Talk:Chinese New Year greetings

Requested Move

There was previously a requested move on this article. The request was unsuccessful. Discussion on the move can be found here.

Random Comment

Looking at the size of all the contributions here -- I must say -- if everyone put as much effort into editing the article as they did in the discussion -- we surely would have a comprehensive article on both the canto / mando version by now! :) novacatz 10:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Same can be said of edit/revert wars too.—Gniw (Wing) 14:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

More useful uses of Google

Instead of googling for number of hits, which I don't think is valid (esp. for Chinese-related things!), let's try googling for some real information. If we just google for the most obvious keywords "恭喜發財 典故", near the top of the results is the page [1] which states that

• The phrase did not originate from Hong Kong
• It entered into English in 1826 through an English person who wrote a book after noticing this phrase in the city of Guangzhou

It is not evident from the short article in what form the phrase entered English, but obviously it would be some form of Cantonese romanisation (because it was used by Guanzhou natives before Mandarin became the national dialect). Also, obviously, the phrase itself predated 1826, and the place of origin is unknown (may be Guanzhou, or some other place).

These findings refute a number of points in the existing article, and hopefully help bring some sanity to the current voting discussion.

PS: I want to find some search results in simplified Chinese too; so far I am not able to find any. People who know how to use google effectively in simplified Chinese can help steer the discussion by looking for such information.—Gniw (Wing) 22:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Updated the page based on this info. novacatz 23:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

Yaohua2000, I noticed that you put a disputed tag on this article. What statements do you have a problem with? Can you please let me know so I can edit the article to be better. novacatz 14:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Some problems here (after reading the discussions above):

1. The article is so western-centric.
2. Better use a much neutral title instead.
3. Kung hei fat choi and Gong Xi Fa Cai is actually the same in (written) Chinese, they are only different translations in English.
4. If it really orginally from Hong Kong? source?

I am not an expert, so if someone can make it better, it would be very nice. — Yaohua2000 16:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions:

1. How is this "Western centric"? This article has been accused as "Hong Kong centric", but "Western centric"?
2. This hinges on the next problem (whether the current title is objective reality, or whether this is unfairly Cantonese-centric), which is part of the discussion
3. This hinges on the current discussion of whether "Kung Hei Fat Choi" is considered an English phrase, or just a transliteration; please read the discussion; in any case, some of the proposed solutions to the move request will obsolete this point (and therefore also automatically obsolete the previous point)
4. This has already been solved (the answer is no), please see the discussion

I have a sense that you have not actually read the discussion before putting up the disputed tag. This is not very responsible even though "disputed" is a fair characterization of the current state of affairs. Also, by the time you put the disputed tag in, point 4 was already obsoleted and no longer valid; you did not seem to have even read the article.—Gniw (Wing) 16:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I did not read all above. But actually, it is a transliteration, even though not just a transliteration. Personally, I still feel this article is not neutral enough, and things can be better. Well, whether use Kung hei fat choi or Gong Xi Fa Cai make no sense to me and it is not my interest. So stop talking me this stuff. Thanks. — Yaohua2000 17:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair. But, by the time you put the disputed tag in, point 4 was already obsoleted and no longer valid; you did not seem to have even read the article.—Gniw (Wing) 19:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

So, as I understand it, the only disputed aspect remaining is the title? So I guess the tag can go when the above discussion wraps up after the 5 day period. Enochlau 13:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You expect a resolution in 5 days? Based on the "contributions" you gave to this talkpage, I have little doubts over your misplaced sense of optimism.--Huaiwei 14:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Requested moves. Discussion wraps up in 5 days. It may be extended if there is no consensus, but typically, I would imagine (as an admin who has closed discussions before) that would apply where there are so few comments as to judge what the community consensus is, not in situations where no-one is going to move from their positions (as is the case here). Enochlau 22:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The thing I dont understand is ... what exactly is the dispute about. I thought the 'disputed' tag was if there is statements in the article that are, well, disputed. From the questions above, there does not seem to be any factual opposition. Just opposition about the naming of the article the discussion should be on this talk page . I dislike having the tag there because I feel there is no problem with the article. novacatz 15:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the contention that the article is "western-centric" remains to be explained and addressed, although I can guess what his concern probably was. Why is this article seemingly more concerned over how it was introduced and used in the west instead of on the origins, meanings, significance, etc, of the Chinese phrase itself? Because some folks wanted to justify its Cantonese title? Do a page on Dim sum talk extensively on how the word ended up in English texts, or on Dim sum itself? Besides this, the article continues to be Cantonese-centric, as thou other Chinese around the world dont use similar messages between each other via other dialects. "Congratulations and be prosperous", btw, is not a standard nor fixed meaning, which this article dosent allude to. The section on gesture reads like a textbook example of how people from different cultures would use, when in reality, no such standard exists. And the entire section on Gong Xi Fa Cai is horrendously POVed. Does the term not exists prior to 1950, as thou communism has always been around to prevent usage of the phrase?--Huaiwei 16:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Being (or not being) Western-centric is not a factual dispute. Wikipedia is an English encyclopedia - audience is just as likely to be non-chinese than to be chinese. Western person hears KHFC and goes to his favourite encyclopedia <g> to see what the fuss is about -- having the etymology is useful. As for origins, meanings, significance - BE BOLD and go write it! I don't see why you can't add all that stuff right now (instead of dicuss all this instead!). As for the gesture -- I remember in CNY when my collegue said a big KHFC to my boss and then did 'the gesture' to him (he is American) (just as boss was coming round to hand out red packets) -- now if the gesture isn't explained in this article -- what is the point of this article??? novacatz 16:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Why I am not bold? Coz I dont have the neccesary references or factual data to add them? Compared to some who seem to consider it perfectly alright to add information without any form of verification and doing so only via "personal knowledge"? There is a limit to being bold, and this was one of them. Next, Western-centric in terms of the scope of the article is something you cannot claim to be acceptable in an English encyclopedia, and I find it tiring why some Asians somehow still consider this as an acceptable excuse. English is considered an international language as far as cosmopolitan Singaporeans are concerned, and who says we cant write about Asia in English without introducing Western bias? As I have said, why is this article talking so much about how it was introduced into English? As a result of this rename proposal? Or coz there is nothing else which can be added to this stub? As for the gesture, I dont think I am implying that it is non existant, nor am I claiming Americans cant use it when greeting HKers. I am asking you: is it a universal way of "emphasizing the greeting" amongst all users of this term? Do everyone of us do so by "slapping a fist of one hand into the palm of the other, in front of one's chest"? Cant I choose to clench both fists and place them side by side, resembling a pair of Mandarin oranges? Cant I choose not to do so at all, prefering to say it while giving offerings or gifts instead? This article reads horribly like a teenage HKers workbook (all the more apparant when observing the kind of English used), and it was worse until some face-saving work has been done on it recently. I would think more can be done, so why are individuals here saying they "dont like the disputed tag", and saying the article looks perfectly fine for all its worth?--Huaiwei 17:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

