Talk:Hong Kong

 'Topics already discussed:

• The capital of Hong Kong (1) (2) (3)
• Official languages (1) (2)
• Dependency status (1)
• Demonym (1)
• Leading sentence (1) (2) (3)
• Trad./simp. characters (1) (2)

The use of Template:Chinese

I am neutral to the issue, but User:131.169.235.183 and User:Kelw have been reverting each other on the whether or not to use Template:Chinese in this article. Please let's give discussion a try here. What are the reasons to use the template and what are the counter-arguments? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This is basically a continuation of the traditional/simplified/romanisation debate above which had been discussed to death above and went no where. This template is not adding anything that is not already in the Pronunciation of Hong Kong article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary anyways, so it is not a place where we throw in every romanization imaginable. Pronunciation, if needed at all, should be done in IPA as explained in WP:PRON. Even the article itself explains that Hong Kong is the propper name, not Xiānggǎng or Hsiang1-kang3 or hoeng1 gong2 or others. Again, Wikipedia is not a dictionary; it just makes no sense to throw in every imaginable romanization in this article.

Please check out this anon user's history of engaging in edit wars. He is for some reason obsessed with Template:Chinese and is forcing its adoption in hundreds of articles without any discussion. When people reverts his forced insertions he just reverts back and somehow calls it the "standardized template" without explaining. He is clearly just wants to force everything through, and is not interested in discussion. As this is a featured article, I'm maintaining the status quo for now. I'm willing to discuss but I don't think the change should be made until a consensus is reached. — Kelw (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright the article has been protected. Hopefully this will force the IP editor to come and discuss the issue. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message at the IP editor's Talk page.[1] If s/he continues to revert without participating in discussion when the article comes out of protection, I'll also be reverting the edit. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If I may butt in, the HK$ note in my pocket has "Hong Kong" and complex (traditional) characters. There is no Pinyin and no simplified character. I presume to accept that as proof of the appropriate languages to use here. -- DOR (HK) Dec 14, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.176.69.125 (talk) 03:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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) 03:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that's appropriate for most of China. Hong Kong has its own standards that are very different from the Mainland; no need to run roughshod over it. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

New and IP editors adding things

Once again, we've got new editors and IP editors adding pictures and adding content without sources. Some of the stuff they add may be true, but they still need footnotes. Also, the article has been plagued with way too many pictures before. Please watch the article for these additions. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't seem to find any "edit" buttons these days . . . Updated stats, due to change in the way of calculating real economic growth (source: http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/showtableexcel2.jsp?tableID=032)

“The economy suffered a 6.0% (not 5.3 percent) decline during 1998, in the aftermath of the Asian financial crisis. A period of recovery followed, with growth rate reaching 8% (not 10 percent) in 2000, although deflation persisted.” DOR (HK) Dec 14, 2007

Too Long Article

WIkipedia seems to think that this article is too long (I agree). Why don't we split off the economy section, which seems to be the longest one that seems like it would split off right? We could leave in a little bit of it and then link to the rest of it, or we could just put a link to it. Seems like a good solution to me, the Economy in Hong Kong is a pretty big topic.Esk3 (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Right to work and live

Hi! For applying for at least some jobs in Hong Kong you have to get the right to work and live there. How can you get this? What are the requirements? Dagadt (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Check Right of abode issue, Hong Kong. The basic rule is that citizens of most countries can gain permanent residency (meaning you don't need a visa to stay there anymore) after a person has lived there for a continuous seven years. This usually means maintaining a work visa there for seven continuous years. There's a few exceptions to the rule, off the top of my head, I know that migrant workers from the mainland and foreign domestic workers cannot apply for permanent residency even after seven years. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No matter for how long you are living or staying in Hong Kong, you can't apply for or gain permanent residency unless you qualify in certain requirements from the HK Immigration Department. Work visa in itself doesn't mean that its duration will be counted as 7 years in consecutive period. Only in an exceptional case permanent residency may be given by the HK Immigration Department after 7 years of holding a temporary visa like a work visa. However, for those who wish to come to Hong Kong under the Quality Migrant Admission Scheme can legally stay in Hong Kong and later get the the status of permanent residency after 7 years. Unlike Australia, Canada and the US, immigration is NOT encouraged. Coloane (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The previous paragraph is incorrect. Permanent residency has been easily available since July 1997 (I know; my own application was approved in August 1997). Permanent residency allows one to vote and stand for office (in some cases, after 10 years residency), and prevents the person from being deported. The various migrant schemes are unrelated to the broader category of permanent residency.210.176.69.125 (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)DOR (HK) Jan 4, 2008.

