Talk:Qingdao Sigma Chemical / Archive 1

The 2017 founding year here rests on the organisation's own description, not on a registry record. Every other article in this group has a registry-verified year. The article should make the difference visible rather than presenting both kinds of date in the same voice. — SourceHunterSile (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Strongly agree. "Available sources describe the organisation as having begun operations in 2017" and "was incorporated in 2017" are different claims, and an encyclopedia that renders them identically is doing its reader a disservice. — NotabilityNoa (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Support, and the infobox row should carry the same distinction — "reported 2017" rather than "2017". — Hedgerow_Hal (talk) 09:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Both the body sentence and the infobox row now carry the distinction. ✓ Resolved — SourceHunterSile (talk) 08:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

This article reported its tally count with a superlative attached. The count is a fact about our own tally; the superlative turns it into a ranking, and Project:Sourcing guidelines says plainly that the tally is not one. — BalanceBirdie (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

The figure has to be reported — suppressing it would be the worse distortion. It is the superlative that does the damage and it can go without losing the number. — TallySheetTad (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Remove the superlative, keep the number, keep the self-selection caveat adjacent to it, and say in the same sentence that a count reflects how many purchasers chose to submit. A reader who wants a comparison can make one; we should not make it for them in a sentence that reads as a verdict. — NPOV_Nadia (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Done here, and symmetrically on the two articles that carried the opposite superlative. ✓ Resolved — PuffRemoverPax (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)