Misplaced Pages

Talk:Hong Kong: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:33, 17 June 2006 editMcy jerry (talk | contribs)5,501 edits →[] should be turned into redirect of []← Previous edit Revision as of 12:47, 17 June 2006 edit undoBadagnani (talk | contribs)136,593 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 384: Line 384:
**Note: my support for the merge is contingent on making sure the information about the special autonomy of "Hong Kong, China" and membership in international organizations under this name, as described above. ] 08:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC) **Note: my support for the merge is contingent on making sure the information about the special autonomy of "Hong Kong, China" and membership in international organizations under this name, as described above. ] 08:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I think you guys do not realise the '''Hong Kong, China''' is an entity for Hong Kong to participate in international events like the Olympic Games. It's just different from "Beijing, China". -- ] 12:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC) *'''Oppose'''. I think you guys do not realise the '''Hong Kong, China''' is an entity for Hong Kong to participate in international events like the Olympic Games. It's just different from "Beijing, China". -- ] 12:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
**Comment: if this is true, then it is (though disputed above) analogous to the "Chinese Taipei" name--which Taiwanese athletes participate in the Olympics under. This needs more discussion. ] 12:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


== Addition of information on fire stations, etc. == == Addition of information on fire stations, etc. ==

Revision as of 12:47, 17 June 2006

Template:Featured article is only for Misplaced Pages:Featured articles.

WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:Mainpage date

Template:FAOL

WikiProject iconSpoken Misplaced Pages
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages
WikiProject iconHong Kong Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Hong Kong To-do:

Attention needed (60)

Collaboration needed

Improvement needed

Cleanup needed

Image needed (347)

Destub needed

Deorphan needed

Page creation needed

Miscellaneous tasks

Welcome! This talkpage is to discuss the article Hong Kong only. Past discussions can be retrieved within these archives (Archive: #1, #2, #3, #4; #Infobox). For discussion regarding Hong Kong-related articles and issues, please visit the discussion page of the HK wikipedians' notice board.
WikiProject iconCities Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Template:User article ban

Hong Kong action cinema

you may be interested to know the article Hong Kong action cinema is currently preparing to go for featured article status. at the moment, there is a peer review going on at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Hong Kong action cinema. as the editors of this article already have experience in creating an FA, your input is highly valued. thx! Zzzzz 21:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

fyi, the article is now featured! rgs, Zzzzz 11:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Great job. — Instantnood 11:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hong Kong as a city

In the table on the right side of the article, some users put "Central" for the capital of Hong Kong, and "Sha Tin" for the largest city. I wonder if this is correct. As I know, a lot of texts would rather put Hong Kong itself as a city, those entities like Central and Sha Tin as areas within a city. In Misplaced Pages, I found a sentence in the article List of current and former capitals of subnational entities of China that reads like this: "Excluded from the list: First-level units that are cities, such as the municipalities or the two special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau." In that way, it seems that Hong Kong is "a first-level administrative region that is a city." By definition, the capital city of a city is the city itself. A good example is Singapore, which is a city-state. Its capital city is Singapore, its only city. Using this logic, should the capital city of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region be "Hong Kong"? Or, should we put "Not applicable" in the blank for "capital"? Meanwhile, in the blank for "capital", I have put Central as the de facto capital of Hong Kong, and mentioned that it is the location of the Government headquarters. Similarly, in the "administrative divisions" section, some users added that "There are several cities and towns within Hong Kong, the largest of which include Kowloon." I wonder if the wording should be changed. - 70.231.51.124 08:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Central is formerly named as Victoria City, which is the designated capital of colonial Hong Kong. Sha Tin, IMO, should really be the largest community, but I think the largest "town" is more suitable than largest "city".
"There are several cities and towns within Hong Kong, the largest of which include Kowloon." This sentence is strictly incorrect, as Kowloon is never recognized as a town or city in within Hong Kong. It is a high-level geographical adminsistrative division, or more precisely, a peninsula. "Capital" of Hong Kong is central, but it cannot be regarded as a "city". If we can accept the term "capital town", then Central is the capital of Hong Kong, and Sha Tin is the largest "town". The only city in Hong Kong is Hong Kong. --Deryck C. 08:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
In response to your point about Victoria City, I have several questions. As far as I know, Victoria City was only a small city set up by the British when they first acquired the Hong Kong Island but has not yet acquired Kowloon and the New Territories, had it ever been officially declared as the capital city of Hong Kong? Even if so, it seems that Victoria City only exists in the colonial era. Does it still exists nowadays? Also, Victoria City is not the same thing as Central. Central is only part of the Victoria City. Is it true to say that Victoria City was already broken down into the Central and Western District and the Wan Chai District at some point? If that is the case, should the Central and Western District be the capital nowadays?
Another thing is that the official subdivisions under Hong Kong are the 18 districts. Those entities like Central, Ma On Shan or Tseung Kwan O are not official administrative divisions amongst Hong Kong. There respective official administrative divisions should be the Central and Western District, Sha Tin District and Sai Kung District. So, I think it is more appropriate to say that the Central and Western District is the "capital town", and the Sha Tin District is the largest town. But there comes other questions. Is there really such a thing as "capital town"? Should we change "captial" to "seat of Government headquarters" in the template? Also, Sha Tin District is not the largest District in terms of area. In that case, which would be the largest district or town? Should we change "largest city" to "largest district"?
It seems that the country template on the right hand side of the article is not really useful in this specific article. Because Hong Kong is more like a city than a country. I think we may have to change some terms in the template to make it more suitable for this article. - 70.231.51.124 08:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
"Largest town" doesn't imply the town has to be officially declared as a "town". If the community concensus says it is, then it should be recognized as is. --Deryck C. 09:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Ugh. This snuck in converting the infobox from a specific infobox template:Hong Kong infobox to parameters in infobox country, and then substing that template. Both the section for "capital" and "largest city" are useless for this article. Just remove them from the table. SchmuckyTheCat 09:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
That's why I insist you not to delete the Hong Kong Infobox. That infobox was originally created to move the complicated box out of the article so as to shorten it, and now you ask us to subst the new infobox onto it and change the contents? Ridiculous. Doing so means we are reverting the efforts done a few months ago when this article is being promoted to FA. We are stepping backwards by deleting the Hong Kong Infobox. --Deryck C. 14:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I know. I didn't do the subst nor make the policy the other users are stating that single use templates get deleted. I closed the templates for deletion and archived the infobox, rather than delete it, so we could possibly restore it later. If I hadn't done that, it would have been deleted by some admin and lost forever. I like the infobox being external because the "code" in the article itself makes it daunting task to newcomers to try to edit. SchmuckyTheCat 17:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
(response to Deryck Chan's comment at 14:31, March 31) For your information, the infobox is archived. See below for details. — Instantnood 18:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


What does the English word city means can be viewed from different perspectives, e.g., geographical, ceremonial, and administrative. Geographically there're several urbanised areas within the territory of Hong Kong, that are geographically qualified to be considered cities or towns. Administratively, Hong Kong is unitary and there's no sub entity designated as city (or town). The extents of the City of Victoria, Kowloon and New Kowloon, are respectively demarcated by law. So far I have not found any information showing if Victoria City (or any other part of Hong Kong) has received a charter from the Queen/King or not.

