Jump to content

Talk:Garrett Motion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Request Edit

[edit]

{{request edit}} I have a financial COI with Honeywell and am making a sandbox effort to improve the article following COI best practices.

I'd like to request a review of my proposed draft here and a move into article space if deemed appropriate. I'm also interested in any feedback on how to improve the article, above and beyond merely meeting policy and guideline requirements. Corporate 20:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Copy'n'pasted it across with minor edits. Woz2 (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honeywell Transportation Systems vs. Honeywell Turbo Technologies

[edit]

If one goes to the Honeywell International, Inc., website, it apparent that what's identified as Honeywell Turbo Technologies (Honeywell TT) is actually just the main function or product line of a company division called "Honeywell Transportation Systems". Yes, there's a specific webpage for Turbo Technologies, but it's not obvious that this is an administrative division as opposed to a product line (turbochargers). Furthermore, if one goes to the main Honeywell Wikipedia page, there's nothing there on the major divisions of the company, and if one goes to the Honeywell corporate webpage, one doesn't readily find Turbo Technologies from that page (only if one uses the search window can one get a link). It's likely that a large conglomerate such as Honeywell is constantly undergoing some reorganization (and some of its technology spills across major functional areas of activity). But right now we don't have a good picture of how the company is organized -- either in WP or the company's website.~Mack2~ 02:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

If I had a better sense of what's going on, I might propose a merger of this page with the main Honeywell page. I'm not sure a product line deserves a separate WP page in this case (though it wouldn't be unprecedented--e.g., see Kleenex as product of Kimberly Clark). And there's a fair bit of repetition between the two pages. But if TT is mainly a product line, then it should be identified as such in the article here. (I know a bit about this company and its origins because my father worked as an engineer for Garrett AiResearch for 30 years beginning in the early 1950's; he was engaged in the formation of AiResearch Industrial Division (as well as defense and aerospace projects), which was the forerunner of the current Honeywell turbocharger/transportation systems focus. But I don't know enough about current Honeywell organization or operations to sort out the question I raised in the preceding paragraph.)~Mack2~

Hi Mack. Honeywell acquired Garrett, which became the consumer product brand of the Honeywell Turbo business unit. Garrett is the product line, but it's also the name of the legacy company. Honeywell Turbo is the BU and Transportation Systems is more like a "category" (as I understand it). I haven't been involved in other Honeywell pages, but I am somewhat aware of the issues on some other pages - just haven't done anything with it yet. Corporate 17:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biased promotional contents??

[edit]
There is rough consensus, that the article has promotional issues, however there is no consensus on how to solve it. Armbrust The Homonculus 09:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the encyclopedic entry, I don't think there's legitimate need to have a list that selectively show cases the company in a positive light by listing out a fair number of vehicles that performed well in races on mere fact they happened to use Garrett Honeywell components. I think it adds excessive promotional bias while adding very little encyclopedic values. In my opinion, there's excess contents about company's positive high lights and product details that should stay in company's own page or materials for prospective shareholders to read. Please comment Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think he wants feedback on the turbo racing section and whether it should be there. It is a reasonable question from my perspective. I think for many of them better sources do exist, but it is similar to how CSR, awards and other areas fall into a grey area that many COIs find themselves in. I think ideally it would be a paragraph-form summary with better sources, instead of a grid, but neither would I delete it merely because it is not ideal. Of course, I have a COI, so I would readily delete it myself Noun if you felt it doesn't belong. Corporate 17:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One comment though, we don't put citations in the lead, because the lead is only suppose to summarize the article. We shouldn't really put citation needed tags so long as the content is supported by a citation later in the page. Corporate 17:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why select only winning cars that happens to have Honeywell turbo? Why not cars that crashed and burned that happened to have Honeywell turbo? Former is positive bias, latter is negative bias. An impartial example would be a few randomly chosen cars, not a long list of winning cars. This is something you would find on Honeywell's press release, because it makes them look good, which is inappropriate for Wikipedia Cantaloupe2 (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too promotional The article as it stands is too promotional and needs toning down. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too promotional The section should be removed. The whole article also needs to be edited for more neutral wording. LK (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - RFCBot invited me here as a random participant. I'm reluctant to stick my oar in since this RFC is not well constructed. The questioner's opinions need to be stated apart from a neutral statement of the question and the question needs to be explicit, not couched in an opinion statement. Please review guidelines for WP:RFC. Thanks. Jojalozzo 20:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Passenger vehicle section source

[edit]

Turboforums.com reference. Clearly unacceptable. Obvious original research from some dudes from websites.

"This document was compiled by Spencer Brown. Half of it was written by Spencer Brown and the rest of it contains data from: Garrett, turbodriven.com, and Grapeaperacing.com"

EcoBoost®

[edit]

Though Honeywell may supply Ford, the name is Ford's trademark and does not refer to specific technology by Honeywell. I believe this trimmed section should go to Ford's page, if someone wants to put it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantaloupe2 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 12 October 2012

Meh, I did a quick Google search and it looks like some sources refer to them as EcoBoost turbochargers from HW, while others say HW turbochargers for Toyota's Ecoboost engine. If you have confirmed it is trademarked by Toyota, this article should probably just have a sentence saying HW supplies them. Corporate 01:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the usage is concerned in United States in connection with automotive forced induction, please refer to US Trademark SN 77307633 Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The link doesn't work, but I believe you. I think I somewhat remember being confused about it myself, but didn't look closely enough into it. Corporate 02:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can just search by serial number at [www.uspto.gov USPTO] Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Something else worth looking into if you care to. I noticed it has quite a few citations to Honeywell.com sites. This isn't necessarily a problem - they had some pages that had timelines, histories, dates, etc. that are useful for basic information, however HW did a re-work on their website and I updated the references with just whatever URL I could find that looked like it was intended to be the same page as the original. I didn't check to see if the new pages still support the content. It could be worth restoring the originals (they do have retrieved dates for this), double-checking, or doing some trims there. This is a bit sloppy on my part, because I should have archived the original pages. Corporate 14:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Honeywell Turbo Technologies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Honeywell Turbo Technologies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Honeywell Turbo Technologies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 May 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Garrett Advancing Motion → Garrett Motion – Use the actual company name in preference to the transcription of logo. Dicklyon (talk) 06:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Garrett_Motion&oldid=1202217911"