If you want more than just etymology, please go out, grab a book from the library and write it. There should be no problems with referencing sources that are not in English. Enochlau 22:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Completely agreed. Lots of articles are Western centric in the English Wikipedia, and sometimes attempts to make it more non-Western gets reverted as "citing no sources" (meaning, "no sources written in the English language", or "never before discussed in English", or even "I can't find anything when I tried to do a Google search in English—no, I didn't bother to try hard".) If "Western centric" is a problem (as perceived by most of the more active "editors" here), lots of Chinese people will gleefully put "disputed" tags on lots of articles here. (Perhaps not a bad idea for a "demonstration" or "protest", but certainly useless…)—Gniw (Wing) 16:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Read above. This is still no excuse, and who says we cannot cite non-English sources if need be? As I said before, I interpreted his "western centric" thingy using my viewpoint. Why speculate over what he means by this, instead of waiting for his views?--Huaiwei 17:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I was not referring to you, but to the Unicode article and other articles. Please do not accuse others too quickly. Or maybe you haven't run into this situation; lucky you.—Gniw (Wing) 18:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

My comment was not made in response to some reference to me or my works either, so may I get some clarifications over your statement above?--Huaiwei 13:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Is Kung hei fat choi Offensive in Singapore?

According to a Chinese web page regarding The Republic of Singapore [2], this term is offensive in Singapore. Is this true or not?--Skyfiler 02:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I highly doubt it. We used it all the time. Might be offensive to communists, though... hahahaha. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 02:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I live in Singapore. We use the Hanyu Pinyin spelling (Gong Xi Fai Cai) all the time. It's the standard greeting. - ksteppe@ksteppe.com

Dictionary entry

This is a non-English standard phrase, and as such it does not belong in an encyclopedia. I'm not keen on keeping even English phrases, but at least that is a reasonable compromise. This is etymological trivia in an encyclopedic context.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

So would you think it a feasible compromise whereby we have a general article on Chinese new year greetings (or if need be, that of greetings in Chinese festivities in general) instead as suggested earlier?--Huaiwei 12:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with Peter. This particular phrase in this form appears to have entered English as discussed above. As for it being a dictionary-like entry, I note that we have an article on "the". Why not this? Currently, it's just a little more than a dictionary entry, but it has the potential to be expanded with information on the cultural context. What title it goes under is another matter discussed above. enochlau (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you quote any English dictionary or encyclopedia which lists this phrase?--Huaiwei 02:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This has not entered english. The examples of politicians using it is them obviously just pandering to their audience - if I spoke chinese natively and a politician mangled my language like they do, I'd cringe. The article SHOULD be moved, not to the putonghau pronunciation, but to something generic like "Chinese New Years Greetings" (or even Lunar New Years greetings, with Korean and Thai). Or merged into an article about Lunar New Year celebrations. SchmuckyTheCat 04:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If you feel that is the case, then please put in a new request at WP:RM. If everyone agrees that the above proposed move to the Mandarin pronunciation should be closed with a rejection, then I will do so. enochlau (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the votes as of now, we have 5 Supports, 13 Opposes and 5 neutrals. There is definitely no consenus supporting a move. novacatz 08:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Not so fast! The support/oppose/neutral numbers you have quoted are for a move from the Cantonese to the Mandarin. They seem to now want to move it from the Cantonese to an English expression. So... we'll have to go through another voting process! Fun! enochlau (talk) 08:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

(deadpan) Oh... Thrilling... (/deadpan) Isn't red tape wonderful :). novacatz 08:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Ooook. Our friend User:SchmuckyTheCat has been bold and redirected. Do we all approve? enochlau (talk) 10:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I dont. Do you?--Huaiwei 12:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Not really. I think that's one thing we agree on. Shall we move it back, and discuss it further first? enochlau (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Why do you demand it be moved back just for your wish to discuss it, when you arent even thinking of expressing disapproval? The so-called boldness you demand from me has already been demonstrated. While you still whine and grine in this talk page, the entire content has now ended up as a subsection of Chinese New Year where it rightfully belongs without debate.--Huaiwei 13:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I am getting a bit confused. You seem to have switched your own (and enoch's) position. From my understand, Enoch is not 100% agree on the move. You initially didn't agree (grand-grand post) but now you do and you claim Enoch does? Are you maintaining a consistent position at all here???? novacatz 17:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

So "Not really" is not 100% agreement? My bad, but I cant care less over individuals who enjoy filbustering. I initially dont agree? Mind telling me where "grand-grand post" is? I am not sure what you are getting at, but even if my position is changing, am I not entitled to, for isnt this precisely the way dispute resolutions are supposed to work? If everyone just sticks to their positions and refuses to budge, are you going to have any resolution at hand?--Huaiwei 17:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

