- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)Reply
Shi Zhong Gui → Shi Zhonggui –
"Shi Zhong Gui" is not the correct formatting of a Chinese name in pinyin. "Shi Zhonggui" is the standard formatting. -Devin Ronis (d.s.ronis) (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- A problem is that the available English & French language references to this person don't appear to follow that norm. I can see "Zhonggui Shi" here and [http://www.amazon.com/Artists-Zhonggui-pieces-artwork-pictures/dp/B004RZH048 here] and "Shi Zhong Gui" here. I don't see virtue in moving a page to a name where it may not be found. The proper resolution is possibly to improve the article referencing, which is poor (and to be frank I don't see enough verified evidence of notability), and then use the consensus name there as the rename for the article if necessary? AllyD (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Response: I understand the point you are trying to make, and this had occurred to me before I requested the move. The fact that there is no norm whether "Shi Zhong Gui" or "Zhonggui Shi" (or SHIZHONGGUI as is printed at Bamboo Lane Gallery) seems to me that we should by default fall back on the standard formatting since the subject himself has clearly made no preference for how his name should be presented in Latinate alphabets and that the name has not been treated with due diligence. Either variant of his name could easily be directed to the page, so I see no issue with that. As to notability, I am rather permissive in my attitude. Wikipedia should be a place where information that would not make it into a regular print encyclopedia can still be available. He's done something others find interesting and will seek more information on (even if it leads the realization that he is not very notable), so I believe it should stay. I don't see what harm it can do. -Devin Ronis (d.s.ronis) (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