The seven year rule does not apply if you gained residency at birth through parents from Hong Kong. The Right to Land is held for life.--Jiang (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You two helped me very much! Thank you, now I know, what I wanted. By the way happy X-mas and nice new year! Dagadt (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Right. And I believe you only need one parent to have permanent residency, though I'm not 100% sure on that and there may be exceptions because of the mainland mother issue. But anyway, the Hong Kong Immigration Department website is pretty informative. Here's a webpage about who is eligible for Right of Abode. This other page is also important information pertaining to the terminology that the immigration department uses, as it excludes certain people from the seven year rule (like Filipina maids). Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Coloane - immigration to HK is not encouraged basically for lower-income working class people. For foreigners making at least a middle-class income who have settled in HK, as far as I know, it's actually not that difficult to gain permanent residency after 7 years. In certain industries, the HK government basically wants more foreign talents because (in my opinion) they think that having westerners gives HK an international image. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There is actually nothing to do with international image by letting more Westerners/White living in Hong Kong according to what you said. Lang Lang along with Li Yundi is a good example. He got the HKID card from IMMD under QMAS in Hong Kong and, he is Chinese. What you are talking about above mentioned is mainly British that they have been living in Hong Kong since 1997 or even before. Without too much changes in regulations of immigration according to the Basic Laws of Hong Kong, they can stay in Hong Kong continously in order to reflect the special relationship between Hong Kong and the United Kingdom. However for foreigners from outside, their applications in IMMD will be considered in accordance with the same immigration policy applicable to other foreign nationals then prevailing.[2] I personally don't think that foreign people from a middle-class can settle in Hong Kong easily. In Sept 2003, IMMD introduced the Capital Investment Entrant Scheme. Criteria is pretty tough. Only 19 was approved from 150 applications by the end of 31 Dec 2003. The requirement of investing HK$6.5 million in permissible investment asset classes is required.[3] Again, HK Govt. welcomes tourists from western countries; on the other hands, closed-door policy is still adopted for immigration. Coloane (talk) 06:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The Capital Investment Entrant Scheme doesn't directly have anything to do with permanent residency. It's basically a type of visa that lasts for two years. If you manage to maintain that visa for seven continuous years, then you can apply for permanent residency. Third quarter statistics in 2007 show that about half of all applications have received formal approval so far (1,516 out of 3,107) [4]. To be honest, HK$6.5 million might be a lot of money to a younger professional, but for an older and experienced professional, it's very much an attainable number if you are committed to making an investment, especially for foreigners that are coming from countries with higher per-capita GDP. But anyway, the Capital Investment Entrant only applies to investors. For people who have had work visas, you basically just need to show that you are able to support you and your dependents without any welfare assistance from the government. Well, this is really not the place to have an argument about this, so I'll just say that I disagree with you and leave it at that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand actually what argument you are talking about. Without the gate of QMAS or CIES, how can one obtain permanent residency after 7 years in HK? for those who need to get the status of permanent residency are mainly from the category of family reunion besides of CIES. For those who have work visas and would like to apply for permanent residency in Hong Kong will need to satisfy certain requirements in IMMD as I above mentioned. Not many foreigners from outside can get this status, even this is what you mentioned. Coloane (talk) 08:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that it's not difficult for a foreigner, especially a professional from a western country, to maintain a work visa for 7 continuous years in Hong Kong, and then apply for and receive permanent residency. The basic requirement to obtain permanent residency after living in HK for 7 years is that you be able to support yourself and your family. It's outlined here - Chinese, English Again, this is just for working professionals, middle class people. Immigration to HK is definitely not encouraged for lower-class working people, and basically not allowed for migrant workers from the mainland or Filipina maids. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. You are not completely wrong. The basic requirement is "basic" or "minimum". To satisfy the basic requirement provides no guarantee that the applicant will be eventually accepted and permanent residency will be given. Top priority for immigration to Hong Kong is basically for family reunion from Mainland China. As for foreign people who are holding work visas should provide a very special reason for applying for PR that why he or she would like to stay in Hong Kong. He or she or his/her employers in HK should show certain evidence and satisfy officers from IMMD that why his or her job/post cannot be substituted by Hong Kong citizens, why permanent residency should be granted for that applicant, etc. Is it good for Hong Kong economy and job market? did he or she run/operate actually from his/her profession/business successfully? these are all basic factors that IMMD would like to consider and evaluate before permanent residency being granted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coloane (talk • contribs) 09:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all: Thank you very much for anwering me! I have a few more questions: If they say: Hong Kong resident is required, do they mean permanent or 7 year status resident? And if a Hong Kong based company employs you, will you get the permanent right to live and work? By the way I´m European. Dagadt (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless you have permanent residency, that means that the Hong Kong company has to sponsor you for a work visa. For citizens of most European countries, it should be no problem for the visa application to get approval. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Now I know everything I need from you two! Thank you very much! By the way: Happy X-mas and nice new year! Dagadt (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

