Talk:SAIC Motor/Archives/2013

Untitled

If SAIC sold its 20% stake in Chery in 2004, should Chery not be deleted in reference to SAIC brands? 129.9.163.234 15:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SAIC Logo.PNG

Image:SAIC Logo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Conversion to SAIC Motor article

In view of the recent company restructuring, in my view it might now be preferable to convert this article into one specifially about SAIC Motor, and perhaps create a separate article about the SAIC Group (former) holding company, which is now likely to be of considerably less relevance to readers. Essentially all of the content of this article already addresses the activities of SAIC Motor or its predecessors.Rangoon11 (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Support - the lion's share of this article concerns their vehicular activities.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Support - The only thing that needs to be changed is the lead, unless some of their production facilities are owned by another entity--something that is unlikely. Fleetham (talk) 08:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Support - reviewing the SAIC websites, the proposal appears okay so no objection, especially as the SAIC Group website [1] now sports the same layout and name as SAIC Motor website [2]. Warren (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note - also, not renaming articles after their ever-changing corporate titles would be extremely useful in the interest of continuity. The bots are getting tired and confused, and so are the readers.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully they wont change their name again! I will try to implement this change today.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

revert of substantial work

Please discuss reasons for a recent revert of substantial work that replaced poorly cited content including much extraneous data with better cited, less sprawling text. Fleetham (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Your edits removed much relevant text on the Ssangyong closure without following proper channels. As the text currently reads, it is a meaningless block of text broken up by countless references - it looks the same as do all articles which you target for destruction. A mass of numbers and superscripts, and little to no content left. More citations ≠ a better article.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 08:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

figures in footnotes

Yes, let's put the purchase amounts for SAIC's acquisitions in the footnotes. I don't know how to do this without having 2 superscripts, however. Fleetham (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Why? This is significant information which in my view should stay in the text. And WP articles do not generally have factual information to footnotes. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the figures and another editor suggested putting them in footnotes instead. And while the information may well be significant, several back-to-back sentences of the form "In 20XX SAIC bought a X% stake in Y company for Z million dollars" is both over informative and quite boring. Few who read the article have much use for such info, those who do should be able to find it themselves easily enough, and everyone else will find the article boring and wonkish. Simply saying that SAIC bought a controlling share in X company should be enough; anyone interested in details can read the citation. Fleetham (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What for one person is boring is for another highly interesting. Personally I find it useful, highly relevant and interesting content. And please lets not start trying to dumb down WP to please the stupid or those with attention problems. The mainstream media is already dumbed down to the point of farce - at least in the UK - and such individuals have plenty of other places to go for easy amusement. This is an encyclopedia Rangoon11 (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't couch it as "dumbing down". It's simply extraneous information. Stated without context, large sums do little to inform any reader. Stated again, large amounts of money, especially those paid years prior (inflation further degrades the amount of information such a number conveys because it means your current point of reference isn't a valid yardstick) don't have much meaning. Am I wrong here? When you hear that, for example, the war in Iraq, cost 1.6 trillion dollars, the take away is "that's expensive!" and little else. Dumbing down would mean that the information that conveys meaning is excluded because some readers would be confused or have trouble understanding it. Large sums stated without context do not provide any real meaning. Fleetham (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I re-worded the paragraph so it reads better. My real concern, here, is that the page doesn't become simply a "stack of facts" with no regard for readability. The only fact I removed was the name of the company GM created to hold the purchased assets of Daewoo, G.M. Daewoo Auto and Technology Company. If it's important to include, please add it. Fleetham (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I was merely replying to your argument, in which you used words like "boring" and "wonkish", suggesting a desire to dumb down. I agree that to be fully understood in a present day context historical financial amounts need to be considered with subsequent inflation in mind, however I still strongly feel that infomation such as this is both valuable and highly relevant. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)