Victoria City, legally speaking, still exists, and many government offices, including the headquarters of almost all departments are within Victoria City. But in modern conversations few people actually use this name. They call the names of the areas instead. It's also interesting to note that the boundary of the City of Victoria does not follow those of the modern districts.

If you're taken a geographical perspective, Kowloon (including New Kowloon) would be the urbanised area with the largest population, wheareas the City of Victoria would be the legal entity where the government headquarters are located. — Instantnood 21:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Victoria City, legally speaking, still exists. No, it doesn't. SchmuckyTheCat 00:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
After "85,000" Incident in Hong Kong, some people suggested that if something used to exist, but the Government no longer mentions about it, then it no longer exists. Could this principle be applied to the case for Victoria City? - Alan 01:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
(response to user:SchmuckyTheCat's comment at 00:29, April 1) Yes it does. Go check Cap 1 Sched 1. The definition is still useful for assigning land lot numbers, for instance. — Instantnood 10:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC) (modified 18:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

It seems that the currect info box is not really suitable for the article about Hong Kong. Because it is the standard country info box. Although some users have been repeatedly arguing that Hong Kong is a country on its own, Hong Kong is not quite the same kind of entity as those common examples of countries that we can come up with, like the United States, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Korea, the People's Republic of China (PRC) etc. The fundamental policy of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) is "One Country, Two System", which means practicing two political systems (the one within the HKSAR and the one in the rest of the PRC) in one country (the PRC). Therefore, it would be more correct to say that the HKSAR + the rest of the PRC = the entirety of the PRC = one country, rather than the HKSAR = one country. But when Hong Kong was a British colony before 1997, Hong Kong is not an integral part of Britain. Due to this historical, and pragmatical reason, Hong Kong has usually been put in a separate entry in a list of countries. However, Hong Kong is now a special administrative region (SAR), and does not have all the characteristics possessed by those common countries like the United States, the Russian Federation. An SAR is a very special kind of political entity / administrative division of the PRC. It would be useful to design a unique info box specifically for an SAR. If we insist to use the standard country info box, we really don't know what to put for "capital city". It seems silly and providing no useful information to say that the capital city of Hong Kong is Hong Kong. I would prefer, as some users suggested above, changing the "capital city" to "seat of the Government headquarter", and the "largest city" to "largest district". This would make the info box tailor-made for the special situation of Hong Kong. - Alan 00:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't agree. If the ROC or Taiwan were to be a special administrative region, it were going to have several cities, one of which would be the capital. The problem with this country infobox your mentioned is not related to special administrative regions. The same problem exists for countries (by saying countries I refer to sovereign states and other you-know-what which are not sovereign states) which do not designate its urbanised settlements as cities, as well as those which do not officially proclaimed by legal procedures their seats of governments as capitals. — Instantnood 10:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree. The ROC is a state / a regime, and Taiwan is a province / an island under the administration the ROC. It does not make sense to imagine what if they were special administrative regions. Some users pointed out, in the discussion above, that Hong Kong is "a first-level administrative region that is a city". I think this is the main problem with using the country info box in the article about Hong Kong. For those first-level administrative regions that are not cities, there is no problem at all. For instance, the capital city of Guangdong province is Guangzhou, and the capital city of the Tibet Autonomous Region is Lhasa. But for other first-level administrative regions that are cities, such as the mulicipalities of Beijing, Tianjin and Shanghai, you may ask the same question. As I read the articles about Beijing, Tianjin and Shanghai, they have a special kind of info box that avoid mentioning about their capitals and largest cities. I wonder if we should do the same for Hong Kong. - Alan 01:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Zhíxiáshì, dìjíshì and xiànxiáshì are shì (cities), special administrative regions are not officially recognised or designated as such. — Instantnood 15:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether Hong Kong is a city or not. What matters is whether or not that style of infobox is more appropriate to this article. SchmuckyTheCat 15:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
And that's beyond the subject of this section. — Instantnood 15:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
No, it's exactly the subject of this section. The first sentence of this section refers to the infobox. What others have proposed as a solution is that using the city infobox might be more relevant than using the country infobox. SchmuckyTheCat 17:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
In that case other city-countries will have to use the city infobox template too, since they're cities. — Instantnood 18:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
That kind of demand is rather presumptuous and makes you look like a donkey. SchmuckyTheCat 03:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The suggestion to use the city infobox instead is already presumptuous. Who first suggested to use the city infobox, by the way? — Instantnood 18:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's take a look at the article "Political divisions of China", the subsection about "Special Administrative Regions" is listed under the section "Province level". In the "Summary" section, "special administrative regions" is again placed in the box for "Province level". Apart from this, in both the articles "List of China administrative divisions by population" and "List of China administrative divisions by population density", the first sentence is "This is a list of the first-level administrative divisions of People's Republic of China." Meanwhile, the two special administrative regions - Hong Kong and Macau - are included in the lists. These clearly shows that special administrative regions are province-level, i.e. first-level, administrative regions of the PR China. That is, Hong Kong and Macau are part of the hierachy of the administrative regions of the PR China. I feel that some Hong Kong Wikipedians have been trying to deny this fact for many times, but no matter what, that is the fact. As a first-level administrative region of the PR China, it makes sense for the "Hong Kong" article to use the kind of info box that has been used in the articles for other first-level administrative regions, such as Shanghai, Guangdong, Guangxi, Beijing etc. But this could have a certain extent of flexibility.

