SkipCaptcha
205
edits
Changes
Talk:Conservative companies (view source)
Revision as of 21:13, March 1, 2021
, 21:13, March 1, 2021→Adding an explanation to each listing: parent-subsidiaries look fine
:::::By the way, another outstanding issue is subsidiaries. In some cases, I listed each brand name, but when there is a parent company of a dozen brands, doing this will bloat the list. For example, consider "Flowers Foods." They have a bunch of brand names, but breaking it out will make the list messy. Leaving it as it is, though, hides recognizable brand names. Few people know what "flower foods" even is. Any thoughts? --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 23:52, 28 February 2021 (EST)
:::::By the way, another outstanding issue is subsidiaries. In some cases, I listed each brand name, but when there is a parent company of a dozen brands, doing this will bloat the list. For example, consider "Flowers Foods." They have a bunch of brand names, but breaking it out will make the list messy. Leaving it as it is, though, hides recognizable brand names. Few people know what "flower foods" even is. Any thoughts? --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 23:52, 28 February 2021 (EST)
::::::I think the current treatment of parent company and its subsidiaries is good. Sure, one can't easily find a brand by looking alphabetically, but for a long list it's easier to use ^f anyways. I'll circle back (:P) to the list expansion idea later (mainly to make the list more helpful while avoiding splitting). --[[User:Luminoxius|Luminoxius]] ([[User talk:Luminoxius|talk]]) 16:13, 1 March 2021 (EST)