Talk:Hong Kong/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Education in HK -> Exams

"However, the local system is publicly recognized as much more in depth than their British counterparts and a distinction in the GCSE is almost only equivelent to a credit in the HKCEE."

I removed the above from anonymous contributor 62.97.220.66 for the following reasons:

It is an oft-held opinion (which I happen to agree with) but is not backed up by any studies.
There is no such thing as a "distinction" in the GCSE; it is graded A, B, C, D, E and U.
I would argue it is not the content that differs; it is the grading - it is much much easier to get an A in GCSE than in HKCEE - but this is a moot point because:
Students taking GCSE + GCE A-Level and/or HKCEE + HKALE can end up in the same universities and have pretty much the same knowledge and achieve pretty much the same results which suggest it is a matter of the way GCSE is taught vs HKCEE.

(A similar point can be made of GCE A-Level versus American college exams - but even then, it is different as GCE A-Levels can count towards credits in some American universities and in some cases may even allow a fresh student to skip the freshman year)

Thus I feel the above inclusion is unnecessary and POV statement for a featured article. It would be more appropriate in the Education in Hong Kong page, if sources can be found to back it up. --Mintchocicecream 18:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is a general view of Hong Kong people. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 18:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

So is something like "dentists are most likely to commit suicide". Needs a source; and better inside Education in HK anyway. --Mintchocicecream 18:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

In fact, difficult to find a source for general view. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 18:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Very true; though I'm a bit uncertain about including something that is not sourced; in particular a statement as strong as "publicly recognized as much more in depth" (by whom?) and "almost only equivalent to a credit in the HKCEE" (simply not true, when most universities (yes, unfairly) take GCSE A grade = HKCEE A grade).

Furthermore, I still believe my other points justify its exclusion from the main body of the HK article - it focuses on one single exam and in a comparative context - hardly a concern to the average Hongkonger. If it was to be included I suggest something included after the sentence ending "two-year matriculation course leading to the Hong Kong Advanced Level Examinations.":

While the two examinations are equivalent to the system of GCSE and A-level, they are consistently harder than the British equivalent; with only XX% of HKCEE students gaining 'pass' grades of A-E compared to XX% of GCSE students gaining 'pass' grades of A*-C.

The reason my version is much better is because it is both justified and quantified. --Mintchocicecream 21:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree Mintchoc. We can also say that according to experience of many applicants to schools and universities in the UK, their HKALE results are given concessions by the institutions for the purposes of calculation and comparison with the GCE AL, instead of taking as direct equivalence. — Insta ntnood 12:47, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Just a supply of materials: approx 4% get A in HKCEE, while approx 10% get A* in GCSE. Deryc k C. 13:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Grade boundaries do vary each year, however, for science subjects, is about as follows: GCSE , an A is somewhat between 60%over to 70%over. About 30% candidates from 2005 archieved A or A*. HKCEE, an A is normally around 90%, does not change a lot.

Not only that the boundaries look scary. HKCEE syllabus has a lot more than GCSE In maths, HKCEE candidates are expected to know Calculus, however in UK, Calculus is not introduced until As-level "Further Maths" and (I think) is not available in "Maths". Hong Kong students learn "Total Internal Refraction" etc, in "lenses" in form3 (that's year 9 in UK), however, "Total Internal Refraction" is not intruduced to candidates until As-level. In Chemistry, sixth form students in Hong Kong have to learn Quantum Theory together with the introduction of atomic sub-shells s, p, d, f. But UK candidates do not need to know Quantum Theory.

I knew all these because I bought the HKCEE past papers, and they include the charts. And I myself did GCSE in 2005. jynx 21:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sport?

Is it normal for a featured article appearing on the main page at the moment to have a stub section? It's not just a stub, it's a one sentence long lone. We should either remove it or expand it (the second being the better choice, of course). --TodorBozhinov 09:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest to move it to a stub article, and to expand it there. — Insta ntnood 09:34, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Good. D e ryc k C. 10:20:39, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

Perhaps move it to sport in Hong Kong, following the format of sport in the United Kingdom, sports in Canada, sport in New Zealand and sports in the United States, for instance. :-) — Insta ntnood 10:34, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Just do it lah!!!! D e ryc k C. 10:36:01, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

Doing... done~ — Insta ntnood 10:38, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Whoppee!!! D e ryc k C.

