| Revision as of 19:40, 6 June 2006 editChanheigeorge (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers226,674 edits →Merge← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 20:14, 12 January 2025 edit undoVchimpanzee (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers66,516 edits →Spelling: new section |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=y}} |
|
{{featured}} |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{WPCD}} |
|
|
|
|action1=FAC |
|
{{Mainpage date|September 7|2005}} |
|
|
|
|action1date=12 July 2005 |
|
{{FAOL|Arabic|ar:هونغ كونغ|lang2=German|link2=de:Hongkong|lang3=Chinese|link3=zh:香港|lang4=Norwegian (bokmål)|link4=no:Hongkong|link5=zh-yue:香港|lang5=Cantonese}} |
|
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Hong Kong/archive1 |
|
{{Talk Spoken Misplaced Pages|En-Hong Kong.ogg}} |
|
|
|
|action1result=promoted |
|
{{WikiProject Hong Kong}} |
|
|
|
|action1oldid=18691250 |
|
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
|align="center"|'''Welcome!''' This talkpage is to discuss the article ] only. Past discussions can be retrieved within these archives (Archive: ], ], ], ]; ]). For discussion regarding Hong Kong-related articles and issues, please visit the ] of the ]. |
|
|
|} |
|
|
{{WikiProjectCities}} |
|
|
{{User article ban|Instantnood|20 March, 2007|] 12:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=FAR |
|
==Hong Kong action cinema== |
|
|
|
|action2date=7 July 2008 |
|
you may be interested to know the article ] is currently preparing to go for ] status. at the moment, there is a peer review going on at ]. as the editors of this article already have experience in creating an FA, your input is highly valued. thx! ] 21:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Hong Kong/archive1 |
|
|
|action2result=removed |
|
|
|action2oldid=224160258 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=GAN |
|
fyi, the article is now featured! rgs, ] 11:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action3date=14 November 2009 |
|
|
|action3link=Talk:Hong Kong/GA1 |
|
|
|action3result=listed |
|
|
|action3oldid=325826200 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action4=FAC |
|
:Great job. — ]] 11:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action4date=20:57, 20 February 2010 |
|
== Hong Kong as a city == |
|
|
|
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Hong Kong/archive2 |
|
|
|action4result=not promoted |
|
|
|action4oldid=345278364 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action5=FAC |
|
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 ] 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. - ] 08:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action5date=13:16, 31 August 2010 |
|
|
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Hong Kong/archive3 |
|
|
|action5result=not promoted |
|
|
|action5oldid=382064069 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action6=PR |
|
: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". |
|
|
|
|action6date=7 October 2010 |
|
:"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. --]]]] 08:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Hong Kong/archive1 |
|
|
|action6result=reviewed |
|
|
|action6oldid=389386803 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action7=FAC |
|
::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? |
|
|
|
|action7date=21:48, 23 October 2010 |
|
|
|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Hong Kong/archive4 |
|
|
|action7result=not promoted |
|
|
|action7oldid=392349486 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action8=PR |
|
::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"? |
|
|
|
|action8date=14:51, 18 June 2012 |
|
|
|action8link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Hong Kong/archive2 |
|
|
|action8result=reviewed |
|
|
|action8oldid=497576263 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action9=GAR |
|
::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. - ] 08:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action9date=19:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|action9link=Talk:Hong Kong/GA2 |
|
|
|action9result=kept |
|
|
|action9oldid=559018414 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action10=FTC |
|
:"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. --]]]] 09:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action10date=06:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|action10link=Misplaced Pages:Featured topic candidates/Hong Kong/archive1 |
|
|
|action10result=failed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action11=PR |
|
:Ugh. This snuck in converting the infobox from a specific 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. ] 09:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action11date=1:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|action11link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Hong Kong/archive3 |
|
|
|action11result=reviewed |
|
|
|action11oldid=828994957 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action12=FAC |
|
::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. --]]]] 14:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action12date=2018-04-21 |
|
:::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. ] 17:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action12link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Hong Kong/archive5 |
|
:::(response to Deryck Chan's comment at 14:31, March 31) For your information, the infobox is archived. See ] for details. — ]] 18:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action12result=failed |
|
|
|action12oldid=837415647 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action13 = FAC |
|
|
|action13date = 2018-07-31 |
|
|
|action13link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Hong Kong/archive6 |
|
|
|action13result = failed |
|
|
|action13oldid = 852495549 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action14=WPR |
|
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.</p><p>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. </p><p> 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. — ]] 21:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action14date=19:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|action14link=WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors |
|
|
|action14result=Copyedited |
|
|
|action14oldid=864522854 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action15=PR |
|
:''Victoria City, legally speaking, still exists''. No, it doesn't. ] 00:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action15date=06:44:36 03 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|action15link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Hong Kong/archive4 |
|
|