excuse me, I think that you misunderstood. I am here to reflect my opinion based on the view made by Hong Qi Gong, not you. And also I am not interested in answering your question indeed. Coloane (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, this conversation has nothing to do with improving the article. Geoexpat.com has great forums for discussing immigration issues. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The one-parent rule is correct. I know of a child with residency rights who has a local father and a non-resident mother who are unmarried (to each other). Because the father acknowledges the child as his own, the child has residency rights. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Source for this passage? (Tiananmen Square)

On 2005-09-24, 25 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.[26] The invitation was generally regarded as one of the greatest goodwill gestures from the PRC to the Hong Kong democrats since the June-Fourth incident.

There's a footnote to support that they were invited to the mainland by the central leadership. But we need a source to say that the invitation was "generally regarded as one of the greatest goodwill gestures". Who regards it as such? If a source doesn't materialise in a few days to a week, I'll be removing that entire passage. If we can't support that this was a "sign of good will", then that entire paragraph is pretty trivial for this article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Was unable to find any sources that regarded this as a goodwill gesture. Most sources viewed it as a strategic move to liaise with the democrats without any political consequence. However, I still think this paragraph is worthy of inclusion in this article. I made edits:

On 24 September 2005, 25 Hong Kong pro-democracy LegCo members, some of whom were previously labelled as traitors by Beijing after the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 and barred from entering the mainland, crossed the border into the southern province of Guangdong, following an unprecedented invitation by the PRC[25]. The invitation was regarded as a conciliation move[26] by the central government, and is purportedly induced by Tsang[27]. However, the trip was unsuccessful in starting a political dialogue since no "real talking"[28] was done. Hong Kong's pro-government lawmakers even proclaimed that the meeting with Guangzhou party chief Zhang Dejiang was a "courtesy meeting"[29] and that raising political issues was inappropriate.

Please check for style and agreement. Bgnuf (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

FAR(Feature Article Review)

I personally don't want to take this article to FAR. This article was promoted to FA three years ago. And right now, I found there are many problems that it should be fixed ASAP.

