This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project.
Oppose to the merge. Indigenous inhabitant and punti are two different concepts that they could not be merged. Indigenous inhabitants are legal terms referring to people that their ancestors were registered residents in indigenous villages in New Territories in Hong Kong around 1898. This involves their rights, politics and history. On the other hand, punti is refers to people who are native Cantonese language speakers and living in Kwangtung Province, Hong Kong and Macao. Punti (local) is defined to be opposite to the Hakka (guest). — HenryLi (Talk) 06:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose to the merge, per what HenryLi said above. Hong Qi Gong 14:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.
Support – Disagreeing with JCScaliger. Since the legal phrase is "indigenous inhabitants of the New Territories" and only 1 in 50 sources on this says "indigenous inhabitants of Hong Kong", the Hong Kong in parens make the most sense; it disambiguates without using a novel term. Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguates from what? — AjaxSmack 03:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Suppport per Anthony Appleyard. A disambiguation page should be instituted, for articles on indigenous peoples. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe. The current title is clearly generic and thus very ambiguous. I'm with JCScaliger here. --Ohconfucius¡digame! 08:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Support, per Dicklyon. Disagree with JCSalinger, on account that this article discusses a narrow technical definition used by the official authorities at a partiular time, and not actually an account of indigenous inhabitants of the region of what is now Hong Kong (whenever/whomever they may be). Walrasiad (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Strong support per Dicklyon and Anthony Appleyard. No "maybe" about it, and Dicklyon's formulation is greatly preferable for his reason given: it disambiguates without using a novel term. Is this article about Indigenous peoples of the Americas? Or Indigenous Australians? Or any "indigenous inhabitants" generally, anywhere in the world? That's an awful lot of people. Milkunderwood (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
So you wouldn't recommend singularising the opening reference instead? Tony(talk) 12:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
What "new territories"? Where? The European conquest of the Americas? Or of Australian and New Zealand? The Scottish Protestant influx into Ulster? The Nazi and Soviet conquests of Central Europe? The Kuomintang subjugation of the culturally distinct population of Taiwan? The Serbian incursions into Bosnia and Kosovo? The continuing expansion of Israel into Palestine? These are not facetious examples. What can "indigenous inhabitants", by itself, possibly refer to? I myself am an "indigenous inhabitant" where I reside, and probably most of us are as well. Milkunderwood (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
No, Indigenous inhabitant (Hong Kong). Tony(talk) 14:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Exactly so. This is precisely why the disambig needs to go into the title. And the parenthetical disambig is the standard way to do this, as you say. Milkunderwood (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
No, Tony, I wouldn't singularise it. The sources all use the plural and this shows the article is about all indigenous inhabitants and not one singular inhabitant (not to mention I just think it looks weird in the singular). To Milkunderwood, when I initially read this discussion I had the same opinion about "New Territories" as yourself. However, two things convinced me that it would be the best option: that (as can be seen above) New Territories is about 30 times more common in the sources; and that New Territories is un-disambiguated. Jenks24 (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose (and probably delete). The dearth of sources used for this article raises the question of the notability of this topic.
If no reliable sources can be produced for this article, then it should be deleted, and so the title is moot.
However, assuming this topic is notable and the most common way sources refer to it is "Indigenous inhabitant", then not only is Indigenous inhabitant the correct title, but any other title would be misleading to our readers, for the following reasons. If we added more description to the title, as in Indigenous inhabitants of Hong Kong, then we would be telling our readers that the most common way this topic is referred by sources is "Indigenous inhabitants of Hong Kong", which would be incorrect. If we used parenthetic disambiguation in the title, as in "Indigenous inhabitants (Hong Kong)", then we would be telling our readers that there are other notable topics covered in WP which are commonly referred to as "Indigenous inhabitants" by reliable sources, which would also be incorrect.
If reliable sources are produced, and are shown to use some name other than "Indigenous inhabitant" to refer to this topic, then a move proposal should be based on that.
In short, given the lack of sources, I see no basis for a title change, but a probable basis for deletion. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)(changed vote- see below) --Born2cycle (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
No comment about deleting, that would be a separate discussion altogether. However, there are abundant reliable sources showing that "indigenous inhabitant" is a commonly used synonym for indigenous peoples. It does not help readers to pretend that this is not the case. older ≠ wiser 17:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
"we would be telling our readers that there are other notable topics covered in WP which are commonly referred to as "Indigenous inhabitants" by reliable sources, which would also be incorrect."—why do you think this is incorrect? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Because at the time I wrote that now-stricken statement, I was assuming this topic is notable and the most common way sources refer to it is "Indigenous inhabitant", and that there were no other uses for "Indigenous inhabitants" on WP. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Because it is unclear which "new territories" are meant. Alaska? Brazil? Australia? Guam? Walrasiad (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
That's what I originally thought, but then I looked at the sources and noticed that New Territories is apparently considered clear enough not to be disambiguated. Jenks24 (talk) 13:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Sources? Clear enough to whom? We're talking about common Wiki readers. Walrasiad (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The sources I provided in my vote. And yes, I do know we are writing for the common reader. Here's my question: why is the un-disambiguated New Territories considered clear enough as a title, but using "New Territories" in a title is not OK? Jenks24 (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I didn't even notice that. No, it's not OK in either case. Walrasiad (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.