Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pronunciation of Hong Kong

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash^talk 21:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation of Hong Kong

Originally the result of a misunderstanding and entitled Pronunciation of Hong Kong in English and created merely because of one pronunciation file. The issue is no way controversial or complicated and the intent of inserting pronunciation files in leads was not to create these potential arenas of dispute over pointless spelling minutae. Delete as unencyclopedic and to curb creation of similar pages. Peter ^Isotalo 07:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep. This is a part of User:Karmosin's idea to rewrite the introduction to Hong Kong, which all other involved editors disagreed with, so now he is bringing this article to AFD as another measure. This article gives information about the pronunciation of Hong Kong which is fairly complicated as it has to be explained in several languages and doesn't fit into the lead section of the article. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 14:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Páll, you're trying to bring a completely separate issue into this. Please base your vote on the matter at hand, not about your own notions of discussions held in separate articles. This has to do with the merit of keeping this sort of articles, not about how Hong Kong should look. Also, this is not the issue which was contested at Talk:Hong Kong, but rather that the issue of the full title. This seems to have been more or less resolved and I find it most dishonest that you're distorting the debate in this manner. / Peter ^Isotalo 15:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the article should be kept, which is why I voted accordingly. I do, however, find it to be an act of bad faith for you to list an article on AFD after you attempted to remove it from the introparagraph of the Hong Kong article failed, thereby making the whole argument moot. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 15:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

You got some nerve accusing me of bad faith, Páll. I've spent the last six months recording pronunciation files and adding them to articles, including the Hong Kong-one in Mandarin, and claiming this nomination is somehow illicit just because you've misinterpreted a discussion at talk:Hong Kong does not justify it. / Peter ^Isotalo 08:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The Hong Kong article can link to wiktionary. This information belongs in wiktionary. --Jiang 16:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This information is useful but there is no reason whatsoever that it should merit its own individual article. If the editors of the Hong Kong article are engaged in some kind of dispute, that's a separate issue. This should be included on the main HK page. Dottore So 16:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge into Hong Kong article. Factual, interesting, notable. Sdedeo 18:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • so should we start articles on Pronunciation of the United States, Pronunciation of Beijing, Pronunciation of Wikipedia, Pronunciation of Britain, Pronunciation of Shanghai, Pronunciation of Taiwan....? It's certainly factual, but interesting and notable? the same could be said of every placename in the world. --21:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • If you read the article, you will see that the question of the pronunciation of the word "Hong Kong" is actually somewhat interesting and encyclopedic. As I said above, I would not object to a merge, of course. Sdedeo 21:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Right now it includes information I removed because it was pure speculation ("'Hong Kong' only sounds somewhat similar to the Cantonese"), but Páll reinserted it without certifying it. Other than that it just explains that Hong Kong is a multilingual city (something very common all over the world) and that people who speak different languages pronounce it differently in their respective languages. How hard is that to figure out merely by reading Hong Kong? / Peter ^Isotalo 08:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the Hong Kong article, give it a section. --Fang Aili 20:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep or Merge per Sdedeo. I have no problem with this article. Alf ^melmac 21:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Should go to wiktionary --Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho 23:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; information is factual, verifiable. Merging with Hong Kong is inappropriate, because this information is peripheral to that article, and because this article could easily be expanded (historical development of pronunciation in each language, linguistics information, the politics involved in an area with multiple pronunciations, etc.). Merging with an article on, say, Name of Hong Kong would be acceptable. -- Creidieki 02:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hong Kong already includes the sound files for the Cantonese and Mandarin names; the Hakka name could be added too, but then that's sufficient. This article does not belong at Wiktionary, since it's not a dictionary entry. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep don't merge. — Instantnood 10:16, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you think you could provide a motivation for either keeping or merging? Have you understood the part about the pronunciation of a multilingual city being nothing unique to Hong Kong, or to any number of other mutlilingual cities of the world? / Peter ^Isotalo 11:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • In what way do you think all these different ways of romanisations of the full name of the territory can be fit into the leading paragraph? — Instantnood 11:44, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • Simple answer: we wouldn't. It's pointless, over-specific trivia that is not necessary in any way to an encyclopedic article, even on Wikipedia. We don't do it in other articles unless absolutely necessary and we shouldn't do it here. / Peter ^Isotalo 17:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Quoted from Wikipedia:naming conventions (use English): " any non-Latin-alphabet native name should be given within the first line of the article (with a Latin-alphabet transliteration if the English name does not correspond to a transliteration of the native name) ". In the case of "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China", "中華人民共和國香港特別行政區" is the native name, and there are many ways to transliterated it into Latin alphabets. — Instantnood 17:56, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • The most obvious native name is actually just "香港", while yours is the full official title that is only used in official documents and the likes. Stating just the common short form is not any kind of POV, but common sense. You're simply rules lawyering a naming convention (not official policy), because you want a separate article for this nonsense and because you're ignoring that it's clearly mentioned in two other occasions in the same article, all visible without even scrolling down. That's not simply trying to be faithful to guidelines, but seems to me as an attempt to make a point. Exactly what would happen if this became an exception to the convention? Would a band of rogue editors demand that X other articles follow the same format and demand a change in the naming conventions? Would representatives of the Hong Kong government angrily demand that we reinstate the way it is? No, only a few very rigid Wikipedia editors would ever care. / Peter ^Isotalo 10:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