|action15result=not reviewed |
|
|
|action15oldid=939002487 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|topic=Geography |
|
::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? - ] 01:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|maindate=September 7, 2005 |
|
|
|currentstatus = GA |
|
|
|otd1date=2004-07-01|otd1oldid=4422190|otd2date=2005-07-01|otd2oldid=17954419|otd3date=2006-07-01|otd3oldid=61565308|otd4date=2013-08-29|otd4oldid=570492143|otd5date=2015-08-29|otd5oldid=678097314|otd6date=2017-08-29|otd6oldid=797795819|otd7date=2018-08-29|otd7oldid=857084580 |
|
|
|otd8date=2022-08-29|otd8oldid=1107056719 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes |class=GA|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Hong Kong|importance=Top|formerFA=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject China|cities=yes |importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject East Asia|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Geography|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Cities|core=y|capital=y}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Hong Kong English}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
::(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. — ]] 10:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC) (modified 18:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize=50K |
|
|
|counter=13 |
|
|
|algo=old(30d) |
|
|
|archive=Talk:Hong Kong/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
|archiveheader={{Aan}} |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive=1 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft=3 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Top 25 Report|Sep 28 2014 (19th)|Aug 11 2019 (13th)}}{{Annual readership}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Area in the infobox is confusing == |
|
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. - ] 00:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The real area is 1114 km2. And you're showing more than double of that because you're counting all the surrounding waters. Since when do we count the sea as part of the area of a territorial entity? ] (]) 21:06, 13 November 2024 (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. — ]] 10:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Low quality of Etymology section == |
|
::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. - ] 01:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::''Zhíxiáshì'','' dìjíshì ''and ''xiànxiáshì'' are ''shì'' (cities), special administrative regions are not officially recognised or designated as such. — ]] 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. ] 15:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
] |
|
:::::And that's beyond the subject of this section. — ]] 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. ] 17:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
This section was written long ago. It is full of misinformation and more accurate information are not put in the article. The etymology of Hong Kong/香港 have been studied in deep since the mid 20th century with handful of scholars writing papers and books on the topic in Hong Kong. It deserves a better rewrite. |
|
:::::::In that case other city-countries will have to use the city infobox template too, since they're cities. — ]] 18:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::That kind of demand is rather presumptuous and makes you look like a donkey. ] 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? — ]] 18:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Missing essential information. The name 香港 was known in 16th century during Ming Dynasty. See the source ''Empson, Hal (1992). Mapping Hong Kong: A Historical Atlas. Government Information Services. OCLC 29939947'', which reprinted a map on page 17 and 84 with name "Coastal Map of Kwong Tung by Kwok Fei (郭棐) in Yuet Tai Kee (粵大記)". Yuet Tai Kee/粵大記 is frequently cited in many scholar works on this topic. (See Yuet Tai Kee map) |
|
Let's take a look at the article "]", 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 "]" and "]", 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 ], ], ], ] etc. But this could have a certain extent of flexibility. |
|
|
|
# Missing essential information. '']'', an incense wood, is very significant to the etymology of the Hong Kong. See the source ''"Aquilaria sinensis and origin of the name of Hong Kong". Hong Kong Herbarium'', that citing Professor Lo Hsiang-lin's suggesting the strong relationship between the plant and Hong Kong. |
|
|
# Missing essential information. 香港村/香港圍, a village in very important to the history of Hong Kong. It was the reason why Hong Kong was picked up as the name of colony. (See 1819 San-on County Gazetteer) |
|
|
# Trivial and misinformation. Davis's 1841 book noted ''- The name Hong-kong is a provincial corruption of Hoong-keang , "the red torrent ," from the colour of the soil through which the stream flows previous to its fall over the cliff.'' This description is quite possible that Davis misinterpreted Chinese labels on a 1810 map. The Chinese labels were the phonetic value of English(Portuguese) labels that 紅江, proximate pronunciation of Hong Kong (香港), by comparing with rest of labels (九龍→Cow-loon→ 九龍, 鯉魚門→Ly-ee-moon→ 禮衣門, 南丫→Lama→ 藍麻, 長洲→Cheung-chow→涌洲, 交椅洲→Cowee-chau→九以洲, 東涌→Toong-chung→同中) . Davis wrongly reinterpreted 紅江 as the red torrent. These funny labels were discussed in the source ''Mapping Hong Kong.'' Is it worth to put misinformation here? (See 1810 map) |
|
|
# Wrong reference. In the article, the two key statements are particularly problematic: ''"Fragrant" may refer to the sweet taste of the harbour's freshwater influx from the Pearl River or to the odour from incense factories lining the coast of northern ]. The incense was stored near Aberdeen Harbour for export before ] was developed.'' The reference link referred to the book ''"Room, Adrian (2005). Placenames of the World. McFarland & Company. ISBN 978-0-7864-2248-7".'' The two statements are not what the book said: |
|
|
#* In book, it located in Hong Kong Harbour between Hong Kong Island and mainland Kowloon, obviously Victoria Harbour, not Aberdeen Harbour. |
|
|
#* In book, freshwater was from Xi Jiang River, not Pearl River. |
|
|
#* In book, the odour was coming from opium or incense factory on the shore of the harbour. |
|
|
#* In book, no mention of northern Kowloon. |
|
|
