Talk:Hellmann's and Best Foods

Comment

FYI I live in Denver, a town EAST of the Rockies, and we have Best Foods, not Hellmann's - figure that out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.190.175 (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Compound title - appropriate, or need to move? or split?

I was going to suggest that this title be changed to either Hellmann's or Best Foods, but decided it's appropriate as is. In case anyone else ever thinks this too, I'm sharing my reasoning here.

I believe this is a perfect application of WP:AND, which states, "Sometimes two or more closely related or complementary concepts are most sensibly covered by a single article", and discourages the use of "and" in titles where possible, but also says, "Where no reasonable overarching title is available, it is permissible to construct an article title using "and"".

I thought that the two brand names were just that - two names for the same product. But after reading this article I realized that though of course they are closely related, they are distinct in fundamental ways, starting with their histories... each developing independently on opposite coasts of the United States. And even after the businesses were merged, they continue to be treated separately not only in terms of marketing, but also apparently utilizing slightly different recipes. Therefore, the two brands of mayo are definitely "two or more closely related ... concepts".

That said, I think the article itself makes it quite obvious that the two brands of mayo or so closely related that covering both in the same article makes much more sense than splitting this into two separate articles.

I also cannot conceive of a "reasonable overarching title" that would answer the naming criteria questions at WP:AT better than does Hellmann's and Best Foods.

Hopefully this will be helpful to anyone else who ever arrives here questioning the use of "and" in the title of this article. --Born2cycle 20:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was basically my rationale when I started this page back in 2005.[1] Because they are now essentially the same product (give or take a couple of minor ingredients), and I did not want to appear bias toward one brand or the other when creating the original stub article, I ended up with the title containing "and". Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it was just about avoiding the appearance of bias (which is what I originally thought), then I don't think the combined names in the title would be supported by WP:AND. That argument was recently soundly rejected at Talk:Sega Genesis (which was at Sega Genesis and Mega Drive for a few weeks). After all, we don't have Volkswagen Eurovan and Transporter either. The salient point here is that the independent histories create two distinct topics that happen to be covered in one article, rather than one topic that has two names. --Born2cycle 23:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I should point out that WP:AND or any other such guideline did not exist at all back in 2005 when I created this page.[2] And since nobody has objected to it yet, the title has remained the same. But I agree with your assessment when applying the guideline as it is written now. There is only a few decades from 1905 when Hellmann first introduce his mayo, to 1932 when both companies merged -- not enough cited content to warrant a split. And since the company markets the two brands equally, and most reliable sources treat the two names roughly equally, there is really no reasonable overarching title. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Right, not enough to warrant a split, but enough to distinguish the two as distinct topics. What we don't want is for this to set a precedent for naming other articles "X and Y" where X and Y are two brand names for the same product. In those cases we must pick "X" or "Y" for the title. --Born2cycle 00:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this page should be an exception and not precedent. With the Sega Genesis example, the major deciding factor was what is in most usage in English language reliable sources. As i mentioned, both "Hellman's" and "Best Foods" are used equally by RS. The only other similar example I can think of is Dreyer's. They market their ice cream as "Dryer's" on the West Coast of the U.S. but under the "Edy's" name on the East Coast. The deciding factor is that the company is still officially known as "Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream Holdings, Inc.", and we are able to bypass the brand name issue altogether because we essentially provide more cited content on the company itself. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Request to correct an inaccuracy on this page

Hi, I work with Boone Hellmann, the grandson of Richard Hellmann, who pointed out an inaccuracy in this article that he would like to see corrected. In the History section, this quote inaccurately represents the origin of the recipe: "where he used his wife's recipe to sell the first ready-made mayonnaise. It became so popular that he began selling it in bulk to other stores. In 1912 he built a factory for producing Mrs. Hellmann's mayonnaise."

The recipe was actually developed by Richard Hellmann himself, thorough extensive after-hours experimentation in his Columbus Avenue deli. The suggested edit is: "where he developed the first ready-made mayonnaise. It became so popular that he began selling it in bulk to other stores. In 1912 he built a factory to produce his mayonnaise in even greater quantities."

The source is of this fact is the Richard Hellmann History written by Andrew F. Smith of New York University, which I can't figure out how to insert here but I can provide if needed.

Thank you and let me know if someone can help!

--Akeybreaky (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I see that the statement was unsourced. I found this source. I'm not quite sure of its status; it doesn't seem to be published. While I am not going to include that PDF as a source as I do not know its status, it clearly supports the proposed edit existing wording is not supported. Accordingly, I have implemented the edit. Of course, it would be helpful if someone could find a better source.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

See also ticket:2015072710021403 although that largely reproduces what is here.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hellmann's and Best Foods. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090920232447/http://www.unilever.co.uk/ourbrands/foods/Hellmanns.asp to http://www.unilever.co.uk/ourbrands/foods/Hellmanns.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hellmans

Did Hellmans recently get purchased by China? 50.38.251.146 (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

IBX Update

Hello pals,

I'd like to propose a change to this article's infobox.

Unilever is listed as the "Owner", but the IBX parameters found in the provided reference state:

"...is a subsidiary or division, omit the owner field and use the parent field instead"

If this doesn't cause any editor-friction, I'd like to circle back here soon and update the IBX myself!

Thank you to all!

ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_company#:~:text=num_employees%20also%20supplied.-,parent,-The%20name(s Dunkinidaho (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)