Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/Names

Charlye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.62.153 (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hong Kong people's name
dearchived from /archive4

Should we write Tony Leung Chiu Wai or Tony Leung Chiu-wai and Tung Chee Hwa or Tung Chee-hwa?

I remember a discussion about this topic concluding apparently that the second version should be used, but I cannot retrieve it. Also the project page does not deal with this issue. Any thought on this topic? Thanks. olivier 19:10, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC) ?


 * It shouldnt really be what all Hong Kong people should be using, but what format is most common for each individual. We'll look up news articles and official sites to determine the "correct" version to use. --Jiang 02:29, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Of course I did not mean that the HK folks should use it! I meant "should be used (as a recommended but not obligatory standard for Wikipedia articles mentioning the Cantonese romanization of the name of people, whose name is commonly pronounced in Cantonese, as it commonly occurs with people from Hong Kong)". Anyway, thanks, that was useful..... olivier 04:14, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * Why don't we stick to the names that these people use on their official records (say identity cards, passport) or the names that they feel like comfortable to be referred to by the public (some celebrities stars don't use their real name)? Steve 12:44, Oct 24, 2004 (GMT)


 * It is not easy to confirm their name on official document except for some public figures. The question posted above has a bad assumption built in.  It is trying to fit the Hong Kong Chinese name system into the Western Firstname, Middlename, Lastname convention.  It becomes a problem when someone has 4 names, then someone would use the hyphen to join some names together so the name fit in the Western format.  But is that the right thing to do?


 * I always believe names should be done in the person's native way. For example, Wen Ho Lee is a Chinese American who live in the US and he writes his name as Wen Ho Lee despite other Chinese would call him Lee Wen Ho.  Mao Zedong is Mao Zedong even if the Western convention would have changed his name into Zedong Mao.  Likewise, if a person goes by his/her Cantonese name, it is silly to use the Mandarin transliteration as the article title, though it is okay to annotate with pinyin.  What I want to promote is the concept of "native" name.  Just stick with how the person would do for himself.


 * None of your choices were appropriate. These names should be written as Tony L EUNG Chiu Wai and T UNG Chee Hwa.


 * Kowloonese 01:37, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, before attacking my assumptions, please read my question properly first. I was asking whether the name should be written "Tung Chee Hwa" or "Tung Chee-hwa". There is nothing about trying to fit a Western pattern on a Chinese one in this question, just the fact the both formats appear routinely for the same person across the English Wikipedia and the English media in Hong Kong. In my initial question, I was looking for an answer which would allow for some homogeneization across the English Wikipedia (again, for HK names - Mao Zedong is not part of the question; I did not mention pinyin nor questioned the word order). Obviously, things become more complicated when the person is also famous by his/her English first name, like in the case of Tony Leung.


 * As an example, the format used by the 100 year old South China Morning Post, the largest English language newspaper in Hong Kong is consistently "Tony Leung Chiu-wai" and "Tung Chee-hwa". Same thing for The Standard. Any good reason for not following the format adopted by the two leading English language newspapers of Hong Kong? olivier 08:08, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * I am aware of how the newspapers do it. However, that is not how Hong Kong people write their names.  People in Hong Kong mostly use the format as in Tung Chee Hwa.  That is how students do it in school.  Many do the same on their birth certificates, on their government ID cards etc.  I have no strong objection to follow the newspaper convention in the Wikipedia.  But on the other hand, I lean toward using the same names these people present themselves.  Your examples above represented two different kinds of transliteration, Leung is definitely a Cantonese transliteration, but Hwa is obviously Mandarin because Cantonese would have used Wah instead.  Two people from Hong Kong, using two different transliteration standards.  Inconsistency is the way it should be because their names belong to them, not to wikipedia or the newspapers.  We have no right to change the spelling or reformat it.  Kowloonese 01:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * We shall stick to their own way of writing their own names, and having their own names on their own personal identification documents. &mdash; Instantnood 21:33, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kowloonese and Instantnood. It is how they write their own names which is more important...not how a newspaper does it across the board for all names for a century...--Huaiwei 06:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Then Tung Chee-hwa will have to be moved to Tung Chee Hwa. &mdash; Instantnood 21:18 Feb 27 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, so who volunteers to go and check the ID of the HK people mentioned in Wikipedia? olivier 07:11, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * I would suggest Instantnood, considering how much time he seems to invest everyday vetting through every single one of my edits, as well as several other members of this site. Surely expending that energy towards more productive work like tracking down people's names is his forte.--Huaiwei 05:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Well actually most people do not have the hyphen, unless they intentionally do so. By the way, IMHO the format Tony Leung Chiu Wai is not official, and is misleading. Any suggestion? Should the family name be underlined, bolded or C APITALISED in the article? &mdash; Instantnood 14:59 Mar 9 2005 (UTC)