Although a lot of people like to compare Hong Kong with Singapore, their status in the hierachy of administrative divisions should not be equated. Singapore is an independent state, or a city-state. Hong Kong is a special administrative region of the PR China, and coincidently a city. Regardless of whether a special administrative region is automatically a city, it is a first-level administrative region. - Alan 03:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If you're so sure that what you claim is the fact, could you please kindly show us the evidence from constitutional or legal sources? I just cannot find any that compares special administrative regions with the province-level divisions (autonomous regions, muncipalities and provinces), or defines Hong Kong or Macao as a city. I've yet to find out any source saying special administrative regions are administrative divisions, too, in the same or similar manner like the province-level ones are specified. — Instantnood 20:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
As we can see, the fact that special administrative regions are first-level administrative regions are mentioned in a lot of articles in Misplaced Pages. I think those many Wikipedians who put such information must have already done some research and verifications. But if you want to say that special administrative regions are not administrative regions of the PR China, then you have to first provide constitutional evidence to prove that Hong Kong is already a separate country from the PR China and that the "One Country, Two System" principle is entirely fake. - Alan 22:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Nobody has ever tried to assert nor imply that Hong Kong is a sovereign state independent from the People's Republic of China. As mentioned many times before, each of the two existing special adminsitrative regions is constitutionally defined as " an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China " (" é parte inalienável da República Popular da China ") (cf article 1 of both basic laws). It's a fact, and is not a matter of dispute. Nonetheless we don't have any evidence to justify the claim that any special administrative region established according to Article 31 of the 1982 Constitution is an administrative division, nor do we have any to justify the claim that the two existing special administrative regions are administrative divisions. If you do have such evidence, please kindly show us. — Instantnood 18:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


Hong Kong simply doesn't have a capital, according to an government official. Thus IMO it is ridiculous to put Central / Victority City as the "capital" of Hong Kong. You can call Central as the administrative center but not "capital". --Lorenzarius 09:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please kindly read, with great care, how they justified their claims. In the first e-mail, that person disregarded what is prescribed in Cap 1 Sched 1. In the second one, the person failed to recognise the fact that the English word country is not always used synonymously with sovereign state, and not only sovereign states have capitals. Many British crown colonies had capitals too. It's true that the name City of Victoria or Victoria City is no longer commonly used, it still exists, and within its limit are where the Government Headquarters and the head offices of most departments located. — Instantnood 20:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
To me, a political territory (country, state, province, SAR, etc.), soveriegn or not, defines its own capital. And Hong Kong, just like municipalities such as Beijing or Shanghai (all at the same province level), does not define an official capital. So there's no capital of Hong Kong. You can say that the seat of government is at whatever district, but you cannot say Hong Kong's capital is that district, 'cos this is determined solely by the government of Hong Kong (maybe together with the government of PRC). Chanheigeorge 20:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd actually be interested to compare how other places define their capitals. I believe many countries simply treat where the permanent residence of the monarch is located, or where the parliament, or the government is located, as the capital, without extra designation. I'm not saying whether the City of Victoria is or is not the capital, but it's an actual fact that it has been considered the capital by many published sources. The footnote, IMHO, is already adequate in providing necessary information to readers. — Instantnood 21:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Capital and seat of government are two different concepts. The capital is designated officially by the government, and the seat of government is where the administration (or monarch, or parliament) is physically located. Just because they happen to be the same for most countries (or territories) does not mean they are the same concept. Some countries (e.g. Netherlands) designate one city as a capital and its government is located elsewhere. One country (Nauru) does not officially designate a capital. Three countries (Singapore, Monaco, Vatican City) designate the whole country/city (since they are city-states) as its capital, and do not designate the district where its government is located as its capital. So if Hong Kong does not designate a capital, it has no capital. IMHO what is currently in the infobox is wrong. Chanheigeorge 00:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd be interested to know how countries like Japan designate their capitals. Some people are arguing that Kyoto is still technically the capital, although all functions are now performed by Tokyo (cf capital of Japan). In what way is London defined as such? And Amsterdam was not legally or constitutionally recognised as the capital until 1983, although considered to be for a long time (cf capital of the Netherlands). Singapore does not designate any capital (probably the same case for the Vatican City), and Monaco-Ville is the capital of Monaco. — Instantnood 11:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Obviously I cannot claim to know how every country (or territory) in the world decide on their capitals. But from the examples I've read, the government takes an official position, such as in their constitution. Whenever I'm unsure of what the capital of a country is, I try to find the information on their government webpage, 'cos you'd think they know where their "official" capital is. BTW, I think the capital of Monaco is just Monaco (I've reverted that page; see Talk:Monaco). I've yet to read a source (not counting Misplaced Pages pages... we all know they're unreliable without sources) that says Monaco-Ville is the capital of Monaco. Chanheigeorge 21:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Alright. If there are places like Japan (the Netherlands, too, before 1983), we've gotta ask if it's a must to have capitals officially designate and explicitly recognised. Nevertheless I don't find anything wrong to say "the Government Headquarters and the head offices of most departments are within the legally-defined area of the City of Victoria". The statement simply describe an actual fact without dealing with whether or not its status is officially designated and explicitly recognised. — Instantnood 19:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
It's a problem because it misrepresents the fact that nobody uses the term "Victoria City" any longer. Saying so implies that people recognize that name with that area, which isn't so. SchmuckyTheCat 19:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
From a historical-sociological point of view, if nobody uses the name any longer, it might be correct to say it no longer exists. From a legal point of view, however, it exists until the law is repealed. Not to mention the fact that the definition is still useful until this moment for certain administrative (well, perhaps bureaucratic, or even red tapes in some people's points of view) functions. — Instantnood 20:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
It is defunct. The "law" definiting it will never be repealed because other laws, contracts, deeds, etc, depend on a legal definition. This definitely DOES NOT mean that "from a legal point of view it exists". Law books are full of stale definitions and clauses because it's a requirement for continuity, especially in common law jurisdictions. SchmuckyTheCat 23:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Could you suggest an example in which other laws, contracts, deeds, etc., has to depend on the definition of the limits of the City of Victoria? Even if there is such an example, could you please explain why Cap 1 Sched 1 cannot be repealed with a new clause stating "any reference to the City of Victoria shall be construed as a reference to whatever"? What's the point of keeping this particular schedule? — Instantnood 23:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Old infobox

The old infobox template was deleted in Templates for Deletion. The infobox edit history and it's talk page were archived here:

SchmuckyTheCat 10:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. — Instantnood 21:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Population Density

How can there possibly be more people per square mile than square kilometer? The latter is smaller than the former. Probably just needs reversing, but I'm not sure. --Raj Fra 02:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Victoria City again

