Talk:Hong Kong/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Would like to see a section added detailing Immigration Policy

Some information on its Immigration Policy and possibly immigration issues/problems it faces if possible please Species2112 14:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Right of abode issue, Hong Kong touches on it, but not in-depth. I've long meant to make a general article perhaps someone else will. SchmuckyTheCat 15:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Images

For anyone using Flickr, for the image to be usable in wikipedia, it must be shared under "Attribution-ShareAlike" Licenses. There are 1,000,000 images about Hong Kong, but very few are usable here until they are using the correct license.

It is also good to upload images to Wikimedia Commons. It seems like there is a huge shortage of pictures. Many "good" pictures are being used on multiple pages. I am trying to rewrite the culture of Hong Kong and there is not enough pics to choose from. For every 20 pics, maybe 1 fits into an article. Benjwong 03:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are some on demand:

Mongkok

Shopping

People playing chess

Old People playing chess

Taichi

Food

cuisine


The colonial flag is an important part of our history!

The colonial flag is an important part of our history! Don't remove it again!--210.6.141.175 04:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No one has said it is not important, but a number of editors (not just myself) have said before that the section is already too crowded with images. In fact at one point it was cut down to just three images, and I hoped the current arrangement could handle four. You can consider adding the flag to History of Hong Kong instead. By the way, I wonder if you are the same user as User:QQT, since he added the flag for you right after your edit. — Kelw (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not QQT. The flag was added by myself. I think the colonial flag is more important than the Japanese occupation photo since most of us have seen this flag for a long time. And there is a flag ceremony photo below. It is necessary to add the colonial flag. I have just added the colonial flag and the SAR flag into the history of Hong Kong page. Japanese occupation photo is less important and it should be shown in the history of Hong Kong page.--210.6.141.175 03:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, if other editors agree with you that the flag is more important than the occupation picture, then I wouldn't mind replacing it. My main concern is with the number of pictures. So let's hear what others have to say. — Kelw (talk) 05:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Dubious Architectural Ranking

Under the "Architecture" section of the Hong Kong article, a Wikipedia member writes that its skyline is "ranked most beautiful in the world" but provides no evidence of any such ranking. I believe this assertion should be eliminated, or at least qualified if such evidence is procured (i.e., "ranked most beautiful in the world, according to..."). Downward spiral of death 01:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hong Kong Jealousy

A term I've given to a rather sickening syndrome that's been hitting Asia for decades. Hong Kong, bar Singapore and Tokyo, is by far the richest city in that part of Asia. They got a head start on most of Asia. An unfortunate consequence of this is that stupid fads that start in Hong Kong spread like diseases to the rest of Asia in no time. People are incredibly jealous of the rich lifestyle of some Hong Kongers. They try to copy them. In fashion, behavior, entertainment, everything. Disgusting? The Cantopop endemic began in Hong Kong. Look what happens in 10 years. Korean pop, a form of pseudo-music that is even worse than Cantopop, spawned from the "rock kiddies" of Hong Kong. Asian MTV originated here. The mobile phone fad and the discman fad began in HK. The obnoxious Asian fashion fad started here. The chigger was created in Hong Kong. God, the list goes on and on.....

Hong Kong is possibly the epicenter for just about everything that I hate that came out of Asia. Sure, there are plenty of good things that came out of there, but the creation of the chigger is unforgivable. It isn't just in Asia, it is all over the world. The Hong Kong chigger endemic entered North America via Vancouver and San Francisco, and has since spread all over the continent. Why should people be jealous of a lifestyle that created so much evil? Beats me.

Isn't tnat interesting? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.30.130.98 (talk) 11:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

What the hell does this discussion have to do with an encylopedic article on Hong Kong? Wikipedia isn't an avenue for you to spew your lame social or political views. --UCLARodent 13:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Kind of wrong too, seeing as K-Pop stems from a mixture of Japanese J-Pop and American hiphop, NOT from Cantopop. And 'chigger' is something that originated in US Chinatowns rather than Hong Kong. And a bunch of other incorrect statements (walkman originated in Japan). Infact most people consider Hong Kong's modern culture to be an import of Japan's. 202.64.186.99 04:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Anon

Military forces

Original: Under British rule, Chinese Hong Kong residents (and other Hong Kong residents) were able to join the British Forces Overseas Hong Kong.