In Australian English, "not really" means, "I don't think it's a good idea", hence I am expressing my disapproval at the move. You, Huaiwei, with your "I don't" seems to have expressed disapproval at the move. So, shouldn't we move it back? enochlau (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed Disputed Tag

I removed the disputed tag. There does not seem to be any factual disputed raised. novacatz 16:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. enochlau (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree as above.--Huaiwei 02:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This discussion is getting nowhere, and it's turning into a bit of a tit-for-tat exercise. I'll start an RfC or something soon if no-one objects to me taking that course. enochlau (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, at least for the rename request above, it should have been concluded long ago; it's just that there's a huge backlog at WP:RM. I can't do it myself since I'm involved, but I might buzz a neutral admin to close the above discussion. enochlau (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The page move is one issue, this article's dispute on its factual content is another. Have you bothered to at least acknowledge the existance of disagreements over what has been written here before trying to pretend no disputes exists and singularly removing the dispute tag? The callous attitude being displayed and the general disregard for others' viewpoints is beginning to be a cause for concern.--Huaiwei 03:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Huaiwei, I removed the disputed tag because (as I have mentioned several times) I do not believe there to be any disputes on the facts in the article. In the discussion that followed Yaohua2000 putting on the disputed tag, it seems that the only issue is the 'western centric' slant of the article. I removed the disputed tag because this is a dispute about the factual content of the article. novacatz 04:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I may not be the one who added the disputed tag, but I saw more justifications for its use than he could. I have clearly indicated my points above, but none of you appear willing to address them, even suggesting that "western slant" is acceptable for an English wikipedia. I find this kind of attitude highly unconstructive and defeatist, and is certainly not healthy for the advancement of this project.--Huaiwei 04:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Huaiwei, As I have said, slant of any stripe should be addressed by editing the article to remove any such bias. Disputed tag (imho) is address statements in the article which are not correct. Do you agree with this or not? If not, there is not much more to discuss. If you do agree, could you please point out specific statements in the article you are not happy with and I will see if I can dig up some research for/against them. novacatz 04:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I have raised three issues above already, but if I have to touch on them again:

• Kung hei fat choi = "congratulations and be prosperous"? Actually, this translation is not fixed, which the article makes no mention of.
• The "Gesture" section suggests it is a universal means of adding emphasize to the phrase, which people are prone to thinking it is similar to the Thai greeting hand gesture for example, which is more or less standard. It is quite obviously not as stated above.
• The entire "Gong Xi Fa Cai" section is horrendously POVed and reads suspiciously like the personal assumptions made by anti-communists than via researched references. So GXFC only exists in contemporary China when communism values are dwindling in the face of capitalism?--Huaiwei 04:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hup sup (Thai gesture) should be different from the fist-holiding Chinese gesture, shouldn't they? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 04:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not refering to similarities in the gesture itself. I am refering to standardisation in terms of how/when/why the gesture is used, and the position of the hands.--Huaiwei 04:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Huaiwei, I am not your gimp. I won't just jump in and put in edits at your command. If you want to have changes for the above then go edit the article. So far the only things I've seen is complaining on this talk page about POVness or some vague preceptions you have from the article. It isn't like anyone has actually reverted changes you've made. The only dispute here is one that you generate. novacatz 06:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If you edit the article to put in what you want to put in, and you reference it, everyone's going to be super-happy. Now, wouldn't that be nice. enochlau (talk) 08:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thats funny. First someone puts in a dispute tag. You demand to know why. He responded, while I also gave some more indications of why the tag is probably relevant. You conveniently ignored my comments, and tried to remove the tag. I reinstated it and lambasted your collous attitude towards others' opinions. You asked me again why, so I simply repeated the points I raised before which you ignored. I obliged. Now you ask me if you are my slave and you have to acceed to my reasonings as to why the dispute tag stays.

Is this just me, or do I notice folks from the same locality seem to exhibit the same kind of attitude when it comes to similar situations like this? So the supposedly "open" and "free" society they pride themselves in arent exactly so "free" afterall? I have already explained why I did not add to the article. Go back and read it yourself, for I bear no responsiblity for your lack of respect for others' opinions. This does not mean I cant critique disputable additions to this article by others who couldnt care less about adding unverified information. So conversely, who you are to restrict my desire to comment on this article?--Huaiwei 12:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"I have already explained why I did not add to the article." Sorry, where abouts? (I'm just getting lost in this long long long conversation.) enochlau (talk) 12:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It was even bolded for your eyes to see, unless of coz you are demonstrating your visual handicap. Your lethargy in reading long conversations in which you are a part of is no valid excuse.--Huaiwei 13:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Can we try to keep the personal attacks down please. Address the article, not the man. novacatz 17:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Quit posting here then, since the only thing still on-going are personal attacks anyway.--Huaiwei 18:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

In case you didn't know, I do have a life outside of this website, and it is impossible for me to remember precisely what everyone has said since the dawn of time on this issue, so it was a very polite request for you to indicate what you meant. You've highlighted novacatz's "go edit the article". Now what on Earth does that mean? I asked you for your explanation of why you are not editing the article. Huaiwei, I really do suggest that you go and look over your comments. I suggest that you are the one stirring trouble with your provocative language; novacatz and I have been trying to be civil in conducting a conversation here. Stop attacking us. enochlau (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Before you find it befitting to bring others for an WP:RfC, and before you wish to consider yourself worthy to criticise others about their wikibehavior, perhaps you might wish to be extra careful over what you say here. You've highlighted novacatz's "go edit the article". Oh did I? You asked for an explaination. I asked you to look back in this talk page. Does that neccesarily refer to this section only? The kind of behavior exhibited by both you is veering way too close to filbustering, when it seems constructive suggestions were repeated ignored such that I was asked to repeat what I have to say, when comments I bothered to highlight before were again ignored (intentionally or otherwise), only to have you demanding to know where the point was made now...again. Repeated requests on resolution proposals are either ignored, or given half-hearted responses (and this is going by that "not 100% agreement comment...not via my own assumption). I would think anyone who is serious about coming up with a resolution will experience the same frustration by the behavior of a few individuals. The so-called "civility" you preach seems wanting on your part as well, so is the "attack" I am supposedly mounting against you one sided? Go reflect on it.--Huaiwei 03:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

