User talk:SigillumVert

In Talk:Nancy_Kwai (December 2024), Talk:Sica_Ho#Sovereign_state_in_the_infobox (February 2025), comment by Deryck C. (October 2025), we have three editors who disagree with you unnecessarily asserting which country Hong Kong is in. I do not think you should continue with this type of edits if you have already failed to seek consensus more than once. Northern Moonlight 19:11, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

There isn't a consensus here. And the last comment by Deryck C. was not related to the previous discussions nor is it particularly relevant in this context.

I fail to see what is the problem with this is. Why is every addition of the country Hong Kong is in "unnecessary" after 1997? An encyclopaedia's purpose is to be informative, not to try to obscure information to readers. A change of sovereignty is not an "unnecessary" detail, it is one of the most (if not the most) significant event in the history of the city. It is well documented, sourced, easily verifiable, and does make a difference.

And it is definitely not "indiscriminately" for I am well aware of Hong Kong autonomous status etc, but that is not disputed here. Also I find it strange that you are not disputing the addition of "British Hong Kong" (even though the crown colony's name was just "Hong Kong"). Why is one sovereign necessary to point out, but the other is unnecessary? Pardon me, but it sounds like I just don't like it, not a concrete factual or policy based objection. SigillumVert (talk) 06:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

As I and both User:Prince of Erebor have already stated on Talk:Nancy Kwai, MOS:STYLEVAR (and the spirit of MOS:IBP) apply since you have failed to raise any policy-based argument. The convention on Wikipedia is to omit the sovereign state for certain regions (e.g. Hong Kong, Puerto Rico, England), the onus is on you to convince the others to override the existing style. You made bold edits (which was fine) and are now objected multiple times. You should stop before this becomes tendentious editing, especially considering you have already been warned for editing warring about this very type of edit before.

I find it strange that you are not disputing the addition of “British Hong Kong”

Go ahead and remove them then? Otherwise it’s just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I am not obligated to fix everything under the sun. We use "South Korea" as the most commonly known name in every BLP even though the country's name never contains the word "south". Would you like to object to that too?

not a concrete factual or policy based objection

The three threads I cited all have policy-based arguments.

Northern Moonlight 06:34, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

The convention on Wikipedia is to omit the sovereign state for certain regions (e.g. Hong Kong

No. No, it isn't.

There no site-wide consensus on Hong Kong. The spirit of MOS:IBP is also an argument that in all actuality supports the inclusion of the country since it is what the IBP says to include!

Lastly, South Korea is the common name. Why would I object to that? This isn't a common name issue. Hong Kong is the common name of the SAR and was the common name for the colony as well. SigillumVert (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I said the convention is to omit it. I did not say consensus. Are you saying your variant is the predominant form on enwiki?

I'll quote for you from MOS:STYLEVAR:

When either of two styles is acceptable it is generally considered inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change... If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, seek consensus by discussing this at the article’s talk page or – if it raises an issue of more general application or with the MoS itself – at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. (emphasis mine)

You should have either reached consensus on the talk page or Talk:MOS first. You have done neither. It's clear that multiple editors have disagreed with your assessment in the past. It's inappropriate for you to carry on this type of edits without further discussions first.

I'll quote from MOS:IBP, which I note does not say the sovereign state must be included:

The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Some infoboxes need to use more than a handful of fields, but information should be presented in a short format wherever possible, and should exclude unnecessary content. (emphasis mine)

---

Re the use of "British Hong Kong": if you believe it should be "Hong Kong", go ahead to remove them yourself and I won't object. However, if someone else objects, you should also discuss on the talk page first. Northern Moonlight 16:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Well why didn't you discuss this at the articles talk page then? I mean shouldn't you be seeking consensus for the Veronica Chan article since I didn't edit it for god knows how many months. Why would I address the talk page if my preferred variant was already there? SigillumVert (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Read MOS:STYLEVAR again.

Unjustified changes from one acceptable, consistently applied style in an article to a different style may generally be reverted.

...then default to the style that was used in the first post-stub version of the article in which one of the applicable styles appeared. (emphasis mine) Northern Moonlight 16:29, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

It can't be consistently applied in a article if it is just a one-off occurrence. This is clearly referring to things like British or American spelling etc. that repeat in patterns throughout a given article. Not content disputes like inclusion or exclusion.

I don't wish to continue this discussion here. It should be on the article talk page and it's getting late. SigillumVert (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

This is clearly referring to things like British or American spelling etc. that repeat in patterns throughout a given article.

The page literally has a section titled Geographical items.