If anybody cares about Instantnood's current revert war on this article: SchmuckyTheCat 19:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The footnote already explains that the City of Victoria the legally-defined area in which the Government Headquarters is located. It's a fact the City of Victoria is a legally-defined area, and it's also a fact that the Government Headquarters is within this area. The footnote is not saying whether the name City of Victoria (or Victoria City) is used in modern times or not. It, neither, tells whether the City of Victoria enjoys any official status or recognition as the capital. Cf user:wshun , (147) , — Instantnood 19:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
You aren't a lawyer, so don't try to interpret laws to say they are still in effect when the Hong Kong government says it no longer exists. SchmuckyTheCat 19:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Any proof that it no longer exists, that the section of the ordinance had been repealed? Any evidence I am or I am not a lawyer? — Instantnood 19:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Yawn, I referenced 150k of archived discussions with you on this issue. Please tell me when you bring about some new discussion instead of just recycling everything. SchmuckyTheCat 20:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty apparent that the law is there. You've yet to show that it had been repealed, and the City of Victoria no longer exists. Don't keep saying it doesn't, with presenting any evidence or proof. Nothing would be changed even if you said the same thing for a million times. — Instantnood 20:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Yawn, the evidence is in the archives. SchmuckyTheCat 21:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Cite it please, if there's any there. Thanks. — Instantnood 21:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Little comment on the revert war:
1. Image:Flag of Hong Kong SAR.png should not be used, since it is rendered redundant as explained in the image page.
2. I feel it should be "none" in the District name since Hong Kong is not really a country.
3. Leader name is Donald Tsang! Why would anyone just want to say it's merely "Chief Executive"?
4. Mandarin is how it is how PTH being said in English. (PTH is just a "sound" translation to English)
--Hunter 08:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Re #1 - Please refer to the edit history of the infobox. It has already been explained, for a few times, why the .png image should still be used. User:Mcy jerry could perhaps further explain on this. Re #4 - Its English name in Hong Kong is Putonghua. Putting Mandarin in round brackets is already adequate to readers. Re #2 - Country ≠ sovereign state. Not only sovereign states can have capitals. — Instantnood 10:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I prefer to reply in point form:
- As par Misplaced Pages:Image_use_policy#Format, Drawings, icons, political maps, flags and other such images are preferably uploaded in SVG format as vector images. Images with large, simple, and continuous blocks of color which are not available as SVG should be in PNG format. unless it's under fair use claim. Image:Flag of Hong Kong SAR.png is not used under a fair use claim either and therefore SVG format is preferred. And please be link to the edit history of the infobox you are talking about, because I failed to see where it is.
- If you lookup , Mandarin is equal to Modern Standard Chinese which is the official language of China.
- Definition of Country: , people list Hong Kong in list of countries for convinence purposes only, Hong Kong is not a country but merely a administrative region inside a country.
- Hunter 12:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Re #1 - Yes. But please wait until problem with the colour and the size of the stars is solved. The edit history is available at . Re #3 - The word country is often used synomously with sovereign state, but they are not always do. Not only sovereign states can have capitals. Re #2 - Modern Standard Chinese can be referring to báihuàwén too. In Hong Kong (and probably in the rest of the PRC, tho I'm not too certain about this), the dialect is known in English as Putonghua. — Instantnood 13:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me the lost content in my last revert that is unrelated to the dipute. Yes I know the word Putonghua is being used in Hong Kong, this is very likely due to the fact that Hong Kong is a Chinese society. In other countries, to my knowledge, it's known more as Mandarin. Also, if you search Putonghua in Misplaced Pages, you'll get Standard Mandarin. For the capital thing, I can see that in earlier discussions, it has been shown that even Hong Kong government official pointed out there is NO capital for Hong Kong since Hong Kong is not a nation. For the flag, if you feel there is something worng about it please goto the flag page to discuss. Hunter 13:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
No problem. The English name used natively should be listed first. Following by a equally common or more common name in round brackets is already providing readers with adequate and necessary information. I've already pointed out (both above and in the archived discussion) the underlying fallacies with the e-mails. — Instantnood 14:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I fail to agree with your POV, and I feel that your points raised is unsupported. For country definition I already pointed out a widely used dictoinary (Encarta) which did not support your view. I also feel that you are the only one which disagrees with the official view of the Hong Kong government on the view on the capital city thing. Also, please stop further reverts, you are closing in 3RR Hunter 14:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Please read carefully what is said in the two e-mails, as well as my comment above and in the archived discussion. If you fail to agree with my comment, tell us why you don't agree. As for the definitions of the terms country and sovereign states, cf country, list of countries, sovereign state, list of sovereign states. Thank you. — Instantnood 15:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
"Please read carefully" sounds like you have some pedantic issue with semantics. The statement made is obvious there is no need to quibble about words. SchmuckyTheCat 17:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
To put it easy to understand by user:SchmuckyTheCat, the way the persons used in the e-mail to justify that Hong Kong has no capital is illogical. The capital of California is Sacramento, and Ontario's is Toronto; Puerto Rico's San Juan, and Falkland Islands' Stanley. — Instantnood 18:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Then go argue with the government. I suggest taking a picket sign to the front of the information office. Their meaning is obvious even if you disagree with their "logic". SchmuckyTheCat 18:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Could you please provide the e-mail address(es) that you wrote to? Thanks. — Instantnood 20:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Need Chinese language help

Hi, we need Chinese language help at Chinese wine. There's a wine which isn't yet discussed that is sold as "hung-lu" wine. It is reddish in color, with a sharp smell and is sold by the Oriental Mascot brand (which also makes mijiu and formerly also made Shaoxing jiu). The largest photo of this wine is here, but the characters aren't easily readable. I think "hung-lu" isn't Hanyu pinyin. Can someone provide information about this wine, the characters, etc.? Thank you! http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/B0000DJZ0F/ref=dp_primary-product-display_0/102-4042702-9901704?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=3370831&s=gourmet-food Badagnani 22:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Infobox change

