Talk:Hong Kong

Template:Vital article

Tamar is Hong Kong's capital

The legislative Council is located there and it is the center of Hong kong Kadske (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually it is wrong. There is no such capital for the "city state". The CBD is located in Central (中環) and the government headquarter used to be located in the hilly area of Central . Despite the new government headquarter is located in Tamar , in local Cantonese media, the area (Tamar, Central, Admiralty, etc.) is known collectively as "中區" (not sure English media refer as Central or other term or not). Thus the de facto centre should stated as "Central" or that new defined centre/central ( "中區") according to Cantonese source. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Matthewhk here, there is no de jure capital and listing the district where the building is as the de facto capital doesn’t make much sense. I don’t think any reliable sources do that either. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It is not even a formal district . Tamar is a fork defined sub-division of Central and Western District. Matthew hk (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Yep, sorry I meant it doesn’t make sense in general. Whether it’s Tamar, Central, Hong Kong, Central and Western District, or any subdivision of Hong Kong. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Status quo lead reverts

@CaradhrasAiguo: Is there a reason to this and this revert besides that it's stable? Being the status quo is not a reason to repeatedly revert.

It's reasonable to mention and link the nation of which Hong Kong is a special administration in the lead; it's obviously relevant information to say what it is a a special administration of. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Because it is an obvious, verbose redundancy to stating it is on the eastern side of the Pearl River estuary in southern China. And I would be careful about being linked to someone with

a history of socking and disruption. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Then we can remove southern China, which is a geographic statement. It seems more relevant to link to the political entity of which Hong Kong is a special administration than the geographic part of that, i.e. the link to China is more pertinent than the link to Southern China. Alternatively, we could use is a special administration in southern China if some of the geographic information should be preserved.

Are you seriously publicly accusing me of sock puppetry because I added the word & wikilink China to the lead of the article on Hong Kong and an unconfirmed IP sock of another editor once added China to the lead of the article on Macau? Really? — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

No, that Hong Kong is a SAR (where China is linked to!) and part of southern China / Lingnan is many orders of magnitude more important than linking to an irrelevant, evermore bloated overview article. And there never was nor will there ever be a reason to have [geographical direction] China as a legitimate link when [[direction China]] is an article.

If I thought you were a sock of Whaterss, I would have added to Whaterss' sockpuppet investigations report page. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

It'll be easier to break up my response to your reasons for omitting China from the lead:

• It doesn't matter if China is linked in Special administrative region of China. If article X should have a wikilink to article Y, it's not sufficient for X to link to Z which links to Y; a reader shouldn't have to chase through special administrative region or Southern China to reach China per MOS:LINKSTYLE.
• I also disagree with the statement that China is irrelevant... that's literally the nation that Hong Kong is a special administration of.
• The article on China is also only an overview article insofar as it's an overview on the country of China; there's nothing wrong with linking to a country article.
• It's also irrelevant whether the article China is bloated. That's not a consideration for wikilinking something. Otherwise what's even less useful is the linked South China consisting of just two short lists and no prose describing anything (why this is piped from the text southern China which has a separate article on the slightly different southern China is a different issue).

I agree that special administrative region of China on the eastern side of the Pearl River estuary in southern China is redundant. What about:

... special administrative region of China in the eastern Pearl River Delta by the South China Sea.

Note that this provides both the additional geographic information that it's on the coast of the South China Sea (I would say surrounded by if not for the Kowloon land connection) and the Pearl River Delta information (which should link to the descriptive geographic article on the Pearl River Delta rather than the current amalgamation of the actual river and general estuaries anyways), while linking to the more basic main articles that help tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is per MOS:FIRST.

Re your sock comment: What is the point of you saying that? It sufficiently convinces you to warn me about making such an edit but not sufficiently enough to take it to SPI? You should be careful about making such comments to anyone outside of SPI. Any concerns about socks should only be expressed at SPI; a soft accusation or speculative connection is inappropriate, can be considered casting aspersions, and is never taken lightly. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo: anything regarding the proposed modification? — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Colonial flag

@Feinoa, Interinter321, Knight of Gloucestershire, and HaeB: Please discuss the inclusion/removal of the colonial flag image here, rather than through edit summaries in a series of reverts. Thanks. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems that the former flag has been included in this article for many years, so Feinoa should make a better effort to justify its removal - especially after being reverted by three different editors. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm seconding what HaeB said. Regards, Knight of Gloucestershire (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Feinoa has since been blocked for sockpuppetry, so this is now somewhat moot. — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Suggested Edit Request

Shouldn't this article mention the end of Hong Kongs self-control, and how China will take control of the state in 2047. Mentioning this is vitally important to give readers an understansing that in the future China will gain control of this state. Stating this also gives another level of depth to the article as you can make this a sub section and expand upon it in the future. Stating this will help grow the article into the best possible state it can achieve. Thanks Much. InferableSpy (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC) https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/2091219/new-hong-kong-think-tank-focuses-way-forward-beijing-after

What makes you think China will "take control of the state in 2047"? There's nothing in the Basic Law that requires any changes whatsoever. If you actually read the Basic Law, it is structured much like the US Bill of Rights: a list of things that are NOT allowed. No socialism, no high taxation, no elimination of the Hong Kong dollar, etc. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@InferableSpy: There is already mention of the expiration of the Joint Declaration 50-year guarantee in the article (under the subsection "Political reforms and sociopolitical issues"):

The Joint Declaration guarantees the Basic Law for 50 years after the transfer of sovereignty. It does not specify how Hong Kong will be governed after 2047, and the central government's role in determining the territory's future system of government is the subject of political debate and speculation. Hong Kong's political and judicial systems may be reintegrated with China's at that time, or the territory may continue to be administered separately.

This could be mentioned in the lead. There aren't any other details to mention though, and Wikipedia cannot predict the future. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I may have missed it while reading the article, my bad. Thanks for clearing things up! InferableSpy (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

So, what we have is speculation about something that may -- or may not -- take place sometime at least 27 years from now. I'd suggest that's not something for an encyclopedia. DOR (HK) (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Beijing Skyline.webp

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2020

This sentence in the lead — ″In an annual ranking of the Index of Economic Freedom, Hong Kong has come out on top 25 years in a row, according to the Heritage Foundation, a U.S. conservative libertarian think tank.″ is outdated, as Hong Kong is no longer at the top and has since been replaced by Singapore. It should be changed to either being 2nd after Singapore or removed entirely to reflect the present situation. Facteker (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

References

@Facteker:  Partly done: I changed the text to "As of the 2019 annual ranking...", which matches the reference. You may want to provide the reliable source for the 2020 ranking, and the specific wording you would like to be used. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

really 1000 cases on 7.5mio?

this is astonishing as it was a British colony and UK got it. Wikistallion (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Hong_Kong Wikistallion (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)