# Misinformation and unreliable source. ''Placenames of the World'' by itself is not a reliable source. No specific sources support its claims. How could it be ''sweet taste of the harbour's freshwater'' when Pearl River/Xi Jiang River was dirty river. How could the salty sea water of Victoria Harbour and Aberdeen Channel would be ''sweet taste''? The author probably have no idea in geography of Hong Kong and the information is against common sense, long creeping in Misplaced Pages text and passing misinformation to reader. BTW, ''Fresh water'' comes from other stories but it is too long to discuss here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
It would be wonderful should anyone rewrite this faulty section. @] |
|
Although a lot of people like to compare Hong Kong with ], their status in the hierachy of administrative divisions should not be equated. Singapore is an independent state, or a ]. 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. - ] 03:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
— ] (]) 01:20, 30 November 2024 (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. — ]] 20:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Sorry, we have different senses of what information is essential in this article. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and whatever you think should be changed, it would not be acceptable to expand the Names section far beyond its present size, that would be wholly ] when the totality of what deserves to be discussed is taken into account—HK is a special case in that it should deserve a section discussing matters of lexicography and etymology at all. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 01:22, 30 November 2024 (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. - ] 22:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::Balance does not mean misinformation and unreliable source are allowed. Some trivial could be removed and essential could be added. |
|
:::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. — ]] 18:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::Here I raise the concern and anyone could rewrite. If you could write it briefly, it would be nice. — ] (]) 01:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
*Perhaps we can follow the example of the ] page, and list those "cities" as districts?] 01:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::In regard to the issue of brevity, it seems to me that the solution to that problem is just to create the article ]. <big>]]</big> 08:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
*:What about listing Sha Tin District as the "most populated district"? — ]] 19:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:If this is how you say it is, then I agree it should need a re-write. “Sweet taste of fresh water” in the harbour, miles away from the estuary and directly exposed to the Pacific ocean, is absolutely bonkers if you ask me. ] (]) 15:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Shouldn't we class HK as an authoritarian dictatorship by now? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
After increasing authoritarianism within Hong Kong regarding the passing of several new laws, the crackdown of dissent and the censorship of the Pro- ] (]) 19:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
Hong Kong simply doesn't have a capital, ]. 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". --] 09:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Good news! This article already seems to discuss all those things according to how they're represented in reliable sources. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 19:58, 28 December 2024 (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. — ]] 20:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Spelling == |
|
::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 ] or ] (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 ] 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). ] 20:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I probably need to research this further, but I have known for years that the name was going to be spelled Xiangging. I have never been able to find why it wasn't. I have been going through my large collection of newspaper articles, throwing out most, since online sources can give me nearly all of what is in them. I found the article, and discovered it was on ]. To be clear, this was one of the changes made when Mao Tse-Tung became Mao Zedong and Deng Hsiao-P'ing became Deng Xiaoping.— ] • ] • ] • 20:14, 12 January 2025 (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 <span class=plainlinks></span>, IMHO, is already adequate in providing necessary information to readers. — ]] 21:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::] and ] 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. ]) designate one city as a capital and its government is located elsewhere. One country (]) does not officially designate a capital. Three countries (], ], ]) designate the whole country/city (since they are ]s) 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. ] 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 ]). 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 ]). Singapore does not designate any capital (probably the same case for the Vatican City), and Monaco-Ville is the capital of Monaco. — ]] 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 ] is just Monaco (I've reverted that page; see ]). I've yet to read a source (not counting Misplaced Pages pages... we all know they're unreliable without sources) that says ] is the capital of Monaco. ] 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. — ]] 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. ] 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. — ]] 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. ] 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? — ]] 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: |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
] 10:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Thanks. — ]] 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: ] 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) , — ]] 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. ] 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? — ]] 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. ] 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. — ]] 20:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Yawn, the evidence is in the archives. ] 21:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Cite it please, if there's any there. Thanks. — ]] 21:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Little comment on the revert war: |
|
|
:::::1. ] 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) |
|
|
:::::--] 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 - '']'' ≠ '']''. Not only sovereign states can have capitals. — ]] 10:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I prefer to reply in point form: |
|
|
:::::::- As par ], ''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. ] 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. |
