Talk:Great Wall Wingle 7

Automobiles Low‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wingle 5 relationship

Hello No coffee, please. I don't see how the Wingle 7 could be confused for a successor for the 5 when they have been produced side-by-side for 3 years and counting. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle

Then you'd be wrong. This Wingle 7 page was actually split from the Wingle 5 page where folks had it confused for a successor. Not only that, but you're doubly wrong, because in many countries (ie, Australia), it IS a successor, and in many countries both models share the same name. Feel free to check the edit history for Great Wall Wingle 5. If you're not familiar with the product line, it's an easy mistake to make, but the GWM product line isn't as straightforward as western OEMs. Again, the line is entirely justified and there for a specific reason — to remove ambiguity about what this truck is, and how it's positioned in the GWM line-up, particularly in relation to the Wingle 5. --No coffee, please. (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a common situation with many Chinese vehicles, by the way — if you're editing pages of Chinese vehicles, be extra-aware of their relationships. --No coffee, please. (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, please be aware of naming conventions with Chinese vehicles and brands. The pinyin transliteration is sometimes, but not always the name. In this case the pronunciation of 风骏 is 'fēngjùn', however that is not the marketed name of the truck — only the closest romanized transliteration. It has never been sold as the 'Fēngjùn' anywhere in the English speaking world, and in China is sold as the 风骏. Instead the romanized name is 'Wingle', or 'Steed', or 'Ute'. --No coffee, please. (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence of "folks had it confused for a successor" please? MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, there's a nuance here: It both is and is not a successor, depending on the country of sale. Consider the Wingle 5 is a successor to the Wingle 3, but no such identical relationship exists between the Wingle 5 and Wingle 7. If you go back into pages for Great Wall, the Wingle 5, and other associated pages, the Wingle 7 has definitely been mistakenly framed several times as a sub-model or facelift as a result. The disambiguation note is important.

Further: That Wingle 7 is a more modern, larger companion to the Wingle 5 is not a promotional statement. It's literally the purpose of the model existing.

Because you seem to be piling on the edits now, at this point, I'm more concerned that you:

* Please confirm you understand convention within Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles when it comes to specifying engine details – the model number, not just the series name, is encouraged. You can see how it looks on Nissan 350Z or Toyota Camry (XV70). The way it existed previous to your edit was correct.

* Please acknowledge the clarifications above regarding pinyin names. This is critically important when contributing to pages regarding Chinese brands, and quite nuanced.

* Please stop making superficial edits to make it seem like you're adding significant value here, only adding citation neededs and minor edits to picture captions to block simple reversions to your erroneous edits and call out WP:BABY. I've given justifications for every line of reversion so far.

If you'd like to add genuine contributions to the page, go right ahead. At the moment you're being disruptive, and I'd imagine you're well aware of it. --No coffee, please. (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in Chinese names, I recently gave a brief breakdown in a discussion over at Talk:Evergrande_Group#Western_name --No coffee, please. (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please WP:AGF, rather than throwing around accusations? And do you have specific links to support your claim about the confusion? MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot, in fact, assume good faith considering you've repeatedly ignored my explanations and done multiple 'manual' reverts against established convention for this type of article. Link here, but it's again certainly the least compelling reason when there are better justifications. Once again: The Wingle 3 to Wingle 5 relationship IS one of simple succession. The Wingle 5 to Wingle 7 relationship is considerably more complicated than that. That alone justifies a explanation. You haven't, in the meantime, justified why you believe the text is promotional. Nor acknowledged any of my other asks. So no, I don't WP:AGF. --No coffee, please. (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words you do not have any links as evidence supporting your claim of the confusion? The edit you highlighted where the words "range of the" were removed doesn't seem like a strong argument.
If we've descended to not using WP:AGF here, then I suggest that your other asks are merely distractions from the topic of this discussion section. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]