 * The very purpose of my initial posting was based on the fact that there seem to be no "official" way to write Hong Kong people's names in English. The suggestion of some of the above postings, while interesting (we should write the name of people the way they want it), lacks practicality, since, for most people, we just don't know how they want it to be written. So, that's the reason why I was asking if we could agree on some acceptable standard for those for whom we do not have the information. By the way, that's most probably the reason why the English speaking media of Hong Kong have defined their own standards for this point (see my posting above). My suggestions, unless we have better information for specific individuals, is to agree on such a standard for use in Wikipedia. Here are the options that I suggest:


 * If the person has an English name, that is commonly used to refer to him/her:
 * Tony Leung Chiu Wai
 * Tony Leung Chiu-wai - standard used by the English language press in HK (see my posting above)
 * Tony Leung or Leung Chiu Wai - a compromise
 * Tony Leung or Leung Chiu-wai
 * Leung Chiu Wai - would boldly avoid "trying to fit the Hong Kong Chinese name system into the Western Firstname, Middlename, Lastname convention" (see posting by Kowloonese)
 * Leung Chiu-wai
 * If there is no English component to the name:
 * Wong Kar Wai - "That is how students do it in school. Many do the same on their birth certificates, on their government ID cards etc." (see posting by Kowloonese)
 * Wong Kar-wai - standard used by the English language press in HK (see my posting above)


 * I do not see any argument supporting the underlining, bolding or capitalizing of the names. Thanks for your comments and suggestions. olivier 09:20, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * I support no.1 for both the first set and second set. For the first set, the family name should be underlined or capitalised in the first line of the first paragraph of the article, to avoid confusions.
 * Please also note that Tony Leung Chiu Wai is a rare case, to disambiguate from Tony Leung Ka Fai. For other Hongkongers with English names, such as Donald Tsang, the Chinese part of the name does not form part of the title. &mdash; Instantnood 09:35, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Names order
I find it confusing that Chinese family/clan name should be listed before given names, as opposed to Western practice; ordinary people would never know about this convention from reading the articles. I believe the most intuitive way is to mention the names in Western order on the first line and then provide Chinese names and transliterations in native order using a table/template. For example, Mao Zedong should be noted in the intro as Zedong (Tse-tong) Mao, then the rest of the article is free to use native name order and most common name (see also Stalin).

The given names should also be preferred over family/clan name when referencing by part of the full name update:in the rest of the article, i.e.  DmitryKo 07:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Kai-shek or Chiang 'Kai-shek, but not Chiang alone
 * Zedong or Mao Zedong or Chairman Mao, but not Mao alone.


 * Thanks for bringing this up... I took a look at Mao Zedong and, sure enough, it seems to assume that the reader already knows how Chinese names work. Certainly a better, clearer template would help in solving this problem.


 * However, both reversing the two names ("Zedong Mao") and putting just the first name ("Zedong") would be highly unusual and jarring in both Chinese and English usage. It's conventional to stick to the original order: "Mao Zedong". It's also conventional in English to use the last name alone: "Mao". How about capitalizing the last name in the intro: MAO Zedong? -- ran (talk) 07:43, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree having the family name C APITALISED or underlined on the first line of an article. &mdash; Instantnood 10:15, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * No, since western media, acadmic texts, and everything in English I've read keeps the Chinese order surname before given names. Wikipedia should be no exception. International convention is to capitalize the surname (e.g. this is done in the CIA World Factbook). I would support making this a convention. --Jiang

It would be counter-intuitive for a reader to encounter a single all-caps surname per dozens of conventinal ones. How would he know it's a Chinese-only convention for family/clan name, again? To make it obvious, every surname would need to be capitalized; it's too much of a work and most non-English names don't even need this because they follow Western practice.

A similar naming confusion exists for some Russian persons. It's solved by keeping common article name but providing a correctly transliterated native name(s) in the intro. It's entirely painless because the follow-up reverts to common name (usually surname as the most unique part of the name); the intro is treated as a clarification. See Joseph Stalin, Leo Tolstoy, Mikhail Gorbachev, Vladimir Lenin, Nikita Khrushchev, Leon Trotsky.

Such practice could be applied to Chinese persons as well, with the only exception: a given name (courtesy name, posthumous name, era name etc.) should be used as partial name throughout the rest of the article (I'm sorry I didn't made it explicitly clear), because it's the most unique part of Chinese name; full names should follow thing of the names. Thanks for your comments and suggestions. olivier 09:20, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * I support no.1 for both the first set and second set. For the first set, the family name should be underlined or capitalised in the first line of the first paragraph of the article, to avoid confusions.
 * Please also note that Tony Leung Chiu Wai is a rare case, to disambiguate from Tony Leung Ka Fai. For other Hongkongers with English names, such as Donald Tsang, the Chinese part of the name does not form part of the title. &mdash; Instantnood 09:35, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Names order
I find it confusing that Chinese family/clan name should be listed before given names, as opposed to Western practice; ordinary people would never know about this convention from reading the articles. I believe the most intuitive way is to mention the names in Western order on the first line and then provide Chinese names and transliterations in native order using a table/template. For example, Mao Zedong should be noted in the intro as Zedong (Tse-tong) Mao, then the rest of the article is free to use native name order and most common name (see also Stalin).