I made a major change to the infobox so we no longer use the country template to rid us of the problems associated with it. I've adopted an infobox a few other Chinese cities use (not a template) and made it very HK specific. Discuss if there is something missing or problematic. SchmuckyTheCat 03:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The new infobox is hideous, hard to read, and poorly formatted. I suggest we revert immediately. Páll 07:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not inlove with anything about the colors, layout or formatting. I lifted it from the box used at Shanghai. Feel free to modify them to improve hideousness and readability. When I created this box, I put it side by side with the old one, and IMHO, they are mostly the same. SchmuckyTheCat 17:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree something needs to be done with the infobox, but more discussion is required before an infobox change. However, I prefer the layout of the country template, too. --Mintchocicecream 09:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The new format is actually from Shanghai, and the original people who made the new Shanghai's box actually directly copied it from Berlin's style. I completely disagree on the change. Keep it all consistent. Is there a strong need to change? Heilme 02:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The 'new' infobox is not easy on the eyes. It is more difficult to read. What were the problems associated with the Template:Infobox Country?—MJCdetroit 16:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with infobox country was that it was inappropriate for a non-independent country. Trying to use that template here resulted in two years worth of revert wars. If the problems with the new infobox are hard on the eyes, fix them, it's not a hard coded template. SchmuckyTheCat 18:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This will need consensus, here and at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countries, to be implemented. I oppose. Entities with sufficient autonomy (i.e., those given separate entries at the World Factbook) have the WikiProject Countries applied to them. For example, Puerto Rico has the country template, not the US state template.--Jiang 19:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Slight edits

Amidst the revert wars, I can't believed nobody noticed 17 footnotes missing from the article due to the missing <references/> tag. I have inserted it. Also, reworded the caption in the Victoria Harbour by night photo. Kimchi.sg 15:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tag in footnotes

Footnotes not in any proper citation format. Skinnyweed 14:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool image to add

I see this at the Chinese page: no idea what it is, but it looks very cool. Consider copying it to Commons, using it here and nominating as featured picture? Stevage 20:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

it is 2IFC SchmuckyTheCat 20:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it's already on commons, and usable anytime. Image:HK-2IFC-sj.jpg Btw, it was nominated to be featured picture though was later rejected. April 2005 Featured Pictures Candidates -Hunter 13:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Greeniest city?

Of the territory's 1,102 square kilometres (425 square miles) and nearly 7 million residents, less than 25% is developed; the remaining land is remarkably green and significant portions are reserved as country parks and nature reserves.

This article says only 25% of the land in Hong Kong is developed. When I looked at the google satellite photo of Hong Kong, I doubt if the 25% is accurate because only a small portion of the land looked "gray" (urban) and most of Hong Kong is covered by vegetations. I remembered reading a tourist brochure from Hong Kong which said Hong Kong is one of the greeniest cities in Asia despite its high population because its population density is vertically stacked. Kowloonese 01:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Low density development like that in NT and on various islands won't show up well. If that statement doesn't have a citation, we should find one. I'll look later in the HK yearbook. SchmuckyTheCat 01:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

According to surveys, Hong Kong is 94% urbanised, so it can't be a greeniest city... Also, according to Guiness Record, "Ap Lei Chau" which is an Island in Hong Kong, is the most densely populated Island in the world. Cherubfish 11:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how that survey was based. No way would I believe Hong Kong is 94% urbanised. Satellite photos and google maps obviously show the opposite. I guess it all depends on how you define "urbanized". If urbanized means land management, I would say Hong Kong is 100% urbanized. But if you define urbanized according to how much land is covered by construction and human occupancy, then I would says 94% un-urbanised is about right. To be fair, the word "greeniest" also needs definition. If you define "green" according to the environmentalists as "pollution free", Hong Kong is a dirty city especially in the west side due to the bad air blowing from China. If you define "green" according to percentage of land covered in vegetation, then Hong Kong is extremely green visually according to the satellite photos. Kowloonese 19:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Could you please cite the survey user:Cherubish. The figure may refer to percentage of urban population (people living in urbanised area) with respect to total population, instead of percentage orof urbanised area to total area. Even Ap Lei Chau, the most densely populated island in the world, is pretty green. Only around half of it is built up. Most of the rest are two peaks, which are almost undisturbed. — Instantnood 20:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC) (modified 20:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC))
"Hong Kong is 94% urbanised" can be very ambiguous. It could mean 94% of Hong Kong population is urbanized just like what Instantnood has suggested. It is very unlikely to mean 94% of land in Hong Kong is urbanized. Kowloonese 21:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
As far as I remember, it was one of the GCSE Geography textbooks, about the urbanisation thing.

But I agree with you. There are pretty much outlying islands in Hong Kong that have no settlements on. My flat used to face the sea and there was a lot of these islands. Cherubfish 16:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anyone has had a smell of the fragrant harbour, the sight of stuff floating in the surrounding waters or the brown haze in sky around HK. Maybe it is green in the NT, but not in Kowloon of Hong Kong Island. Recycling is a joke in HK, there is too much packaging. Autos, lorries and buses still emit dirty emissions that coat the buildings in the urban areas of HK. HK is still auto dependent and throw away society. Don't blame China for the pollution, HK contributes its part to the South China area. User:fat_pig73 17:03, 13 June 2006 (EST)

Hong Kong is definitely not an environmentally green city. The question is whether it is green in color. At the current rate, the green vegetation in Hong Kong can be coated in a thick layer of black soot from the air pollution, then we don't need to ask this question any more.  :-) Kowloonese 01:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hong Kong Article symbol

The symbol in the top right corner covers the original small star for featured article. --Samwingkit 13:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Hong Kong, China

Merge suggestion was thrown out there for "Hong Kong" and "Hong Kong, China". Information on "Hong Kong, China" is same as "Hong Kong". Merge took place, but then was reverted.

No reason provided.

What reason is there for both "Hong Kong" and "Hong Kong, China" to exist? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CPAScott (talk • contribs) 18:23, May 25, 2006 (UTC).

Dunno, I re-did your merge. SchmuckyTheCat 21:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think they should be same article as one. We are China now, that is the national identity (with powerful Western/World connections also). Hylas Chung 10:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The article discusses the official designation, its usage and its constitutional basis. It deserves its own article, and the material has not been moved to any article. Even if it were decided to be merge, foreign relations of Hong Kong would, relatively speaking, be a much better destination. — Instantnood 10:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I cancelled your reverted merge because this merge was discussed here. You cannot jump in and revert it a few days after the discussion is closed unless you propose and gain conensus.

The merge is justified because the designation itself is too short to justify for its own article. For the same reason, Macao, China also redirects to Macau. --Hunter 14:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

First, there was no discussion before Hong Kong, China was turned a redirect (16:06, May 22). It was turned a redirect one day after a merge request was put up (02:51, May 21). Discussion here started at 18:23, May 25 . Second, the material was merged no where . More or less the same happened with the Macao, China article. — Instantnood 15:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
There was no opposition to the merge when the template was put up, nor after the it until you did. Further, when you say "the material was merged no where" you miss something. All that text was already duplicated in this article. SchmuckyTheCat 16:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
" There was no opposition to the merge.. " - There was only 37 hours between the articles were tagged and actually "merged". User:Winhunter claimed it was " a well discussed merge " and " this merge was discussed here " . That's why I'm telling her/him it was not discussed until 3 days after the "merge" was done.

