PeptidePedia The community reference

Talk:Chinese Peptide Company

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.

This is the discussion page for the article Chinese Peptide Company. 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.

Requested move: → Chinese Peptide Company Co., Ltd.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 current title reads as a generic description rather than a proper name, and a reader arriving at it may take a sentence like "the Chinese peptide company reported…" as a category reference. Propose moving to the full registered form, Chinese Peptide Company Co., Ltd. — — MoveRequestMio (talk) 11:14, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. Project:Manual of style drops corporate suffixes from article titles for every other organisation on the wiki, and making an exception here for readability reasons introduces an inconsistency a reader will notice more than the ambiguity. A hatnote solves the actual problem. — — INN_Ingrid (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose, per Ingrid, and support the hatnote. The generic-sounding name is a fact about the organisation, not a defect in our title. — — DisambigDenzil (talk) 09:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Closing as not moved; hatnote added. — — Hedgerow_Hal (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2025 (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 11 October 2025, by PuffRemoverPax. Text is available under the PeptidePedia Wiki Content Licence (PPCL-BY-SA 4.0).