The given names should also be preferred over family/clan name when referencing by part of the full name update:in the rest of the article, i.e.  DmitryKo 07:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Kai-shek or Chiang 'Kai-shek, but not Chiang alone
 * Zedong or Mao Zedong or Chairman Mao, but not Mao alone.


 * Thanks for bringing this up... I took a look at Mao Zedong and, sure enough, it seems to assume that the reader already knows how Chinese names work. Certainly a better, clearer template would help in solving this problem.


 * However, both reversing the two names ("Zedong Mao") and putting just the first name ("Zedong") would be highly unusual and jarring in both Chinese and English usage. It's conventional to stick to the original order: "Mao Zedong". It's also conventional in English to use the last name alone: "Mao". How about capitalizing the last name in the intro: MAO Zedong? -- ran (talk) 07:43, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree having the family name C APITALISED or underlined on the first line of an article. &mdash; Instantnood 10:15, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * No, since western media, acadmic texts, and everything in English I've read keeps the Chinese order surname before given names. Wikipedia should be no exception. International convention is to capitalize the surname (e.g. this is done in the CIA World Factbook). I would support making this a convention. --Jiang

It would be counter-intuitive for a reader to encounter a single all-caps surname per dozens of conventinal ones. How would he know it's a Chinese-only convention for family/clan name, again? To make it obvious, every surname would need to be capitalized; it's too much of a work and most non-English names don't even need this because they follow Western practice.

A similar naming confusion exists for some Russian persons. It's solved by keeping common article name but providing a correctly transliterated native name(s) in the intro. It's entirely painless because the follow-up reverts to common name (usually surname as the most unique part of the name); the intro is treated as a clarification. See Joseph Stalin, Leo Tolstoy, Mikhail Gorbachev, Vladimir Lenin, Nikita Khrushchev, Leon Trotsky.

Such practice could be applied to Chinese persons as well, with the only exception: a given name (courtesy name, posthumous name, era name etc.) should be used as partial name throughout the rest of the article (I'm sorry I didn't made it explicitly clear), because it's the most unique part of Chinese name; full names should follow the established 'family name goes first' pattern. DmitryKo 19:32, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 *  a given name should be used as partial name  -- this is extremely unusual and unconventional. I have never seen any piece of writing refer to Mao Zedong as simply "Zedong" in either English or Chinese. The first reaction of a Chinese reader to simply "Zedong" would be, "what, is the author Mao's mom or something?" As you can imagine this is not the reaction we want to get.
 * Well, I could get this all wrong. Thanks for clarification. DmitryKo 12:53, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Putting Zedong Mao would also be highly unusual in a scholarly work. People do it with their personal names, but this is not done in encyclopedias referring to famous personnages. This is simply a convention that we have to follow, because doing it the other way looks jarring and wrong.
 * I understand that Chinese names are confusing to western readers. The best way to solve this is probably a template. But please don't introduce conventions that nobody else uses. -- ran (talk) 21:51, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * I haven't introduced it anywhere, what I did is made a proposal. DmitryKo 12:53, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Capitalization is an international standard. It is not counter-intuitive and the reader will smell something going on when we keep referring to the person by his surname in the article. What you are proposing is done nowhere. No publication of any scholarly repute or standard would ever do that. Only confused and ignorant people do what you propose, and only mistakenly so. It's also awfully western-centric. --Jiang 22:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I support either C APITALISED or underlined . Underline is the practice in some countries, such as the United Kingdom. &mdash; Instantnood 11:05, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm confused by both current practice and your smelly capitalizaion hints, and ignorant of your non Western-centric attitude, considering this is an English-language resource. I could be mistaken though. DmitryKo 12:53, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let's stick with the current system, which corresponds to widespread English and Chinese usage. It so happens that English publications tend to follow the native order for Chinese names (Zhou Enlai or Chou En-lai, not Enlai Zhou), do not use the native order for Hungarian names (Bela Bartok, not Bartók Béla), and use both orders for Japanese names (Junichiro Koizumi is far more frequent than Koizumi Jun'ichirō; but Kato Takaaki is more frequent than Takaaki Kato). We should indicate family names somehow, but there is no need to change the current usage for Chinese or Hungarian names (I feel differently about Japanese names, though). --MarkSweep 07:40, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The only occassion where Chinese names are written following western pattern is the names of anglicised or americanized people, such as Wen Ho Lee. It never happens for names based on Hanyu Pinyin. &mdash; Instantnood 11:05, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * We should indicate family names somehow. That's all I'm concerned about. However, the overwhelming overreaction indicates that every Western reader is expected to hold a PhD in Chinese culture, or he risks being tagged with all kinds of ruthless imperialism. DmitryKo 12:53, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah I see. So you're implying all non-western readers are already PhD holders in western culture aren't you? :-) &mdash; Instantnood 12:59, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure I agree with Mark Sweep. I'd even add the caveat to just make it appear the way the person likes it.  As a westerner reading chinese names, I'm often confused to the name order.  That's ok though.  Everyone who will go looking up the name will look for Chow Yun Fat. It definitely makes no sense to westernize it as Yun Fat Chow. Some people, concious of western naming conventions, like Jet Li, reversed it when introducing themselves and their romanized name is reversed.  It would make no sense to have a single policy and re-reverse their name.  And of course, there are those who take on a western name for the west.  Just leave this issue with common use. SchmuckyTheCat 14:34, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Why everyone is arguing against the revertal as if I'm calling for Westernization of each and every instance of Chinese names? My proposal is to explicitly indicate the family/clan name; to me, a temporary reversion of name order in one single place of the article is the simplest and most intuitive approach, as opposed to capitalization. DmitryKo 17:53, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it's just that what you're proposing isn't generally done anywhere... I understand and appreciate that you want to improve Wikipedia just as all of us do... but I'm sure there's a way to do it without breaking down existing naming conventions. Putting "Zedong Mao" in the first line of Mao Zedong is misleading because such a order isn't conventionally used. Putting "Zedong" throughout the article is even more unconventional.
 * I'm sure there's a way to solve this problem that's acceptable to all. Perhaps a well designed template that maintains current naming order but also clarifies the positions of the first and last names would work best? -- ran (talk) 17:58, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * This string of discussion reminds me of academic publications where the last words of the names of Vietnamese people (e.g. Diem in Ngo Dinh Diem) are used as family names, though they aren't. &mdash; Instantnood 18:31, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)\


