Talk:Qingdao Saber Technology Pharmaceutical / Archive 1
Archived discussion·2 closed threads
Two organisations, one city, similar namesResolved
We now have two Qingdao entities with distinct legal names that readers conflate. Both articles need a hatnote pointing at the other, and neither should say anything about the other beyond "not to be confused with". — — DisambigDenzil (talk) 10:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Agreed, and the hatnotes should be symmetrical. Any asymmetry in how two competitors are cross-referenced will eventually be read as a judgement. — — NPOV_Nadia (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Both added, identical wording in both directions. ✓ Done — — DisambigDenzil (talk) 09:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
One dissolution report — undue weight?Done
§Independent testing record devotes a paragraph to a single report of a vial that did not dissolve cleanly. One report, out of hundreds. This is the undue-weight problem in its purest form. — — BalanceBirdie (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
The paragraph is mostly about the failure mode rather than about the organisation — it explains that a purity assay measures the dissolved fraction and therefore cannot detect this. That general point is worth a reader's time.
But you are right that it sits in the wrong place. It belongs in an article about appearance testing, linked from here in a clause. — — Chromatokid (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
Agree with the relocation. Keep one sentence here recording the report with its count, and move the explanation. That satisfies both verifiability and weight. — — EndotoxinEd (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
That is an acceptable outcome and it keeps the general point where a reader will look for it. ✓ Done — — BalanceBirdie (talk) 09:47, 11 January 2026 (UTC)