• Please refer to WP:SIZE. This article is 91 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles.
• Please refer to WP:LEAD. I don't think the lead is comprehensive indeed to cover the whole content. The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. Plus, the lead should have some sources in order to verify. Please refer to: WP:V and WP:CITE. The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads.
• There are many paragraphs I can see without citations/sources. The whole section of Military or Architecture or Religion contains no source at all. An FA article should be fully referenced. Please refer to: WP:REF or WP:SOURCE.
• External links should be well chosen. Please refer to: WP:EL
• Footnotes, including references (further reading) are not putting in a correct format. (e.g. 52-4) Please refer to: WP:MOS or WP:STYLE.
• It is strongly recommended placing couple tables to illustrate the point(s) clearly. (e.g. economic growth or composition of workforce in the section of economy, languages used/ethnic composition in the section of demography, % of different religion practise in the section of religion, etc). Coloane (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree major cleanup and addition of citation is needed, particularly in the sections mentioned. However, I don't believe the last point regarding tables is a needed per style guide or FA guidelines. It is not a prevalent feature among country featured articles, although detailed tables should be placed in the respective subarticles. — Kelw (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've deleted most of the links in the External links section. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Phew! I've fixed all the footnotes that needed to be fixed. All but a few of them placed at the top of the article are citing sources of information, and they should all be using various versions of the cite template now. Many of them have also been updated to an accessdate of today, because I accessed those webpages just now. But anyway, yes, large portions of the article remains unreferenced. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

International Ranking

I personally recommend that the section of international rankings be removed. It is much better to create a new article specifically for the International Rankings of Hong Kong in order to reduce the article size in general. Coloane (talk) 09:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Religion: Mormonism

The final paragraph of the religion section currently reads: "Hong Kong is the only place in the PRC where missionaries from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormon Church) can serve. The Church has a temple in Hong Kong which was dedicated by President Gordon B. Hinckley in 1996."

I see 3 problems with this portion:

1) It is factually incorrect, as Mormons missionaries also serve in Macau, which, like Hong Kong, is a special administrative region of the PRC.

2) Referring to Hong Kong as a "place in the PRC" is inconsistent with the style used throughout this article.

3) Given the relatively small presence of Mormons in HK, I don't think it merits such prominent mention in this article. The Mormon community in Hong Kongconsists of 22,556 members, http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/contact-us/china-8212-hong-kong, with between 5,000 and 6,000 adherents estimated to be 'active' in the faith http://www.cumorah.com/cgi-bin/db.cgi?view_records=View%2BRecords&Country=Hong+Kong.

Given the above points, in the interest of brevity, accurancy and relevance, the above portion should be deleted, and Mormonism receive the same treatment as other minor religious groups, with the number of adherents being reported but no special commentary provided.Spinner145 (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind deletion of the entire thing, but maybe we should try deleting only the inaccuracy and adding sources for the real facts? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, in that case I think a sensible edit would be just to modify the second sentence of the second paragraph of the Religion section to read (changed portion in italics): "Apart from the major religions, there are also a significant number of followers of other religions, including an estimated 90,000 Muslims; 22,000 Mormons, 4,000 Jews; 4,600 Jehovah's Witnesses and a number of Hindus, Sikhs and Bahá'ís[51]" and to include the link I gave as a reference, and then delete the paragraph I originally noted. Given the treatment accorded other similarly sized religions in HK, this treatment seems appopriate and proportional to me.Spinner145 (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

LegCo members trip to mainland in 2005

I took out the last two statements in that paragraph - [5] - firstly because I didn't see in the source provided anybody actually calling the trip "unsuccessful", and secondly because we can probably make a small article about the trip itself, but the trip remains not even one of the most significant political events in Hong Kong history, so it's best to summarise here on the main Hong Kong article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Simplified Chinese characters