I didn't start a discussion on the article talk page because this is about you making this type of edits across many articles. In the future, always start a discussion about this type of edit first. Given that your edits are not limited to one article, the appropriate venue should be Talk:MOS/NC-CN. Northern Moonlight 16:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

But this was already done at my behest, there was no consensus on the MOS/NC-CN talk. That's what I'm trying to tell you this whole time. There is no consensus on this and it was discussed before. SigillumVert (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

There was an RfC in 2023. It's in the talk page archive. SigillumVert (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Nothing stops you from creating a new RfC if you have compelling new arguments. If you do not wish to do that, recall that [i]f a discussion does not result in consensus for the change at the article, continue to use the already-established style there. Northern Moonlight 17:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry to chime in. I have actually moved on from this matter a long time ago and have no interest in engaging in debates that are unrelated to my editing. But I was tagged in this discussion so I took a quick look at what you guys are discussing, and the mention of an RfC intrigued me.

I was not aware of this RfC before, and after reviewing it, I think SigillumVert has a fundamental misunderstanding of what "no consensus" means on WP. It does not mean that the discussion is over and everyone can can return to do whatever they want. Instead, it means retaining the status quo, the version of WP before the editing disputes. As WP:NOCONSENSUS explicitly states, "proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles" should commonly "retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". Regardless of how you interpret "status quo", whether it refers to the whole of Wikipedia, where articles using only "Hong Kong" are clearly the majority given the number of articles you have to "fix", or to the specific articles in dispute, which clearly only have "Hong Kong" in the infobox, the outcome of the RfC clearly does not support your position and editing approach over these past few years.

It would be great if you could initiate a new RfC if you are genuinely interested in seeking consensus. But, as the RfC closer noted that "there was plurality for just "Hong Kong"" and the reason that RfC was concluded as no consensus was only due to WP:NOTBURO, and from the fact that I have already seen you editing back-and-forth over this a dozen times with numerous editors back in 2024, the results of a new RfC would most likely still not favor your position. This time, if the RfC again ends as "no consensus", I hope you can respect that Wikipedia is a consensus-building project and honor that spirit. Otherwise, even if your edits are made in good faith, they could be considered, as Northern Moonlight described, a form of tendentious editing. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 18:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I am still not at all convinced that the inclusion of the country in which a city or region is located is "unnecessary content" per MOS:IBP, but for the sake of peace I won't continue because the STYLEVAR argument, though contrived, is at least rationally consistent. SigillumVert (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1341690048: I have no idea what "STY" means. I was assuming it might be something like see talk, but I did not see any messages left there. I think Northern Moonlight and I have already explained very clearly in this discussion, in plain English, that according to the WP:NOCONSENSUS of the 2023 RfC you brought up, "proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles" should "retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal". Regardless of how you interpret "status quo", whether it refers to the whole of Wikipedia, where articles using only "Hong Kong" are clearly the majority given the number of articles you have to "fix", or to the specific articles in dispute, which clearly only have "Hong Kong" in the infobox, the outcome of the RfC clearly does not support your position and editing approach over these past few years. I have no idea what is unclear about this. I have made every effort to AGF every time we interact, and I was willing to believe it was due to a misunderstanding about NOCONSENSUS when I explained our guidelines to you above. But considering that that RfC was caused by your same tendentious editing pattern in the first place, and that you were clearly aware of the outcome yet still refuse to listen to anyone and continue editing back and forth with over a dozen editors across these three years, I think you are simply trolling or trying to provoke arguments with people on the internet. At this point, I have no interest or time to keep repeating myself to a wall. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 21:37, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I assume they are referring to WP:STYLEVAR, which unfortunately does not hold since the article has been using the phrasing born in Hong Kong since 2015. Otherwise I agree, given their history of tendentious editing throughout the years, they are strongly advised to refrain from editing in this area without a prior discussion. Northern Moonlight 00:20, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

It does hold in this case. The phrasing "born in Hong Kong" does not imply anything as the article subject was born in 1948. Besides, I restored the original wording which Prince of Erebor here claimed to have "corrected" I don't see how is that a correction. To correct something you first need it to be at least partially incorrect — which wasn't the case here. So it is a misleading edit summary. SigillumVert (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Here is the original diff. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rafael_Hui&diff=prev&oldid=1336017057

Let me repeat what PoE just quoted proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles should retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal.

And I am supposed to be the one who refuses to listen to outcomes? Is this not the original to which the article should revert if there is no policy based argument for a change, just a misleading "correction"? SigillumVert (talk) 05:14, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I reverted your edits back to the status quo of the article.

"proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles" should "retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal".

Which is exactly what I did! What is the problem with that? I restored the original form of the article. It was you who did not bring any policy related proposal as to why the infobox should be changed. You stated it was a correction. A correction of what? This is just projection at this point. SigillumVert (talk) 05:05, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, SigillumVert. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Harbin–Dalian railway".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 07:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I have been working to put a country on as many uses of this infobox as possible and saw your revert at Citizens' Radio. That places the page in a tracking category Category:Pages using infobox radio station with no country. Given that I was using just the country field, it's functionally identical except for the link. Is there a major objection I should know to doing this for Hong Kong? Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 07:29, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh I wasn't aware of such a category. Is a country necessary here? I suppose you could put China if it is needed. SigillumVert (talk) 08:45, 19 March 2026 (UTC)