Proposed: Under British rule, Hong Kong residents (Chinese or otherwise) were able to join the British Forces Overseas Hong Kong.

My point is that the requirement to join the British forces was Hong Kong residency, not Chinese Hong Kong residency with an exception for other residents. The emphasis should therefore be on Hong Kong, not Chinese Hong Kong residents . As there is disagreement; any comments? Obscurans 06:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we have sources for this? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The main page for British Forces Overseas Hong Kong only mentions locally enlisted personnel (LEP), without specific reference to Chinese ethnicity or otherwise. That should belie their intentions as to what aspect is emphasized. Obscurans 17:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The original and proposed say the same thing, if there were source for the original i don't see any problem revising it to the proposed. The original sentence is cumbersome. --Kvasir 18:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
That was another reason to change: since it's cumbersome it requires justification. Obscurans 21:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, if the source says "locally enlisted personnel", that may not be limited to Hong Kong residents. How about British citizens that were not legally residents of the city? Were they eligible? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

As the context refers to HK specifically, then ignoring non-HK people in the sentence should be acceptable. Obscurans 06:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hkobservatorylogo.gif

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

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hk money coins.jpg

Image:Hk money coins.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Pain in the butt

I've added rationale for the two images above. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not just a pain in the ass. Betabcommandbot is wiping out just about every image on wikipedia and wikimedia commons. I am fighting this one but there are quite a number of angry users See talk page here Benjwong 05:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Anita Wong

Is this vandalism? I never heard of such a person. DHN 19:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I sure think it is vandalism. Have you ever heard of the name "Anita" anything back as early as the 1500's? Tom M. 14:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I had to doublecheck on this to see if it was vandalism. yes it is. Benjwong 17:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Intention of anti-Simplified Chinese Characters

Somebody has the intention of anti Simplified Chinese Characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.18.220 (talk • contribs) 2007-07-06 04:04:15

