text:
Talk:Central and Western District

Sai Wan
Could anyone tell me the difference among Sai Wan, Sai Ying Pun and West Point? --Jerry Crimson Mann 05:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * In Chinese, Sai Wan, as one of the four wans and nine yeuks, covers a larger area than Sai Ying Pun. Not too sure for English. Strictly speaking I would have thought West Point is referring to a point or a cape, say, perhaps, the Belcher's Point. But from what I observed, for instance minibus destination signs, West Point in English is being used synonmously with Sai Wan or Kennedy Town. — Instantnood 09:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, West Point, Sai Wan and Kennedy Town are used synonmouly and refers to the part of Hong Kong Island that begins from the junction of Belcher Street Queens's Road West and ends with the Road.

Karolus

The first sentence
I know some of you are going to say I'm biased, but really, what is there to be biased about? Simply because it's far more logical, I would say that we should not fragment the link Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The reason is as follows:
 * Next in the sentence, we link to People's Republic of China, which is the full title of the entity commonly known as China.
 * So why shouldn't we link the entire full title of Hong Kong? Logical?

If we were to split Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, then we should then link People's Republic of China, which is ridiculous.

An alternative is the following:

 * The Central and Western District (...) is one of the 18 districts of Hong Kong, a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.

That should be acceptable to everyone. Here a split is necessitated by the desire to avoid repetition. enochlau (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

 * (By the way, I'm very tempted to nominate this for WP:LAME. enochlau (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC))

 * Oh you really really should. My AUD0.02 idea/suggestion was mentioned in the (rather rediculously long) edit summary somewhere -- we should use common short name in these cases unless there is a compelling reason not to.  I.e. '... one of the 18 disctincts of Hong Kong.' If they want to find out about China and SARs they can follow the link to the HK article.  No need to stuff down the throats of everyone that HK is a SAR and yes it is part of China. novacatz 09:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

 * As mentioned elsewhere, I would prefer " Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China " or simply " Hong Kong ", to " Hong Kong Special Adminsitrative Region of the People's Republic of China ". " Hong Kong, a special administrative region of the People's Republic of China " is perhaps the best way (when its status is necessary to be mentioned, e.g. like this article that talks about an administrative division). — Instantnood 09:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal of removing the whole "Politics" section
The information in this section is completely out-dated, when still mention the 2003 election. I suggest to remove it or somebody update the information. Addaick (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"City-state"?
Just to show how far this user is willing to go to declare independence for Hong Kong from China on Wikipedia. Colipon+ (Talk) 16:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 one external links on Central and Western District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050404044955/http://kings.school.net.hk:80/ to http://kings.school.net.hk/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050403231807/http://raimondi.school.net.hk:80/ to http://raimondi.school.net.hk/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050420104950/http://stclare.school.net.hk:80/index.html to http://stclare.school.net.hk/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050404052756/http://home.netteens.net:80/~sscc/ to http://home.netteens.net/~sscc/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050730021713/http://www.ssgc.edu.hk:80/web/index.asp to http://www.ssgc.edu.hk/web/index.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050404172257/http://honwah.school.net.hk:80/ to http://honwah.school.net.hk/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050406153810/http://www.smgchk.edu.hk:80/ to http://www.smgchk.edu.hk/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050326033720/http://spcc.school.net.hk:80/ to http://spcc.school.net.hk/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050403180254/http://www.sear-rogers.com:80/sris/ to http://www.sear-rogers.com/sris/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050420044614/http://www.shccc.edu.hk:80/ to http://www.shccc.edu.hk
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130926132726/http://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk:80/central/en/welcome.html to http://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/central/en/welcome.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031008130923/http://www.nima.mil/gns/html/index.html to http://www.nima.mil/gns/html/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Central and Western District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://kings.school.net.hk/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://raimondi.school.net.hk/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://stclare.school.net.hk/index.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://home.netteens.net/~sscc/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ssgc.edu.hk/web/index.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://honwah.school.net.hk/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.smgchk.edu.hk/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://spcc.school.net.hk/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sear-rogers.com/sris/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.shccc.edu.hk/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/central/en/welcome.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061023083400/http://www.eac.gov.hk/pdf/distco/2007dc/dc2007a.pdf to http://www.eac.gov.hk/pdf/distco/2007dc/dc2007a.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Central and Western District Council.svg
File:Central and Western District Council.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Central and Western District


text:
Talk:Averatec

Untitled
I am pretty sure this company is out of business.