 * Well, let's come up with a layout for both in-text and table listing of various Cninese names and I'll try to make a universal parametric templates for this purpose. To start with, here's (a little ambigous) in-text layout:
 * Mao Zedong (Clan name: 毛, Mao; Traditional/Simplified: 毛澤東/毛泽东; Pinyin: Máo Zédōng; Wade-Giles: Mao Tse-tung; IPA: /mau̯ː tsɤtʊŋ/)

Manual of Style (China-related articles) has an entire section on intros, including templates and boxes used for intros. -- ran (talk) 21:05, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * The inline templates mentioned do not specifically distinguish the clan names. DmitryKo 21:12, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yah, I know. I'm giving you the link for reference ;) -- ran (talk) 21:17, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Give me an inline layout that everyone agrees with, that's all I need. DmitryKo 07:58, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure they do. See Manual of Style (China-related articles). Now we only need to implement this format everywhere…. --MarkSweep 21:23, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The box on that page is a table, not a parametrized template. DmitryKo 07:58, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Name is how a person is identified. Mao Zedong is how his name is called by billions of Chinese people.  Why should it be altered because the western reader is ignorant of the Chinese name convention?  Should those ignorant readers be educated instead of changing somebody's name to yield to ignorance?  People's names should never be rearranged from its native order.  Use ALL CAPS to specify which is the surname, it is a widely used International standard.  It is a lame argument to use the English conversion because such convention is insufficient even for many Western names, Hungarian (SURNAME Givenname) and Hispanic (Givenname SURNAME mothersname) names do not follow the English rules.  The ALL CAPS convention is good for any name around the world.  The English convention is not.  Kowloonese 22:12, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Why implement ancient typewriter conventions if we have hyperlinks, templates, categories and Unicode? DmitryKo 07:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Using all-caps surnames is a common convention in places like France, but it is NOT used at all in English and should not be used in Wikipedia. The universal convention for Chinese names in English is surname first, first name last, no all-caps, unless the person has chosen a specific different English name (eg, "James Soong") which is widely used, in which case we honor their choice. -- Curps 23:02, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Putting this a little more strongly: all-caps surnames are not used at all in English, and will have NO significance to the average English-speaking reader. If someone is really confused about Chinese name order, reading "MAO Zedong" will NOT clear up any confusion... if anything, they will just say, "gee it's funny how Chinese people write their first names in all capital letters".

Once again, all-caps surnames increase confusion instead of subtracting it, and are not an acceptable usage in an English-language encyclopedia. -- Curps 23:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Hong Kongers put their surname sandwiched between their Anglicized name and Chinese given names. The CIA factbook uses all caps for surnames, and that is in English... We will only use the caps once, bolded in the first sentence, and nowhere else - not the location of the article or in other references within the articles. It should be obvious that the caps are not the way chinese people write their names if we use the convention only once per article. --Jiang 02:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course Hong Kong names are often given as a mix of an English name with a Chinese name and the usual usage would be used, eg "Tony Leung Chiu Wai". The argument was over "Zedong Mao", which I don't think anyone but the original proposer agrees with.


 * If the CIA factbook uses all caps surnames, they are one of the very few reference works in English that do. Encyclopedia Britannica does not, MSN Encarta does not, the Catholic Encyclopedia does not, Encyclopedia.com does not... just go to Google and search for "encyclopedia" and you'll find hundreds or even thousands of reference works, big or small, general or highly specialized, and very close to 0% of them use all-caps surnames. This is simply not a custom in English, and it's not something that most English speakers are familiar with.  And for what it's worth, none of these other encyclopedias (Britannica, Encarta, etc) find it necessary to provide an explanation in their articles on Mao that "Mao" is his surname.