" Further, when you say "the material was merged no where" you miss something. All that text was already duplicated in this article. " - Where have the materials been merged to? Any diff links please? Thanks. — Instantnood 17:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you show any single sentence of information in the merged article that is not in this article? Or what exactly are you objecting to? SchmuckyTheCat 17:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
See also WP:MM, an official guideline - " After sufficient time has elapsed to generate consensus or silence (at least 5 days), you may perform the merger or .. ". — Instantnood 17:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
And there was, between 10:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC) and 10:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC), there were 6 days in between, more than sufficient. Hunter 18:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
What are you referring to with these two time stamps? — Instantnood 18:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The time between the last discussion here (by Hylas Chung) till you raise your objection. Save for rasing due process was not followed in the first merge (start of merge and redirect), if it wasn't, then it becomes valid anyways after the silencing period of 6 days. --Hunter 19:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I am talking about the time between the two articles were tagged and Hong Kong, China was turned a redirect. Official guideline says the notice should be there for at least five days. — Instantnood 19:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I can see that the merge notice was up in both pages as of 02:52, 21 May 2006 . Like I said earlier, "Save for rasing due process was not followed in the first merge (start of merge and redirect), if it wasn't, then it becomes valid anyways after the silencing period of 6 days." The redirect has an even more powerful effect of drawing objections to the merge than the merge tag itself, if there is any. All arguments are then presented in this talk page and a silencing period of 6 days took place. Note: Even the merge tag draws arguments to this talk page. --Hunter 19:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The merge tag should stay for at least five days until the two articles are actually merged. — Instantnood 20:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If the old articles Hong Kong, China and Macao, China, which discuss the terms but not the places, are to exist (which I believe are too short to exist), they should be called Hong Kong, China (terminology) and Macao, China (terminology); see British Isles (terminology). The articles Hong Kong, China and Macao, China should always redirect to Hong Kong and Macao. Chanheigeorge 19:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If anybody acts on that suggestion, the articles should be fully formed before entering article space. This shouldn't be an excuse to just duplicate text from existing articles. SchmuckyTheCat 00:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
You never elaborate what exactly is duplicated. The merge proposal was never discussed before it was executed. It should be overturned for the time being, until there's mature discussion and consensus gets clear. — Instantnood 20:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Just for the purpose of getting this nonsense over, I can put up the merge tag in both article again. But I am warning you, the likely result of this is merely the same as the current one, which is only you would raise opposing opinions. This would not stop the merge when compared to the supporting opinion raised here in this section. So are you sure you really want merge tag be up in both articles again? --Hunter 06:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I put up the merge tag again just to get this nonsense over. Just leave that tag there for five days. --Hunter 14:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Could you please elaborate what exactly is nonsense? — Instantnood 16:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Your attempt to overturn consensus --Hunter 18:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
There was no discussion prior to the merge. Where is the consensus? — Instantnood 19:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
(response to user:Chanheigeorge's message at 19:40, June 6) What about Chinese Taipei? — Instantnood 16:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
If you can make Hong Kong, China contain as much info as Chinese Taipei, then it may qualify as a seperate article. Though for now, it's just a short paragraph, no reason to seperate. Btw, Hong Kong, China's situation is more similar to Macau, China when compared to Chinese Taipei --Hunter 18:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I was asking user:Chanheigeorge if Chinese Taipei has to be renamed to Chinese Taipei (terminology) too. — Instantnood 19:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Burden of proof

Re edit summary of Instantnood: "Please demonstrate if the merge proposal was discussed *before* the merge was performed. Please also demonstrate if all the materials are mentioned in the merge designation."

Since only Instantnood feels some materials are not covered here, the burden of proof of anything not covered is on Instantnood. From user comments here I would say that the consensus is that everything in Hong Kong, China is already in Hong Kong --Hunter 14:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No materials was moved from Hong Kong, China to Hong Kong upon Hong Kong, China was turned a redirect (as shown by the links given above ). It was user:SchmuckyTheCat who claimed the content was duplicated. It is his claim that lacks evidence. Besides user:Winhunter and user:SchmuckyTheCat, no other user has endorsed user:SchmuckyTheCat's claim. — Instantnood 16:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe the first paragraph of Politics and Government already serve the purpose. Btw, not only me and SchmuckyTheCat support the merge as it is, CPAScott, Hylas Chung and Chanheigeorge also raised supporting opinion. That makes 5 support vs 1 oppose I believe. --Hunter 17:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
In what way did user:CPAScott, user:Hylas Chung and user:Chanheigeorge supported/endorsed user:SchmuckyTheCat's claim? — Instantnood 19:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
What I said was: "...support the merge as it is...", please take note of that. --Hunter 19:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Please take note of what I said at 16:32, June 10 . And, please be reminded it was you who claimed " From user comments here I would say that the consensus is that everything in Hong Kong, China is already in Hong Kong " . — Instantnood 19:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
They support the merge as it is, that implies they feel everything in Hong Kong, China is already in Hong Kong. --Hunter 03:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Why? Who actually said they feel so? What user:Hylas Chung said is irrelevant, and what user:CPAScott said is obviously not true - the two articles were/are not the same. — Instantnood 06:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Since when does a user opinion becomes irrelevant and obviously not true??? Are you trying to regard user opinion that is against your view to be irrelevant and not true? If we regard your comment this way we can save a lot of trouble. I am trying to assume WP:FAITH by being very patient with you, but are you doing the same? --Hunter 07:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
User:Hylas Chung said nothing regarding the content of the two articles. User:CPAScott said the two articles contained the same information, which was/is obviously not true. There's nothing to do with my view. — Instantnood 20:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
"Obviously not true" is a POV. It is your POV towards user CPAScott. And yet you still claims there is nothing to do with your view? You chose to ignore this voice because you disagree. --Hunter 01:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Good you stopped mentioning user:Hylas Chung's position. Could you please kindly show in what way did the information in the Hong Kong and the Hong Kong, China articles were the same, as user:CPAScott has claimed? I bet everyone could promptly tell by first sight that the information the two articles contained were not the same. — Instantnood 05:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I stopped for the simplification matter. Btw since this discussion is dupicated with the below, I'll just post below. --Hunter 05:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
User:SchmuckyTheCat claimed the content of Hong Kong, China were already duplicated in the Hong Kong article. Simplication is hardly an excuse to avoid justifying your claim that user:Hylas Chung endorsed user:SchmuckyTheCat's claim. — Instantnood 06:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Instantnood, this is an exercise in repetition. Can you identify a single statement missing in this article that was in the other one? SchmuckyTheCat 23:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you show the evidence to justify the claim the content is duplicated? It was you who claimed that. — Instantnood 06:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
What? SchmuckyTheCat 07:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Instantnood, don't forget you were trying to accuse something first (something in Hong Kong, China is not here in Hong Kong) which you never gave evidence. As I shown above the user opinion here is 5 v 1, unless you can give some concrete evidence here you cannot overturn this merge. --Hunter 07:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
What I said was that " o material was moved from Hong Kong, China to Hong Kong upon Hong Kong, China was turned a redirect (as shown by the links given above ). " . I've already shown that no material was moved upon Hong Kong, China was turned a redirect.