My patience is wearing thin you do realise. RfC it shall be. I really don't want to waste more time on fruitless argument. I'll let you know when it's ready. enochlau (talk) 10:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Do drop me a note in my talkpage when you do it. It is about time, for my patience has worn out long ago, and all the more so when a threat is being made.--Huaiwei 16:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

move

The content was merged into Chinese New Year, where it's been edited, fixed up, and integrated into that article. Now restoring it here just makes duplicate content. Why does anyone want duplicate content? Forgive me for being bold, but I just don't care about an argument between two foreign language pronunciations of the same phrase in an English encyclopedia. The content fits well into that other article and it covers both phrases in a non-biased manner.SchmuckyTheCat 00:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that you've moved it without consensus. Your argument doesn't make sense; say I merged cat into dog, and you claim that you can't recreate cat because that would lead to duplication of content. Note that Merry Christmas exists! enochlau (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh, Merry Christmas is in ENGLISH and this is an english encyclopedia? This phrase is chinese, which is distinctly not english.

Cats and dogs are opposites. Merging this into a larger article about the specific holiday when you would use this phrase is... not opposite?

As to consensus, there wasn't any either way to keep it at one pronunciation or the other. NPOV trumps consensus. Each side that pronounces it feels the article is biased by presenting the other side. So, the third way, moving a stub back into a larger article that presents each pronunciation in a non-biased way - that's better for everyone, and better for the information as well. SchmuckyTheCat 00:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If anyone actually bothers to read this talk page, it is clear that many has already agreed that the best foot forward is to simply abandon both phrases and to redirect them into a general article title. While I didnt preempt the merger back to Chinese New Year, the end result certainly looks perfectly fitting to me, for do we have enough information for a seperate article? I have asked numerous times if anyone objects to the first move. No one voiced any objections. Do we still wait for a few individuals who are clearly trying to filbuster before we effect the move? Tell us.--Huaiwei 03:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Huaiwei, I believe you are misrepresenting this discussion. There has been no discussion/agreement that the best move is to abandon both phrases (as demonstrated by the push and pull as soon as the move was made). I do not understand how we can have a discussion to move the article to GXFC (which failed to reach consensus) and you draw the conclusion there is agreement to move the page somewhere else. Can we try to reach agreement among all editors before making any more moves which will just get pushed back? novacatz 03:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Then lets look again at what some had to say, particularly those who voted nuetral:

• I am neutral regarding the move, provided that there are redirects in place, and the actual article text does not favour one or the other transliteration.—Gniw (Wing) 22:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Niether KHFC nor GXFC is a good name for an encyclopedia article. The formal name of this article should be Chinese New Year congratulations(中國新年賀詞/吉祥話) with KHFC page and GXFC page redirected to it. --Theodoranian 07:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Use the english meaning as the title, and put all the transliterations in the article. Done. Feel free to make redirects. SchmuckyTheCat 18:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Why not? This at least has the advantage of favouring no one. Or something like “Gong Xi Fa Cai/Kung Hey Fat Choi”. Lots of redirects and good, neutral explanatory text could do.—Gniw (Wing) 22:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• That is bold. I like it! Neutral. Clear. Looks like a good solution to me. novacatz 00:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• I think a good solution would to change this article into a general one on Chinese New Year's greetings, examining the whys and the wherefores of such a custom, Then we won't have to choose. Mandel 11:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• I noticed instantnood reverted STC's page move. Seems like we are generally agreeing that both versions should be renounced in favour of a more nuetral page title? Any objections?--Huaiwei 12:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• While I think STC big move was bold, it looks like a bit too bold for people to swallow (I agree with Enoch here - "Congrats and be propsperous" is a bit silly - we replace something commonly heard with something never uttered). But is there any big problem with, as a poster above mentioned, having one page with a list of chinese phrases for new year and their various etmologies and pronouciations and stuff. I think that a Western person would be interested to know what else is out there (and I think it would be nice-in-a-wikipedia-way if they go looking for KHFC and end up at a page with much more info!). I for one was interest to hear what the PTH/mainland people say in new year (sun nin ho) and besides, we can populate the page with the other phrases you hear around CNY (sun tai geen hong, man si jau sau) and we can have info on what is heard where (Cantonese in Sydney Huiawei!). One article, lots of redirects - anyone who is interested gets a wealth of relavnt info. Comments ??? novacatz 15:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• I would think STC's move was quite funny. It just shows how silly this whole argument was in a spectacularly simple fashion, and at least for me, I had a good laugh over it. Anyhow, I like your idea for a centralised, general article on various CNY greetings (which btw actually has scope for a fantastic article. The so-called "Jixianghua" is certainly something worth investigating and writing about!), which is in-line with that suggested by others before. Anyone else still objecting to this proposal?--Huaiwei 15:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It is apparant from the above, that even you, Novacatz, has given your blessings for the move. The only one who seems unable to let his opinions known is Enochlau, who somehow equates this effort into one on Dim sum, and even at the last moment, claims the above "doesn't help us resolve the issue with the page title" without explaining why. In the above, he somehow said "Not really. I think that's one thing we agree on.", then backtracks by claiming "not really" (when asked if he disapproves) = "I don't think it's a good idea" as thou Australian English is another language. So what exactly does he "agree on" now? As for instantnood, the only thing he appears to be able to do now is to revert moves and claim "no consensus" has been made, which basically just reflects the filbustering of Enochlau, and the seemingly confused Novacatz who would agree on it, yet insist on "getting concensus" when at this time, no one has directly opposed the move except via beat-round-the-bush comments made by Enochlau and the knee-jerk "I am still around so dont mess with me" reactions by instantnood.