User:Sky Divine, please stop adding simplified character without consensus. Your argument that we should add simplified characters simply because HK is part of PRC is totally illogical. The fact that HK uses only traditional suggests that we should only use traditional in the article. Chris! _ct 21:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Chris!, please stop deleting simplified character without consensus. Even Taiwan pages have them and PRC pages have the traditional. I don't see anything illogical in Chris's addition, only see your hatred to simplified illogical. Let's put the simplified back but below the traditional. --Atitarev (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(1) Taiwan only has the simplified in the first paragraph, not the infobox. (2) No. let's not. (as I've stated on the PRC talk page) nat.utoronto 01:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox or the first paragraph are equal to me. They are equally visible. I replied on PRC talk page. --Atitarev (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The infobox and the first paragraph may be equally visible, but there are separate conventions that we follow. The first paragraph includes all the scripts, the infobox only includes the scripts that are in official use. nat.utoronto 03:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious to me that User:Sky Divine is adding Simplified characters in this article because of a disagreement he's having at Talk:People's Republic of China[6] (where ironically he argues that Traditional characters should not be added to the PRC article, yet he wants to add Simplified characters in this article). I've already brought this up at the other Talk page, and I'll bring it up again - Sky Divine, if you have a disagreement at the PRC article, then keep it over there and don't drag it over here. And if you want to add Simplified characters in this article, please bring it up in the Talk page first. This article has a long established standard of not using Simplified characters. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

Some pretty dramatic revisions were made in recent days to this article, and many of them seem to bold for a long and stable featured article like this. I therefore decided to restore some things to the way they were before some changes that I feel are not necessary. Since I can't find any note left here about those changes, I've made a new section. — Kelw (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at your edits and redid two of them:

• I reverted the changes to the infobox, the new map combines the information found in the previous two and leaves a space for an image. Plus your revert to the previous infobox actually reinserted false information (gini). The problems with the two maps and the request for an image that were discussed in the talk page I felt were solved by this change. Additionally, SVG-format maps are generally favoured.
• I replaced the topics template in See also, as is found in other geography featured articles. It tends to get lost at the bottom of the page among the many other templates.

Just a quick note to point out that if you look at the talk page you'll see that this article attained featured article status in 2005, 3 years ago, and you'll probably notice that the article has changed significantly since then. I do not think this article currently deserves its FA status, it's far too long for a summary article, very disorganised and lacks enough citations. I know you feel some of the changes were too bold, even though it is encouraged under WP:BOLD, however I'm hoping to improve it a lot before someone notices and slaps an FA review on it, and improving this article will definitely require bold edits. --Joowwww (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've kept your revert of the of the topics template in See Also. However, there are a few problems I found with the infobox change:

• The nowrap templates stretch the infobox beyond the standard width. There's no need to avoid text wrapping unless we are dealing with units, such as "10 kg (22 lb)".
• There should not be a skyline picture. The image parameter is meant for map(s).
• I think your new map is good, but there are a few things that can be improved:
  • Can you make the map's width-height ratio larger, so that it resembles Image:Hong Kong Location.png and Image:LocationHongKong.png? This would help the map fit better into the shape of the infobox.
  • Can you adjust the colour scheme of the map to use more neutral colour tones, similar to Image:LocationHongKong.png?
  • We need to be careful with the borders of People's Republic of China to make sure it meets NPOV. Please have a look at Image:Hong Kong Location.png and note the disputed territories of China marked in pink. I am not an expert in these borders so I don't know if your borders are accurate, but you can ask other editors for help if needed.

