Talk:Equal Opportunities Commission (Hong Kong)

Useless distraction

Editors may have noted a difference of view between myself and another editor about the addition of the Hong Kong English (HKE) admonition template at the top of this page. I oppose its inclusion because it is of no assistance whatsoever to any editor contemplating contributing to the page. This is self-evident. The conscientious putative editor, venturing into forbidding territory (as it would seem given the tone of the warning), looks up HKE on WP and finds a page which describes characteristics of an exclusively oral variant and states that British English is the predominant form used in Hong Kong (though, of course, not exclusively - we Hongkongers have an amorphous and indeterminate mix, as one can glean from reading the sources to the HKE article). So this positive-minded, enthusiastic editor is left with no clue at all about what, if any, considerations he/she must take on board before getting on with editing the article - what unique spellings, what grammatical formulations, what punctuation. And, even with the best will in the world, it is surely impossible for anyone to write any sort of guideline to editors who are to be required to write in HKE. So the prominent banner on this page achieves only a purely negative effect with no attendant positive. It is important, therefore, that it be removed. Any views? sirlanz 04:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion concerns general style on WP and should be taken to the MoS Talk page (MOS:ENGVAR / MOS:TIES), or the HK Wikiproject Talk page, not on each individual article. Kdm852 (talk) 06:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The MoS Talk page is an extremely broad field of discussion and this is a matter specific to Hong Kong. Persons interested and knowledgeable who can contribute are not likely to be monitoring the MoS and, more importantly, about 999 in 1,000 editors monitoring MoS Talk would not be in a position to do so. To have the debate there is to cause annoyance and distraction to a huge swathe of people. So, no, that is definitely the wrong place to hold the debate. What is practical and sensible is to have the debate here and if it is seen that there is anything relevant to MoS arrived at in the outcome of the debate, that can be transferred into the general MoS arena. The other proposition, to have the debate on the HK Wikiproject Talk page, is at the other extreme, too limiting and having the effect of excluding editors not specifically focusing their efforts on HK. If KDM852 would like to contribute something of substance to the debate, he can do so now, without avoiding it yet again. sirlanz 07:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

This discussion has (in essence) in fact already been had on the MoS talk page (see here or here or here), and no consensus was reached to change the current MoS policy on National Varieties of English. Indeed, a vote was also taken on the subject (see here) and the consensus was to keep to the existing MoS policy of uses of national varieties of English (including Hong Kong English, which was explicitly mentioned). I see no reason to restart the debate again here. Kdm852 (talk) 07:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the links to related history. Firstly, they were about changing the MoS and the proposition here is not directed at any such change. Secondly, those engaged in those exchanges (1) were mostly preoccupied with Commonwealth English and tensions in use of English between major English-speaking states and (2) mentioned Hong Kong English only to illustrate their complete lack of knowledge of it. So there has been no debate about HKE there, either explicitly or as a representative of a region with tiny minority use of English. The issue I have raised is whether the addition of the template here contributes anything positive to the work of editors of this article. Nothing in the MoS directs that the template be included on any Talk page in the encyclopaedia, so it must have justification to be included here. sirlanz 07:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, questions were addressed in the links I sent, just not every question in every link. Consensus reached stated that the use of national varieties of English is a useful policy for WP and its continued application was upheld. I should not need to restate what has already been stated every time you ask the same question that has already been answered. Use of HK English on this article adheres to the same policy as use of national varieties of English (including HK Eng, as the discussions mentioned) on any other WP article. Some did indeed say this was not always clear, but consensus voted to uphold the policy regardless (reasons were given in the discussion). If you disagree with this policy, please take it to the MoS where it belongs. Kdm852 (talk) 08:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Not one shred of substance in anything ever said by KDM852 in promoting the inclusion of this template on Hong Kong-related pages. Every opportunity has been afforded for him/her to do so and nothing has ever been advanced. I suggest editors simply ignore it. It has no substance whatsoever. sirlanz 08:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)