Talk:Kellogg's

Archives (Index)

2012 2013 2015 2016 2017 2019 2020 2021

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Royal Warrant

The article says "Kellogg's holds a Royal Warrant from King Charles III and formerly Queen Elizabeth II until her death in 2022." However the citation, which links to the Royal Warrant Holders Association, only lists the warrant for HM The Queen, and warrants become void when the grantor (the Queen) dies.

I can't find a source for Kellogg's having a new warrant from Charles III. I'll remove it from the article, unless anyone knows of a source that says otherwise. DDFoster96 (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

yes, Kellogg only has royal warrent from the former queen, and could lose it (according to some sources, very likely) when it faces renewal after 5 years. i think we can remove this sentence now Weizhiii (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The warrant from the Queen expired on her death. Charles has not yet granted any new ones as king. I have changed it to show that they formerly held a warrant from the Queen. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Now two companies

Now that Kellogg's has been split into two companies, WK Kellogg Co. (KLG) as the breakfast cereal company and Kellanova (K) for Kellogg's other operations, we need to do a split for the two now different food companies. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Here is the link to the page for WK Kellogg Co. I invite you and other editors to add information about the company. Stockst (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

We should take most of the cereal company history and move it to the WK Kellogg Co article. The resulting Kellanova article can begin with the introduction of the first non-cereal food, Pop-Tarts. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 9 October 2023

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. While the numbers are not very clear-cut (looks like 3-2, against), the support column failed to provide any policy base for the move against the common name arguments of the oppose column. (closed by non-admin page mover) estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Kellogg's → Kellanova – current company name. Also, Kellanova is considered to be the legal name succesor to the original Kellogg's. VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose move? No evidence of a post-split common name has been shown. O.N.R. ^(talk) 02:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  Do you believe the article is about the Kellogg's brand, or the company Kellanova? Stockst (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Was the split really necessary? 162 etc. (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, because Kellogg’s needed to "unleash their potential" so that was why these two companies were created one for global snacks, international cereal and plant frozen food and another for North American cereal. VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, it was "really" necessary. It wasn't a "split". It was the creation of an article for a newly formed company, WK Kellogg Co. And that company meets the general notability guideline. Stockst (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  I was referring to the split of the Wikipedia article, not the split of the Kellogg Company. 162 etc. (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, I’m sorry for that. VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's the brand that's notable, and that's still Kellogg's, both in North America and outside it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Do you believe that Kellanova meets the general notability guideline? Stockst (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support The Kellogg's brand is still being used by both companies-- WK Kellogg Co the breakfast cereal company and Kellanova for Kellogg's other products (which include cereals outside North America). Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Precisely why it shouldn't be moved! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support Taking a step back, it is important to ask the question - on Friday September 29 (the business day before the WK Kellogg spinoff) - what was the Kellogg's article about? There are two possible answers. (1) The company as a whole (one aspect of which is the Kellogg's brand) or (2) The brand only. If an editor believes that the article is about the brand only, then it makes sense to keep the article as Kellogg's.

However if an editor believes that the article is about the company, then the logical conclusion is that the name needs to be changed to Kellanova, which is clearly the common name for the company. https://www.google.com/search?q=kellanova Under this scenario, it would be possible to have an article for both Kellanova, as well as an article for Kellogg's. In this situation, the Kellogg's article could focus solely on the brand.

I am of the view that the Kellogg's article is about the company (and the brand is just one aspect of the company), and therefore it should be changed to its correct and common name Kellanova. Stockst (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• The Kellogg's article should become a dab page directing readers to either the WK Kellogg Co article for the North American breakfast cereal company or Kellanova for the rest of the former Kellogg Company. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  Have y’all thought of making a huge history page just for Kellogg’s? I mean, there’s a whole page about the Acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney, so making a full history page for Kellogg’s doesn’t sound terrible. KAISEAN W. (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  But then, 21st Century Fox was split up with Disney keeping the entertainment operations which is now 20th Century Studios with the media holdings spun off into Fox Corporation with the Murdochs running it. Again, both WK Kellogg Co and Kellanova are sharing the Kellogg's brand which is why Kellogg's should be a dab page directing readers to the correct article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  This Entire spin-off idea was terrible in the first place. I can’t believe they thought this was a good idea. If Selling cereal in North America was such a growth problem, why didn’t they just sell the North American Rights to a rival company like General Mills or something?? W.K. Kellogg’s Co. is gonna die. Sad that it’s gonna die with the founder’s name. 320th Century (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Apparently, the subject "Kellanova" is a subtopic of the formerly-existing parent topic "Kellogg's". The better option here would probably be to require this article to focus on the "Kellogg's was a..." situation/subject instead of renaming this article, and then create Kellanova as a separate article. Steel1943 (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
• Sure. 320th Century (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
  • "How would a Kellanova article be structured? I think it should start with Kellogg's introduction of its first non-cereal product, Pop-Tarts toaster pastries. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

    Makes sense. 320th Century (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

Time to make this page Kellanova

The company is "Kellanova"and it has many brands, https://www.kellanova.com/us/en/home.html The brand "Kellogg's" is shared by other companies and should not be the primary page to represent a $19 billion company. Sedimentary (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

This was discussed last year, and the consensus was to not move the article. 162 etc. (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Consensus can change, however, especially with some time to examine the situation, and due consideration as to the scope of the articles. In this case, the article about the company now named Kellanova does not bear the company's current common name. That's less than ideal. Definitely needs to be discussed with the mind that the current setup needs to change. The status quo doesn't sufficiently describe the situation. Personally, I like the solution of making Kellogg's a dab page since both Kellanova and WK Kellogg Co. have rights to be name. oknazevad (talk) 08:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia entry there should be mention of along the lines of "pending approval of anti-trust regulators (DOJ and or FTC)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.93.49 (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

So somehow Mars is looking to buy Kellanova....

Here's the Reuters article https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/kellanova-m-a-mars-kellanova-m-a-mars-2024-08-04/ 24.152.144.132 (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)