Talk:Changfeng Motor

name of company

http://www.cfmotors.com - It is "Changfeng", not "Chengfeng". - 202.28.27.6 08:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Move page to 'Changfeng'

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Changfeng Automobile Jeremy (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Chang Feng → Changfeng — Admin: Please move the page to "Changfeng". I tried to do a copy+paste move but was informed that was a bad thing to do. Fleetham (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose no reasoning provided on why it should move on top of an existing page. What's wrong with Changfeng (cars) or somesuch? 76.66.203.138 (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Having seen a revert done by a nameless editor, I brought it back. Then I saw this discussion and brought it back again - hope no one's feathers are ruffled! As for what page should be where, these are the stats for the last two full months:

Chang Feng:   612, 639

Changfeng county: 292, 318

Changfeng missile: 446, 485

While the car company is the most popular, I don't think that it fulfills the requirements for becoming the main topic. I vote for Changfeng Automobile since that is the current name of the company after Guangzhou Auto took over in 2009 (before it was Changfeng Motor).  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support move but only to Changfeng Automobile, per Mr.choppers. – ukexpat (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Move it to "Changfeng Motors", because that's the name of the popular, publicly-traded subsidiary. That's what people will be looking for and confused by "Changfeng Auto". Or maybe it's a good thing to make the page explicitly NOT the same name as the subsidiary, lest we confuse the less-than-thorough speculator (he thinks ALL Changfeng activities are GAC Changfeng Motors') Fleetham (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems that Changfeng Automobile is not offensive to anyone.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moves moves moves

As per the conversation above, consensus for Changfeng Automobile had been reached. A unilateral change (two changes!) after an agreement has been reached can be considered quite rude. Contacting the other interested editors before moving would have been proper.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Forgot about this discussion prior to my wheeling the page from one name to another. Fleetham (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah! well, should we have another one or do you feel that a revert to Changfeng Automobile would work? Personally, I like it because it will have more longevity than whatever the corporate unit is called this week. Article names should be less concerned with corporate names (lord knows they change often enough, especially in China) and more with common usage and clarity. Just out of curiosity, by the way - absolutely no snark or booby traps intended - are you more interested in the automobiles or the corporation? I seem to find you hard to pin down, as it were. Best,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Additional note: just re-read the intro, seems like another corporate renaming might be in the works for June!  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe we should hold off on the renaming until then. I initially supported the move to Changfeng Automobile because I wasn't confident that GAC Changfeng Motors was anything more than a subsidiary of Changfeng. It's hard to know these things because they are in China. I am now fairly confident that the only legal entity that can be construed as Changfeng is GAC Changfeng Motors. And they only make SUVs. So maybe let's only rename it after that Mitsubishi thing happens (if it has a new name then). Fleetham (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

To me, your comments are only more reasons to revert to Changfeng Automobile. Articles need some sort of steady names, having to rebuild links every time an acronym or a holding group changes is not what Wikipedia is all about. An article should be easy to find and logically named - agreed that Changfeng isn't exactly a household name, but my proposed title is at least somewhat more common with 7,040 google hits versus 4,150 for GAC Changfeng Automobile (both excluding "wikipedia"). And I am still curious as to your answers to my previous questions.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, if no need for waiting. I mean, regardless of any future name change, unless it's Mitsubishi GAC or something, Changfeng Auto works. And they will make autos in the future. Since I don't think we need another consensus on this point, I will move the page within 15 minutes. Fleetham (talk) 09:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, we can't move it back but have to ask an admin. Since I don't want to do that, I propose waiting until the company gets a new name. Even though the consensus states something else, I don't think doing what I propose will lessen the strength of consensuses on Wikipedia, and I know it will be convenient. I vote for "convenient" and will be in charge of re-naming it when it gets renamed. Fleetham (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, since the namechange went outside of the consensus building process, leaving it would do just that. Personally, I like Changfeng Automobile because it will have more longevity than whatever the corporate unit is called this week. Article names should be less concerned with corporate names (lord knows they change often enough, especially in China) and more with common usage and clarity. Just out of curiosity, by the way - absolutely no snark or booby traps intended - are you more interested in automobiles or corporations? I seem to find you hard to pin down, as it were. Best,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Chinese automakers saw astounding growth rates in 2010 and the land once called by someone "Mao's man-powered paradise" has now been transformed into a self-powered one, thanks to engines and motors. And price wars may wreak havoc in 2011. So I guess that while I don't enjoy owning a car, I find it easy to be entertained by knowing more about them, especially about a car that is alien to me. Like the Trabant. I know the name of all cars that that constitute my local milieu and did not encourage the creation this knowledge. Companies are more interesting.

