This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Since Nancy Kwai was born in 2000, three years after the transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong to China, I argue that in the infobox her country of birth should be listed as she was born in China. Andro611 (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked three times for the specific MoS that mandates including the country or sovereign state in the infobox, but I still see nothing. I have made it clear that your arguments do not hold up.
1. The disputant said sovereign state (Special:Diff/1253434612). Britain was the sovereign state of a crown colony/British overseas territory. The majority of Hongkongers articles do not include Britain or China in their infoboxes, not even the disputant's own article.
2. I have already mentioned that adding "China" does not align with our spirit of MOS:IBP and specific cautions outlined in MOS:NC-CN regarding the reference to Hong Kong here on WP. Continuously bringing in other locations in China is simply a geographical discussion and is unrelated to the purpose of the MoS itself.
I see no policy-based rebuttals, only subjective judgments and repeated assertions of "truths and facts", while I have provided my rationale. So I believe that MOS:STYLEVAR can logically be applied here. Like I mentioned on the disputant's talk page, this will be my final reply, as debating such trivial matters is simply a waste of time and making no real benefits to the article, and the disputant is not offering anything substantive to advance this discussion. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul）01:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply. I have thought about this dispute and I came to understanding that there may have been two misunderstandings. On my part I have failed to understand your point about the MoS and mostly argued about the legal/geographical aspect of it, but looking back on it I understand more clearly what you have been trying to say. I still don't agree with this though. At the very least it should not be a STYLEVAR mandate.
I think you are somewhat misreading the MOS:IBP and MOS:NC-CN. I don't dispute what is written there, but I fail to see how have you arrived at the conclusion that we should exclude the sovereign state in HK IBPs? Especially when you include it in infoboxes of people born in other Chinese cities. I genuinely do not understand the logic behind this. As for the reason to exclude Britain in pre-1997 infoboxes, that was the result of a RfC that did not produce consensus, but it did alter my views on the matter. After all Hong Kong as British colony was not part of the UK. Andro611 (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
