Talk:Chinese New Year greetings

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

message: 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  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)
replies: text: Updated the page based on this info.  novacatz 23:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More useful uses of Google 

message: According to a Chinese web page regarding The Republic of Singapore , this term is offensive in Singapore. Is this true or not?--Skyfiler 02:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is Kung hei fat choi Offensive in Singapore? 

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  (deadpan) Oh... Thrilling... (/deadpan) Isn't red tape wonderful :).  novacatz 08:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ooook. Our friend User:SchmuckyTheCat has been bold and redirected. Do we all approve? enochlau (talk) 10:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont. Do you?--Huaiwei 12:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Dictionary entry 

message: 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)
thread_title: Protected

message: See Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Huaiwei_and_User:SchmuckyTheCat_violating_probation_order. enochlau (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  User ban requested 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Further comments requested 

message: I've considerably reorganised the article to turn its focus to the Chinese phrase, with a section dedicated to the phrase in English.  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)
thread_title: Restructured

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Phrasing 

message: Should the move from kung hei fat choi  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)
replies: text: This is not a move request. It is to restore an undiscussed move.  — Instantnood 09:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

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

text: *: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)

text: *:*Procedurally says who? SchmuckyTheCat 10:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I think we should simply move this article to Kung hei fat choy. Deryck C. 12:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you want your head bitten off, go ahead. enochlau (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: What's wrong doing so? --Deryck C. 07:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Other New Year's greetings?