Anyway I retract my add to the consensus if that's any help, and "page moves" has a backlog; I wasn't able to get a name changed a few days ago, prompting me to move all the Chinese car-makers I own to different names. I forgot about this consensus while doing so. I say: let's not annoy the page-moving admins, I retract my "support" to the prior consensus, and I will change the name if the Mitsubishi JV necessitates. Fleetham (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No, retracting your previous agreement does not "help". And regarding all the Chinese car-makers you own, you may not have been aware, but I would strongly recommend a visit to WP:OWN. Best,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at WP:OWN but feel companies are like people and so "re-wording the prose" for WP:NPOV becomes a necessity. Not entirely true, but I do meet some of the criteria listed on WP:OWN. Fleetham (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Undoing a move that clearly does not have consensus after consensus was reached. If someone wants to propose a new name, get consensus first. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

---

GAC Changfeng Motors → Changfeng Automobile — - Move back to page name as decided after previous discussion, see second section on this talkpage. User:Fleetham took it upon him/herself to move this (and countless other pages) without any prior consultation and despite existing agreements.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment can someone please correct the incoming links. "Chang Feng" should redirect to the disambiguation page, not this article. 184.144.169.126 (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Of course, since Chang Feng" used to be the title of this article it will mean that some old wikilinks will go to the disambiguation page rather than here - but that is easy to fix as those crop up.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Request move to 'Changfeng Motors' or 'GAC Changfeng Motors'

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.

---

It seems to me, currently, the company is best known as GAC Changfeng Motors or Changfeng Motors and this article of 'Changfeng Automobile' sticks out like a sore thumb.---North wiki (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Well 'Changfeng Automobile' is clearly wrong, as would be 'Changfeng Auto'. It should be either 'GAC Changfeng Motor' or 'Changfeng Motor'. My preference is for the latter, but I would be comfortable with either.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Having moved this already, I support "Changfeng Motors". In my opinion "GAC" is best left out, until further disambiguation is needed.  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Although, one should remember that the company in question has changed from Changfeng Motors to Changfeng Auto before and will probably change names again. Whatever the name, I believe that stability is to be valued.  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Quick point: it should be 'Motor' not 'Motors'. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: to move the article to 'Changfeng Motor'.

• For ---North wiki (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• For ---Rangoon11 (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Don't see any advantage to new name, especially in light of how often Chinese corporations change names. I prefer stability.  Mr.choppers | ✎  07:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Although that may be true, we don't know if this company will ever change name again. The current name does not seem to be in accordance with either proper or common name and looks decidely out of place with the article text and company logo.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support per logo Fleetham (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

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.

help requested

The talk page for the actor Chang Feng redirects here. He should have his own talk page. Is there a way to fix the redirect? I'm not sure how to do it. Thanks in advance for any help.--FeanorStar7 21:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Changfeng Motor. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cfmotors.com/doce/product/pajero.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202231251/http://autonews.gasgoo.com/china-news/gac-group-s-application-to-acquire-changfeng-gains-120210.shtml to http://autonews.gasgoo.com/china-news/gac-group-s-application-to-acquire-changfeng-gains-120210.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)