Um...isn't this a bit biased? Ranma9617 05:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Howso? The information here seems fair. Perhaps the "low-cost" part is up to debate... --chris 01:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

why "see also eMachines"? 86.128.121.119 21:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No idea. I deleted it. -- Hawaiian717 21:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"the new reviews have been great"? could use a citation there, Mr. Averatec representative —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.80.30.66 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC-8)

Korean connection
I've seen a couple of news reports which call this company Korean, and a couple of Korean friends were under the impression that it is based in Korea. Can someone clear this up?--ThreeAnswers 15:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Averatec's webpage has a few international sites (UK, France, Japan, etc.), and the one to Korea links here . I hope that helps.  FUNgus guy 11:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

 * see TG Sambo. What exactly is the relationship? DHR (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

 * In S Korea, Averatec is the laptop brand name of TG Sambo. Then, as far as I know, sales branches were established with the same name in US & other countries -- maybe similar case to Panasonic of Matsushita. Jisok (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

 * The connection with TG, asserted on the TG page, should be on the article page. Kdammers (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Averatec


text:
Talk:Section 377A (Singapore)

We had an entire section about Henry the 8th?!
Named, we had an entire section that read as follows:

An analysis of the origin of British laws that sought to prohibit buggery and their evolution into Section 377 is found in an academic paper entitled 377 and the Unnatural Afterlife of British Colonialism in Asia by Professor Douglas E. Sanders at Thailand's Chulalongkorn University.

In summary, the British anti-buggery law was enacted in 1534, taking over from ecclesiastical law. The wording used, which included "abominable" (taken from the book of Leviticus in the Old Testament), "buggery" (which, by the 13th century, had become associated with sodomy), and "vice", confirms its religious character. It was formulated in the context of King Henry VIII's break from papal authority to establish the Anglican church. Its purpose was to justify the seizure of Catholic monasteries and the confiscation of their other wealthy properties. The pretext was the alleged sexual immorality of those in the religious vocation. Without this anti-Catholic agenda, it seems unlikely that it would have been enacted.

Codification of law, particularly criminal law, became a major reform project in Britain in the 19th century, pushed by Jeremy Bentham and the utilitarians. Codes were well-suited to British colonialism, providing a single, orderly written version of areas of law - easy to enact for a colony.

I have deleted it: its connection to the current Singaporean legislation appears tenuous at best and like original research at worst. AGK ■  19:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

 * I also think that we should do something about the chatter relating to earlier British Empire laws (in 1800s India and such), but it's not as obviously irrelevant as the stuff about Henry VIII was so I shall leave some time for comments.  AGK  ■  19:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This deletion was not warranted especially in light of the 28 Nov 2022 debate in Parliament on the second reading of the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill and the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill, where the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr. K. Shanmugam) began his speech with much detail and emphasis on the role that the ecclesiastical roots of s377A under Henry VIII play in showing that s377A was not created for any of the purposes or objectives mentioned in the present day's arguments in favour of retaining s377A. Bcmh (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * On a related matter, if the chatter relating to earlier British Empire laws is referring to the Labouchere Amendment, then the deletion was also not warranted in light of the 28 Nov 2022 debate in Parliament on the second reading of the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill and the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill, where the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr. K. Shanmugam) began his speech with much detail and emphasis on the role that the Labouchere Amendment plays in showing that s377A was not created for any of the purposes or objectives mentioned in the present day's arguments in favour of retaining s377A. Bcmh (talk) 04:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 22 August 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Section 377A (Singapore) per consensus below. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Section 377A of the Penal Code (Singapore) → Section 377A – The extensive disambiguation of this article's title seems undue, as there are no other articles on Sections with this code. I propose it to be moved to the much simpler title of Section 377A. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC) ~ Maplestrip/Mable  ( chat ) 11:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

