Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong

WikiProject Hong Kong

Main page (talk)

Project participants (talk)

Manual of style

Naming conventions (talk)

Templates (talk)

Departments

Assessment (talk)

  Requests (talk)

  Archive (talk)

  Bot log (talk)

Review (talk)

Article

Article alerts (talk)

Article requests (talk)

High quality articles (talk)

New articles (talk)

Pages for deletion (talk)

Useful tools

Categories and lists (talk)

Hong Kong Portal (talk)

Workgroup

Roads (talk)

Cinema (talk)

Football  inactive

Transport  inactive

Requested move at Talk:Tai Tam Country Park (Quarry Bay Extension)#undefined

[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]]-- There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tai Tam Country Park (Quarry Bay Extension)#undefined that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

IP changing Hong Kong place names to highly obscure ones

Hi all. There is a long-term IP-hopping anonymous editor persistently changing common Hong Kong place names to more obscure ones. Examples:

• Changing "Tuen Mun" to "Butterfly Beach" when referring to the area of southern Tuen Mun (rather than the beach of that name)
• Changing the common name "Wong Chuk Hang" to the obscure "Staunton Creek"
• Changing "Kowloon" to "New Kowloon"
• Changing the address of CityU from "83 Tat Chee Avenue" to the obscure "New Kowloon Inland Lot No. 5953 (RP)"
• Adding link to obscure place name "Tai Wo Ping" that simply redirects to the common Shek Kip Mei

As some of the above edits have escalated to editing disputes I feel it is more appropriate to discuss the issue here. My position is that using these obscure place names renders the encyclopedia inscrutable to the average reader. Also, some of these obscure place names appear to be WP:OR – names of geographic and hydrographic features are being applied to the surrounding human settlements, but without any evidence that the names are actually commonly used in this way.

This appears to be a long-term issue on Hong Kong articles, i.e. someone is digging up long-lost, unused names, or utilising names of unknown origin. Another example can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public housing estates in Ping Shan. I have no idea if the same individual is responsible.

Side note, I believe this IP is the same disruptive user responsible for Harbour Crossing Tunnel and related pages, as there is subject overlap in the editing history of some of the IP addresses (e.g. 203.218.155.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). This person is presently talking to themselves (jumping from IP to IP) over at Talk:MTR. Citobun (talk) 04:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

For Tuen Mun South, for instance, the map cited indeed shows that the name Butterfly Beach refers to a much broader area than what remains the present-day beach. As for Tai Wo Ping that's an area to the north of what the locals would associate with the toponym Shek Kip Mei. The same is true for Chung Mei, which is how that area is named according to the people in the neighbourhood (perhaps less so for Staunton Creek; but that's a significant name in the territory's history). The general, lay audience of an encyclopedia would reasonably expect there would be matters unbeknown to them so there's no point to worry that such information could have gone so far to "render the encyclopedia inscrutable". The very existence of encyclopedias was meant to salvage bits and bits of human knowledge from getting drowned and buried. Stay cool, and be open to different ideas and the wisdom of the locals. 116.92.226.241 (talk) 13:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

For Tuen Mun, no, the annotation on the map relates to the beach. But the beach was longer at that time. The other names are obscure – why use them in place of the common neighbourhood name? Why would you change the street address of CityU to an incredibly obscure lot number??? Please stop unless you have a good reason to make these changes. Citobun (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Me? 116.92.226.246 (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

A further Google search has brought me the names of facilities like Butterfly Beach Sports Centre, Butterfly Beach Indoor Recreation Centre. They probably share the same building, and neither of them is close to what remains the present-day beach after land reclamation decades ago subsumed the (north)eastern half of the beach to the east of Pak Kok. 116.92.226.229 (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

For Staunton Creek, see Talk:South Island line (West)#Staunton Creek. Tai Wo Ping certainly isn't "(highly) obscure". At least it isn't to the ears of those who have lived some years beneath the southern side of the Lion Rock (just as names like Ma Tau Chung, Ngau Chi Wan, San Po Kong or So Uk, which have been "abandoned" by the MTRCL or the Mass Transit Railway Corporation).