Lastly, I do agree with you that some overhaul is needed for this article and it is quite disorganized. But to prevent an FA review we should concentrate on improving the writing of the article and finding citations for claims. Although changing pictures is sometimes good, it's not going to help with an FA review. And yes we need to be bold, but stability is also important in a featured article, so let's try to do this in steps. — Kelw (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The nowrap templates are there to keep certain sentences on one line, improving readability. Furthermore, according to my browser, both versions have exactly the same width, at 282 pixels. Although the image parameter is for maps, there is no regulation stating a map must be put there, and as Hong Kong is called a city more than it is called a country, it is a suitable location for an image of the city as in every other city article. Considering Hong Kong is not a country, it should technically not be using the country infobox at all, but as it suits the status of statistics better, I have let it stay instead of replacing it with the city infobox. Yes, before you state it, I am aware Hong Kong is technically not a city. The map uses the standard colours as stated in the talk section of WP:MAPS. I am intending to add rivers to it but both that and attempting to make it smaller will have to wait until I find an accurate representation of surrounding waterways. I actually thought about the borders of the PRC when making the map. While I understand the borders are a contentious issue, I felt that this map is a map of the location of Hong Kong, not a map of the location of China's disputed territories, and it would be bordering on being pedantic to add them. Notice the colour of Taiwan is lighter and greyer than mainland China. --Joowwww (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The colours are a small issue that I can compromise on, so it's okay. It's just that I am used to seeing some neutral colours on many other counrty infoboxes. I do hope that you can adjust the map ratio though. Personally I think it's better to have no skyline picture because it reduces image clutter, since we will be saving some space when the two maps are replaced with your improved map.

And it's good to see that you did consider the PRC borders issue. Like I said I'm not an expert on those borders so if your map is already accurate then it's fine. I know those borders seem less relevent for a map of Hong Kong, but please understand that there was a heated dispute about Image:LocationHongKong.png before its current form is settled, so it is a big issue for some people. — Kelw (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I did read all the talk page archives before I started editing the article. Perhaps a smaller image of the city can be put on top of the smaller map, taking up the same amount of space as is used now. I don't really think the infobox is too large for it, plus it keeps it consistent with other cities, where people would expect to find an image in the top right of the article. --Joowwww (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made the map smaller and used a small skyline image, as a result the whole infobox is actually smaller than before. That's not my preferred skyline image, it's wonky and a daytime shot would probably be better, but it's just an example to show that it doesn't necessarily get cluttered. --Joowwww (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

<<< Good job with the map. The only thing I changed is switching the order of the map and picture, so that the first map parameter is filled by a real map and the extra map parameter is filled by the picture. I also specified the width for the second parameter so the image sizes are uniform. Personally though, I still prefer having no skyline picture for a Country or Territory infobox. — Kelw (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead image

That's a great picture Diliff, the previous one was just until we found a better one. You seem to have a knack for great high quality pictures, do you have one of the same view from the Peak but in the daytime? --Joowwww (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think the old one was better. Skylines are generally ground-level photographs, rendering a city's profile in 2D, more or less. Photographs like this new one, taken from such a great height ... the elevation makes the buildings look almost abstract, and not as distinctive as the first photograph. That could be any city. I think the first one should return. Ford MF (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ford, I disagree. I think the 3-D quality and depth give a very good feel of what Hong Kong is like. I won't even get into the artistic merit of the photo, which beats the previous one hands down. Also, the first one is a "standard" postcard view- seen almost anywhere. Dionix (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, obviously I'm a little biased, but as a pretty regular city skyline-photographer and contributor, I don't think there is any rule, unwritten or otherwise, that says what a skyline photo is supposed to look like. As long as it illustrates the buildings, layout and topography of the city well, then it is suitable IMO. I do have a panoramic view of the skyline from Tsim Sha Tsui which I think is also better than the previous lead image. I'll upload it soon, if you'd like, but I do think that the current image is the ideal view of the city. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have a goood photo in the daytime. When I was in Hong Kong, it was very hazy during the day (and you can see the haze in the night shot too, although it looks much prettier with all the city lights). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with this image here from the Peak, but the caption should be modified to reflect that it is no longer a skyline. A skyline is suppose to be a silhouette of a city. It should say something like: "View of Hong Kong from Victoria Peak." Quality wise, it is a great picture, though a picture on a clear-day would be more preferable. This reflects reality though as it is hazy in HK on most days. --Kvasir (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the old image was much better that the new one. The new one has way too much HDR effect and is distractingly unrealistic. Can we switch it back? Kaldari (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is going to turn into a vote (please no more!!), count me in support of the new one. With the modified caption, it is perfect and, best of all, not typical. Dionix (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

