Talk:Edward Leung

Requested move 1 May 2016

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: Not moved. No consensus to move this page. (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

---

Edward Leung → Edward Leung Tin-kei – Current title should become the title of the disambiguation page or a redirect to Edward Leong, which I'm separately nominating. I added the hatnote for temporary use as it can be removed; otherwise, the use can be indefinite. The person himself may not be more prominent nor popular than the other. The name looks confusing as the surname is interchangeably spelled, homogenously pronounced, and rooted from the Chinese word, 梁. Sources that use the proposed name are SCMP, Vice, The Standard, ABC (US) News, Bloomberg, Reuters, and many others. Alternatively, if natural disambiguation is not possible, how about Edward Leung (activist)? George Ho (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support using Hong Kong English for Hong Kong people -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:TWODABS, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:SMALLDETAILS. SSTflyer 05:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

SSTflyer, Leong and Leung have the same Chinese root name and sound homonymous. How can a reader tell the difference between the "o" and the "u"? By knowing the person or what? Is the name precise enough? George Ho (talk) 07:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. Readers do not search for a topic based on a person's Chinese name. What a person's English name is derived from is irrelevant. SSTflyer 08:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Here are the statistics, SSTflyer. However, activist "Leung" page was newly created three months ago, explaining greater viewership. I predict the page to be viewed as much later months as "Leong" page. George Ho (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I never asked for page views. All I am saying is that the current disambiguation used is sufficient. What's more, you don't predict page views. Doing so would be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. SSTflyer 08:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@SSTflyer: There was the Alan Lewis vs. Alun Lewis situation, which I discussed in the first place. The Leong/Leung situation revolves on the surname; Alun/Alan, first name. Also, people in English-speaking countries might not tell the difference between the two when they are heard the same... unless they add in more terms, like Tin-kei or activist from Hong Kong or something like that. --George Ho (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Reliable sources consistently romanise the subjects' names like the current article titles. William Avery (talk) 11:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@William and SSTflyer: There are a screenwriter (Romanized Chinese name), a translator, a doctor, an art director, etc. Of course, their notabilities have not yet been proven. George Ho (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

(Two hours later) I created the draft, Draft:Edward Leung Yiu-ming. I hope this changes your minds. George Ho (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - the common practice on wikipedia is either the "English name+last name" (Edward Leung) or "English name+last name (occupation or origin)" (Edward Leung (activist)) if there are more than one Edward Leung. Lmmnhn (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. It's unreasonable to give away a WP:Primary topic status because another article's subject can be misspelt to give the same title. The view stats are irrelevant because Edward Leong is not Edward Leung. If Draft:Edward Leung Yiu-ming goes to mainspace I wouldn't oppose either Edward Leung (activist) or Edward Leung Tin-kei. Deryck C. 15:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

No such thing as populx or not or have or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyhendg (talk • contribs) 20:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

The use of the descriptive phrase "under a colonial statute" after "rioting" in the following sentence appears to be unnecessary, since most laws on the books in Hong Kong are "colonial" insofar as they derive from Hong Kong's time as a Colony of the UK, and they are similar to laws in the UK, which is where HK Law is derived: "after being convicted of rioting under a colonial statute and assaulting a police officer during the Mong Kok riots". Is there any reason why this should not be removed, leaving, "after being convicted of rioting and assaulting a police officer during the Mong Kok riots" Muchado (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)