 * @Maplestrip I thought of 'the Penal Code (Singapore)' as a natural primary topic of the subtopic, Section 377A though (WP:CONSUB). I have no preference either way since WP:SHORTFORM allows for it. You may wish to format this into a RM request so that it get listed at WP:RMC as well for the wider editor community to help determine if the article should be moved. – robertsky (talk) 10:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Comment: I would propose Section 377A (Singapore) instead. Malaysia also has Section 377A with the same law from British rule. Seloloving (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 337A of Malaysia is not covered on Wikipedia, so no disambiguation between the two is necessary. If there were a Wikipedia article covering "Section 377A" of another country, I would agree that a disambiguation would be necessary. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There may not be a WP article on the Malaysian version of 377A right now, but somebody might (and probably should) write one. I support Seloloving's proposal, "Section 377A (Singapore)". -- Alarics (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I tend to prefer the current title, in that I would question whether Section 377A is, on its own, sufficiently recognizable, even to someone with some familiarity with the topic. Even for legislative provisions with which I am very familiar, I would find it hard to recognize them completely devoid of the usual context of act and jurisdiction.--Trystan (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Oppose move as currently proposed. Section 377A is not sufficiently precise for an article dealing only with Singapore, as Malaysia and possibly other former British colonies have or have had similar laws by exactly this name. There may be room for some rescoping of our coverage, see the article at Section 377. But I note from existing redirects and their histories that there have been several previous moves of this one, so it would be good to get a stable title. Support alternate Section 377A (Singapore) as proposed below. Best suggestion yet. Andrewa (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Section 377A (Singapore) to make it more recognizable. Section 377A should probably redirect to Section 377 in that case. Vpab15 (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Support Alternate Section 377A (Singapore) as is it is concise and alsp as this article's scope is only about Section 377A within Singapore's law. SriHarsha Bhogi (talk) 05:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Section 377A has not been repealed
The Parliament passed a bill to repeal Section 377A on 29 Nov but it has not been assented to by the President and published in the Gazette. The current version of the Penal Code still shows Section 377A https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/PC1871. 219.79.79.20 (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC) Constitution of the Republic of Singapore:

Exercise of legislative power

58.—(1) Subject to the provisions of Part 7, the power of the Legislature to make laws shall be exercised by Bills passed by Parliament and assented to by the President.

(2) A Bill shall become law on being assented to by the President and such law shall come into operation on the date of its publication in the Gazette or, if it is enacted either in such law or in any other law for the time being in force in Singapore that it shall come into operation on some other date, on that date. 219.79.79.20 (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand the point you and others are making; many legislative systems require such processes. While I know you're right, I think it may be mildly pedantic in this case to revert others wholesale, as we have no sources in the article attesting to this fact; several RSs simply say "Singapore Parliament repealed the section"...  Can anyone source when assent and gazetting are likely to be finalised? Please add it to article, if so.
 * I attempted a small compromise, by shifting the statement about the repeal bill to the first par for emphasis; also tried mildly softening the "IS-ness". Added: detail of low, but occasional, enforcement pre-2007; news items to further reading. AukusRuckus (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Such pedantic behavior on Wikipedia is no different to subtle vandalism. Show us a source that links these two topics together then. A source that states that 377A will only take effect after it has been assented to by the President? Pauline Muley (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Pauline Muley 377A is still in force and in law. [1 ] I have undid the edit changing 'is' to 'was'. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * SYNTH and RS are not to be used in this way. They exclude the addition of information that is synthesised or unreliable. They do not prevent the framing of sources in a particular way. Whilst news reports state that parliament has 'repealed' 377A, it does not mean that the law has actually been repealed, just that there has been a successful vote to do so. Technically, the law has not been repealed pending legislative processes. Please do not revert good faith edits without having established a consensus here. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi I do understand about 'bills to repeal' v. 'fait accompli repeal'. My point was that if we cannot say the section was repealed (yet), as assent and gazetting are still pending, then, by the same token, neither can we say it's still pending without a source. (Perhaps you were not addressing me at all. but I thought I would still chime in, as my point still stands.)
 * What would be most useful, in fact, from people who seem to have more relevant info at their fingertips, is a source that when assent and gazetting are likely to occur, or when the repeal bill will take effect. Then the WP article can say that, removing all doubt and wiggle room. I'm not a fan of either of the approaches taken on the article thus far, but to be fair to, I imagine they took my comments as some level of consensus for the "was" approach, as I was critical of the bald "is" approach.
 * I can't agree with your interpretation of WP:SYNTH at all. Even though that was not my argument, I point out what the policy says: There is no mention of "unreliability"; it describes "synthesis" exactly as used here. Citing sources for the legislative processes, together with news reports about the bill passing, is a clear example of SYNTH, no matter how reasonable a deduction the synthesised conclusion is. Linking to the WP:PRIMARY source showing the section still on the books is also not sufficient, . (Might do at a pinch, if there's really no alternative, but really, I wanted to point out it's a bit rich to split hairs about one editor's approach, while at the same time, not taking a very rigorous approach in terms of WP policy when countermanding that editor.
 * I repeat: The reliable sources used are actually framing their reporting as "the section has been repealed", despite what you and I know about the operation of the legislative process. (Only one that I have seen frames it as: "the bill to repeal has passed", while none that I can find mention the date it will come into force, nor any timeline.) My understanding is that editors are to report what RSs, even if we know better. Where uncertainty or disagreement exists, WP is likely to use the phrasing as presented in WP:RSs.
 * The situation is unsatisfactory as it stands, and I think we need to ask for wider comment on this, unless a source delineating the process or timeline for this is added. Either that, or events may well overtake us, with the repeal gazetted before we finish discussing, rendering all this moot!  AukusRuckus (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * With respect to timeline, it is in the Constitution that the Presidential Council for Minority Rights has at least 30 days to respond with a review of the bill for any discrimination against any racial or religious community. If there's no differing opinion issued that delays the passage of the bill, the President must assent to the bill by then. I don't see anywhere on Bill 31/2022 that exempts the bill of scrutiny. – robertsky (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @AukusRuckus @Pauline Muley This is so wrong, how can media sources that prematurely or wrongly use the word "repealed", become the basis for editing this article over Singapore's constitutional, legislative and legal process?
 * How is anyone able to produce a source that shows when assent and gazetting are likely to be finalised when the only persons who have control over this are the President and the Minister for Home Affairs?
 * The burden of proof is on you both to show that s377A has been repealed, and to my knowledge of Singapore's constitutional, legislative and legal process, a law is only repealed when (1) the Legislature has passed the amendment Bill by a simple majority, (2) the President has assented to the Bill and (3) the commencement of the Act has been notified by the Minister responsible, with publication in the gazette.
 * Pauline Muley's allegations of "pedantic behaviour" and "vandalism" on the other editors are absolutely false and unmeritorious.
 * AukusRuckus' statement that we cannot say that it's still pending without a source flies in the face of the fact that the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill has been passed by Singapore's legislature but has yet to receive assent by the President and yet to have it's commencement notification published in the gazette by the Minister for Home Affairs.
 * As of now, the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill to repeal s377A has not yet been assented to by the President nor has it's commencement been notified by the Minister for Home Affairs and this article should continue to use present tense instead of past tense when referring to the existence of s377A. Bcmh (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2022 has been gazetted.--119.237.60.33 (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the heads-up. Much appreciated. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Section 377A (Singapore)