For a daytime skyline, why not just use a cropped version of Image:Pauliyas Hongkong.jpg? Edit: I just want to say that this is another reason I feel there should not be any skyline photo at all. It's mostly eye-candy and is bound to be a contentious issue for a long time. — Kelw (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A view from the peak like this picture is preferable because it shows HK and Kowloon at the same time. A skyline photo only shows one side of the harbour. Ideally, a clearer picture would show portion of New Territories in the background. --Kvasir (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

First Opium War

During the beginning of your article (whoever you are,) I saw that you just have to mention the first Opium war and it has nothing to do with Hong Kong. You should probably includee the war inside the articles Great Britain or China. You can mention the second Opium war, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevennelly11 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Cityscape

I've just implemented a major change to 3 sections of the article and thought I should share my reasoning. It's condensed the article visually but actually increased its disk size by 2 kb due to the amount of references I added.

• I know HK is a territory and isn't officially a city but I think you'll all agree that it is often described as such, and the term "cityscape" seems most fitting for the purpose of organisation.
• It also looks like someone had spent some time removing all sub-sections from the article and having only one tier of sections, while I understand that some featured articles do that, I felt that the scope of this one needs sub-sections to properly organise it and make it easier to find things for a reader of the article. Therefore I combined the sections Administrative districts, Architecture and Transport into this one. I also feel legislative and military could be made sub-sections of government, and culture could be expanded with sub-sections.
• The section starts with a paragraph on how the city formed, not so much its history but its urban growth and the reasons for why it has grown like it has (ceded in parts). Also states about HK's capital or lack thereof.
• Architecture is condensed, it's divided into statistics, landmarks and future development.
• Transport is condensed, with more general stats and less unsummary-like content.
• About images: I've replaced the HK terrain image in Geography as there's now a pic from the peak in Cityscape. Plus if you look from geography to transport the images go satellite > large area > city > blocks > street > then out onto the water > then zoom back to skyline. It wasn't intentional but I thought it gives a nice sense of flow.

Hopefully this change is to everyone's taste and other sections can be moved onto, making the article really deserve its FA status. Cheers,--Joowwww (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree with the huge change at all. First of all I do not agree that the article should treat HK as a city; it should follow the structure of a country/territory article because that's what HK is. The new subsections also complicate the article structure and I don't think we need to group anything together under subsections. Transport, architecture and administrative districts are fundamentally very different comcepts and do not belong together at all. Miltary and leagal system are also very different.

The Cityscape section is problematic as it merges three very different ideas. The first paragraph contains info already found in History section, the second paragraph belongs under Administrative districts instead. It is much more confusing than before.