It's not necessary here, especially since Traditional characters is most commonly used in Hong Kong. Adding things like simplified characters and romanisation at the lead of the sentence will just make it look very clumsy. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
According to usually practice in Wikipedia, there is nothing wrong for including Simplified Chinese and Piyin in Chinese names.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.18.220 (talk • contribs) 2007-07-06 04:14:06
There's nothing wrong with excluding it either. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Even the names of Taiwan and Macau included Simplified Chinese and Pinyin. Deleting Simplified Chinese and Pinyin might be your intention of anti Chinese and Pinyin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.18.220 (talk • contribs) 2007-07-06 04:26:05
Please WP:Assume good faith. I don't think we need simplified Chinese and romanisation in the intro of this article because it looks like a mess. Take a look at the beginning of Macau. You can't tell what the hell is going on with the first sentence. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
But it is a usual practice of Wikipedia for including Simplified Chinese and Pinyin in Chinese names. It is not a proper way to delete Simplified Chinese and Pinyin for the intention of somebody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.18.220 (talk • contribs) 2007-07-06 05:34:33
There's no official policy saying that we must do that. It's not always a good practice, and Macau is a good example of how that can make the intro look really bad. Please sign your comments with ~~~~ at the end. And also, do not edit my userpage again - that is vandalism. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it editding userpage not allowed in Wikipedia? Anyway adding Simplified Chinese for Chinese names should be allowed. Deleting Simplified Chinese of Chinese names base on someone's intention could be caused a discrimination to China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.18.220 (talk • contribs)
Why not compromise. You can make three dozen translations if you want, just take them out of the intro paragraph. SchmuckyTheCat 06:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
You are free to edit your own userpage, but editing the userpages of others, especially with such questionable changes, is frowned upon. Adding Simplified Chinese and Pinyin to articles that deal predominantly with Traditional Chinese and Cantonese is of questionable encyclopedic value. More importantly in this case, it makes the lead section ugly. Carson 06:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
It may be the usual practice, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a desirable practice. It's probably better to keep the de facto Traditional Chinese standard for Hong Kong articles, if only to keep their leads concise. Perhaps the Hong Kong editors hold their articles to a higher standard. ;) Carson 05:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The usual practice of Wikipedia for including Traditional and Simplified Chinese and Pinyin is a proper way, because it has considered different users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.18.220 (talk • contribs)
See Benjwong's response below. Including Simplified Chinese and Pinyin would be overly considerate; I'm sure very few people would benefit from the inclusion. It'd be useless clutter. Carson 07:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the intro sentence of the Macau article is unreadable. It is a horrible example. SchmuckyTheCat
Just get all the translation crap out of the intro paragraph, particularly if it is in the infobox SchmuckyTheCat
You have better luck adding spanish at the heading for United States page. Simplified characters are good for cultural items like food, objects, movie names. Why add simplified characters on the frontpage of a territory that does not use it? Benjwong 07:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Traditional and Simplified Chinese and Pinyin are included in the Chinese names of the articles of related Chinese territories, it is the usual practice of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.18.220 (talk • contribs)
You're repeating yourself. Carson 08:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I think inclusion of romanisation (and perhaps simplified characters too) is required by official rules on Wikipedia. Is this so? Iianq 09:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Can the hide/show button be used in-line? Iianq 09:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Romanization and simplified characters are not required at all by wikipedia. The territory does not use simplified chinese period. It makes more sense to translate HKSAR to French, Indian dialect and the many other languages that have been used in the territory for hundreds of years. English and traditional chinese is the only one that makes sense. At the end of the page, you can certainly use "zh" and "zh-yue". Benjwong 14:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If I had some anti-simplified characters agenda, I would have been going through mainland China-related articles and eliminating the simplified characters out of those articles. This is English Wikipedia, Chinese characters and romanisation are technically not at all required. I do believe including them can be informative, but not when it makes the intro look like a mess. We don't need to cramp 2 different Chinese character sets and 1 to 3 different romanisation methods into the leading sentence, especially when it says something long like 香港特別行政區. Wikipedia is not a Chinese dictionary. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Pronunciation of Hong Kong was created precisely to take out all the romanisation methods from the intro paragragh. That article is linked right in the first sentence. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have filed a complaint here. This user is violating the 3 revert rule on quite a number of articles. Using sock puppets and wasting everybody's time. I am hoping the subnet gets banned permanently. Benjwong 16:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. It is just ridiculous to clutter the page with simplified characters, considering the only difference lies in one single Chinese character (區 vs. 区). — Kelw (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, here's the final word: 區 is used on the new plastic HK$10 bills. --- DOR (HK) Aug 30, 2007

Sock/Meatpuppetry

Anyone think filing a case would be justifiable at this point? Carson 06:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

for which? I'm not sure about the 94. anon, but there is another named account (that is a banned sock) that showed up on talk just after the article was semi-protected. SchmuckyTheCat
91.104.37.103 (contribs) and 91.104.53.215 (contribs) are basically doing the same thing as 91.104.18.220 (contribs), and posting with the same grammatical oddities on talk pages. 103 actually modified 215's post on Talk:Macau. 91.104.36.51 (contribs), 217.205.160.5 (contribs), 91.104.53.139 (contribs), 91.104.21.250 (contribs), 91.104.5.79 (contribs), 91.104.10.6 (contribs), 91.104.54.82 (contribs), and possibly more, have been doing the same things on the same group of articles. 91.104.0.* - 91.104.63.* IPs belong to Orange UK. Carson 06:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
If they block the 91.104.x.x subnet it will piss alot of people off on the Orange UK internet provider. Benjwong 07:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course, they wouldn't block the entire subnet there. :) That's unnecessary. Blocking just the IPs specified above (and more, if there are more) should successfully stem the editwarring, assuming the IPs are relatively static. Carson 07:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Including me, thank you. --84.71.35.120 18:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
semi-protecting the page seems to have done the trick. Is he moving to other articles? SchmuckyTheCat
It seems to have died down to only Macau, which is why I'm not sure whether it's worth the effort to get the above branded as socks. Carson 19:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
He has sprung up again as 91.104.25.4 (contribs), and moving onto the locales in HK like Kwun Tong and Kowloon City. _dk 23:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese, Simplified Chinese and Pinyin are necessary for Chinese names

The information of Hanzi and Pinyin are necessary for Chinese names. It is the usual practice of Wikipedia, even the articles of "China" and "Taiwan" also included Traditional Chinese, Simplified Chinese and Pinyin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.37.103 (talk • contribs)

I like how you use China and Taiwan as an example. Both of which have 2 characters. Why don't you use Tibet Autonomous Region as an example. Now that is an intro. Benjwong 07:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[Reaches into pocket and pulls out HK$10 bill] "Hmm, that's not a simplified 區!" --- DOR (HK) Aug 30, 2007

Victoria?

