Talk:List of Hong Kong people

merge from: list of Hong Kong Chinese

• support - can't see any reason to have the two (Sloman 23:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC))

Also, "List of Hongkongers" could include people from Hong Kong who are NOT Chinese. 219.77.98.28 15:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was move to List of Hong Kong people, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 10:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

---

List of Hongkongers → List of Hong Kong people — "Hongkonger" is rather an invented word, and a loosely defined idea (The article named "Hongkonger" has been merged to "Demographics of HK" recently). supernorton 11:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.

• Support Hong Konger, although the term appeared in dictionary.com, it did not appear in the online Oxford dictionary. If there are prominent dictionaries that don't have the word, then it classifies as a neologism and should better be titled in a general term.--Kylohk 16:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support the more neutral title. –Pomte 01:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

• Overturn. This is a term that the Singapore Government, the South China Morning Post, The Standard, the BBC and the VOA use. Qaka 20:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Groups of people?

Shouldn't we remove groups and combinations of people from the list? If we are going to include groups, two problems arise.

First, how to define a "group" that qualifies to be on the list? If 2R and Beyond can qualify, then why can't "Hong Kong Democratic Party" qualify? Can't "EEG Music" qualify? Shall we define qualified "groups" by the number of people in each? Why do combinations in 2, but not 100, can be in the list? But including "EEG Music" in "List of HKers" doesn't make sense at all. I would like to suggest that including groups or combinations, no matter what size it is, will make the list terribly large.

Second, such inclusion will lead to repeated data. For instance, we have a group named "Beyond", but we all know that each of its individual members like Paul Wong and Wong Ka Kui has a separated article, due to their own history or individual development. Each of them should qualify having his own entry on the list. But putting each individual members on the list, while including another entry called "Beyond" on the list at the same time, would be a bit unfair to those who have never had their fame shared with others in groups. The same applies to 2R, Race and Rosanne Wong.

I strongly believe that this list should be dedicated to INDIVIDUALS only, but not groups or combinations. If we must include groups of people, we should break them up into individuals, each with his/her own entry on the list. We may have a separate list dedicated to groups of HK people (music groups in particular), which can be linked by this article.

--supernorton 02:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point with your example of political parties. I'm not adamant about whether or not to include musical groups. But I'd like to hear what other people might have to say about the issue first. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)