Do we have to kowtow to the antics of these individuals? Tell us why. If these folks cant make up their minds, and cant come up with feasible reasoning as to why they agree or disagree, instead choosing to adopt a defensive attitude, then yes, I would think the rest of us have every reason to ignore them and move on from here.--Huaiwei 04:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me summarise my opinions for those of you who seemingly cannot understand my English. I would like to have an article at Kung Hei Fat Choi similar to what we have on Merry Christmas. I do not want it at the Mandarin title, but that is not an issue anymore since that RM was closed. Now, I don't want it at Chinese New Year either because it's a phrase that can be discussed on its own merits; do you suggest that we merge Merry Christmas into Christmas? And claiming that it's an English Wikipedia is nonsense; a good expression that I hear around is that it's an international encyclopedia that just happens to be written in English. enochlau (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Funny. The folks who onced argued that this is an English Wikipedia, and hence it is acceptable for Western-bias to exist and that KHFC should be discussed in terms of its usage in the English language is now adopting my viewpoint that it is indeed an international encyclopedia in English. i dont think its your English I am failing to comprehend. What I fail to comprehend is your apparant dificulty in coming up with at least reasonable arguments for your demands. We all know what you want. You have not been able to address concerns raised when your demands are met thou. You have not been able to tell us if you support an article on general CNY greetings. And if you are opposing the merger of this to CNY based on the Merry Christmas example, then are you assuming we will support the existance of Merry Christmas as an independent article? Its way too short, and KHFC is even shorter, made worse with its loads of POV issues and content inaccuracies. The present merger in CNY works just as well. Do you have anything mature to comment on all these issues?--Huaiwei 05:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I personally have never said that there should be a Western-bias in articles. Do not attribute the words of others to me. OK, you are confusing the discussion; this is not a discussion about the neutrality of the (former) article. Let us concentrate on discussing whether it is appropriate to have an article at Kung Hei Fat Choi, and not merging that content into Chinese New Year. That is the issue.

Now, would you be able to point to me in what section of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not tells you that Kung Hei Fat Choi should not exist as an independent article? The arguments put forward have been:

1. It is a dicdef: It is more than a dicdef and there is the cultural context to discuss. If you truly believed it to be a dicdef, then you would have stuck {{move to Wiktionary}} onto it.
2. It is biased: Assuming that it is biased, that doesn't mean the article shouldn't exist and it should be merged into another article.
3. There is consensus: All of the previous comments that you have quoted were in the context of the move from Cantonese to Mandarin title. There was no expressed consensus for you or SchmuckyTheCat to merge into Chinese New Year. The most consensus that you could have read from that was to move to Chinese New Year greetings (note there is a typo in this title, there should be no 's' after the word 'Year', but let's leave as it otherwise it's going to be more messy than it is), and not merge into CNY. And from the fact that novacatz and I are still have concerns about such a merger, you really cannot claim that consensus exists. What gives you and SchmuckyTheCat more power over content on Kung Hei Fat Choi than novacatz and me?

I have some questions for you:

1. Would you support a merger of Merry Christmas to Christmas? If not, why not?
2. What Wikipedia policy supports you your desire to have no article on Kung Hei Fat Choi?
3. Are you this bitter and insulting in real life? Being an online conversation doens't meant that you can make generalisations on others.

I await your replies. enochlau (talk) 06:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Confusions...confusions. My comments above were actually attributed primarily to your failure in addressing this particular format, ie, "Chinese New Year greetings". All quotes I made attribute to support in having a general greeting article, as opposed to your demands for KHFC to stay. The suggestion for a general article was put forth when it is clear there is a dispute in the Cantonese vs Mandarin debate. The discussion section further demonstrated general agreement for a general article to help stem perceived bias. I asked multiple times if such a move is feasible for all. No one came forth to object, with only you making strange noises over "Dim sum to Chinese dumpling" when nobody is talking about Dim sum. Based on this, one can easily see there is concensus to at least keep this page, as opposed to keeping KHFC. Are you able to show otherwise?

Next, STC decided to merge this article to Chinese New Year. Previous discussions did not pre-empt this move, but when it was done, I felt it was reasonable to do so. No one said it "is a dicdef" to effect the move. I said it was simply too short and undeveloped to warrant a seperate article. That it was already biased and had content problems does not directly attribute to the merger, but the merger did resolve this issue somewhat. Are you able to show otherwise?

As for your questions, are you going to ask for Merry Christmas to be merged into Christmas? If so, do it, and I will make my feelings known. As I said a million times before, quit pulling in other examples to support the one under contention. Can I then also highlight the fact that Happy New Year redirects to New Year's Day as reason for making this a redirect? Second, I have made my point clear over why KHFC should not stay, in favour of a general article which helps reduce POV issues and bias. Your constant questioning leads me to wonder if you are trying to force out a particular answer. Can I then ask, in direct, blatant terms, if your insistance on keeping KHFC is nothing more than an issue of personal pride in your regional dialect? As for whether I am "bitter and insulting in real life", why dont you fly over and meet me in person to discover for yourself? So you dont make generalisations on others be it online or in real life? You arent human?

I am wondering if I am still interested in your replies, but lets see how it goes? :D--Huaiwei 06:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

At the end of the day, when push comes to shove, you need to refer to Wikipedia policy. You haven't answered my second question, which was probably the most important. Which Wikipedia policy supports your claim that Kung Hei Fat Choi should not exist as it did before? In case you don't know where to look, start at WP:POL. If no policy says that it should not exist, then barring common sense, it should exist. Does that make sense?