On a side note, Citobun does not appear to be adequately familiar with some Hong Kong topics, as this question in the edit summary may suggest.[1][2][3] See Talk:City University of Hong Kong#The Hongkong Standard. Having a registered account on Wikipedia may not necessarily mean a person is wiser or that their edits are more correct. 203.145.95.32 (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• I would say neighbourhood has no legal boundaries and it would be lame to argue its boundaries (e.g. is part of Kings Park or Ho Man Tin for some building? Or it is Tai Wai or Sha Tin neighbourhood ? To stop any argument, list the address in WP:RS or Primary source).Just use bigger "neighbourhood " or "geo entity" such as Tai Po [New] Town. While New Kowloon, technically it is right that CityU is part of New Kowloon, but just no one use New Kowloon in day to day life. (Thanks god the ip is not arguing CityU is in Kowloon Tong or Yau Yat Tsuen or else, as the area technically part of Sham Shui Po District but next to Kowloon Tong station, which " Kowloon Tong" was a pond 100 years ago and in somewhere next to boundary street not further north) Matthew hk (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Citobun:. Definitely someone (registered or ip) has argued the boundaries of place name before , such as Ma Tau Wai, Ma Tau Chung that end up posting non-RS source gwulo.com (which basically a community source that cut part of the map into pieces that have no map legend or quotable actual map creator). For Ping Shan, Kowlooon definitively not acceptable as hoax level. For Ma Tau Wai v Ma Tau Chung, i would say it is lame as no book has published the actual boundaries of the neighbourhoods. While New Kowloon, it is technically (legally) correct but no one use it in day to day life. (Even more obscured than the fact that Sai Kung North is part of Tai Po District). Matthew hk (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@203.145.95.32: Don't worry. I has friend that live in Tai Po New Town as first generation New Town resident, and have no idea of the actual history or Tai Po Market vs. Tai Po Old Market. Some people even thought they are the same place. It is very common that Hong Kong people is not familiar with the place name history and boundaries due to high frequency of urban redevelopment and in fact most of the Hong Kong people are postwar immigrants and descentants. So that in wikipedia, better cite WP:RS (just as i said elsewhere , using books by Sino United Publishing is a necessary evil if there is no other WP:RS to use, but you can also assume they are highly political and has agenda behind. ) And Yet again, since in this thread there are people using ip and the vandal is also using ip. Please create an account to distant yourself with ip that do not-constructive edit. Matthew hk (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: Thanks. I agree with your proposed approach, e.g. to use the common neighbourhood name with a link to RS/address if something is contentious. The effect of the IP user pushing all these obscure place names is to render pages more confusing and stir up pointless editing disputes. I do recall the Ma Tau Chung thing although I didn't participate in the discussion. May be the same anonymous person starting these needless disputes for many years. Citobun (talk) 05:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Kowloon Tong/Kowloon Tsai/大坑東 and Causeway Bay / East Point/ Tin Hau are classic examples that neighbourhoods have boundaries that change from time to time so that even WP:RS refer the same places as different neighbourhoods. Historically Kowloon Tong is a pond near 大坑東/ now Police club and i think people/WP:RS generally agree the north bound boundaries are around the KCR/MTR station (the hill side? but the Beacon Hill actually another neighbourhood). But how about east and west bound? Yau Yat Tsuen is part of Kowloon Tong or another neighbourhood? Just way too controversial to try to sort it out in wikipedia with limited RS and the policy of no original research. Matthew hk (talk) 07:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure whether it's even possible to draw WP:RS boundaries for the majority of Neighborhoods in HK without ending up with a shit tone of OS, since place names seem to be determined by the closest MTR station and you'll inevitably end up with a bunch of edge cases that don't make sense. For example, if you use district boundaries you'll end up with Hung Hom station being outside of Hung Hom (based on the Kowloon City District border) which obviously doesn't work. Good luck defining where Mong Kok ends. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 02:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The problem is the ip does not provide any RS and use place name that obsolete for many years. HK place name by itself are nightmare that 何文田 Ho Man Tin is borrowed to refer to 何文田山, Ho Man Tin Estate, etc. that outside the Qing era Ho Man Tin. Dig out RS to point out the common name of that area is a good thing, but using obsolete place name is a bad thing. E.g. , "refers City University is located in an area historically known as Chu Koo Chai", is acceptable, but the area never currently known commonly as Chu Koo Chai. Matthew hk (talk) 09:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Padgriffin: From what I read, the way Citobun and Matthew hk put it would unavoidably be promoting systemic bias towards the view of the much wider audience in the expense of the local people, rather than working towards a right balance. This is something despised on Wikipedia. There are simply too many place names in Hong Kong which are not common enough to people living slightly bit far away, or to those who are younger, often just because these toponyms are not chosen or are simply disregarded by the MTRC and other transport operators, or because of their considerable distance from an MTR station. This includes, e.g., Glenealy (Tit Kong), So Kon Po, Ngo Keng (Bowrington), A Kung Ngam, Braemer Hill, Tai Fat Hau, Tai Hang, Shousan Hill, Sandy Bay (Tai Hau Wan), Ngau Chi Wan, Ma Tau Kok, King's Park, Ferry Point, Lai Wan (Lai Chi Kok Bay), Pat Heung, Yau Yue Wan, Lok Wo Sha, and so on and so forth. These lesser known place names are still actively in use, but they do not commonly appear in the mainstream press for a territory-wide audience (community newspapers and newsletters are another story), and people are accustomed to something like code-switching when they are talking with people from other parts of the territory or those who are much younger. For instance Braemer Hill often appears in TV programmes and property pages in newspapers as "North Point Mid-levels". People may also say Tin Hau for Tai Hang, Choi Hung for Ngau Chi Wan, Wan Chai for Tai Fat Hau, Causeway Bay for So Kon Po or Ngo Keng, or even "Olympics" for Tai Kok Tsui, in conversations depending on who they are talking with. What should be achieved on Wikipedia is to present an encompassing and balanced view to the audience, and to counter systemic bias. After all Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia and not a directory. Information got to be encyclopedic. What may appear to be irrelevant to your own everyday life (or as Citobun put it, "highly obscure") may be important information to people looking into administrative arrangements or statutory issues, or digging into the cultural/historical heritage of specific neighbourhoods. 116.92.226.246 (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@116.92.226.247: wikipedia is based on WP:V, not personal experience. Also, original research is not allowed (unless you are some lecturer and published the article in some peer reviewed journal, then the problem would be COI only when you add the article to wikipedia yourself) Matthew hk (talk) 12:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Did I ever argue against WP:V? It's Citobun (and you, Matthew) who rely on personal experience and disregard RSs. I don't understand how you read but this certainly isn't the first time you got trouble to comprehend what was said. I hate to put this straight and I know this may not be WP:Civil but this is indeed what has kept happening. 116.92.226.233 (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Clearly you guy the unregistered user cult keep on adding content that fails WP:V, and ignoring the request to show real WP:RS. Please learn the fact that wikipedia is positioned as tertiary source, which content are based on citing secondary source, so massive interpretation of map as OR is also not allowed. Matthew hk (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Matthew I'm getting lost of what you are trying to express. Would you clarify and elaborate? It'd definitely help if you seek assistance. 116.92.226.243 (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)