I have a map of the world that identifies a major city where Hong Kong should be as "Victoria" and doesn't include Hong Kong... was that an official name? Why isn't it mentioned here? -MichiganCharms 04:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Victoria City, it is an archaic use. SchmuckyTheCat
The City of Victoria was the norminal capital of Hong Kong. (legal definition). In early days, it meant the urban area of Hong Kong. As Hong Kong expanded quickly, the boundary of the City of Victoria means nothing. Nowadays, it is only used by some organisations with long history.

— HenryLi (Talk) 08:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Victoria was the capital of Hong Kong during United Kingdom's ruling. And Victoria was the place we now call Central.(Addaick 09:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC))
Not quite. The City of Victoria is much larger than Central. You can read the definition in law above. — HenryLi (Talk) 23:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Military

  • Under British rule, Hong Kong residents were able to join the British Forces Overseas Hong Kong. However, after the handover in 1997, no Hong Kong resident is allowed to the People's Liberation Army Hong Kong Garrison.

I have put a "citation needed" tag after this claim. Let's find a source to back this up. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see an obvious legal prohibition. Annex 3 of the Basic Law applies the Military Law of the PRC to HK. The Military Law simply states all PRC citizens may (and/or must) enlist at 18, to be modified by yearly decree of the state council. I don't see any decrees (and I'm only searching in English) that state HK residents may not join the PLA, or that they cannot serve in HK if they enlist. SchmuckyTheCat
Not all Hong Residents are Chinese citizens - foreigners of non-Chinese genes never will be accorded Chinese citizenship. The hurdles to that are enormous (apart from Mike Rowse!) and gweilos never get the stars on their PR cards. The same applies to all other ethnic groups. I do see the PLA making efforts to recruiit HK Chinese youth though - the training camps, there is an increased profile of PLA navy in the harbour, more PR events .... so recruiting of HK residents of Chinese nationality either will be, or is, a fact. Whether it becomes compulsory here or not, who can see the future? docboat 04:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
So it seems like what bars non-Chinese in Hong Kong from joining the PLA is that they don't have PRC citizenship. But are Hong Kong residents barred from joining the PLA, even if they have PRC citizenship? The issue here is whether or not having Hong Kong residency disqualifies someone from joining the PLA - the issue is not about PRC citizenship. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
There are many unspoken and hidden rules in PRC political issues. It might allow some day and change the policy in another day. Is there a way HK residents could join PLA? Are there some examples who are HK residents joining PLA? — HenryLi (Talk) 22:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Traditional and Simplified Characters, Romanisation, Etc.

As others have mentioned, the English-language wikipedia is not a Chinese dictionary, and including traditional and simplified characters, as well as a plethora of "competing" romanisation methods in various HK/TW/Macao/China-related articles is cumbersome and at best annoying when readers must sift through the lead paragraph's linguistic information before reading the article. I'm not sure where to post my thoughts on the subject, so I hope someone will move this message if necessary.

I wish we had a clear-cut policy on the matter, and if we do, please direct me to it. My thoughts are below:

If I may interject, See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (use of Chinese language): In order to accommodate all viewers, both sets should be used in all cases where a difference exists. The traditional form should go first in contexts involving territories where traditional characters are used; otherwise, simplified characters should go first. If you do not know or cannot input the other character version, then leave it out and someone will put it in for you. See also the section on Romanization and tones. Readin (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

1. For Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao-related articles, simplified chinese should not be necessary. De facto usage in these areas is traditional chinese only. In addition, why is it necessary to include Mandarin pinyin in HK-related articles when the de facto standard, even in formal and government situations, is Cantonese? For English-speaking readers, the place name Kowloon Tong and its Cantonese romanisation (Gau Lung Tong) may be useful, but the Mandarin Jiulong Tang would not be, just as the simplified chinese (九龙塘) would be arguably less useful than the traditional counterpart (九龍塘), at least in Hong Kong (e.g. in the case of tourists, although we speak English in HK too). For the users who insist that Pinyin and simplified Chinese are useful for Chinese readers in these articles, please remember that Wikipedia is blocked in the Mainland, and that there is already a Chinese-language wikipedia which offers character conversion in articles (simplified/traditional) to avoid this issue.