No, I am not going to request Merry Christmas be merged, because I think it should stay. I want to know how you can explain its existence? Why does it exist? Pulling in evidence that this article exists suggests to me that there is no blanket rule saying it should be merged into CNY - that we need to examine it on a case by case basis. We haven't even discussed it and it got merged! Be bold, but make sure that most people actually agree with you.

I don't see how you can use discussion on the previous move discussion as evidence of consensus. A distinct minority suggested that this be moved to Chinese New Year greetings. Let me repeat, a minority. Furthermore, no one suggested a merge to the main Chinese New Year! enochlau (talk) 09:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Without me having to even read beyond the first para, do you have any Wikipedia policy supporting your demands to keep the article? A small nudge elicits a ripple. A big shove invites a tsunami.--Huaiwei 10:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

As an external voice on this conflict, I note that there is a fair amount of information here that is not included in Chinese New Year#Greetings; also much that is there and not here, particularly on other greetings. I gather this is because of the recent move to this title. I do think that multiple greetings can be combined under this one title, although Kung hei fat choi and Kung hey fat choi, etc, should redirect here: redirects are cheap.

I think there is benefit in writing this section in the Chinese New Year in summary style: explain the basic greetings, let this page be more comprehensive: give more examples; possibly discuss the social (sociolinguistic; ethnography) and body language phenomena associated with the greetings. Currently, this page does not do that. So I think, rather, the appropriate action would be to {{expand}} and {{cleanup}} this page, rather than effectively delete it.

jnothman ^talk 14:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Part of the main reason why the version presently seen in Chinese New Year#Greetings appears to omit much of the information here, is because all questionable data added were removed. Issues on balance and bias were addressed. The POV-laden section on the Mandarin version of the phrase was removed and rewrittern, and so is the one on "gestures", which was decidedly outdated for most Chinese societies and non-universal. Besides these, there was nothing else this page could provide. Over in Chinese New Year#Greetings, not only were the more verified data kept, but oit was further expanded to discuss general CNY greetings, their usability and historical context, none of which existed here. And all that without the need for a seperate article. Unless folks here can demonstrate their ability in expanding it with verified information, I dont see much future in its retention as a standalone page.--Huaiwei 16:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

A point enochlau asks for above: What policy says this article shouldn't exist as "kung hei fat choi" - the answer to that is NPOV. It's not neutral to use one language above another unless it's the most common (in english). This talk page is evidence itself that there isn't a more common phrase between cantonese and putonghau. As the -expanded- portion of the greetings at the CNY article show, it also has equivalents in other dialects. The title should be the most common and least POV, "kung hei fat choi" is neither.

Chinese New Year greetings is neutral and encompassing. The encompassing part does address one problem: "kung hei fat choi" would never be more than a stub. So a single article for all Chinese New Year greetings would be great for a lack of bias - except, it would still be short and kind of contextless. Merging the small amount of information from here to Chinese New Year puts the information into a better article with additional cultural context.

So there isn't a policy that this article "Chinese New Year greetings" should exist. But as a guideline, concepts that work as sections of an article don't need their own article unless the section is overwhelming the parent article or the parent article is getting so large that some expandable sections can be split off. This content would never be more than a stub article - the parent article isn't too large. Putting this content BACK into the parent article was the right thing to do. SchmuckyTheCat 21:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Another point for enochlau, from above about the dictdef: I will never propose an article move to wiktionary as I don't believe in the wp dictdef policy and don't like the wiktionary project (readers should find all information on one site). My personaly policy on dictdefs is that they are valid stubs or can be upmerged to better articles.

And a third point: Merry Christmas has only existed for a month, and it's because of an absolutely delusional right-wing culture propaganda (War on Christmas). The article wouldn't exist except for current American politics playing out in the media. The existance or not of Merry Christmas has nothing to guide us here. SchmuckyTheCat 00:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Protected

I'm seeing alot of unilateral moves and people claiming consensus when there isn't any. I'd suggest opening this up to a request for comment or at least start dispute resolution. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 14:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

User ban requested

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Huaiwei_and_User:SchmuckyTheCat_violating_probation_order. enochlau (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Further comments requested

In order to proceed with civil discussion, I have opened a poll at Talk:Chinese New Years greetings/Poll. Please provide us with your thoughts. enochlau (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Restructured

I've considerably reorganised the article to turn its focus to the Chinese phrase, with a section dedicated to the phrase in English. [3] English Wikipedia is inevitably English-centric, but at the same time as an international Wikipedia – an indiscriminating databank of human knowledge, being too English-centric has to be avoided. — Instantnood 19:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I recently removed the sentence "popular especially, until recently, in southern China." Please verify this statement.--Huaiwei 19:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Phrasing

I stumbled upon this entry due to some variety of random link-following that I now forget, and I noticed the somewhat awkward (and sometimes grammatically troubling) phrasing of much of the article; seeing the talk page, I suppose I understand, all the energy is going into these ongoing debates. I did try to fix a little bit of it (apparently I wasn't signed in although I thought I was, heh), but a quick revision to my own little revision brought forth a further problem: as much as I would like to help out, I really don't know much at all here and that shows even in little things I forget (not making note of the fact that Hong Kong wasn't part of China at the time mentioned at the start of the "Gong Xi Fa Cai" heading, for example). But it is clear that the article needs to be, well, clearer!

