Talk:Best & Co.

Copy/Paste from Best & Co.'s website

The history portion of this article seems to be copied and pasted directly from the history section of the Best & Co.'s official website. See: http://www.bestandcompany.com/customercare.cfm?siteid=14&uuid=0&t=13#beshis The article makes reference to specific articles of clothing, which it refers to as "our." --Toiletsewere (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated companies sharing an article

By all means, can anyone explain to me why two companies that aren't related to each other should share the same article? I sincerely, genuinely, do not understand this. I've so far been unable to locate a policy or guideline that explicitly states that an article should not be about multiple topics that have nothing to do with one another, but it seems thoroughly self-evident to me. If an example is necessary, look at Circuit City, or virtually any other term that's been disambiguated because it has multiple meanings with the same name. You don't just shove it into some other article about something else. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article is at least as much about the brand rather than the corporate shell that owns it. Take a look at the Ipana article; that's the way we treat these things. When a car manufacturer revives a model name, we don't create new article for each iteration of it -- especially when the newest variation is of at best dubious independent notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. I can tell you that now that an actual argument has been presented--that the article is about a brand, not about a company--I can see the point, although if we were to agree on that, the article should be revised to make that more clear. However, from the information in this article (and that I removed), I still don't see any indication that the 1990s company was ever intended to be a revival or reconnection with the older brand, as with Ipana. The way that I read it is more like if someone were to write a new book called War and Peace, and as a result the article War and Peace were divided into two sections, one about the Tolstoy novel and one about this entirely different work, which would be silly because we can just give them separate articles. If there were information here about the owner of the new company having bought the trademark from the old company and seeking to present the new company as a continuation of the old -- thus continuing the older brand and not just using the same name -- I could feel differently (although, then again, I think that's pretty much what happened with Circuit City, and yet we have two separate articles for the old company and the new one). Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]