First of all, please don't resort to calling people names. Second of all, each and every featured article on a country uses the full official name, as witness to the "Republic of South Africa", the "People's Republic of China", the "Commonwealth of Australia", the "Republic of India", and the "Kingdom of Cambodia". If you want to change the titles of all of these articles, I suggest you take it up with all of the editors on each of these pages, but as long as we're citing policiies (of which there are none for what you propose and there is a lot of presedence for what was done on the Hong Kong article), why don't you go and take a look at WP:POINT. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 18:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Change all other country articles just because I want to make a well-motivated exception? Have you gond mad? You're not citing policy but a general guideline; these are called guidelines for a very specific reason. But if you insist on playing the rules lawyering-game, why don't you dig up the policy that says all guidlines needs to be changed to make room for small exceptions? Or, hey, just find the policy that says all guidelines are to be taken literally down to the last paragraph and that all deviations are to be viewed as policy violations. That ought to settle this once and for all. / Peter ^Isotalo 14:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge' to Hong Kong. I don't see why this information can't be merged, but as the article currently stands it doesn't warrant having an article of its own. – AxSkov (☏) 05:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. -Sean Curtin 19:27, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Páll, Peter, I can't make head or tail of this AFD, and neither of you is helping. Páll, I disagree with you taking the Hong Kong dispute to this AFD. It seems to me just bad form to turn an AFD into a discussion of the nominator's motives. I have no doubt that Peter is acting in good faith, I consider him a very honest editor. Peter, if you want to help the comprehensibility of this debate to anybody besides you two hotheads, could you try to explain more simply how you see the stub and its creation, please? What misunderstanding are you talking about? Bishonen | talk 23:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The origins of this lie in talk:Hong Kong, but the AfD would've come about no matter what. The initial discussion was about the lead and I was trying to explain how it's not particularly constructive to slavishly follow conventions if they result in clunky leads and conclusions like the creation of separate articles just to mention differing transcriptions and etymology trivia. I've tried to discuss this at talk:pronunciation of Hong Kong and by redirecting the nominated article to the main article, but this was reverted without much attempt to discuss the matter. Furthermore, my removals of pure layman speculation concerning etymology was also reverted. What upsets me the most is that one of the pronunciation files I've recorded to be used in main articles is being used as an excuse to keep this warping of inclusion policy alive. If this goes through as an acceptable article I will have to stop recording any files like these every again, since they will only be used as just another excuse to fill Wikipedia with pointless trivia. If Hong Kong gets one, any other city where at least two major languages are spoken and has more than two sentences to describe etymology will be prime targets for further trivia-articles. / Peter ^Isotalo 06:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, expand on Etymology if possible, then rename Name of Hong Kong as per Creidieki. --Vsion 01:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A significant article about Etymology. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 05:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article has its own contents that no other means can preserve this knowledge on the topic. Moving this into another article such as Hong Kong will make the article too long and attached with irrelevant contents. Deryck C. - the very original one

Deryck C. - the esperanza-enriched one 07:56:35, 2005-09-12 (UTC)

• Keep as per PZFUN and Vsion. --Carlsmith 08:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to some suitable article. This AfD seems to be a lot of fuss about nothing. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• There is a possibility of merging this into the Hong Kong article, perhaps as the first section, although this would appear rather odd, unless it be further expanded to discuss wider implications. For example, Hong Kong didnt become known as Xianggang despite the 1997 handover, another facet of the one country, two systems policy by Beijing. Until then, I would think this article can be kept.--Huaiwei 09:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Uhm, what exactly is it called if not Xianggang? And I'm not talking about the full official name. I'm talking about the common name in Standard Mandarin. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I am talking about its usage in English. Your comment does not really apply to mine.--Huaiwei 13:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Hong Kong is never refered to as "Xianggang" in correct English usage. (It's like saying "Wien" instead of Vienna). Native pronunciations have nothing to do with the English name or pronunciation. The soundfiles are there to be informative, not to serve as diction guides, or I would never make recordings in languages I'm not a native speaker of. / Peter ^Isotalo 14:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I made no suggestion that Hong Kong is refered to as "Xianggang" in English, so I do not know where your reservations lie. Meanwhile, you may be glad to know that Atlases produced around the world has increasingly adopted local spellings in placenames, so Wien is actually quite often used in world maps now. That said, you comparison of Vienna/Wien is not exactly comparable with Hong Kong/Xianggang, because Chinese does not use the roman alphabet. Both Hong Kong and Xianggang are English words, just as both Beijing and Peking are. So what are they in Chinese? 香港 and 北京 respectively! :D--Huaiwei 15:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• It seems that this is one in a series of articles that makes the point that some Wikipedia editors hate this Romanization scheme, and other Wikipedia editors hate that Romanization scheme. Unlike other voters, I actually don't think this article is awfully informative. That which is educational is pretty lexical. Further, the article is misnamed, as it's not about the pronunciation of the name, but rather what the orthography in the Latin alphabet reflects. That, as I said, goes back to how some hate this scheme, some that scheme. In all, it seems like a fork. If the material cannot or should not be merged to Hong Kong, then it should be deleted as a fork, on the one hand, and as an unsearchable title, on the other. Let's look at the forest, not the trees, for a second. Geogre 10:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, necessary information for an encylopedia, doesn't look suitable to be merged. Kappa 17:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.