Talk:Jinbei (car brand)/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Jinbei (car brand). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Jin bei engine
Just shopping around for a engine for a Jin bei van 2010 model do you any suggestions Rau1970 (talk) 07:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Splitting proposal
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result of this discussion was to split. Eni vak (speak) 22:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
<Start of discussion> Dear fellow wikipedians, I propose creating a new article about Huasong, because it is a separate marque . What is your opinion? Eni vak (speak) 22:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
* Support – as the initiator. The article is named Jinbei, not Jinbei-huasong, it is definitely one another brand that needs a separate article. Eni vak (speak) 22:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral (leaning support) - In principle, I don't oppose this and the nominator does have a point. My only caveat, as with all the low-volume, less-known Chinese marques, is that the Jinbei and Huasong articles may be two stubs forever (that's the reason I didn't create a separate article for Huasong). --Urbanoc (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Urbanoc: You also make a point, that they may be forever stubs. This is a god point. However, that brand, although closely related with the other, is separate. So, why mentioning it in an other brand's article is better? Also, the article we currently have is an Start class. Admittedly better than a stub, but with few differences from a stub. It is also a little badly-written and poor in content, it would perfectly suit in being a stub. So, my personal opinion is that extracting two good-written stubs is better than this here. How this seems to you? Eni vak (speak) 20:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Well then, if you are convinced they should have separate articles, you should go for it. Making two good stubs would be hard as, like you say, the article is very low quality and the "start" quality tag may be too optimistic. I just patched some things up within the article, but I don't pretend I fixed it (in any case the "start" tag wasn't added by me), the stubs may be better starting from scratch. While difficult, creating too good stubs from this isn't an impossible task. Worst case scenario, at least the same level of quality as the current article is perfectly within reach for the new stubs. Either starting anew or re-using material, it's your call as you'll do the work. I don't think I can pull that off nicely, but I don't say you can't do it. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- {Reply to|Urbanoc}} Thanks. I will do my best, I prefer starting from scratch. Best regards, Eni vak (speak) 22:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Well then, if you are convinced they should have separate articles, you should go for it. Making two good stubs would be hard as, like you say, the article is very low quality and the "start" quality tag may be too optimistic. I just patched some things up within the article, but I don't pretend I fixed it (in any case the "start" tag wasn't added by me), the stubs may be better starting from scratch. While difficult, creating too good stubs from this isn't an impossible task. Worst case scenario, at least the same level of quality as the current article is perfectly within reach for the new stubs. Either starting anew or re-using material, it's your call as you'll do the work. I don't think I can pull that off nicely, but I don't say you can't do it. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
<End of discussion>
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.