Example: "A Mandarin version, gong xi fa cai, of the phrase then popularised in the mainland China." Err. Not really a proper sentence, but how to fix it up? Should it say "...of the phrase was then popularized", perhaps? But I don't know, since it could also actually mean quite a few other things with the sentences around it. So howabouts if at least a few people who know at least a few details take time off from the debate and fix up what they can? As it stands, there's not all that much here worth fighting over, at least if the entry was touched up then it would be clearer what everyone was fighting over; and maybe even with a tiny bit of fleshing out and rounding off, some of the debate might be satisfied anyways. That's my uneducated and optimistic view and tentative proposal, at least! Phil Urich 00:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I vastly cleaned up the english when it was merged to Chinese New Year, then that was substantially re-written on that page. I consider this dead text. SchmuckyTheCat 03:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who helped rewrite and expand on that section in CNY. But as it was writtern by me, some folks just cant accept it? ;)--Huaiwei 15:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You know well it is contentious to move the text, but you did. Why don't you spend your effort in performing the uncontested task first, and discuss and gain consensus before doing the contentious part? You cannot put the blame to others. — Instantnood 15:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

In what way is he putting the blame on others? I cant seem to detect the slightest hint of this in his statement. And that accusation coming from someone who is most well known for doing precisely that 24/7...--Huaiwei 15:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Move

Should the move from kung hei fat choi [4] be restored? Chinese New Year greetings should better be a redirect to list of Chinese New Year greetings. — Instantnood 08:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose — Yaohua2000 09:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not a move request. It is to restore an undiscussed move. — Instantnood 09:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• No matter whether it is a request, I oppose to move this article back. — Yaohua2000 10:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

  The move was inappropriately performed, and therefore, procedurally it has to be restored before we proceed to decide its ultimate title. — Instantnood 10:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Procedurally says who? SchmuckyTheCat 10:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per reasoning of Yaohua2000. And "restore an undiscussed move" is a move to anyone other than a wikilawyering pedant. SchmuckyTheCat 10:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• I suppose the proper forum to discuss the move has been Talk:Chinese New Year greetings/Poll. There's no point in people going there and expressing their opinion if that discussion is to be set aside, or left not maintained without nay resolution. --Pkchan 14:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  That page was set up to settle which title is most preferable by the community. It also tried to figure out what the community wanted the materials on these sayings be organised on Wikipedia. Unlike that page, by starting this section I requested administrators to restore the undiscussed move. — Instantnood 18:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  With respect, I disagree. One of the reasons cited while the aforementioned poll was created was to foster consensus in the light of, inter alia, the undiscussed move. Call me naïve or newbie (which I am), but I honestly believe that gathering consensus from a wider audience is, while imperfect, at least slightly better than a few users pushing eagerly for one side's argument with no real hope of convincing the other side of that (this probably included me in this case). And the way to gather such wider consensus is, I believe, by funnelling all possible viewpoints into one prominent place, and not by diverting attention.

  I still believe that Talk:Chinese New Year greetings/Poll is a better forum than this section to fully expand on and gather the wider community's consensus on this matter because the poll there was designed and set up in a slightly more robust manner, despite recent inactivity. There was a challenge to its validity there but I believe that challenge is solvable by slightly revising the poll question and then informing all participants of the revision. After that it would be up to all of us to advertise this poll and gather as many users' contribution as possible, especially those who have first-hand experience on that issue, possess a good source, or are used to the Wikipedia conventions. I do hope that the whole matter can be drawn to a close after setting a deadline (and the Chinese New Year day itself may serve a good deadline here). --Pkchan 17:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  The two are serving different purposes. That page was to explore a title that everybody would, hopefully, be happy with. This section was to request sysop to undo the undiscussed move. — Instantnood 18:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

Here's another reason to oppose listing this in transliterated chinese of any dialect. I was recently in a shopping mall, and it had "educational" displays about New Years celebrations around the world. It had one about China, and it had transliterations from cantonese and putonghua and neither was kung hei fat choi nor the mandarin form used here. Transliteration is often messy, which the sign proves, so it's best to just use a generic title and redirect any possible spellings. SchmuckyTheCat 10:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Nobody says "kung hei fat choi" during new year's time of the Gregorian calendar. — Instantnood 10:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

DOES THAT SAY THAT THEY DO? DOES WHAT I WROTE SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE CALENDAR? No. But, as a matter of fact, the sign did say Chinese celebrated on the Lunar New Year. SchmuckyTheCat 10:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't actually care about this issue any more; Wikipedia:Naming conventions doesn't help us at all, so it's really up to us to thrash it out. I'd just say leave everything where it is, and place nice redirects so users end up at the right info. enochlau (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I do feel for enochlau's being exhausted over all these discussions which seem to lead to no end. Sadly, such seemingly tiring and thankless jobs are what administrators are here for.

The mention of Wikipedia:Naming conventions inspired me to do some research there and I find that:

1. The relevant provision in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) is this: "If there is no commonly used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language. Latin-alphabet languages, like Spanish or French, should need no transliteration, but Chinese names can use Pinyin, for example." (emphasis is mine) Implication: a transliteration is preferred is there is no commonly used English name. Discussion: is "Chinese New Year greeting(s)" a "commonly used English name"?
2. The relevant provision in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) under Romanization: "In general, Chinese entries should be in Hanyu Pinyin except when there is a more popularly used form in English (such as Taoism) or when the subject of the entry is likely to object to romanization in pinyin. When an entry is not in pinyin form, there should be a redirect to the article from the pinyin form." (again, emphasis is mine) Implication: where there exists a transliteration more popularly used in English, that transliteration is preferred over Pinyin. Discussion: in English, which one is more popular, Kung Hei Fat Choi or Gong Xi Fa Cai?