 * Here's a similar example. Go to the German wikipedia article on Mao and you will see: (* 26. Dezember 1893 in Shaoshan (Hunan); † 9. September 1976 in Peking). In German, there is a convention that "*" means date of birth and "†" means date of death, but this custom does not exist in English, and any proposal to introduce this into the English wikipedia would be shot down.  We should follow existing common English usage, not try to invent our own or borrow unfamiliar non-English innovations.


 * Even in France, where all-caps surnames are more customary, they are not universally used... the French Wikipedia does not use them, for instance! It would be bizarre indeed for the English wikipedia article on Mao to use all-caps while the French one does not.


 * The biggest problem with your all-caps surname proposal is that it does not solve any problem. This proposal is aimed at hypothetical English speakers who:
 * are not knowledgeable enough about foreign languages and customs to know that Chinese names are written with the surname first
 * are knowledgeable enough about foreign languages and customs to know that in some languages it is customary to sometimes (not always) write surnames in all caps.


 * I suggest to you that the population of hypothetical English speakers who fit both of the above criteria is very close to zero.

I am quoting from the CIA World's fact book, a US government publication written in English targeting English readers. (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/notesanddefs.html scroll down to "Personal Names" section on this linked page) The Factbook capitalizes the surname or family name of individuals for the convenience of our users who are faced with a world of different cultures and naming conventions. The need for capitalization, bold type, underlining, italics, or some other indicator of the individual's surname is apparent in the following examples: MAO Zedong, Fidel CASTRO Ruz, George W. BUSH, and TUNKU SALAHUDDIN Abdul Aziz Shah ibni Al-Marhum Sultan Hisammuddin Alam Shah. By knowing the surname, a short form without all capital letters can be used with confidence as in President Castro, Chairman Mao, President Bush, or Sultan Tunku Salahuddin. The same system of capitalization is extended to the names of leaders with surnames that are not commonly used such as Queen ELIZABETH II. CIA uses ALL CAPS for surnames BECAUSE the factbook users are faced with a world of different cultures and naming conventions. Please convince me that the world that the CIA is in is different from the world that any English encyclopedia is in. The English convention is a colonial era invention with no respect for any non-English cultures. It is totally inadequate in this new global era. The issue is even more complicated when people live in multi-cultural societies. People in Hong Kong often add a Christian name in front of their Chinese names, e.g. a politician Martin LEE Chu Ming. Your outdated convention simply falls flat on its nose. This ALL CAPS global savvy convention should not ONLY be applied to Chinese names. It should be applied globally whenever any non-English name is mentioned. Since this is an English encyclopedia, I'd have no objection to using normal notation for English names. If the ignorant English readers do not understand the ALL CAPS convention, they need to be educated. If you can prove to me that wikipedia articles do not face the same multi-cultural issues the CIA World Factbook is facing, then you can keep the outdated convention. If you can prove our needs has not changed in this global era, I won't argue with you even if you convert the entire wikipedia into Shakesperean English. (I wrote this last night, but it didn't go through due to an editing conflict, I am not sure the same argument was already presented since then.) Kowloonese 18:35, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * This so-called "global" convention is simply not used in English, and is not used in any other English-language encyclopedias or reference works (the CIA factbook appears to be just about the only exception). Your ranting about "colonial inventions" is pure nonsense &mdash; surnames have been written with only the first letter capitalized ever since lowercase letters were invented in the Middle Ages &mdash; and your ranting about ignorant users is silly and pointless. Imagine being unfamiliar with something that doesn't exist in English usage... how dare they.  What's next?  Should we invent a system for writing English with the Cyrillic alphabet and complain about all the ignorant people who are unfamiliar with it?  Anyways, I think the proposal is only to use all-caps in the introduction, and the rest of the article text would continue to give surnames in the "colonial invention" way... or are you proposing to change every surname everywhere, and not just the intro paragraph?


 * If you want to propose a vote to convert the entire English wikipedia to all-capss surnames, go ahead and propose it on Current surveys instead of complaining. Good luck. I don't believe it will be accepted. -- Curps 21:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The CIA factbook does not use ALL CAPS everywhere. Did you see the quoted text "By knowing the surname, a short form without all capital letters can be used with confidence as in President Castro, Chairman Mao, President Bush, or Sultan Tunku Salahuddin." just few lines above? At long as the first appearance of the name (typically in the introduction) provide a notation to tell the surname apart.  That is the convention that would save redundent explanation on how to read a name.  One rule is good enough.  Kowloonese 21:50, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * The colonial invention that I referred to is the "swapping around" of other people's names with total disrespect of the person's culture and his parents who gave the names. To correct this century old bastardization of other people's names, a surname notation will clarify the deviation from the English convention.  There are two key points in this thread, namely the order and the surname notation.  Hope this clears it up.  Kowloonese 22:36, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * English does not do any "swapping around". The Japanese themselves adopted the custom of swapping their names when writing them in Western languages, and they continue to do so in their own English-language publications.  Similarly, the Hungarians swapped their names around for the benefit of their European neighbors, and continue to do so.  Unless they themselves stop doing so in their own English-language publications, it's unlikely that others will do so. On the other hand, Chinese (living in China) never adopted the custom of swapping their names when writing in English, and Western media and reference works always respected that choice throughout history.  News media reporting on China never said "Zedong Mao", which is why that proposal seemed so bizarre to all of us.  -- Curps