Hey guys I was the user that put this section - since I have an interest in the Commonwealth Games, and there Hong Kong no longer competes, so I had to put something in a Hong Kong section. Thanks for moving it to a better location. I will add more information to this part - can those of you who are in Hong Kong add more information about the other sports activities in Hong Kong. Cheers. Rhyddfrydol 21:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks so much Rhyddfrydol. :-) — Insta ntnood 07:39, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Some bug...

When I tried to click Hong Kong today, it showed up the page Randy West and I'm logged out... Help... D e ryc k C. 15:46:40, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

Uncomplicated title and pronunciation

I've changed the actual lead title to just Hong Kong, since the full official name is simply never used outside of official or extremely formal situations. The status of Hong Kong as a SAR is very clearly explained in the first sentence following the Chinese and pronunciation links, making the title look nothing short of clumsy in it's full form. Especially when the infobox clearly states the full name right at the top in huge bold letters.

Also, I've redirected the quite misleading sub-stub pronunciation of Hong Kong in English here. PZFUN mistook the idea of having pronunciation files for an attempt to make English people pronounce Hong Kong in Mandarin or Cantonese. They're there only to inform of the pronunciation in Chinese and is not an attempt to force non-English diction on the average reader.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

But I do suggest you to refer to articles of other countries and territories before making any changes to the full name mentioned in the introduction. Besides, the popular name is already used as the title of the article. The same goes for Australia, Russia, even for Jersey and hundreds of other articles, even with full name enscribed in template on the right. Please do think twice before attempting to do so. --Carlsmith 16:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

How about applying some common sense instead? It's one thing to include Russian Federation in a title. Including the full-name monstrosity that is the full official name in the lead when it's status is explained in the very same sentence with the very same words is being more concerned more about guidelines than readability. This seems like the absolute best example of where an exception should be made. Could someone object to this on grounds other than "other articles do it"?

Peter ^Isotalo 17:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I consider this kind of auto-revert behavior very inappropriate. Especially when it's a rather obivous auto-revert that disregards other changes. Either revert only that which is relevant or don't revert at all. This is a good way to start an editing war, not to reach a reasonable decision.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I assume that you do bear a positive mind when you performed that edit which "shortened" the name mentioned in the introduction. I would never try to start an edit war with such a reasonable editor, which I suppose, would be inappropriate. But a more appropriate and reasonable action would be to ask for a third opinion, preferably in the first place before making such a drastic edit to the article, as the situation has existed since this article was established. The fact that this is a featured article also means that every change must be carefully carried out "without compromising previous work".

But all is not lost. A third opinion is hereby requested on the appropriate address of the city in the introduction. No further changes should be made concerning the issue without reaching a consensus.

Besides, the auto-revert you have mentioned also concerns the deletion of a paragraph by 216.16.239.146 in the history section [1]. If that bothers you, I shall express my deepest regrets for any misunderstanding that may have caused.

Carlsmith 17:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the anon user's unmotivated removal of info. That should be reverted because its obviously not a constructive edit.

I don't see this as the least bit controversial. To me it just seems as one of those situations where a common guideline simply craps up the article and should be disregarded; that's why it's a guideline rather than policy. It's not as if I'm trying to steer the article towards any sort of political POV. I'm just trying to de-clutter the lead and avoid a seperate article for pronunciations that aren't the least bit contoversial. I've also requested Jerry Crimson Mann to record a file that simply says "Hong Kong" (in Cantonese) rather than the full name to compliment the full title-recording.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

As I do assume good faith in your behaviour, might you consider:

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (Chinese: 中華人民共和國香港特別行政區, commonly known as Hong Kong 香港 pronunciation) is a dependent territory/Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China...

The full name should still be mentioned as:

First of all, it doesn't hurt mentioning the full title of the city once in the article text. If it weren't of great importance to the article, it wouldn't be chosen as the official name.

Secondly, don't we need to care about those using text-based web browsers that don't support tables at all? Or those reading on an alternative medium that doesn't support templates in-line like WikiReader? You will not be able to tell those reader the title just by putting in the template. It just will not show up. Wouldn't that inhibit their right to access of information when compared to other country articles?

Finally, it's the custom. You have dismissed it, but it's still the custom.

Carlsmith 18:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Carlsmith's view that the full name of this entity should exist in its opening line as is the established convention in wikipedia, and that includes the full Chinese name as well for reference.--Huaiwei 18:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Peter I would say it is the Wikipedia standard for country articles to include the full name on the first line. It is also a Wikipedia guideline to include names in other languages, and for non Roman letter-based languages, romanisation. The article on pronunciation is to make the first line less bulky, and to present that piece of information in a better layout. You may not agree with it, but frankly here is not the right place to propose to change the conventions. — Insta ntnood 06:56, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping to see a discussion that wasn't about Wikipedia guidelines as an object in of themselves for once. I guess I was hoping for too much. Rather than applying a modicum of common sense and not viewing guidelines as the absolute policy documents that they never were meant to be, you're claiming that we have to stick to convention... well... because it's convention.

Consensus obviously will decide this, but I vehemently oppose any type of sub-page for pronunciations. I'd rather see no pronunciation files at all than invite the establishement of a whole new breed of pointless pronunciation sub-stubs.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Momentary appearance of dubious adult oriented material

Adult oriented and dubious text appeared momentarily in HK page (20050908). Shocked - was trying to fix it (am newbie) but then it went away while I was trying to how to delete/revert.

Whoever fixed it. Thanks. - 210.84.215.153 00:53, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I assume you meant this material. It was reverted two minutes later by OwenX (talk · contribs). If you're interested, you may want to consider signing up for an account. Cheers. :-) Tomer ^TALK 03:31, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Article for deletion

It would appear that Karmosin has listed Pronunciation of Hong Kong on articles for deletion. The voting page is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pronunciation of Hong Kong. I find this a move to disregard all discussion that's taken place on this talk page. I think we should all oppose it. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 14:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Páll, please read the discussion here and make an honest effort to participate instead of engaging in indirect and skewed polemics like this. So far you seem to have either not understood or completely disregarded my motivations for opposing separate pronunciation pages.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I have read and understood them, but I completely disagree with them. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 16:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Hope it's not deleted. D e ryc k C. 10:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

To return to the name of Hong Kong in the first sentence

Páll, please note that Peter expressed doubt about the validity of the separate Pronunciation of Hong Kong stub on its talk page as early as March; if you're imputing some underhand motive to him in AFD'ing it now, I reject that notion out of hand. Peter, please don't imply dishonesty by exhorting to honesty, that hardly ever has any good result. All right. I can only agree with Peter that "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (...), is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" is a pretty bad opening sentence. If it's considered essential to open with the official full name, then let's leave out the repetition. How about this for a first paragraph: "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (...) is located on the southeastern coast of China."? The links in the bolded name aren't elegant, I grant you (I actually prefer Peter's version), but it seems to me better than saying the whole thing twice. Bishonen | talk 19:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

But it doesn't work if we put the text back. D e ryc k C. 09:00:04, 2005-09-12 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am restoring the full Chinese names into the article. Makes no sense for us to restore the English one, and not the Chinese.--Huaiwei 09:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

There are several ways of handling the native name in several country articles. If you take a look at Iraq, Iran and Egypt, they avoid cluttering the lead with the official native name and put it above the infobox along with the pronunciation link. Placing the pronunciation link in the infobox was my idea, but only because the native name was already there. This is a lot smoother and avoids crapping up the lead with a lot of long parenthisized names and variants that are repeated elsewhere anyway. Here's what the lead would look like:

Hong Kong (香港, Cantonese: Heūng góng, Mandarin: Audio file "zh-Xianggang.ogg" not found), is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (PRC) located on the southeastern coast of China.

The full name would be kept above the infobox along with the romanizations (but only one each for Mandarin and Cantonese) and the pronunciation files.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The articles of Egypt, Iran and Iraq all have the full name in the leading paragraph. I don't know any Persian or Arabic, but from the way the sound files are presented I would expect they are for the full native names of these countries. Unlike Pinyin which is having an official status in mainland China and several cities/counties of the ROC which mayors/magistrates are from the Kuomingtang, Cantonese has no official romanisation standard, and none of the romanisation methods is particularly popular. It may not be appropriate to use only one method of romanisation. — Insta ntnood 14:33, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Please comment the actual proposal and avoid suggesting we should use anything other than Pinyin. Hong Kong belongs to the PRC, with or without a dual political system. This not an article about Taiwan. Also, please don't nitpick the other examples. We're discussing this article, not general guidelines. If you want all guidelines to be included as official policy, start lobbying for it. 'Til then, don't rules lawyer non-rules. That's not what they're intended for.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Pinyin has no official standard in Hong Kong. Even Mandarin is not having legal official standard. I'm not objecting to use Pinyin for one of the romanisations of Hong Kong's Chinese name in this article tho, since its the most popular standard. — Insta ntnood 16:24, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

You respond to my request for less rules lawyering with even more petty details? Since I know your editing history and disputes with other editors rather well I can't consider this either good faith or stupidity. Whatever it is, it's not constructive. You've accomplished your objective, though; I won't try to discuss this anymore. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

" Cantonese has no official romanisation standard, and none of the romanisation methods is particularly popular. It may not be appropriate to use only one method of romanisation. " was response to your comment " but only one each for Mandarin and Cantonese ". Petty? Perhaps.. — Insta ntnood 17:03, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

To the current information, Jyutping is currently the most widelt-accepted Cantonese romanization form. However, there are debates within the jyutping talking about if the -t, -k and -p sounds should have their own tones 789 or let it become 136. D e ryc k C. 08:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Well it's most widely used among the wikipedian community because it's the most easy to input. :-D It's having no official status in Hong Kong or anywhere, and is not particularly popular. — Insta ntnood 08:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

To say, Jyutping is the only (real) cantonese pronunciation guide available in form of Chinese input methods. D e ryc k C. 09:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Eh? You mean input methods like Chang-jei? Is there a Jyutping method? The Cantonese-based input method I've heard about is based on the Hong Kong Government standard. — Insta ntnood 09:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

visit http://www.langcomp.com.hk for more. D e ryc k C. 10:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Deryck. :-) — Insta ntnood 10:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Just a question

I hope I'm doing this right. My question is: Is Hong Kong actually a city, or only the name of the Special Administrative Region? It had been pointed out to me, that it was only a region, but the 3 major cites (Kowloon, Victoria and Aberdeen?) are often referred to as the city of Hong Kong. Is that correct? Horrorkid64 15:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The meaning of city actually depends. As an administrative divisions, Hong Kong does not officially defined itself as a city, or any part of itself as city, though the official name of Victoria is the "City of Victoria", often called Victoria City, and in earlier text Victoria and Kowloon are sometimes called twin city. The administrative structure in mainland China is not extended to Hong Kong (and Macao). If you're taking about city as we speak, which means any metropolitan area or urban place, Hong Kong is usually known as a city, but its built-up area is not actually that contiguous (and that's why sometimes different parts of it, for instance, new towns in the New Territories, are described as cities or towns). — Insta ntnood 16:24, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Victoria and Aberdeen can be referred to as "cities", but Kowloon is simply a peninsula with a big number of towns. D e ryc k C. 09:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

In older texts Kowloon never includes New Kowloon, and Kowloon itself is like one contiguous urban place. The only town I can think of is Kwun Tong, which was originally planned as a satellite city in the 50s. Mei Foo Sun Chuen at the time it was built was also quite outlying. — Insta ntnood 09:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Heh, that Kwun Tong town is where I'm living D e ryc k C. 10:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought you're living somewhere round Lam Tin. :-D — Insta ntnood 10:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

You're correct. I'm living in Lam Tin, however Lam Tin is an extension of the Kwun Tong town. D e ryc k C. 09:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps. Not everyone agrees Lam Tin is part of Kwun Tong. :-P — Insta ntnood 15:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

For the sake of all, can MSN/ICQ-like conversations like the above be cut to the minimum in all future correspondance in wikipedia for the sake of greater productivity in discussions and to maintain its editorial standards? I do not think discussing over where a wikipedian lives really contribute much to this discussion. Thank you.--Huaiwei 14:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's move to the User talk namespace. D e ryc k C. 11:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment on data

The first sentence in "Demographics" states that "...reaching about 7.1 million by 2000.". The figure of population is different from that in the table, which shows "Population - Total (2005) 6,898,686". Samuel 13:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Should be 6.8M, I think. D e ryc k C. 14:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Many Hong Kong people were executed by the Japanese army during the war?

An anonymous editor added the line "Many Hong Kong people were executed by the Japanese army during the war". This is absolutely true, but I don't see how such a vague statement can belong in an encyclopedia. Does anyone have any data on this? It would read a lot better if it said "XXXXX people died in the war, of which XXXXX were executed by the Japanese army".