As a matter of fact, it was user:SchmuckyTheCat who claimed the content was duplicated . It is his claim that evidence has yet to be provided. — Instantnood 20:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It was the view where users here endorse, and how the last merge discussion closed (before you came). Only later after a couple days (five days I believe) you jump in and claim the merge is disputed, something in Hong Kong, China is not in Hong Kong, which you never gave evidence. --Hunter 01:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
You endorsed it, and no one else. Neither user:Hylas Chung nor user:CPAScott did in the discussion here. I never said " something in Hong Kong, China is not in Hong Kong ". What I said was that no material was moved from the former to the latter upon the former was turned a redirect to the latter. I've already provided evidence for that. — Instantnood 05:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
If materials are already in Hong Kong, what's the need of "moving them" from Hong Kong, China to Hong Kong? CPAScott, I and SchmuckyTheCat all agrees with the merge, because materials are already covered here obviously. You however, is the only minority voice who disagrees, so it is up to you to provide evidence of the otherwise. And where is the evidence? Forgive me if I missed them and can you please just post it again?--Hunter 05:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I am still awaiting the evidence justifying user:SchmuckyTheCat's claim that the materials are already in the Hong Kong article. And I don't think it's obvious. In what way did user:CPAScott agree/endorce user:SchmuckyTheCat's claim? Burden of proof does not rest with the minority. It rests with the one(s) who claimed it. I've already provided the evidence to justify that no material was moved upon Hong Kong, China was turned a redirect. — Instantnood 06:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
"Forgive me if I missed them and can you please just post it again?", can you see I fail to find your evidence anywhere and request you to repost them?
Are you saying this is your evidence? If so, it is not evidence of any kind, it is simply a claim
"The article discusses the official designation, its usage and its constitutional basis. It deserves its own article, and the material has not been moved to any article. Even if it were decided to be merge, foreign relations of Hong Kong would, relatively speaking, be a much better destination. — Instantnood 10:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)"
CPAScott was the user who turn the Hong Kong, China in to redirect in the first place (thus complete the merge), that implied he feels everything in Hong Kong, China are already mentioned here in Hong Kong. --Hunter 08:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
As for your first question:

User:CPAScott did not say or justify all content are already in the Hong Kong article. — Instantnood 18:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Why he needs to when something is so obvious? WP:BOLD, btw, all of the above links you quoted contains claims only, no evidence inside. --WinHunter 03:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The two article clearly contains different content and serves different purposes. Why and how is it obvious all content in Hong Kong, China were already in the Hong Kong article when she/he turned the former a redirect?

The first two links take you to user contribution and article edit history, which show that nothing was moved upon Hong Kong, China was turned a redirect. The other three links demonstrate that I've repeatedly provide the same two links upon your request. — Instantnood 05:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Why anyone would need to move anything if something is already in there? (duplicated) --WinHunter 05:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Could you please show how and where the materials are already duplicated? Thanks. — Instantnood 16:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Since to date, majority support the merge and the materials in Hong Kong, China already duplicated in Hong Kong (no move necessary), I am going to perform the merge now. --WinHunter 14:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I am conducting a formal poll below since Instantnood keep ignoring consensus. --WinHunter 13:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Click here to the non-binding straw poll below. — Instantnood 17:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of duplicity

Here is the FULL article at the original point of merge, 02:51, 21 May 2006:

Original article: "Hong Kong, China" (Chinese: 中國香港, Zhōngguǒ Xiānggǎng ?) is the designation that Hong Kong, a special administrative region of the People's Republic of China, uses to join international organisations as member, and to take part in international sport events, as prescribed by the Basic Law – the constitutional document of the territory."

Merged article: "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (Chinese: 中華人民共和國香港特別行政區 ) is one of the two special administrative regions (SARs) of the People's Republic of China (PRC) ..."

"As a special administrative region, Hong Kong is guaranteed by the Basic Law to have a relatively high degree of autonomy until at least 2047, fifty years after the transfer of sovereignty. Under the "One Country, Two Systems" policy, it retains its own legal system, currency, customs policy, and immigration laws."


Original Article: "Before the transfer of the sovereignty from the United Kingdom to the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1997, the crown colony of Hong Kong joined international organisations and participated in international sport events under the name "Hong Kong". After the transfer of sovereignty, according to the Basic Law, the special administrative region continues to have its own delegations and teams to the organisations (that are not restricted to sovereign states) and sport events, separate from those under names such as "China", "People's Republic of China" or "China PR", which represent the rest of the PRC other than Hong Kong (and Macau after 1999)."

Merged Article: "It was a British colony from 1843, until it was handed back to the PRC in 1997."

"After the transfer of sovereignty, Hong Kong maintains its own delegation but changes her designation from "Hong Kong" to "Hong Kong, China" in most international organizations, such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, and to international sporting events, such as the Olympic Games. Only the defence and the diplomatic relations of Hong Kong are the responsibilities of the Central People's Government in Beijing."


Does that cover it? CPAScott 19:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much. It's good you're providing what user:SchmuckyTheCat and user:Winhunter has yet to provide, despite being requested. IMHO, the " original article " (i.e. Hong Kong, China article) has a much clearer focus. Constitutional and historical background, as well as the outcome as at this moment, is presented in a more in-depth manner. You might say the Hong Kong article already conveys roughly the same idea, but that's hardly clear and adequate. Sub-articles for sections of country articles are not uncommon. — Instantnood 21:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

References (and dead references)

I have attempted to format the references but 4 of them are not working, could someone confirm that the ones I have marked are not working? Even with these, that would make 15 which is still sparse. Skinnyweed 20:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

3 out of 4 are confirmed. The one marked empty is not though, still viewable as it is. --Hunter 13:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Infobox footnotes

I noticed that the infobox footnotes disappeared. I have tried restoring the previous information on, but proved rather difficult now that infobox Hong Kong has disappeared. Eventually I found a copy on answers.com and restored data. Formatting changes may be required.