 * Come on! Do you really believe the Japaneses and Hungarians really wanted their names swapped that way?  I don't believe such nonsense.  These people were told they must do it that way centuries ago not unlike the way that you told the wikipedians here what to do.  Back then when only one in a million in the Japanese or Hungarian population recognized the English alphabets.  They did what was decided for them.  I had a hungarian penpal long time ago and she was really pissed about how she needed to swap her name for English speaking people. Even today, what percentage of Japanese population really read English fluently?  They don't even care how their names are printed.  For the authors of publications, they stick to the same rule they used for centuries.  They don't want to change because as you said it is a "mammoth undertaking" to correct the problem.  In Chinese idiom, this is called "riding on a tiger's back", it is safer to stay on than to dismount.  That only reflects the laziness of the authors, there is no relation to what is correct and what the people want.  Another factor is the paper publications verse a living document like wikipedia.  It is impossible to rewrite all the books that are already on paper.  But it is not impossible to change all the articles in wikipedia because they are all living documents. Read some postings in the Japanese naming conventions talk page, people there also have divided opinions.  Many Japanese wikipedians also want to "restore" their names to proper order, but there is no strong driving force to turn the tide.  Chinese is totally different, the proper name order has the backing of the Chinese government and its people, billions of them.  Thanks to Hanyu pinyin, almost every Chinese citizen knows how to spell his own name in English alphabets.  When knowledge is widespread, people are less likely to be dragged around by the nose nor being told how they need to swap their own names.  I never have any opinion on the Japanese name order.  I leave it to the Japanese people to decide.  I've never pushed for a fixed naming order.  I always propose using the "native" order, just do it the way the person (article subject) would have done for himself/herself. Kowloonese 19:04, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Now, if a Chinese person emigrates to the West, they will often adopt an English first name and use it in a Western name order. But this is no different than a Western expatriate who lives in China for a number of years and learns some of the language and gets a Chinese name.  If you immerse yourself in a different culture and spend part of your life there, you learn the language and adapt to the local customs.


 * If we need to clarify surnames, the right way to do it is with Template:chinese-name, Template:spanish-name, etc. The all-caps version is mysterious, doesn't allow any link to an explanation page (like Chinese name, Spanish name, etc), and would very likely be defeated if proposed for a vote (but once again, go ahead and propose it at Current surveys or Village pump (proposals) if you wish).  Wishing that English used all-caps surnames is like wishing that English used more sensible spelling rules... unfortunately it doesn't.


 * Once again, if you really want all-caps surnames, the only way to do it is to make a widely-known proposal and let people comment on it or vote on it, and try to get the proposal accepted. In the meantime, it's really no use to complain and talk about how evil English-speaking people are.  Nothing will be accomplished and nothing will change.


 * I'm tempted to propose Template:chinese-name and Template:spanish-name as a proposal, but would like to get more feedback first (Jiang has already expressed a negative opinion). I think this proposal would be more likely to get acceptance in a vote, because only Chinese and Spanish biographical pages would need to be edited, instead of every surname in the entire Wikipedia, so it's a much less obtrusive change. -- Curps 23:30, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * If we really need to provide information to people who don't understand Chinese names (even though Britannica and Encarta and others don't find it necessary to do so), the simplest way to do it would be by using a one-line template, something like:


 * , which would expand to:
 * :Note: This is a Chinese name which is written with the surname first


 * Note: This is a Chinese name which is written with the surname first


 * And this template would simply be included at the start of Chinese biographical articles, where it would appear indented and in italics, the same way that disambiguation notices do.


 * This is a general solution that would work for other languages too. In Spanish, you have names like "Vicente Fox Quesada... his last name is Fox, not Quesada. So you would have Template:spanish-name which would be a one-line notice with a link to the informative article at Spanish and Portuguese names.  You could apply the same solution to Russian (explaining about patronymics and male/female Gorbachev/Gorbacheva), to Japanese names (explaining that they're written one way in Japanese, and usually but not always in the opposite order in English), to Indonesian names (explaining that many Indonesians only use one name instead of a given name and surname), etc.  In each case, a one-line text template Template:languageX-name with a link to a full explanation page at LanguageX names.


 * In fact, Category:Names by culture already has a bunch of already-written articles like Japanese name, Names in Russian Empire, Soviet Union and CIS countries, etc. All that would need to be done would be to create a one-line text template for each applicable language and add it at the top of biographical articles.


