Talk:Raymond Chan (politician)

2006 Election Analysis
I am removing the analysis of the recent election. I wouldn't suggest that it is not accurate but without citation it seems merely opinion and original research. --JGGardiner 23:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 07:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Raymond Chan → Raymond Chan (Canadian politician) – There is another politician, Raymond Chan Chi-chuen. Also, there is no primary subject of "Raymond Chan". Both are equally notable. Current title shall be of disambiguation page. George Ho (talk) 06:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose this Chan was a cabinet member and the first Chinese to become so in Canada federally, so more historically notable. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 08:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment the requested title should become a redirect though. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Notability concerns are irrelevant, as the two people have different names and thus different article titles. There is already a hatnote on this page directing people to the other article. As such, the two are already naturally disambiguated (see WP:NATURAL). As long as there is a hatnote directing people to the other page, we're already good. --V2Blast (talk) 09:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless there is evidence that the other politician is actually known as Raymond Chan we don't need to concern ourselves with notability here since unless that is the case someone typing Raymond Chan would not be looking for the other politician in the first place.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2014 (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.

Requested move 14 December 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: no consensus. Talk:Raymond Chan Chi-chuen also closed as no consensus, so there are three people with similar names, but all have natural disambiguators. If one of these are moved this may need to be reconsidered, but until then there is no consensus to move anything. (non-admin closure) Brad  v  04:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

– The HK politician is known as "Raymond Chan Chi-chuen", "Raymond Chan", "Ray Chan". Search for that guy at Google or Bing. Also, Statistics prove that the HK politician is more popular than the Canadian one. If the Canadian politician is disambiguated, the numbers will go down. Also, the "Ray Chan" dabpage should be renamed to "Raymond Chan". The previous RMs had just three opposers. However, two IPs who opposed came from Quebec, Canada: one from Vieux-Saint-Laurent and one from Beaconsfield. Also, the hatnote argument is a little weak for me per statistics. George Ho (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Raymond Chan → Raymond Chan (Canadian politician)
 * Ray Chan → Raymond Chan
 * Support per nomination. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Does anyone want to move the Hong Kong politician to "Raymond Chan"? If not, this move seems pointless. Pandas and people (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Pandas and people, neither the Canadian nor the HK guy is proven to be the primary topic because one is neither more significant nor more popular than the other. If you disagree, there is another RM discussion at Talk:Raymond Chan Chi-chuen. George Ho (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support: The question is not whether the Hong Kong politician is most commonly called "Raymond Chan" or not. It is a question of who the readers are usually looking for when they look for "Raymond Chan". If they are not usually looking for the Canadian politician when they do that, then the article about the Canadian politician should be moved. See, e.g., WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT and the situation for Hurricane. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The title tells the reader the name of the subject. In other words, the closer to the actual common name, the better. This proposal appear to motivated by the idea that the reader should be given a neutral list of all the options. Modern thinking regarding software design is to try to anticipate what choice the reader is likely to make. At Wikipedia, this approach is codified as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Pandas and people (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Pandas and people, how often are you familiar with either the HK or the Canadian politician? You cited the guideline, but the rule says that neither usage nor long-term significance defines the primary topic. Instead, that depends on any of us, including you. According to you, the Canadian guy is the "primary topic" because the present title is concise enough. However, the present title fails the rest of the criteria for the article title. "Raymond Chan" is too base to be recognized as either person, not precise enough, not helpful for readers, etc. Per WP:PARENDIS, the parenthetical disambiguation is the better way because natural disambiguation is less helpful to readers. George Ho (talk) 05:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, even when commonly used, per WP:common names, ambiguous names are avoided often. George Ho (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand your comment. What is the basis for your thinking that the Canadian politician is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Raymond Chan"? —BarrelProof (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If the lemma isn't needed for anything else, why not use it for this article? The guideline says to make an article primary topic if gets more than half the relevant traffic. To say that an article can't be at the base lemma if gets less than half the traffic is a fallacy of the inverse. The line of reasoning that you're following would send everyone to a disambiguation page. These kinds of pages are never Google favorites or anything like that. In fact, it's my impression that readers hate them. Pandas and people (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not say "to make an article primary topic if gets more than half the relevant traffic" (with respect to usage). It uses a much higher standard—it says to do so if it is " more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term" (emphasis added).  Moreover, if I understand correctly, you're basically saying you disagree with the guideline because you really don't like disambiguation pages, so you would prefer to send the reader to a particular topic rather than a disambiguation page even if that topic is relatively unlikely to be the topic sought by the reader. Is that correct? —BarrelProof (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You didn't address my point at all! No where in the guideline does it say that you cannot put an article at the base lemma if it falls slightly short of the criteria for primary topic. If you interpret every clause in most restrictive way possible, which I take it you do, then no article can be primary and the entire guideline is self-negating and a bit pointless. Pandas and people (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as your point goes, I interpret "more likely than all the other topics combined" to be a clarification or example of "much more likely." Either way, the drafting of the guideline could certainly be improved. Making the disambiguation page primary is not only method of disambiguation detailed in the guidelines, you know. Pandas and people (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeeps. Some serious logical fallacies, alright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reidgreg (talk • contribs) 18:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose per previous RM. Is this a little bit silly?  If Chi-chuen may have some recent popularity, that doesn't mean we should jump to make this a DAB.  The current hatnote is sufficient. Reidgreg (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Looking at Google results for the two politicians, the Canadian is generally referred to as "Raymond Chan"and the Hong Kong politician almost exclusively referred to as "Raymond Chan Chi-Cheun". Barring other people besides these who call themselves "Raymond Chan" and have articles on Wikipedia, the current setup provides natural disambiguation with no need to move either of the pages per our article titles policy. Hatnotes would suffice. I would however, move the current page at Ray Chan to Raymond Chan (disambiguation), since that's the more formal name. I also don't think the argument that Canadians or IP editors should have their arguments (in this case the utility of hatnotes) devalued just on the basis of what they're from. If this gets moved, then would it be okay to reopen another RM to move it back because you're Chinese?  Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Damn, I came across this while searching for the person who started 9GAG! Yes, please move Raymond Chan → Raymond Chan (Canadian politician). Based on the google news search, I do not see any indication that the Canadian politician is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (In fact, I had no idea who he was). The only "Raymond Chan" I knew was in the HK Legco and I knew him because he is the first LGBT lawmaker from Hong Kong. The way I see, none of them is the primary topic. ("Raymond Chan" is actually a pretty common name here in Singapore as well and it would help to keep it as a disambiguation). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Personal knowledge is subjective and should not be used to influence primary topic WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT - Reidgreg (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That was simply a personal observation I made. My main argument for supporting the move is that the Raymond Chan (Canadian politician) is not the primary topic for Raymond Chan. Most news sources are about the Hong Kong politician. Most page views are about the Hong Kong politician as well. So I don't see why it shouldn't be moved to a disambiguation. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:22, 29 December 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.