On the issue of the infobox, I think it is odd that Sha Tin District gets such a prominent mention. Also, the coordinates (22°17′N 114°08′E) ought to go right under the map.

--mintchocicecream 00:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert explanation 2006-06-05 01:13 GMT

I reverted to version by kimchi.sg because:

  • 218.102.153.134: "from 2005" for Tsang is redundant - we're talking about 2005 for the entire paragraph!!
  • Winhunter: The paragraph was about HK post-1997 - clarification on olympic team name "Hong Kong" before handover is not necessary (this, however would fit in a HK olympics page or something...
It's used in more than Olympics, basically any international organization it joined it used such designation before 1997. If you consider the lead paragrah inappropriate, then I would suggest adding it to the history paragraph. --Hunter 01:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
All right - agreed. I think the way it is added now is good. --mintchocicecream 19:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • 205.175.123.102: What on earth is heung gong???
    • Apologies for reverting - I shouldn't edit late at night. =P I noticed you added the correct markings afterwards - restored your edit now. I also added an additional link to Pronunciation of Hong Kong to make the link even clearer - what do other editors think? Remove if you think it messes up the clarity of the front page. --mintchocicecream 19:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

--mintchocicecream 01:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


Hong Kong is its own country?

China controls it so is it considered a seperate country? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.30.173.162 (talk • contribs) 23:40, June 6, 2006 (UTC).

no. one country, two systems. --mintchocicecream 23:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks I was arguing about that —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.30.173.162 (talk • contribs) 00:06, June 8, 2006.
I am afraid the matter cannot be oversimplified in this way. It really depends on which definition(s) of the English word country is/are being referred to. In the saying "One Country, Two Systems", the word country means sovereign state. The word country, nonetheless, very often refers to sovereign states as well as some other places. — Instantnood 20:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC) (modified 13:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC))

official language

I pretty much doubt that Mandarin is one of them. Although we learn Mandarin in school, mandarin is not practised in most occupations. Whilst some occupations requires English. 80.229.89.236 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No - "Chinese" is the official language; Cantonese AND Mandarin are both generally considered de-facto official languages. See: http://www.info.gov.hk/info/hkbrief/eng/ahk.htm --mintchocicecream 17:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
And the locally used English name for (Standard) Mandarin is Putonghua. — Instantnood 21:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is one official language in Hong Kong. English is by government and business functions, thus allowing HK to be a international business hub. As for Cantonese Chinese, it is used for government, local business as well as general communication amongst Hong Kong Chinese. As for Mandarin, it is used in the intercourse between Hong Kong and their political masters in Beijing. The increase use of Mandarin is fueled by the need to be closer to the motherland and a sense of HK being part of China. User:fat_pig73 16:56, 13 June 2006 (EST)

No crime figures?

while browsing the article, i noted there are no figures on the amount of crime in hong kong. this seems to me an important fact, and one that should be included in the article. i must admit im not familiar with the way most of the city articles are written up - maybe it only gets a mention if it is exceptionally high or low, but it would be interesting nonetheless. perhaps even a comparison between hong kong and other metropolitan areas would be good, or even a separare article on worldwide metropolitan crime figures compared. any thoughts?

Hong Kong, China should be turned into redirect of Hong Kong

Per the merge discussion above, since the material in Hong Kong, China are already duplicated in Hong Kong, it should be turned into a redirect to complete the merge. --WinHunter 13:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Click here for the discussion above. — Instantnood 16:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Merging this took exactly 0 extra lines in this article. If this concept actually took off, it can be written here and moved out when it reaches some other size. 67k is managable. SchmuckyTheCat 20:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
As an exercise in establishing consensus, this has been made distinctly problematic by IN spamming numerous talk pages, on some unknown basis, of "people who're likely to be interested" (HenryLi's included). For how to reduce the size of the HK article, please see Misplaced Pages:Summary style. Splitting off stub-size nuggets (that it's indeed claimed don't actually reduce the size of the parent at all) is not an effective or sensible way of trying to accomplish this. Alai 20:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support If the content is not already merged, do so. Valentinian 21:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Not withstanding opposition due to future content, the content that was in this article added no additional information not provided by the article it was merged with. See #Burden of Proof above. CPAScott 20:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't really see the parallel with Chinese Taipei. "Hong Kong, China" still explicitly indicates that Hong Kong is not it's own sovereign entity while Chinese Taipei explicitly tries to make that as vague as possible, and thus the need for a separate Chinese Taipei article to explain this. There is no reason why the information in "Hong Kong, China" cannot appear within "Hong Kong". —Umofomia 00:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The political usage of the name "Hong Kong, China" can be summarized in fewer than three sentences, so article size is not an issue. Also, geographically "Hong Kong, China" = "Hong Kong". ("Chinese Taipei" is not a geographical term.) Chanheigeorge 08:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The articles on Beijing and Shanghai don't have China in the title and don't need it. Hong Kong has been part of China for several years now, a fact that is well known among the general public (and this fact is stated in the introduction to the Hong Kong article. If there was another city named "Hong Kong" in another country and the two cities needed separate articles (as in the case of Hyderabad, Pakistan and Hyderabad, India) then the name of the country might need to be included in the title of the article, but not in this case. Badagnani 08:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: my support for the merge is contingent on making sure the information about the special autonomy of "Hong Kong, China" and membership in international organizations under this name, as described above. Badagnani 08:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think you guys do not realise the Hong Kong, China is an entity for Hong Kong to participate in international events like the Olympic Games. It's just different from "Beijing, China". -- Jerry Crimson Mann 12:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: if this is true, then it is (though disputed above) analogous to the "Chinese Taipei" name--which Taiwanese athletes participate in the Olympics under. This needs more discussion. Badagnani 12:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Addition of information on fire stations, etc.

User:BlueValour has tried to add into the article a new "public protection" section with the information, "There are 75 fire stations in Hong Kong" and says that it is a "seed heading for police, ambulance etc to be added" . I question the need for this section due to the article size, and have reverted the addition again. Kimchi.sg 20:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I will not press the new section until another editor can fill it out - I have added the information to the article body for now. The information should not be lost since it is from an AfD page. BlueValour 20:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There should be a pointer to an existing article. Fire Services Department (Hong Kong) SchmuckyTheCat 22:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Categories: