Talk:Chinese New Year greetings/Poll

message: I hereby open a poll to discuss the situation with the article formerly at Kung hei fat choi, now moved to Chinese New Years greetings, and with some of it merged into Chinese New Year. I note that there was a previous discussion of a move from "Kung hei fat choi" to "Gong Xi Fa Cai", which failed; the discussion is preserved at Talk:Kung hei fat choi/Move Discussion. In a sense, this is an extension of that discussion.
The issue to be resolved is that at the previous move discussion, some (a minority) of users suggested that the article be expanded and moved to "Chinese New Years greetings", in the hope that it can be more useful. However, as it was not considered by many of the voters, consensus is unclear and has been debated at length at Talk:Chinese New Years greetings, resulting in a deadlock.
This poll, therefore, is to clarify what users think should happen to this content. Although polls typically are "yes" and "no", there is a need to make this poll tripartite.
Please choose between:
# An article at Kung hei fat choi and a summary at Chinese New Year - back to what it was before.
# An article at Chinese New Year greeting and a summary at Chinese New Year - note the slight change from the current title, which is grammatically incorrect
# No article at either of the above; instead merge all relevant content into Chinese New Year.
Thank you. enochlau (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

message: # Let's keep the two pages separate and revert the greeting page to Kung hei fat choy.  I'd put forward three reasons for this:
#* KHFC, as a term widely used both by the Chinese people in practice during CNY and as a term used by non-Chinese to associate with CNY, deserves an entry of its own.
#* The current title is a bit misleading since it doesn't address any other common CNY greeting(s?) other than KHFC itself.
#* Ample support has been given on Talk:Kung_hei_fat_choi/Move_Discussion that a significant number of English media uses "Kung key fat choi" or its variants to transliterate this CNY greeting, but virtually no English media uses "Gungxi facai".  The criterion to rebut this test would be, upon a diligent and fair research on those English media who publishes a transliteration of this term, that those who uses GXFC are more than those who uses KHFC.  This test is a test on the strength of a term in the English speaking world -- after all we are talking about the proper title of a term in the English version of Wikipedia.
#: --Pkchan 17:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support Option 1 

message: # Weak support. novacatz 17:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support Option 2 

message: # SchmuckyTheCat 18:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support Option 3 

message: Why Option 1 shouldn't be an option:
:KHFC or GXFC is a false dilemma.  The point isn't about which phrase came first, which language popularized it, or which language most native english speakers encounter most often.  They are both used by large numbers of chinese speaking people around the world. The number of non-chinese speakers who even know the difference between cantonese and putonghau are vastly overwhelmed by people who don't know (and don't care). 
:Presenting the article at the KHFC title presents a cantonese-specific POV. Rather a trivial one, IMHO, but obviously one that matters if it's resulted in edit wars, WP:ANI flames, and a user RFC.  We should avoid this POV.
:Presenting the article at GXFC would also present a putonghau POV, which to some people raises latent PRC-phobia.  This should be avoided as well.
:The title of KHFC actually seems to preclude adding other phrases (even GXFC!) used during Chinese New Year.  The maximum length of an article on KHFC is rather short.  Why be exclusive?  Adding more phrases makes a KHFC title irrelevant to the contents.
Why I first chose Option 2:
:Let's avoid POV!  By having a generic article title we avoid the POV inherent (as witnessed by the talk page discussion gone rabid) in choosing one variation of Chinese over the other.
:Let's be inclusive! It also lets us add MORE phrases, because KHFC and GXFC are not the only phrases used.
Why I choose Option 3:
:Article length: Option 2 is still going to result in a very short article.  As seen by the current state of Chinese New Year, the greetings section works wonderfully well as a section.
:Context is everything: The section in Chinese New Year provides other traditions, putting the greetings into a larger context, exposing more readers to that specific content, and making the Chinese New Year article better as well.
SchmuckyTheCat 19:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase itself used to be very regional, mostly in Cantonese-speaking areas and the rest of southern China. It was not until very recently that it became popular in the rest of China (China here refers to the geographical region, not any particular regime/jurisdiction). Although I agree there should be no discrimination towards any language, we have to acknowledge the fact that this is the English-language version of Wikipedia. Some certain English-centricism is unavoidable. When it comes to matter related to languages, most readers are looking for, and more interested in what the matter is in English, instead of in other languages. There's nothing to deal with regional or linguistics superiority, but to reflect the fact that the saying is regional, and entered English through a particular language. For this reason, I've reorganised the article by taking all transliterations off the lead sentence, while I'd still support moving it back to "kung hei fat choi" or any of its variants. — Instantnood 19:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: I suggest that Option 1 be revised as thus: "An article at a transliteration (Kung hei fat choi, Gong Xi Fa Cai, or others) and a summary at Chinese New Year", and then call for all participants' attention to this revision.
Since the previously worded option would be included in this revised option while the revision would not made Option 1 co-incide with the other two options, such revision should not call the previously cast vote into question.  --Pkchan 17:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Validity of this poll