Talk:Gweilo

Actually, sei gweilo is still very much in use, isn't it? I have been called like that several times during my stay in HK. --84.138.180.41 09:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the page becuase "gweilo" is more popular than "gwailo"

• Google results: gweilo and gwailo
• HK Magazine prefers the term "gweilo".

-- Jerry Crimson Mann 21:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about Jau Gwai? :-D — Instantnood 04:01, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

In a sense, I would prefer "Gwei" instead "Gwai" here. :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 04:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If we follow the way the government transliterate people's names and place names, it should be Chau Kwai. In Jyutping it's Zau Gwai. :-D — Instantnood 10:55, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Well, actually there's no consensus about the translation. Both terms are fine by me, to be frank, and do it another way later on if there's a proof of a definite transliteration. ;) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 10:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:-P — Instantnood 11:18, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Is the term really borrowed by Cantonese??? it seems that the term guizi was originally used to mean the Japanese, and later used to refers to the white men (洋鬼子)...--K.C. Tang 03:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I transwiki'd this article to Wiktionary and replaced the current version with a soft-redirect. user:Instantnood reverted that edit with the comment This is more than a dictionary definition. Please discuss at the talk page. Thanks.

I've read and now re-read the article. The contents of this article are a detailed discussion of the meanings, origins and usage of a word. It includes synonyms and related words. Those are components of a dictionary definition. It is not the content that I would expect to see in a truly great, unabridged encyclopedia. It is, however, the content that I would expect to see in a truly great, unabridged dictionary. I believe that the content belongs in Wiktionary, not in Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a dictionary has been established policy since long before I joined the project.

I see no possibility that this article can be expanded past a dictionary definition and into an encyclopedia article. I would be happy to be proven wrong, though. If you can show me what in this article is more than a discussion of the meanings, origins and/or usage of the word or if you can expand the article past that state, I will withdraw my objections. Rossami (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's been almost 4 months. The article is still a mere dictionary definition. It has some excellent discussion of the usage and connotations of the term but that is content more appropriate to a dictionary than an encyclopedia. So far, there is no encyclopedia article here. Per Wikipedia is not a dictionary, I have returned this article to it's state as a soft-redirect to Wiktionary. I strongly encourage the participants on this page to follow the link to Wiktionary and to continue to improve the definition there. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is that a dicdef!? enochlau (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is an article about a word. It includes the meaning (including connotations), usage (including examples), origins, antonyms, synonyms and related words. It is not an article about the underlying concept or thing. In accordance with our long-standing policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, an acceptable encyclopedia may begin with a definition but must go beyond that. So far, no one has described any content in this article that goes beyond the content that I would hope to see in a great, unabridged dictionary. What's here is good content but it was misplaced. It belongs in Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the doing here then? I think if the article contains any sort of explanation as to its cultural setting (e.g. "This reflects a transformation in which an ethnic group begins referring to itself with a term which was originally considered an ethnic slur."), it has transcended the level of dicdef. Compare the article of old to the stuff you find on Wiktionary - it's far more detailed and won't fit in there at all. enochlau (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article fits under Category:Pejorative terms for people and can be more than a dictionary entry. Shawnc 14:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It is used so commonly by Cantonese speakers to refer to white people and westerners in general that its use is not always derogatory." Such a statement calls for a citation, as frequent use does not automatically mean non-derogatory: could the word be casually and neutrally used to directly address a random westerner, as in "hello, gweilo" or "I remember you, you're that gweilo who.."? Shawnc 13:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]