2. On the other hand, I see no problem including Mandarin pinyin romanisation in all China and Taiwan related articles, since they are used as official (government) languages in these areas. Taiwanese romanisation may (or should) also be included provided its placement in the article is not distracting or cumbersome -- but again, both Taiwanese (romanised) and Chinese-character wikis exist.

3. For (mainland) China-related articles, then, traditional Chinese characters and any romanisation other than Pinyin may not be necessary. Romanisations in local languages such as Shanghainese and others may be included. However, what makes Cantonese stand out per item 1 is that it is the de facto (government) standard in Hong Kong and has a long history of being used instead of Mandarin, unlike places in the mainland. Therefore, the utility of including local language romanisations outside of HK/Macao is harder to determine.

Whether editors are not sure about the unique status of Cantonese in HK and Macao or simply want to add Mandarin pinyin to every article is unclear. In the Cathay Pacific article, for example, why not include Cantonese romanisation for this HK-based company? Why is Mandarin necessary? It is the official language of China, and HK is a SAR within China, but it is not the official language of Hong Kong (legally it is "Chinese" so we must assume Cantonese based on current de facto standards).

I am not anti-Mandarin and while I do not use simplified characters, I respect their place in China. I just want to see the same respect and representation in HK/Macao related articles for Cantonese and Traditional Chinese (and for TW/Traditional Chinese only). That inlcudes letting Traditional Chinese and Cantonese romanisation stand alone in articles where Mandarin and Simplified Chinese do not apply, for the sake of having (1) neater articles and (2) a more accurate representation of Chinese place names, language differences, etc.

Edited to add 137.189.4.1 07:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's not stir this up again. All the romanizations anyone would need is just one click away in the Pronunciation of Hong Kong article. It's not a perfect solution, but I don't want to go back to the edit wars of a few weeks ago. This issue should be handled on a case-by-case basis until there is a consensus in the Manual of Style. — Kelw (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to the Hong Kong article in particular, although I agree that having a second pronunciation-only article is not a viable solution for all China/HK/TW related articles. Perhaps I should move this post to the related Style Manual Page and delete this posting? 137.189.4.1 07:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe one possible reason why this site has gradually moved away from that old tendency of dividing scripts and romanisations by political entity is simply due to the need for political nuetrality. If we are to follow the above suggestions, we are replicating the result of political history in this part of the world, and invariably becomes politicised. By having all scripts and all romanisations in all Chinese language articles, we effectively ignore all political viewpoints.--Huaiwei 07:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I do agree with you - in theory, wiki should not be politicised. But I think it is more politicised by omitting or not acknowledging Cantonese in the case of HK, and other Chinese languages in favour of "standard" Mandarin. Political neutrality is not the same as political correctness - which is what I see in these articles (towards the mainland). History shapes places, HK included. Cantonese and English are bigger parts of its history than Mandarin. My original thoughts on the matter came out of concern that wiki was being politicised in this other direction.
For example, (assuming that) including Mandarin pinyin in articles like Cathay Pacific is fine, why did my addition of Cantonese romanisation get deleted (18/7)? From that time, I've felt that this discussion was necessary. Is Cantonese substandard on wiki? I assume that consensus will involve simplified chinese/pinyin in all articles, but will traditional chinese and cantonese romanisations be relegated to a lower status? I feel uneasy to see a language I speak every day edited out of articles because it is not "standard" enough for readers -- that is politicised as well, isn't it?
Assuming we can use those language info boxes to make articles neater, and include all romanisations and both character sets, then do we get into another debate about which character set and romanisation comes first in any given article? My suggestions weren't meant to politicise so much as to avoid politicisation. My personal views aside, isn't judging by de facto standards neutral enough? No simplified Chinese in HK articles and no traditional Chinese in mainland articles doesn't say that one way of writing them is better, it simply reflects the truth of the matter in both areas. Interested in everyone's thoughts.
137.189.4.1 11:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Recording