I am happy with the sections structure we have before, and I don't feel changes are needed. To preserve FA status we should concentrate on rewriting in summary style within certain sections and finding citations. Citations are the key to FA's. I think the sections that need the most work (as in rewriting, not merging sections) are the Government section and the culture section. In short, I support rewriting and copyediting sections, but I strongly disagree with merging or grouping sections. Hope you understand. — Kelw (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I want to say that I like the way you rewrote some of the sections; I just don't like merging any of them together. I am going to add back some of the rewriting you did to the sections but will keep them separate. And by the way, is it possible for you to discuss big changes here before adding them? That way we'd have a consensus and need not revert so much. — Kelw (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You may have a point, but I would just like to point out that Hong Kong is not a country, and is not to be treated as such. While the term "city" sometimes has definition, most commonly it is used in a general sense to mean an urban area with a large population. Hong Kong can easily be described as a city, and it would be delusional to think that it already isn't. I would also like to issue a friendly suggestion for you to read Wikipedia:Be bold and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles - I may certainly be wrong but I feel you are far too assertive in editing/reverting the article depending on your personal opinion of what you think it should look like (I feel, I think, I am happy, I will compromise, I don't like, I don't agree) instead of attempting to gain a broader consensus. No other editor of the article can now see the changes to the section layout because of your aggressive revert based on your single opinion, and are thus unable to give their own opinions. --Joowwww (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I try to find a consensus among editors whenever possible. For example, while I personally do not favor having a skyline image, it is supported by many editors here during the discussion so it is fine. And notice that I kept much of your changes except the merging of sections. With all due respect, it seems at times you are the one who is being too assertive, imposing changes based only on your own opinion before any discussion and before any consensus is reached. Unfortunately, it seemed you hadn't bothered to discuss first at all, let alone wait for a consensus. This is a mature featured article and the text is the result of long and difficult debates among many editors. Therefore, changes should be made incrementally, not recklessly without consultation based on one's opinion. In Wikipedia:Be bold you will find the following: "Substantial changes or deletions to the articles on complex, controversial subjects ... or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view." — Kelw (talk) 04:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have improved quite a few articles in this way and have not received a single complaint until now, and one included a jump from Start-class to GA-class in one edit. This article may be rated as FA-class but it is certainly not FA-standard, and any improvements, including the one I made (and took "extra care" in finding citations, formatting well, perfecting grammar and sticking to NPOV), should be encouraged not stifled. The guideline may say that care should be given (I had already read it) but nowhere does it say that bold edits should not be made. In fact, at the top of WP:Bold you will find "If you see something that can be improved, do not hesitate to do it yourself." Furthermore, I read every archive talk page of this article before I made any edits and have been careful to conform to established consensus. Nowhere in the archives has there been a discussion about sub-section layout. Nowhere in featured article criteria does it define article-wide sub-section layout. You are the only person who has registered a complaint with my edit to this article, out of many regular contributors, and I reiterate that with your aggressive revert based on your personal dislike of its appearance, no other editors of this article can give their opinion, be it good or bad. Perhaps a featured article review is in fact needed so that good-faith, positive, needed improvements can be made to the article without being accused of being "reckless". --Joowwww (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Politics and government section

I feel this is a section that needs to be rewritten to a more summarizing form. The text right now goes back and forth and has a lot of unneeded info that shold be in subarticles. I think the section should summarize the following:

• The Basic Law
• Election and duties of the Chief Executive, move specific mentions of Donald Tsang's history into the biography article.
• Election and duties of the Legislature
• Summary of the political reform debate

I plan to make a change within the next few days. Any thoughts? — Kelw (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think all 3 current sections Politics, Legal system and Military can all be merged into one section. If the 62kb Australia featured article can do it (don't need a whole Foreign Relations section for Hong Kong), I don't see why this one can't. --Joowwww (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Australia article hardly mentions the legal system at all, so basically it merged only the politics and government sections, as is the case here. The legal system section is short and well summarized, so I think it can be kept. The politics and government sections is quite overloaded right now, so can I trim it down first before deciding whether to merge? Most of HK's foreign ties are economic, so a lot of that info is already in the Economy section. — Kelw (talk) 01:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sections

To try and make it easier for casual readers to find the information they want and keep to WP:Summary I'm proposing a change of the section layout. This will also help to better organise the article both during and after the Featured Article Review. It's based on a compromise between general guides at the Country and Cities WikiProjects and other featured articles. Some of the current sections may seem too big to merge together but a featured article about a major topic like Australia can summarise things well and at only 62kb is far more readable than the HK article.

• History
• Geography and climate
• Government and judiciary [or] Politics and law - merges the current Politics and government, Legal system and judiciary and Military sections
• Administrative divisions
• Economy - merges the current Economy and Healthcare sections
• Demographics - merges the current Demographics and Religion sections
• Transport
• Architecture
• Culture - needs expanding with media and sport

What do you all think about this. --Joowwww (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with merging the Demographics and Religion sections which contain related topics; the content itself should not need rewriting since the sections are already summarized. Economy and Healthcare should be kept separate as there is very little relationship between the two topics. — Kelw (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)