User talk:WaterproofDuck

Romanisation of Chinese names

Hello, Aiden (the guy who reverted your MOS:NICKCRUFT edits last time) here

I was on the talk page for Lee Kuan Yew, asking whether I should add his pinyin to the name efn as with a lot of Chinese politicians in Singapore when I recalled that you deleted a number of pinyin

I've already deleted a few dialect romanisations (my contribs) (practically no one here speaks it in daily life anymore) in favour of pinyin

If you'd like to re-add them, please retain the pinyin; George Goh is an example of having both kinds of romanisations (yes, you added the pinyin later, ik)

Alright thanks :D Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh yeah sure thanks for teling me

personally, when it comes to people who have names in non-mandarin sinitic languages, i'm in favour of using the romanisations of those languages over pinyin. to me, substituting these with pinyin would be like replacing the irish phonetic transcriptions of place names in ireland with anglicised versions, because "no one speaks irish in daily life anymore". regardless of the current state of non-mandarin languages in singapore, i believe that as the historical native languages of most chinese singaporeans, they should be retained in romanisation as per WP:EN. (also i'm chinese singaporean too lol i know what the language situation here is like)

but yeah nowadays i'd put the non-mandarin romanisations first, then pinyin second. i've actually been meaning to go back through the 15th parliament and re-add the pinyin at some point but i've been procrastinating lmao

WaterproofDuck (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

lol cool

You should totally trademark "no one speaks Irish in daily life anymore"

Also I could help with the effort (got a week left on polytechnic holidays) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A note: I have deleted the POJ in article on Kenneth Tiong; the Hokkien descent it implies is unsourced Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

bummer

tbh does it really matter if he's of hokkien descent? he has a pretty obviously hokkien name, even if he was teochew or cantonese his name would still be hokkien, which would still be romanised in POJ

WaterproofDuck (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To you, not to me or other no-expertise-on-chinese-dialect readers/editors Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yeah so isn't that what the POJ is for in the first place then? to show unfamiliar readers which sinitic language a name is written in, as well as providing a systematic guide to pronunciation (singaporean ad-hoc romanisation is terrible)

WaterproofDuck (talk) 13:49, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

fails to comprehend

Anyways, how tf do you even get a Hokkien name as a Teochew or Cantonese Singaporean lol Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok correct me if i'm wrong, but your point was that since the languages which singaporean chinese names are written in aren't intuitively familar to most readers, we should rely solely on reported ancestry to determine which non-mandarin romanisations to use, even in cases where the languages used are obvious, yes? well personally i disagree because a) there are people who have given names romanised in (for instance) hokkien despite not being of hokkien ancestry, and b) usage of non-mandarin romanisations by familiar editors would in fact solve the original issue by allowing those unfamiliar users to... know which language is used in the first place. again, this would be akin to solely using anglicised phonetic transcriptions for place names in northern ireland because it's unclear to "no-expertise-on-languages-spoken-in-ireland readers/editors" if a town's name is irish or ulster scots in origin

also regarding my first point and the question you raised, as hokkien historically served as a lingua franca among singaporean chinese, it wasn't uncommon to have non-hokkiens being brought up with hokkien as a native language. anecdotally, both my grandfather's parents were henghwa, but my grandfather has a hokkien name and doesn't speak a word of henghwa because his parents spoke to him entirely in hokkien. there are even some non-hokkien MPs with hokkien names: both sylvia lim swee lian and patrick tay teck guan are teochew, but their given names are romanised in hokkien (POJ: sūi-liân, tek-goân) rather than teochew (peng'im: sui6 liang5, dêg4 nguang5)

WaterproofDuck (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Friend, you might consider not dialect-gaming after seeing this Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no offence but the guy you linked to made the same argument that you did? respectfully i would appreciate it if you could engage with my points above

WaterproofDuck (talk) 02:37, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you're WP:BOLD

Too WP:BOLD

Do you have a citation proving that either is Teochew in the first place? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

uh thanks i guess. i would appreciate it if you could be less dismissive though

fundamentally i just believe that biographical articles should include representations of their subjects' names in their native languages (again, as per WP:EN), and that thoughtlessly blanketing all chinese singaporean names with solely pinyin not only obscures the native languages of their subjects, but furthers the harmful impression that mandarin is the "proper" sinitic language and non-mandarin sinitic languages are "adulterated dialects of chinese". i don't think this is an unreasonable stance? nothing is gained from withholding this information, as you did with kenneth tiong's page; even if which language used is unclear, we could simply include multiple possible romanisations, like on the pages of some malaysian chinese (example)

as for sources, both lim and tay are members of the teochew poit ip huay kuan

WaterproofDuck (talk) 05:00, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok lah

Also, you're he/him? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

respectfully, i don't see how that has any relation to my reply? i believe that i have clearly laid out the reasoning behind my edits in my replies above, and how they align with wikipedia's editing guidelines; if you do not wish to engage with these points in good faith, please try not to revert my edits in the future at least. thanks

WaterproofDuck (talk) 05:51, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 9th Parliament of Singapore, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Thomas.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Listing for discussion of Template:8th Parliament of Singapore

Template:8th Parliament of Singapore has been listed for discussion, which may result in the template being merged or deleted by consensus. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:19, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Listing for discussion of Template:9th Parliament of Singapore

Template:9th Parliament of Singapore has been listed for discussion, which may result in the template being merged or deleted by consensus. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:19, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

May 2026

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Tang Guan Seng. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in yellow at the top of the page. Thanks. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:47, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]