This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anthroponymy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Propose to delete John Ng because the link seems to be for promotion only, in violation of Wikipedia contents criteria, Section 3.2. Please speak now or forever hold thy peace. --EJohn59 (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)EJohn59
You can delete the link if you want. It is the only link on the web currently that has his history. However John Ng is note worthy as an author of many articles in various publications, as a medical doctor, and as a kung fu teacher with hundreds of student (authors, title champions, Etc).--Duchamps_combMFA 17:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
If he's notable, create a Wikipedia article about him, then link to it from this page... -- Hebrides (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Can John Ng's admirers please help us to create a Wiki page to link his stuff? If you don't know how, just put the info on my talk page. I can help to create the page. We need the appropriate info. Thanks.--EJohn59 (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)EJohn59
I added John Ng again. If Ng Chung-sok, a Wing Chun master can be here john Ng can be here too.--Duchamps_combMFA 19:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
If John Ng is so notable, why haven't we got a Wikipedia article about him? First write the article, then link to it from here. Everybody else on this list has a Wikipedia article about themselves. Hebrides (talk) 05:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Note that above user created this page in order to be able to add the name to the list. Passportguy (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
English pronunciations "ing" versus "wu"—prevalence of each?
For any given notable Anglophone person surnamed Ng, what are the chances that they self-identify as English pronunciation: /ɪŋ/ ("ing") or English pronunciation: /wuː/ ("wu")?
It would be ideal if each person's article contained a transcription of their own pronunciation (although I realize that there is no practical, easy way to bring that about—it would depend on many contributors knowing the answer and entering it).
Since it seemed apparent that its accompanying main-namespace page was an incomplete Dab, as the tag asserted, i merged Ng (Cyrillic) into the Dab NG (and turned the bad Dab page into a Rdr to a heading within the Dab's section "Linguistic entities") -- without committing to solving any broader issues. But turning to examining the individual pages it had linked, the logic became clearer: independent introductions of Cyrillic script into multiple non-Slavic cultures involved invention of 4 different characters for the same sound-producing anatomical act that linguists represent by /Ŋ (IPA)/ -- which has ng (-ng, really) as its only self-contained representation native to English; a less Anglo-centric, and more precise, title could have been either Cyrillic characters for ŋ or Cyrillic characters for the velar nasal phoneme, and those titles could simply be Rdrs to a point within a page that's structured similarly to List of Latin-script digraphs, and/or to Velar nasal (which has Ŋ (IPA) as a redirect).
--Jerzy•t 02:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
This section's title duplicates that of the section Talk: Ng (Cyrillic)#Lemma problem. I didn't intend to worry abt what the "Lemma problem" was; my merge of the page's accompanying bad Dab could even have fixed it for all i am sure about. In any case, here's how the section reads:
If we keep “Ng (Cyrillic)” as this article's lemma, what should we use for Ҥ/ҥ (ŋ/ṅ/ng)? Wikipeditor 00:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
IMO the talk page of a Dab (or article) is in practice far more accessible than that of a Rdr, and the Rdr-page's former content is now part of that of the accompanying Dab. So i suggest this talk page as the place for any further discussion of the concern expressed in that box.
--Jerzy•t 02:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I know "lemma" has at least one standard meaning (in linguistics or semantics or lexicography) distinct from the one invoked by the formal-logic result "Zorn's lemma", but i'm not sure i ever grasped that (or those) other meaning(s). Whichever one was intended, it has not caught on, 6 years later, as a tool for WP article-naming matters. If someone still shares that editor's concern, either that sharer of concern, or that editor, could clarify the concern for wider comprehension. (Clarifying the term itself could also be worthwhile.)
It may be relevant that the timestamp in the blue box above is not quite 11 hours later than the creation of En-ghe (Cyrillic), a time at which it still asserted (tho it no longer does) that
Ҥ ... corresponds to Ң (Cyrillic N descender), where it represents the velar nasal, that is, /ŋ/.
(whatever "where it represents" may be trying to say).
may or not be relevant to the concern. But please note that
The descender-bearing character is Ң rather than the character Ҥ -- which we cover at En-ghe (Cyrillic).
"Ng (Cyrillic)" became (then or later) the title of the aforementioned incomplete Dab, which i've now converted to a Rdr pointing at an anchor on the heading "Cyrillic characters" within the "Linguistic entities" section of the Dab NG.
I don't know whether the colleague with the concern was advocating a "(Cyrillic)" suffix for the title of each of our single-Cyrillic-character articles, even if the "bare" title is unambiguous; i do want to be clearly on record that En-ghe (Cyrillic) and En with descender (Cyrillic) should be moved to, respectively, En-ghe and En with descender (leaving Rdrs) no later than when the any other controversies about these pages are laid to rest.