 * Don't you think this would be a better solution? -- Curps 04:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, a message at the top or a category at the bottom is more straighforward than formatting.
 * Note: This is a Chinese name which usually follow 'surname, given name' pattern.
 * Note: This is a Russian name which usually follow 'given name, patronymic, surname' pattern.
 * Note: This is a Spanish name which usually follow 'given name, surname, mother's name' pattern.
 * etc.
 * However, for Chinese I'd prefer something like an inline template I drafted above, since there are usually references to various Romanizations and traditional/simplified forms; clan name notice logically belongs here as well, or maybe an 3-letter mnemonic like NPS, NSM, SN, NSC etc.; these mnemonics could be also included in language templates like .  DmitryKo 07:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * No, it is not a better solution. Because in some situtations (as in Singapore and Hong Kong and other multi-culture societies), there is no rule.  A person can be called LEE Chu Ming or Martin LEE in the same conversation or same article.  There is no one explanation that is good enough to cover the random usage as in the Singaporean example. Adding tedious explanation in each and every article is not as good as adopting a uniform and consistent convention through out the Wikipedia.  The convention is very simple, only two rules: 1. When no special notation is used, the name is expressed in English form.  (It is safe to assume the last name is the surname.)  2. (Last name is not always surname outside of English speaking culture.)  When a name is expressed with an ALL CAPS notation, it means the name is expressed in its native form that does not follow English rules, the ALL CAPS denotes the surname(s). With two simple rules, the readers do not need to know what the naming order is.  They are assured that the name they read is exactly what the person is known for, not the anglized version.  They can also tell the surname apart with ease.  Yes, I do believe such universal convention is good for all culture, not just for Chinese names.  It would be nice if the same rule is applied all over wikipedia.  Since each language want to establish their own convention, I only promote this for Chinese names for now.  Perhaps the simple uniform approach will shed some lights on other language debates.  Kowloonese 21:43, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

The Esperanto Wikipedia capitalizes all surnames, including those following the given name -surname order. We only need the reader to know only one of the criteria (not both) for the caps convention to work. Even if they don't, they can figure something is up with the capitalization.

I am very strongly opposed to adding a note on every single Chinese biographical article telling readers that the surname goes first. This will get very bothersome after the fifth article I come across and I think implementing something so self-referential and redundant is overkill. Readers should only be told things once. I don't think it's necessary to underestimate (ie insult) the intellegence of the reader. Can't we assume that most readers (NOT the general population) will know about Chinese name order or at least smell something when we keep referring to the person using his/her surname? --Jiang 05:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I did not smell anything when I was looking through the articles about Chinese persons and frankly I didn't need to. What I need is to read the facts that are important. By the same logic, anyone is supposed to know why Gorbachev is spelled Gorbachov, unless he's ignorant of great Russian culture or just plain dumb ('un-intelligent' in your words). DmitryKo 07:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Esperanto usage is not applicable to English.


 * Your last sentence above ("Can't we assume that most readers (NOT the general population) will know about Chinese name order or at least smell something when we keep referring to the person using his/her surname?") seems to indicate that the status quo is fine. Yet elsewhere you argue that all-caps is necessary. Which is it?


 * All-caps is not an acceptable solution; it doesn't actually solve or clarify anything at all, for the reasons mentioned earlier. -- Curps 06:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * If you really believe that all-caps is a well-understood standard, then you should propose to implement it everywhere in English Wikipedia, including Spanish and Portuguese and Japanese biographies, and probably all biographies of all persons for consistency, and call for a very widely-advertised vote. I would predict that this proposal would be soundly defeated in a vote (not to mention, editing all the articles out there to implement it would be a mammoth undertaking).  If this actually succeeded, then regular Wikipedia users arriving at a Chinese page might understand the convention, having seen it before, although first-time Wikipedia visitors would still be confused.  Implementing all-caps for Chinese names alone would not solve or clarify anything at all, for the reasons mentioned earlier, and would not be an acceptable solution. -- Curps 06:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know in some part of the world the governments or other official authorities require people to underline their surname when filling in forms. Obviously there is no single rule. To me either underlined or C APITALISED (well, I like small caps more) is equally acceptable.

IMHO the whole debate on name order shall commence at Wikipedia talk:Manual of style.. or perhaps we will be able to start a new manual of style for people names. &mdash; Instantnood 01:21, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * My two cents: I really like what's being done with Spanish names, e.g. at Vicente Fox. I think something similar to this should be done with Chinese names. -- ran (talk) 03:10, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Singaporean names
As if things cant get more confusing, names used by the ethnic Chinese in Singapore can be even more unwieldy. Presently, our Chinese names are anglicised using our native dialect pronounciations on out ICs, and is the "official" name (although a few have been known to use their names in pinyin). At the same time, it is not uncommon for us to have English names too, but these english names are often used together with non-pinyin names...the only major exception I can think of is Stefanie Sun...Who would probably have either Stefanie Sng Ee Tze or Sng Ee Tze Stefanie on her IC (there is no standard on whether the English name should be in front or not, and is often based on personal preference. I have mine at the back, for eg). Yet, she is much more famously known by either Stefanie Sun or her pinyin name, Sun Yanzi.

So how shall I name her article then?

Just a illustration...say someone in Singapore has a name of
 * "Chen Guowei" in pinyin.
 * "Alex" in English.
 * "Tan Kok Wai" in (non-Mandarin) dialect.

