Talk:Cheung Kwok-che

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below; I invite the participants to contribute to an RFC on the general topic at WT:NC-ZH#Names of people for Hong Kong. Dekimasuよ! 18:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheung Kwok-che → Peter Cheung Kwok-che – His English name is Peter and commonly used in English sources, so the name should follow the Hong Kong naming style—blending Chinese and English name. Or just Peter Cheung if you want. George Ho (talk) 08:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. There's no HK-English style blending to follow, since this is a inconsistent-applied self-invention. Use Cheung Kwok-che as on 7government sites. --Cold Season (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Season, how much are you familiar with Hong Kong? Peter Cheung has been more common than the current name in news articles. Why not Peter Cheung instead? --George Ho (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment HK does have a local style that does use ENGLISHname SURname CHINESEname . It is not a local Wikipedia invention since it can be found in a wide variety of sources, and existed prioer to the invention of the Web or consumer Internet (just look at English language Hong Kong newspaper archives from the 80's, which predates the web and consumer internet) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as originally proposed -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment there's a few "Peter Cheung"s in the film industry, one of which is an award winning film editor -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument is on a basis on "HK style naming," which is faulty as it does not exist nor recognized. Arguing for a move due to a so-called HK style naming (applying that label is a self-invention) is faulty. If a source use a certain name, then we use that name. --Cold Season (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Four articles use the proposed name. --George Ho (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do not use official names because they are official. It clearly is used, since in one of these other move requests George showed that Hong Kong newspapers used this style. Not every jurisdiction has laws specifying the exact form a person's name should take and which all media should use, we do not all live in places where the government specifies every way a name can be displayed. WP:RS use the form indicated by George, such as The STandard (biggest English newspaper in HK), the major newspaper SCMPSouth China Morning Post; Even the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Stop talking nonsense about this style not existing. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Inconsistent usage of such a naming (English-Chinese blend) does not mean that it has become a convention, so a move to the proposed name on the basis of such a non-existent convention is faulty. --Cold Season (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Same reason as with other ones you moved or trying to move, we need to avoid using long titles such as 'Peter Cheung Kwok-che' per WP:TITLE, it should be either 'Peter Cheung' or just 'Cheung Kwok-che', per WP:NC-ZH. TheAvatar (discuss–?)

Seventy-three articles use Peter Cheung; six use Cheung Kwok-che, unfortunately. --George Ho (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take it back; there are so many Peter Cheungs, so specific sources using "Peter Cheung Kwok-che" are The Standard, book of 2004 elections. SCMP, this book, and that book use the current title. I conclude that this person is seldom or rarely covered by sources. I tried finding other sources mentioning this person without avail. --George Ho (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. No reason to follow the (claimed) local style, which is unknown to most readers. Andrewa (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.