text:
User talk:Webzero

Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. Thanks. --W(t) 05:40, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

title: User talk:Webzero


text:
Al McGuire Center

The Al McGuire Center is a 3,700-seat arena in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, which houses the women's volleyball and basketball teams at Marquette University. It also serves as a practice facility for the men's basketball team. It was opened in 2004, replacing the venerable Marquette Gymnasium. The complex is a $31 million athletic facility named for Al McGuire, the coach who led the men's basketball team to an NCAA championship, an NIT title, and 295 victories in 13 seasons. The McGuire Center offers practice facilities for men's and women's basketball, including strength and conditioning and sports medicine facilities, an academic center for student athletes, and a Marquette Athletics Hall of Fame.

title: Al McGuire Center


text: Category:Latvian chess players

title: Category:Latvian chess players


text:
Talk:Antony (name)

Untitled
There is debate as to which is correct. Antony or Anthony. The root word, Antonius doesn't include an h. What's more, French, Italian, spanish, Russian variants of the name do not include an h. So I believe that though less common, 'Antony' should be the correct spelling of the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.206.87.14 (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2005
 * Both are used intentionally, therefore both are "correct". As this is English language Wikipedia, the name article is at the most common spelling, as I believe WP:COMMONNAME applies. – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

P.M. Antony
An article for P.M. Antony, Malayalam language play wright is missing.  Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 13 November 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

– no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per page views Joeykai (talk) 05:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Antony → Antony (name)
 * Antony (disambiguation) → Antony
 * Support per nom. Shwcz (talk) 08:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support the footballer born 200 has 105,526 views (though his name is a class of the name) but the place in France has a comparable number (895) as the name (1,303).  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator. No clear primary topic for this title. The safest bet is to have the disambiguation page at the basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination; Shwcz; Crouch, Swale; Paintspot Infez and Ortizesp. There are nine bulleted entries listed upon the Pedro (disambiguation) page, with no indication that the renown of the masculine given name is at such a level that it overshadows the combined notability of those entries. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose because this is now an apparent pattern of knee-jerk edits and move requests where mononymous anthroponymy entries are used on disambiguation pages as some sort of a pseudo proof that anthroponymy lists somehow aren't the most appropriate method of navigation. Please follow WP:PTOPIC to analyze the issue with some rigor, look for WikiNav click stream data, look at the page views of the anthroponymy articles overall, etc. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no hatnote on this article so we don't have our ducks in a row... and the disambiguation page has existed since 2018?! This alone is indicative of there being no interest in topics that aren't primary (as presumed). Anyway, if we look at https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Antony_%28disambiguation%29 both of the entries in the outgoing pageviews graph are people mononymously known as Antony, hence there's apparently zero reason to believe that users are not looking for anthroponymy when looking any of this up. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge - I get rather bored with these "articles" on given names that are simply a single line of text followed by a nonexhaustive list of individuals who have that name. It would be more useful to have all disambiguation entries including those with the name on one page. — Amakuru (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, that's because they're not regular articles, they are lists, like disambiguation pages. And WP:NAMELIST advises splitting them away when they're too long. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree there is enough entries and there is also (though not much) information on the name its self which may not be appropriate for the DAB, if anything I'd split and have Antony (given name) and Antony (surname).  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright then, Support in that case. The topics properly known by the name "Antony" (and I include the two Brazilian footballers and possibly Antony the Great in that) are properly to be included on the dab page, while long lists of people with this given name are less important and should be relegated to a list page. — Amakuru (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge Antony with Anthony, there is nothing materially different about their respective origins, just the cultural accident of the introduction of an "h". BD2412  T 02:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose / merge Antony into Anthony per BD2412. In other words, if a merge occurs, Antony should redirect to Anthony. The name is primary. Steel1943  (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

title: Talk:Antony (name)