Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hong Kong Government Cantonese Romanisation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 00:27, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The votes were 3 delete, 8 keep.
As the article itself states, the "Hong Kong Government Cantonese Romanisation" does not exist. This is crap --Jiang 07:06, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- This is crap
To User:Jiang: Please mind your language.
- This should be deleted, it does not exist. - Preaky
- Object — The title may not be a correct one, but the article did summarise how the proper nouns in Hong Kong are transcribed and romanised. The Hong Kong government does not make up a title, but the way does exist. We should not request a deletion, but instead a collaboration on an accurate title. — Instantnood 10:22, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- This appears to exist, but not under this name, so I support Instantnood's objection to deletion. Kappa 10:36, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Rename — this is informative and encyclopaedic, so worth keeping (assuming it's accurate). Lev 14:59, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- A discussion of Cantonese romanization in general already exists at Cantonese (linguistics). Pointing out a few examples of romanization, in non-standard form, and trying to call it a romanization system is wrong. --Jiang 22:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep... compare to Postal System Pinyin. There's no standardized system there either. -- ran (talk) 23:03, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
- well..."Postal System Pinyin" exist as a well-known and standard name. This name does not exist outside Wikipedia --Jiang 00:27, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Although not systematic, it is the de facto Romanization in Hong Kong. Its nature is very similar to Postal System Pinyin. The difference is that the government have not given it an official name. -- Felix Wan 00:13, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
- well..."Postal System Pinyin" exist as a well-known and standard name. This name does not exist outside Wikipedia --Jiang 00:27, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Note conflict of interest: MY name is spelt under this system. My last character, "Tung", cannot be spelt this way under any of the systems covered except this one. Cantonese (linguistics) doesn't cover this and a merger could be extremely messy. The title is wrong (I can't exactly remember what they call this, I have to look this up, which would take awhile) but otherwise the details appear right. --JuntungWu 01:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'm afraid only part of your name is romanised with this system. Jun would have been Chun under this system (if it's the pronunciation that I'm thinking). — Instantnood 12:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- If this is a nameless system with official capacity, then perhaps it should be moved to the empty section Standard_Cantonese#Romanization since it is part of the discussion on "Standard" Cantonese--Jiang 02:12, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Note that the HK government's ID card homepage http://www.smartid.gov.hk shows sample ID card with a name romanized under this system - (YIP Yau Shing) - rather than any of the systems listed in the Cantonese articles we've got right now. So there's definitely such a system, I just have to figure out what it's called. --JuntungWu 03:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, misleading title - infers there is a standard system when no "standard" like this exists. There is nothing here worthwhile keeping when Cantonese (linguistics) already does the job. Megan1967 02:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I actually think the Cantonese (linguistics) article is quite deficient as it stands - it's weighted too much towards academia and there's not enough stuff towards everyday use. I agree that the title is misleading but I need to do some serious research on the correct title. It's in a book somewhere. --JuntungWu 02:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. In fact, this is the only Romanization that is really popular. Most people from Hong Kong know only this Romanization and none of the academically sound systems. I guess the editor got the idea of the title from List of common Chinese surnames. I also did not know how to call it when I edited the article, so I put "HK Gov't" and wrote in the its footnote: This is the romanization used most often by the Hong Kong Government in transliterating names for birth certificates and identity cards. It is an unsystematic method based on the Meyer-Wempe system, with all the aspiration marks and diacritics gone. There is finally an article that I can link to but it is put on VfD. Yes, we may work on the title and improve the content, but it is informative and factually correct. Certainly, besides the schemes proposed by various scholars, Wikipedia needs an article on how Cantonese is actually Romanized in Hong Kong. Every Wikipedian from Hong Kong can testify the facts. -- Felix Wan 00:08, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
- Keep -- Indeed this is the only transliteration system that I have known for a long time; the article definitely has its place in Wikipedia. And most people in Hong Kong never knew any other system! -- KittySaturn 10:33, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
- COMMENT - how about Hong Kong defacto standard Cantonese romanization ? 132.205.45.110 20:21, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, I find the existing title acceptable. We just need to explain in the content its pragmatic nature comparable to Postal System Pinyin. If the consensus is to avoid a name that sounds like a standard comparable to Jyutping or Pinyin, I am thinking in the line of Cantonese Romanization used by the Hong Kong Government, Cantonese Romanization common in Hong Kong, etc. -- Felix Wan 22:36, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
- Move to more appropriate name, whenever that's determined and whatever it may be. Since it's not official, it appears the word "government" at least should be dropped from the title. Once the move has been accomplished, deletion of the resulting redirect can be considered at redirects for deletion. However, deletion of the current article is inappropriate, since this is potentially valid encyclopedic information and we need to preserve the page history. --Michael Snow 00:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The situation is this: the Hong Kong Government actually uses it without any "official" announcement, but the examples listed are all "official" usage. The problem is that the method is inconsistent and cannot meet any academic standard. Any suggestion for a good title? -- Felix Wan 01:33, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
- Well, the examples are from the government, but is it only the government that uses this? If so, then at least add (unofficial) to the title of the article. The current title gives the impression that the government developed it and is trying to promote it in the same sense that LSHK is trying to promote Jyutping. --Michael Snow 04:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The government has never promoted the system but just keep on using it while never successfully adopted another system. I have got your point on the possible confusion. -- Felix Wan 23:36, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
- Well, the examples are from the government, but is it only the government that uses this? If so, then at least add (unofficial) to the title of the article. The current title gives the impression that the government developed it and is trying to promote it in the same sense that LSHK is trying to promote Jyutping. --Michael Snow 04:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The situation is this: the Hong Kong Government actually uses it without any "official" announcement, but the examples listed are all "official" usage. The problem is that the method is inconsistent and cannot meet any academic standard. Any suggestion for a good title? -- Felix Wan 01:33, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.