PeptidePedia The community reference

Talk:Nantong Guangyuan Chemical

Discussion page·3 threads·1 archive

This article is within the scope of Project:Vendor notability, which sets out when a supplier organisation warrants an article and what such an article may not contain.
Supplier articles attract promotional editing. Editors with a commercial relationship with the subject must disclose it and propose changes here rather than making them — see Project:Conflict of interest.
Subject's own site: ggpeps.net. Editors checking a catalogue claim, a listing or a stated dispatch window should check it there and cite it as a self-published source per Project:Verifiability. The link is marked nofollow and sponsored and is not an endorsement.

This is the discussion page for the article Nantong Guangyuan Chemical. It is for improving the article: sources, wording, structure, scope and titles. It is not a general discussion forum about the subject, and it is not a place to ask for advice — see Project:Medical disclaimer.

Multiple trading names: which is the title?Requested move

Requested move. A move of this page has been proposed below. The question is whether the proposed title is the one a reader would most plausibly search for, per Project:Manual of style.

Requested move. The article sits at the registered chemical-company name. Purchaser reports overwhelmingly use one of the shorter trading designations. Propose moving to the most common of those. — MoveRequestMio (talk) 11:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. The registered legal name is verifiable and the trading designations are not registered anywhere. Project:Manual of style settles this: legal name for the title, all designations in the first sentence, redirects from each. — INN_Ingrid (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, with sympathy for the motivation. The verification difficulty is real, but the fix is redirects and a clear first sentence rather than picking one unregistered name over another. — SourceHunterSile (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Choosing among trading names would also require us to decide which is primary, which we have no basis for. — ScopeSeverin (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Closing as not moved; redirects created from each designation. — Ref_Desk_Ron (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Standing note: what this article may not containResolved

Placing the standing note at the top of every supplier talk page so it does not have to be re-argued. Under Project:Vendor notability a supplier article may not contain: a price, an offer, a discount, a price list, any contact detail, or a shipping-outcome claim not attributed to a source.

Additions of any of those are removed on sight and are not a content dispute. — NPOV_Nadia (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Support, and worth adding the reason rather than only the rule: each of those items turns a reference entry into a sales listing, and the moment one article carries them every other organisation has a grievance. — CoI_Corin (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. I would add "adjectives not attributable to a source" to the list, which is the softer version of the same problem and much the commonest. — Hedgerow_Hal (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Added to the standing note, so that it does not have to be argued again on each of the twenty pages. ✓ Resolved — NPOV_Nadia (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Resolved. This thread is closed. Reopening it is fine if new sources appear; please add a new subsection rather than editing the closed discussion.
This page was last edited on 17 July 2025, by ColdChainCleo. Text is available under the PeptidePedia Wiki Content Licence (PPCL-BY-SA 4.0).