Talk:Chow Hang-tung

(Redirected from Talk:Chow Hang Tung)
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Vpab15 in topic Requested move 13 June 2021

Requested move 13 June 2021

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)Reply


Chow Hang TungChow Hang-tung – PER WP:NC-ZH (and WP:COMMONNAME). Cypp0847 (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

  • Comment - I don't note anywhere in the guideline that the title should be hyphenated. The "Hyphens" section only notes the convention of pinyin which is not applicable for this subject while "Romanization of names" under "Names of people" only notes that the title can be romanized in different way for people from different countries/regions. Sun8908Talk 11:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
nothing in WP:NC-ZH is relevant. this request should be thrown out.--RZuo (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Sun8908: My argument is cited accordingly to the example listed in the page - "Leung Chun-ying; Tung Chee-hwa". Cypp0847 (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Cypp0847, the examples given are just saying that the title of the notable people can be named in different romanization other than pinyin, while the most possibly notable ones being Leung Chun-ying and Tung Chee-hwa has a hyphenated name, but it doesn't say it is a convention to name all Hong Kong names with a hyphen. Although the majority of article about HK people has a hyphenated name, I can still find descent amount of them not hyphenated, like Fung Chin Pang, Cheng Ting Ting, Pang Tsz Kin, Ngan Cheuk Pan, etc. There is no guideline regulating them. As the article Hong Kong name notices, both styles can be used. Sun8908Talk 10:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Sun8908: Indeed there are quite some Hongkongers' articles are without hyphenated-name, but majority of major articles of HKers follow the unwritten convention in WP:NC-ZH guideline. I would personally, contrariously, suggest to rename those as they do not seem to be exceptional cases to not follow the hyphenation. Cypp0847 (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
how could an unwritten convention be found in a text? 🤣--RZuo (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
@RZuo: What I meant is there is no written regulations FORCING editors on using hyphenated names as article title, but the convention is summarized based on the trend and phenomenon found in other Hongkongers-related articles, which in turn is quoted as examples in the guideline mentioned above. Cypp0847 (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
If there is no written convention, there is no valid reason to move a page and should be kept as it is. How most of the Wikipedia articles name is just the preference of editors, and no evidence shows people use the hyphenated names more, outside Wikipedia. Sun8908Talk 15:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Even WP:NC-ZH might not be applicable in this case, WP:COMMONNAME shall also be considered as for moving the page to a more common spelling of Chow's name. Cypp0847 (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
I am not actually prefering either of the titles, but it seems both names got some sources, and her social media use "Chow Hang Tung". It could be moved if there is proof for "Chow Hang-tung" really being a WP:COMMONNAME. Sun8908Talk 05:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
@RZuo: There is also reliable source hyphenating the given names "Hang-tung",[1][2][3] which defeated the reason for reverting the page article. Cypp0847 (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

References

Per above. Cypp0847 (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
"Wade–Giles system used for the Hong Kong names" -- how hilarious do you wanna be?--RZuo (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
how facetious can you get? -- Ohc revolution of our times 14:02, 24 July 2021 (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.