|
|
:::::::- ] 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. — ]] 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 ] in Misplaced Pages, you'll get ]. 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. ] 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. — ]] 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 ] 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 ], ], ], ]. Thank you. — ]] 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. ] 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. — ]] 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". ] 18:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Could you please provide the e-mail address(es) that you wrote to? Thanks. — ]] 20:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
== Need Chinese language help == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, we need Chinese language help at ]. 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 ] 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. ] 03:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: The new infobox is hideous, hard to read, and poorly formatted. I suggest we revert immediately. ]</font> <sup><font color="ff66cc">]</font></sup> 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 ]. 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. ] 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. --] 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 ]'s style. I completely disagree on the change. Keep it all consistent. Is there a strong need to change? ] 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?—] 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. ] 18:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This will need consensus, here and at ], 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, ] has the country template, not the US state template.--] 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. ]. 15:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Cleanup tag in footnotes == |
|
|
|
|
|
Footnotes not in any proper citation format. ] 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 ]? ] 20:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:it is ] ] 20:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think it's already on commons, and usable anytime. ] Btw, it was nominated to be featured picture though was later rejected. ] -] 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. ] 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. ] 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. ] 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. ] 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 or 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. — ]] 20:20, 16 May 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. ] 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. ] 16:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Hong Kong Article symbol== |
|
|
The symbol in the top right corner covers the original small star for featured article. --] 13:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Merge == |
|
|
|
|
|
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? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 18:23, May 25, 2006 (UTC).</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
:Dunno, I re-did your merge. ] 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). ] 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, ] would, relatively speaking, be a much better destination. — ]] 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, ] also redirects to ]. --] 14:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:First, there was no discussion before ] 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. — ]] 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. ] 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. </p><p>"'' 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. — ]] 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? ] 17:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::See also ], an official guideline - "'' After sufficient time has elapsed to generate consensus or silence (at least 5 days), you may perform the merger or ..'' ". — ]] 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. ] 18:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::What are you referring to with these two time stamps? — ]] 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. --] 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. — ]] 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. --] 19:47, 4 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 ] and ]; see ]. The articles ] and ] should always redirect to Hong Kong and Macao. ] 19:40, 6 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. ] 20:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:3 out of 4 are confirmed. The one marked empty is not though, still viewable as it is. --] 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 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. --] 01:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::All right - agreed. I think the way it is added now is good. --] 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 ] to make the link even clearer - what do other editors think? Remove if you think it messes up the clarity of the front page. --] 19:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
--] 01:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
The real area is 1114 km2. And you're showing more than double of that because you're counting all the surrounding waters. Since when do we count the sea as part of the area of a territorial entity? 12qwas (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
This section was written long ago. It is full of misinformation and more accurate information are not put in the article. The etymology of Hong Kong/香港 have been studied in deep since the mid 20th century with handful of scholars writing papers and books on the topic in Hong Kong. It deserves a better rewrite.
After increasing authoritarianism within Hong Kong regarding the passing of several new laws, the crackdown of dissent and the censorship of the Pro- Kdf122 (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I probably need to research this further, but I have known for years that the name was going to be spelled Xiangging. I have never been able to find why it wasn't. I have been going through my large collection of newspaper articles, throwing out most, since online sources can give me nearly all of what is in them. I found the article, and discovered it was on newspapers.com. To be clear, this was one of the changes made when Mao Tse-Tung became Mao Zedong and Deng Hsiao-P'ing became Deng Xiaoping.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