--Pkchan 14:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for giving everybody a picture of what the guidelines say. What you've not mentioned is that the saying has entered English in the form "Kung Hei Fat Choi", as the evidence Enoch and Novacatz have cited. Besides, the saying is of clear southern Chinese, or more precisely, Cantonese origin, although it might arguably be true that there are more people saying it in Mandarin than in Cantonese in recent five or ten years (given the tremendous relaxation of state control over the economy). — Instantnood 18:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Kung Hei Fat Choi has not entered English as claimed, and non of the evidence provided by Enoch or Novacatz supports this assertion. I asked for any authoritative source which lists this phrase, and no one has been able to show anything thus far. Wikipedia is not a place for original research, and certainly not the place to make claims that words or phrases are "accepted" into another language. Since when did Wikipedia become an authority in the English language?--Huaiwei 00:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

But then again, does anyone call these things "Chinese New Year greetings" in English? enochlau (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no fixed English translation for the phrase 吉祥話 (which by itself dosent neccesary relate only to CNY too). Hence if we cannot make up our minds and cannot agree on the page title, I would think the best solution would be for this article to be redirected back to Chinese New Year. Just as it has been done before until some folks insisted somehow that this page deserves to be on its own.--Huaiwei 03:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting to have a list of Chinese New Year greetings? — Instantnood 18:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That has no relevance to my statements above, and is your suggestion, not mine.--Huaiwei 20:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Neither. If you're following the discussion, you can tell that's not my suggestion. It has already been suggested by other Wikipedians. — Instantnood 18:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

My point, is that this text is dead. It was merged into Chinese New Year and heavily modified from there. KHFC or GXFC, neither is a good article: it's just a phrase used in a larger context. That phrase can be better explained in the larger context article. And it's obvious from my observation that neither cantonese nor putonghau versions of the phrase are popular whatsoever in english and several transliterations exist for both. SchmuckyTheCat 05:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

As it stands, Chinese New Year is long enough as it is, so maybe this can stay but write using summary style in Chinese New Year? enochlau (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not proposing that it be merged. It already was merged. Chinese New Year is long enough WITH this text already in it. See this edit [5] and hit "Next Edit" 13 times. This artle, "Chinese New Year greetings" as well as KHFC, GHFC, and any other transliterations should ALREADY be redirects. This article existing independently of the merged and edited text amounts to a content fork because Instantnood played his revert games [6]. SchmuckyTheCat 06:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

What more can this article be expanded? There is no activity in it for the past weeks, and much of the text still existing now in this article are actually POVed, unsourced, speculated, and simply facturely inaccurate. The merger back into Chinese New Year has helped resolve most of these issues. If there are folks demanding to keep this article, then show us how it can be better improved. The lack of improvement dosent seem to warrant its continued existance. In fact, its an embarrasement reading it.--Huaiwei 13:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to add two points:

1. I have given my interpretation of the relevant naming conventions and posted some questions based on my reading of the conventions. I would have expected those who favour or favoured the move from Kung hei fat choi to the current page title to either address my questions or challenge my interpretation. So far I have seen no such discussion (to challenge the assertion that KHFC is more popular than GXFC, even if this challenge is valid, doesn't prove the reverse, ie the assertion that GXFC is more popular than KHFC). This is a little bit disappointing.
2. There re-emerged support over the option to merge the relevant content of this article to Chinese New Year, which is exactly what Option 3 of this poll is about. I would suggest all of us to continue the discussion on that poll until that poll is closed, even if there is any new point in support of/against this which has not yet been expressed thereon.

--Pkchan 17:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• There didn't "re-emerge" support over that option. That option was already performed, done, over. This "poll" is about a few users who think it should be un-merged. SchmuckyTheCat 18:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. enochlau (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Other New Year's greetings?

I am wondering why this article is called "Chinese New Year Greetings" when it only has the one greeting. I am a very elementary student of Mandarin, so of course I am not knowledgable enough to contribute to this article. In class, however, we were taught to say "Xin Nian Kuai Le" (新年快乐) for Happy New Year. Is this just a phrase taught to elementary language students that is not actually in use by native Chinese speakers, or is it a greeting that is used, and as such, should be included on the "Chinese New Year Greetings" page? Anne 14:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This article used to be at "Kung hei fat choi", but some editors objected to having it at the Cantonese transliteration, and there was a big stink and people got upset, and in the end, it ended up here, a neutral name. No one's touched it for a while, and it seemed like the status quo is required to keep everyone from being upset, even though it probably isn't the best solution. Now, from what I understand, 新年快乐 came into Chinese via the English "Happy New Year". 恭喜發財 is the traditional saying, but 新年快乐 could deserve a mention here too. enochlau (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

After I wrote what I did, I happened to look at Chinese New Year, and that article has an extensive section on greetings -- much more then at this article. Anyway, I got my greeting and I used it in Chinatown this weekend when we went in for Dim Sum to celebrate the New Year. 恭喜發財! Anne 00:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we should simply move this article to Kung hei fat choy. Deryck C. 12:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want your head bitten off, go ahead. enochlau (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong doing so? --Deryck C. 07:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, since Huaiwei and Instantnood are now on probation, it might be safe to do so now without generating a storm of protest. But still, you might want to judge concensus again (straw poll maybe?) before doing any move, given the history of this page. enochlau (talk) 10:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Huaiwei is a missing Wikipedian and I don't really like polls. We had a poll that time, it is quite irritating. Well, this article name is not disputed now. However, I would strongly oppose if its called Kung hei fat choi]]. --Terence Ong 11:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Not disputed? The fact that Deryck wants Kung hei fat choi, and you don't like that, suggests that it still is disputed :) enochlau (talk) 11:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Argument

I've read this talk page and... Wow. just wow. Perhaps we should retitle this entire page examples of how english and chinese dont translate perfectly, and various other pitpicks at each other's alphabet that are totally unproductive, and get us nowhere Pellaken 10:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree ;-) ...that is, I agree: WOW.

Not to be taking sides but half of the discussion seemed to be generated by Huaiwei perceiving slights and insults from objective observations that KHFC is the transliterated phrase (either spoken or written) more familiar to native-English-speakers.

Did you also read Talk:Kung hei fat choi/Move Discussion?!

It's amazing the lengths that people will ultimately go to in order to avoid conflict with a 'squeaky wheel' in these politically correct times ;-p

—DIV (60.241.31.238 (talk) 12:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC))