Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings

Requested moved

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. This close is reflective on the like move that was proposed for the category. The discussion was slightly in favor of keeping the old name and there was not a consensus to retain the new name. Hence returning to the old name. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.

Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings → Template:China – Hong Kong border crossings – 17:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the recent move from Template:China – Hong Kong border crossings to Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings. I would agree that the former name was a bit silly, since Hong Kong, after all, a SAR of PRC, and is usually viewed on Chinese maps as one of the 34 province-level units (along with all provinces [including Taiwan Province], autonomous regions, national-level municipalities, and Macao SAR).. The latter name is geographically correct in that the border crossings are physically on the way between HKSAR and Guangdong province. However, what the crossings are really about is the border between two legal domains - i.e. a customs and immigration border, as well as a border separating zones with two legal regimes with respect to various things (such as driving on the right/left). "One country, two systems", as they officially say. There are no "border crossings" like this between. When one crosses the border, one gets a passport stamp from the PRC migration department, not from some provincial Guangdong agency. The construction of the crossing and the modality of their operation were probably negotiated between the HKSAR government and the national government in Beijing, rather than between the HKSAR and Guangdong provincial government. The neidi ("the interior", the mainland China, or whatever you call it), i.e. the area within which the customs, immigration, laws-of-the-road etc. rules set in Beijing operate, is the entity with which HKSAR (or Macao SAR) borders. So I would think something like Template:Mainland China – Hong Kong border crossings would be most appropriate for the template and category in question.

The recent renaming was not an isolated step; there were also similar undiscussed changes within the articles involved, and in the Macao articles and template. This ought to be discussed in a centralized way instead of an edit war. -- Vmenkov (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree this could be discussed for a better solution. What I laid out in the last few days is better than what was here before so I hope that can stabilize without the disruption from a banned user (the IP address and one of his current sock usernames).

I do disagree that "Mainland China" is the best name for the template and category. That name works from the intra-country perspective as it differentiates two political jurisdictions, particularly from the POV within HK/MO, but it does not work from a global perspective. Our solution must be NPOV, but politically and geographically accurate. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The solution I do like is to explain in the text. Use prose to explain in the introduction that it is a Chinese {whatever} between {point a} province and {point b} SAR. That sets up the distinction that it is intra-country, and links appropriately to the political definitions why. Categories and templates can't have that much text in their name, so it is understood it might not represent the complete spectrum of views. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Well, the term we use does not have to be "mainland China", but when we talk about borders like this, we need to have something that concisely enough expresses the concept of the "territory of PRC other than HKSAR and Macau SAR", or "PRC customs and immigration zone". This is something for which 内地 seems to be used in China commonly enough (and for which "mainland [China]" seems to be a commonly used, non-neologism, English translation). The use of 内地 in China to refer to the "territory of PRC other than HKSAR and Macau SAR" seems to be quite widespread, e.g. in the context of talking about the Gongbei PoE: http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=%E6%8B%B1%E5%8C%97%E5%8F%A3%E5%B2%B8&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&source=hp&q=%22%E6%8B%B1%E5%8C%97%E5%8F%A3%E5%B2%B8%22+%22%E5%86%85%E5%9C%B0%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=ad8d00e26666dd60 Thousands of hits there, including plenty of .gov.cn sites: http://www.google.com/search?q=%E6%8B%B1%E5%8C%97%E5%8F%A3%E5%B2%B8+%E5%86%85%E5%9C%B0+site%3A.gov.cn&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=off&tbs= They talk about "内地旅客" (mainland travelers/tourists), 内地居民 (mainland residents), etc. Gongbei itself is described (at the official site of the border inspection office) as "内地与澳门的重要口岸", i.e. "important entry point between the mainland and Macau". So I really don't see anything politically inappropriate (or even PoV in general) about saying 内地/mainland in the context of discussing borders.

I am looking at this official site of the PRC border inspection in Zhuhai. In Chinese they call themselves 珠海出入境边检总站 (literally, something like "Zhuhai entry-exit border inspection general station"), in English, "Zhuhai General Station of Exit and Enter Frontier Inspection of the PRC"). Talking about their role, they say that they are entrusted with "为国把守国门", i.e. "guarding the country's gate". They talk about their role as a national agency, protecting the country, and not the particular province they are in. (So this is different e.g. from fruit-fly quarantine checks between some states of Australia). Nary a word about Guangdong there. So I believe they are very much viewed as part of the nation's external border protection system. (There is, of course, no contradiction between this and the assertion of PRC sovereignty over the SARs; after all, a country may choose to "excise" a particular part of its national territory out of its migration/customs zone for a number of reasons. E.g., the US may have special visa/customs rules for Guam, North Mariana Islands, or Virgin Islands, and have full immigration/customs checks - same as for international flights - for travelers between those places and the US proper.) -- Vmenkov (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree mainland is often used for convenience, but when it is more proper, there is often a definition that is quite explicit, for instance the footnotes to treaties and such will define "the customs territory of China". And I still maintain that using mainland in that way is an intra-China usage, Wikipedia is written from a global usage.

Another potential outcome is just to delete the template altogether as superfluous to {{Immigration Control Stations in Hong Kong}} (et al for Macau). There is enough overlap already.

More later, the sun came out. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• OPPOSE. If you use the name "China - Hong Kong border crossings", are you going to list all the ports in mainland China that can be reached directly from Hong Kong then? The "Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings" shows the border crossing points (or immigration control points) specifically between Guangdong and Hong Kong in geographic terms; there's nothing wrong with that. STSC (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• OPPOSE. I'm baffled by the proposed move. The current name appears to be descriptive, precise and unambiguous. I don't see how changing 'Guangdong' for China is an improvement: after all Hong Kong is a part of China; Hong Kong's only physical border with the mainland only exists in Guangdong province. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose HK is part of China. This makes no sense. It's like saying the United States-Utah border crossings. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• support the previous name was descriptive precise and unambiguous. There are no border crossings between Hong Kong and China that don't go through Guangzhou, so that is no more precise. Or for added precision it might as well be renamed Guangdong – New Territories border crossings which is clearly unnecessary. The reason for restoring the name of a week ago is the common names of the territories that the border is between are 'Hong Kong' and 'China'. Many readers may not be familiar with Guangzhou or may know it under a different name (it's not very long ago that 'Canton' was more familiar in English, even in Hong Kong). Few readers will not know what 'China' and 'Hong Kong' refer to so as long as they are vaguely aware of the geography of south China will know which border this concerns.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I guess that what is meant here is Guangdong (province) instead of Guangzhou (city). In fact no border crossing between Hong Kong and China goes through Guangzhou. Or to be accurate, there is one, at the airport. There were ferries between the 2 cities in the past as well, with associated immigration processing. olivier (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support per John Blackburne, and per Ajax Smack's comment at Template talk:Guangdong - Macau border crossings. 203.198.25.249 (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support because the border is not merely an issue between a province and Hong Kong. The crossings are staffed by central government officials, not provincial ones. The unique nature of Hong Kong and Macao's political situation means that terms may seem a little strange at times but the proposal more accurately reflects the nature of the crossings, i.e., ones between Hong Kong and the rest of China. —  AjaxSmack  16:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support. This page was relocated from Template:China-Hong Kong border crossings to Template:Guangdong-Hong Kong border crossings with no discussion. 119.236.251.39 (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Template title (RFC)

Hong Kong is not a sovereign nation and commonly known as part of China (PRC). So that

The title parameter should use which?

1. Mainland China–Hong Kong SAR border crossings
2. Mainland China–Hong Kong border crossings
3. China–Hong Kong border crossings (The current incorrect wording and the wording from stable version prior March 2021)

Matthew hk (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment (Summoned by bot) – Please withdraw this Rfc, there are several problems with it:
  • First, please discuss the issue first, and see what other people think; See WP:RFCBEFORE. As an editor of ten years standing, you should know that Rfc's are part of the dispute resolution system, and are normally initiated after significant previous discussion has failed to achieve resolution on a topic. I see no discussion about this at all, much less a dispute, so due diligence has not been performed here, and the stage is not set for an Rfc.
  • Normally, you should couch the Rfc statement, assuming you choose to use an Rfc, in neutral language, and save your partisan argument in favor of one of the choices for your WP:!vote. Your choice of three options eliminates other possibilities, such as including 'PRC' as part of the title, or titles not containing the word 'border'— you said yourself they are not two nations in which case logically there is no border. (I'm not saying what I favor or believe, I'm just drawing conclusions from what you wrote.)
  • A change of title does not typically involve an Rfc, but a Requested move. It has different requirements for the initial statement; you can follow the procedure at WP:RM#CM.
  • An Rfc or Requested Move should be advertised in the logical places, which would include at a minimum, the HK and China WikiProjects, and that has not been done. See WP:APPNOTE.

The originator of an Rfc may decide to withdraw the Rfc at any time, so you don't need permission or closure by an admin to do that. If you wish to withdraw this one, you can simply remove the {{Rfc}} header at the top. My recommendation would be to withdraw it and start a normal discussion about what you think the title should be. If I were doing it, I would ask two questions:

1. Is the current template title adequate or should it be changed?
2. If it is changed, what should it be changed to?

and see what happens. Maybe the discussion will find consensus for a new name (or for no change to title) in which case it will be simpler and you won't need an Rfc or a Requested Move at all. Or maybe you'll get various suggestions which have some support besides just the person who proposed it, and then after a certain amount of discussion back and forth to see which ones have the most support, you can then start a Requested Move proposal based on those options. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 05:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Based on the thread in the ip talk page it just another ultra-localism or separatist that refuse to discuss, and WPHK is dead project for a long time, so that rfc is right place. Matthew hk (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, it seems the ip has problem with the edit with user:S 0524. Please ask the ip to sit down to talk with S 0524 instead. Matthew hk (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Ultra-localism? Separatist? Are you simply jumping to your own conclusions like what youknowwho often do? 203.145.95.207 (talk) 05:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot. Agree. And in fact there's already clear consensus in the discussion in the section right above, i.e. the move request submitted by Vegaswikian.[1] 203.145.95.207 (talk) 06:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• I support moving to Template:Mainland China–Hong Kong border crossings. The current title is, strictly speaking, inaccurate, in a way that gives the impression of non-neutrality. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

This is not a WP:RM BTW. It is what value should be in |title=. Matthew hk (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

My mistake. I support using the strictly accurate terminology ("mainland China") in both the title of the template and the title parameter. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

When there's no ambiguity there's no point to make things unnecessary complicated. The border guards and customs officers are Chinese ones. They don't call their organisations Mainland something administrations or Mainland something agencies. If they themselves find nothing unclear then that's fine enough isn't it? AjaxSmack's remarks above put it most clear. 203.145.95.207 (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• 3. The RfC should be withdrawn and reopened with a neutral proposal, but in the meantime I will comment on my preference; a return to the "China-Hong Kong border crossing". The title does not imply that Hong Kong is a separate country from China. Meanwhile, appending "Mainland" to "China" would be inaccurate, as this template also includes border crossings with Macau, a SAR that is not typically classified as part of "Mainland China", while appending "SAR" to "Hong Kong" clears up no ambiguity, as there is no current ambiguity about what "Hong Kong" refers to. BilledMammal (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• If Macau Ferry was what you noticed: That pier also got some ferry routes to (the mainland of) China. But yes there ought to be a navbox for Hong Kong—Macau. 203.145.95.207 (talk) 05:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Appending "SAR" actually creates another problem, since there were former crossings which were closed before the SAR came into existence, some of which covered by this template. The same would be true if "Mainland" or "People's Republic" are to be appended. The conclusion would be that given there's little if not no ambiguity and there's nothing to solve doing so would create more troubles. 1.64.48.231 (talk) 06:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy close and/or considered withdrawn per Mathglot @ 05:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC). 203.145.95.207 (talk) 05:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• 3, Imma have to agree with the others here when they say there is problems with this RFC and it should probably be withdrawn and reopened with a neutral proposal, but my opinion is 3, per BilledMammal Rexh17 (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Some off-topic. IP from HK was escalated to WP:ANI before for POV pushing and adding borderline hoax of OR and unsourced content . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1058#Please instruct how to deal with ip hopping, meat and suspected offsite canvassing from a lot of ip ranges from HK. The current ip that edit warring with user:S 0524 is just match that pattern. (I think i end up have 4RR as big no-no BTW) I will only assume good faith if the ip provide reliable source and use talk page much often. Matthew hk (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• And for ref. the Ip fails to provide source. And there is SCMP article:

Hong Kong and mainland Chinese authorities need to agree on the specific circumstances that will trigger the suspension of quarantine-free travel in the negotiations for reopening the border, the city’s leader has said.

https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/3151836/coronavirus-hong-kong-leader-carrie-lam-says

Chinese source:

內地邊防部隊涉佔用香港土地 沙頭角建橋擅自過境 factwire

內地邊防 = Mainland (inland) Border Force.

It does not said "Hong Kong and Chinese authorities". and this Rfc will be offsite canvassing anyway with user that less than 500 edits (and registered in 2013 and without edit for full 5 years) suddenly emerged anyway. Matthew hk (talk) 08:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy close per Mathglot and BilledMammal. Otherwise 3 per BilledMammal, Rexh17 and 1.64.48.231. 219.76.24.210 (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• (If this isn't going to be closed and resubmitted,) a reasonable, alternative solution would be splitting the template, with one for Hong Kong and another for China. The former would include those which serve passengers and goods for Macau (and other jurisdictions, if there's any), and the latter would include Taiwan, North Korea, Mongolia, Afghanistan, Russia, Kazakhstan, Laos, Nepal, Pakistan, Macau, etc. 219.76.24.210 (talk) 09:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• close this malformed Rfd and restore it to its long standing version. On the actual issue there are times when it's useful to disambiguate or clarify by adding "Mainland" and "SAR" but it's not needed in a navigation template which is only about the connections between the two territories, and just clutters up the box.--2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:B578:5490:57B9:A4CB (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit protected

To add the Ocean Terminal and the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal Control Point to the list of Hong Kong piers. 203.145.95.91 (talk) 09:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you just stop edit this template? It is you removed the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal Control Point link from the template as vandalism-like reverting the edit by user: S 0524. (The link was there in Special:Permalink/1027683925 before your "constructive" edit) . Matthew hk (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

This is funny. You requested to lock the page when someone else was working hard to re-piece everything together and now that you are complaining that other people are not finishing it. Do you actually know what you've been doing? Can't you simply entertain the request with your account privileges? 203.145.95.207 (talk) 05:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: The Kai Tak Cruise Terminal link was previously added. The Ocean Terminal, Hong Kong link was reverted, citing vandalism. Curbon7 (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit protected

To change the link to Changping railway station to Changping railway station (Guangdong). 1.64.48.231 (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

 Undone: This request has been partially undone. The disambiguation link was reverted, citing vandalism. Curbon7 (talk) 03:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

There is currently no service on the entire Guangdong Through Train route between Guangzhou Tianhe and Kowloon Hung Hom as a result of the pandemic. But there's certainly no announcement for the termination of this station on the route should the service be resumed. 1.64.48.231 (talk) 06:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

S 0524's edits

S 0524 can you explain the rationale of your edits which restructure the template box entirely while omitting some entries with no clear explanations, and can you undo them before there's clear consensus? 219.76.24.210 (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Shanghai, Amoy, Swatow and Swabue

Should these piers be included too? There used to be ferry services between the colony with these ports. 219.76.24.210 (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Piers in Sheung Wan and Sai Ying Pun

In the interbellum period and the first few decades postwar there were several piers in Sheung Wan and Sai Ying Pun that served ferry routes to Macau and China, e.g., Hong Kong , Canton and Macau Ferry Pier, Yuen On Pier, Tung On Pier, Hoi On Pier and Sai Kong Pier. Should these be added? 219.76.24.210 (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)