Without the data, I think the sentence is better removed, as after all there's already a link to (excellent) main article on the Japanese occupation of Hong Kong.--Mintchocicecream 09:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

IT sector in HK

Hi! I'm a graduate of Computer Science who currently works as an information analyst here in the Philippines. I am planning to go to Hong Kong to find employment there. But I'm not sure if this is the right time to do so. I'm sort of worried about my chances there. I wanted to know the status of the information technology sector in Hong Kong. Thanks! --Apple_1980

Romanisation

Hi all, I edited the romanisation stuff according to the Manual of Style.

And I put in romanisations for the full name "中華人民共和國香港特別行政區" instead of simply for "香港". Imagine someone who doesn't speak Chinese at all, comes to this article, sees the ultra-long full name for Hong Kong in Chinese, but realises that the romanisations are as short as two syllables (Xiānggǎng, hoeng1 gong2, Heūng góng)! Wouldn't make any sense, huh? When the full name of Hong Kong is provided, I think we should be consistent with the romanisation.

The exception is the Yale romanisation. My computer cannot open the voice file that comes with it (HKSAR.ogg). Therefore I have no idea whether it plays "香港" or "中華人民共和國香港特別行政區". Even if I do, I have no idea how this Yale thing works... better not mess with it! So if you do know Yale romanisation, please help with it!

Thanks! 199.111.230.195 04:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with further spoiling of the article layout by the insertion of even mre transcription trivia. There's been reasonable compromises suggested to solve the currently rather sub-standard layout a few threads above. How about working with that instead of cluttering up every China-related in sight?

Peter ^Isotalo 08:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a little experience with Yale romanisation, but I can never remember how the accents work so I still have to look them up. Will do this when I get home from work. Hong Qi Gong 15:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for intro

IMHO, as an ignorant observer, it is totally redundant to say "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China....is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (PRC)" - that's the sentence once you strip the chinese characters etc out.

The opening sentence being painful to parse, might I suggest you just change it to "Hong Kong is a SAR of the PRC", proceed with the intro, then immediately afterwards have a "names" section where you detail all the other names in the various languages etc? It's really a bit over the top atm. I'm not at all qualified to make changes here (not speaking Chinese or knowing anything about Hong Kong), but there's my $0.02. Stevage 00:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. The same matter is actually brought up from time to time. It's like a dilenma. Almost all country articles begins with the full names of the countries, such as "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and "Commonwealth of Australia". "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" is its official full name. — Insta ntnood 07:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Map request

Could someone create a map for this article showing Hong Kong's location in relation to the Guangdong province, as in the Shanwei article? Badagnani 06:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hong Kong is not part of Guangdong, while Shanwei is. — Insta ntnood 07:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I already knew that, but that is not what I was proposing. Nowhere in the Hong Kong article is it made clear with the use of a map where Hong Kong is located in comparison to its surrounding regions of China. All we see are large maps showing only Hong Kong and Shenzhen. For educational purposes (please be aware that not everyone who uses this site is as familiar with Hong Kong's location in relation to Guangdong as those who work on this article regularly), I am asking that a map be added to the article showing Hong Kong's location in relation to the Guangdong province. The important information of Hong Kong's being situated near central coastal Guangdong, near Guangzhou and the Pearl River is not made clear. A map similar to that at Shanwei, maybe also showing Hong Kong's proximity to Macau, would be helpful (of course not implying that Hong Kong is part of Guangdong province). It's similar to having a map of Washington, D.C. and showing its proximity to neighboring Maryland and Virginia. Without that context, a large map of Washington, D.C. city only doesn't provide the complete information necessary for readers. Badagnani 22:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I might try to make the map that you requested. But I would like to have the opinion of you guys about the following points:

Should this new map be used to replace the current locator map in the info box?
Is it okay if the new map is not derived from this map?
Is it okay if the colour scheme of the new map is not the same as the currect locator map in the info box? (Because I don't want to use grey and green.)

- Alan 00:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Politics and government, end of year cleanup

This section needs to be culled of current events from 2005. These events are notable, but need to be moved to the more relevant dedicated articles. SchmuckyTheCat 01:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It feels more and more like a hack job as the year goes on. See whether anyone's willing to do it though :P --Mintchocicecream 16:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

External links

I think the external links are in a mess. I removed the links to mondophoto (because they weren't free) and one backpacker's photo (if (s)he can put his/her pictures, why can't everyone else?).. Left Flickr but moved it down because at least that's an aggregate of different people's photos. Then, many links appear to be mildly related to Hong Kong (e.g. the private Yahoo Group?? or the many Expat sites?? Wikipedia isn't meant to be a link farm/web directory; we should be more forceful about what links stay and what doesn't. E.g. why isn't there even DiscoverHK the official tourism site? I'd like to see what the general feeling is here before I edit it, though. --Mintchocicecream 16:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I love discoverhk. I mostly know my way around now, but I still go wander in to their booths at the star ferry to get maps and such. The tourist board website is aweseome. www.info.gov.hk is a great resource as well, the portal into all hk govt websites.

SchmuckyTheCat 19:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Not objective

Caution!

This article is being managed by Beijing loyalists. They constantly watch for any content which is in opposition to the communist/totalitarian government of People's Republic of China and quickly edit it and/or delete it.

You are being warned to discount the political credibility of this article.

-- Unsigned comment by anonymous user, User:203.218.94.209

Can you list some objective reasons to support your views? You might also like to know this article is a featured article in Wikipedia. --Mintchocicecream 05:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Economy

The article quite rightly mentions the extremely liberal economy and the success of this formula. However, mentioning it just as such might be slightly one-sided. Many sectors of the economy are completely cornered by big companies running duopolies etc. Supermarkets is a famous example. Another is of course the real estate developers. Former Governer Chris Patten tried to undo this one, but failed miserably --Prudentia 08:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Long Hair?

Will someone please fix the "Long Hair" joke?

Flag image

Someone has put the old colonial flag of Hong Kong in the history section. There must certainly be better images to cover the history of Hong Kong, and the flag image is pretty irrelevant to the area in discussion. Any other opinions? Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 16:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a good symbol to highlight HK's colonial history. Many other country articles have historic flags in thier history sections (eg Canada). Astrotrain 16:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but Canada's history sectionis much larger and has space for more images. If we only chose two images, is the former flag of Hong Kong really the best? 24.29.137.148 18:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't actually remove any images to place the flag image there. You could probably get at least pictures on the section anyway. Personally I think the historic colonial flag is a good representation for the fact that only 9 years ago, HK was a British colony. Astrotrain 18:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

While i think the colonial flag image is not inappropriate, I would like to see the images of an old fishing village painting of Hong Kong contrasted with the ultra modern vista of Victoria Harbour. That will definitely shows what history of Hong kong is all about. --Kvasir 19:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Moving to Hong Kong

Subheadings:

Land Phone systems

This is free to use locally and doesn't cost anything to have in your home, compared to the crap Aussie phones this is great. Enlil Ninlil 05:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Internet connections

Mobile/Cell Phone Standards

Billing

Banking

Mail, packages and postage, and Post Office services

Education system

Work permits and VISAa

Transport

Someone forgot the Important minibusses, these are just as important and numerous and other forms of transport.Enlil Ninlil 02:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Minibuses are mentioned there -- as "Public light buses". --Mintchocicecream 02:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Photographs

I have just spent a great amount of time trying to gather photographs for the entry about Hong Kong. Most are from the government website, including the Hong Kong Tourism Board, Trade Development Council, Antiquities and Monuments Office, etc. I think they represent a large part of Hong Kong and I hope they will be restored. Also the beautiful photo with central was found in a website. I wrote to the author and asked him to put it on wikipedia, and he said he will. Also can someone help me put license information for the photos please? What is the catagory if its government department photos?

Revision in Politics section

The text reads

'On 24 September 2005, twenty-five Hong Kong pro-democracy Legco members, some of whom were previously labelled as traitors by Beijing after the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown and barred from entering the mainland, crossed the border into the southern province of Guangdong, following an unprecedented invitation by the PRC [11]. The invitation was generally regarded as one of the greatest goodwill gestures from the PRC to the Hong Kong democrats since the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989.'

It seems to me that that the last sentence here is poorly worded, making it sound as if the Tiananmen Square massacre was the previous good will gesture (and therefore, sounds kind of sarcastic).

--210.228.17.68 02:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hong Kong action cinema

you may be interested to know the article Hong Kong action cinema is currently preparing to go for featured article status. at the moment, there is a peer review going on at Wikipedia:Peer review/Hong Kong action cinema/archive1. as the editors of this article already have experience in creating an FA, your input is highly valued. thx! Zzzzz 21:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Old infobox

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

SchmuckyTheCat 10:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. — Insta ntnood 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)