputed? Jarble (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarble: While WP:CRIT states that controversies sections should generally be avoided, Template:Criticism section/doc states

the tag should only be used if there is a real concern that the criticism section and its contents are causing trouble with the article's neutrality.

It further states that the template can be removed if there's no discussion of it on the talk page. Accordingly, I have removed it. Fabrickator (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mondelez_International&oldid=1211895224"