The recording is extremely poor and most of the time I cannot understand it. It's fine if you are using a native English speaker of the region (in this case with a Hong Kong accent) but if the recording is so poor then most of the English world won't be able to understand your accent. If it is not recorded within a certain period of time I will re-record it myself. Native speaker or not, no one can understand static. 75.72.162.175 10:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

go for it. Benjwong 05:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Introduction added. Working on the rest of the article in sections. QUESTION, ayai...... I know there is an Anglicized name for every Hong Kong location but they sound so dumb, can I just mash both semi-Canto, semi-English versions of them? Also its a bit hard to pronounce it in Canto if I don't have the Chinese character in front of me so sorry if my tone is way off. Btw.... 太長啊！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！ 呀。。。。。。。講不完啦 .:DavuMaya:. 07:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting page blanking

The IP 59.62.140.194 was from Beijing. Behind the Great Firewall of China? Benjwong 05:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought I read somewhere that they only block certain articles. But anyway, one way to tell the extend of the current blocking is to see if there are many Chinese IP editors on Chinese WP. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation

A citation needed tag has been placed after this paragraph in the Climate section:

Hong Kong's climate is subtropical and prone to monsoons. It is cooler and dry in the wintertime which lasts from around December to early March, and is hot, humid and rainy from spring through summer. It is warm, sunny, and dry in autumn. Hong Kong occasionally has tropical cyclones in the summer and early autumn. The ecology of Hong Kong is mostly affected by the results of climatic changes. Hong Kong's climate is seasonal due to the alternating wind directions between winter and summer. Hong Kong has been geologically stable for millions of years, though landslides are common especially after heavy rainstorms. Flora and fauna in Hong Kong are altered by climatic change, sea level alternation and human impact.

Can we find a source for this? And if not, how should we modify the text? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this is a summarization of Climate of Hong Kong. So if this section needs citations, the main article needs some as well. Chris! my talk 21:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

District icons

Anyone know why the many district icons were deleted? Benjwong 03:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

They were deleted from Commons because they were presumed to be copyrighted with no permission given to be used in Commons. I have all the icons saved on my personal computer, but I'm unsure if they qualify as fair use to be uploaded on English WP itself. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you know who the original uploader was? Was it missing some kind of license? This seems to fit {{non-free logo}} easily with some kind of simple rationale. Benjwong 05:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah original uploader was me.  :) I took them from Chinese Wikipedia and uploaded them to Commons. I thought they were in the public domain, but Commons admins presumed they were copyrighted instead. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you want to try {{PD-HK-PR}} at Commons? This stuff seems really public. Benjwong 17:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the admins believe them to be public domain. And there's really no hard proof that they are in the public domain. At least I haven't found it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hong Kong photo

The photo Image:VictoriaHarbour.jpg is probably good enough to represent Hong Kong in the lead, but was just removed. I support this photo's integration into the article, as representative of this vibrant modern city. Badagnani 03:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a nice photo, but it's just too cluttered to stick it up at the upper left corner, sandwiching the intro between the photo and the infobox. If we are to insert the photo, let's put it somewhere that doesn't clutter things up, or use it to replace another image. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Most city articles have a lead image of the skyline, and currently this article has no skyline image. I think it needs to be reinsurted. Yahel Guhan 04:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Crown Colony

Why isn't there a separate article on just the British colony? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.60.232 (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean like Colonial Hong Kong and the 1950s, 60s, 70s? Benjwong 06:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hong Kongese???

What do you call a person from Hong Kong? Is it Hong Kongian? Hong Kongese? Hong Kongishman?

It should be Hongkonger.
Thanks.
or a person from Hong Kong  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.181.118 (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

the new Healthcare section

I've done some copy-editing of the new Healthcare section that was added by User:Professorial. There was a lot of POV content praising HK's healthcare system, and some usage of WP:Weasel words, plus an unnecessary lengthy discussion of how the UK's Trent Accreditation Scheme works. But perhaps it is time to start an article on Healthcare in Hong Kong. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hong_Kong/Archive_7&oldid=951152030"