Should his page name be entitled "Alex Tan Kok Wai", "Tan Kok Wai Alex", "Alex Chen Guowei", "Chen Guowei Alex", "Alex Tan", "Alex Chen", or anything else, on the assumption that they are all equally well known, or it is difficult to judge which one is in more common usage?--Huaiwei 08:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's a good idea to mix English given names with native ones, as well as mix dialects. You should formally name the atricle either Chen Guowei, Tan Kok Wai or Alex Chen, depending on the cite frequency, and provide other variants in the intro. I would give precedence to Pinyin, then local dialect then English name. DmitryKo 07:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course use the person's official name, in your example, the one that appears on the person's identification card (IC). A person's name should not be changed just because you want to use it in the wikipedia.  The pinyin of the name can be added as a pronunciation guide, it is not how the person spell her name.  As you have pointed out, there is no fixed rule in name ordering in Singapore.  That again proves that the simplistic English convention is inadequate for handling multinational cultures in an encyclopedia that covers every culture.  Kowloonese 18:59, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * What "simplistic English convention" are you referring to? If there's doubt about whether to call a person "Tan Kok Wai" or "Chen Guowei" in English, how exactly will using all-caps surnames solve this problem?  Just find out what this person is most commonly referred to in English (using Google), and use that as the title, and give alternate names in the introduction as applicable, creating redirects if necessary. -- Curps 21:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I called it simplistic because it is not sophisticated enough to handle the numerous naming convention in different culture. In the Singapore example, the ordering change from person to person.  With the surname notation, the ordering does not matter any more.  They can use their names the same way the persons are officially identified and the readers can easily address them properly.  Kowloonese 21:50, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Why not just use my proposed Template:chinese-name (see my edit to Mao Zedong for instance). Unlike the confusing all-caps notation, this actually provides a link to the Chinese name page where everything is explained in detail (Huaiwei, should a Singapore section should be added to that page?). -- Curps 22:20, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Under the "variations" section or something?--Huaiwei 19:23, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the state does not dictate how the name should be ordered, but "conventions" of how Chinese names should appear has naturally ensured that the surname always appears before the Chinese name. The only part which does not seem to have a convention is to where to insert the English name with the full dialect one. As I said above, I placed my English name at the back of my Chinese name. ie. Surname-Chinese name-English name. But if a person decides to call me simply as English name-Surname, he is not addressing me in an imappriopriate manner either. In fact, I am probably more commonly known with the later then any format in my IC!--Huaiwei 22:03, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Is the surname underlined or capitalised on the Singaporean identity card? As far as I remember when filling in forms to the Singaporean government I was asked to underline my surname. (The form has to be filled in BLOCK letters, and therefore they didn't ask me to capitalise :-D ) &mdash; Instantnood 01:15, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * No for both. This is the simple reason why they often ask people writing their names to underline their surname in official forms, since it is so much easier to know how to address you as no other indication will be at hand.--Huaiwei 19:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * In Hong Kong and some parts of the world the forms have separate boxes for family names and given names, like the way it is presented on passports. :-D &mdash; Instantnood 07:10, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm...but in line with this pedia's policy of using the most common names where possible, how do are we to assume that using their "official" names will always be the most appriopriate? In fact, Singapore's most popular female actress is either popularly known as Zoe Tay or Zhen Huiyu in hanyu pinyin. Both of these are not her full official names on her IC, and till this day, I have no idea what it was. In addition, I have to clarify that in most Singaporean Chinese's ICs, the dialect and hanyu pinyin names, as well as the Chinese script are all printed on the card (unless the card bearer decides to remove them). But when refering to the person's name, the dialect name is always used first, as far as governmental usage is concerned. I cant find a good image, but here is a card of a China-born Singapore PR: (image removed due to security concerns). They get to have their pinyin name used. For Singaporean Chinese, the first line is taken by the dialect name. The pinyin name appears in the next line in brackets, and the chinese characters appear in the same way as the picture. In this way, all 3 representations are official. But which is predered is the problem here, plus the fact that very often, none of these three representations are the most commonly used.--Huaiwei 22:03, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Huaiwei, Unless the ID card that you posted here is fictitious, it is really unwise to display official identity in public. If you know this person, you should advise him to use a graphic editor to black out part of the IC # in the image.  Around the world, identity theft happens everyday.  Don't be surprised when this person finds out 3 months later that he owns 5 new credit cards and each carries a few thousand dollars of balance that he has no knowledge of.  Kowloonese 18:24, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I dont know him...I found out from using a search engine. Maybe I should remove the link now since it has served its purpose.--Huaiwei 19:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice that the Singapore govt has no naming problem with his country of origin. SchmuckyTheCat 19:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wade Giles: Use it correctly, please
In this article on Chen Wen-ch'i, a Taiwanese person, "Wen-Chi" is used instead, without an apostrophe. This is incorrect. In Pinyin, his name is Chen Wenqi (from 陳文琦), but if no apostrophe is used in the Wade-Giles version, it would be Wenji, a different sound from "qi/ch'i". I bring this case here because a day ago I made the revision but it was changed back to the original, incorrect version.