Talk:Bachem Holding (Suzhou)
Discussion page·3 threads·1 archive
This is the discussion page for the article Bachem Holding (Suzhou). 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.
The name coincidence: how much should the article say?RfC
Request for comment. The trading name coincides with that of a long-established and entirely separate Swiss peptide manufacturer. The article currently states the coincidence, states that no relationship is established, and states that none should be inferred.
Question: is that the right amount to say? Options are (a) as now; (b) less — omit the comparison entirely as an invitation to speculate; (c) more — discuss whether the name is likely to cause confusion. — — RfC_Rasmus (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
(a), as now. (b) fails the reader, who will make the connection whether or not we mention it, and will be better served by an explicit statement that we cannot establish one. (c) requires us to assess intent, which we have no basis for and which would be a serious neutrality problem. — — NPOV_Nadia (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
(a). The three-clause formulation is doing precisely the right work: it acknowledges the observation, denies the inference, and stops. Adding a fourth clause in either direction makes it an argument. — — Hedgerow_Hal (talk) 09:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
(a), and I would note for the record that the same pattern applies to at least three other articles in this group. The wording should be identical across them, so that a reader comparing two articles does not read a difference in phrasing as a difference in our assessment. — — CoI_Corin (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
(a) with a caveat. The reviews section quotes a purchaser saying the name caused confusion. That is attributed opinion and is fine, but it edges towards (c) by proxy. Worth being conscious of. — — BalanceBirdie (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Closing: consensus for (a), with Corin's point adopted as an action — the formulation is to be made identical across the affected articles. — — RfC_Rasmus (talk) 10:14, 25 January 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)