:::* I also think more of the background section could be cut and put into the subarticle. '''— [[User:RealFakeKim|<span style="background:darkred; color:white; padding:2px;">RealFakeKim</span>]][[User talk:RealFakeKim|<span style="background:navy; color:white; padding:2px;">T</span>]]''' 14:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
:::* I also think more of the background section could be cut and put into the subarticle. '''— [[User:RealFakeKim|<span style="background:darkred; color:white; padding:2px;">RealFakeKim</span>]][[User talk:RealFakeKim|<span style="background:navy; color:white; padding:2px;">T</span>]]''' 14:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
::* I agree with {{u|OceanHok}} that the article has been getting a bit too long, especially as there must be some spare room for information on future developments without having to restructure over and over again. I am still not sure how to restructure it. One particular question which may serve, at least in my view, to exemplify the problems is this: How to deal with the duplicate occurrence of the "yellow object" incident in the article? In quite a few instances, the description can be made more compact *and* clearer by combining sentences (without making them too long of course) and putting the relevant references at the appropriate junction of the sentence, instead of at the end. This has of course already been done in many parts of the article, but not in all. This work may also require checking of the references, which could perhaps be the starting point. This will likely lead to the deletion of some references. It will bring the article closer to achieving GA/FA status no matter how we decide on the structure, and hence be a worthwhile investment, I believe. --[[User:CRau080|CRau080]] ([[User talk:CRau080|talk]]) 22:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
::* I agree with {{u|OceanHok}} that the article has been getting a bit too long, especially as there must be some spare room for information on future developments without having to restructure over and over again. I am still not sure how to restructure it. One particular question which may serve, at least in my view, to exemplify the problems is this: How to deal with the duplicate occurrence of the "yellow object" incident in the article? In quite a few instances, the description can be made more compact *and* clearer by combining sentences (without making them too long of course) and putting the relevant references at the appropriate junction of the sentence, instead of at the end. This has of course already been done in many parts of the article, but not in all. This work may also require checking of the references, which could perhaps be the starting point. This will likely lead to the deletion of some references. It will bring the article closer to achieving GA/FA status no matter how we decide on the structure, and hence be a worthwhile investment, I believe. --[[User:CRau080|CRau080]] ([[User talk:CRau080|talk]]) 22:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
== Hong Kong protest edits ==
Hey, I have noticed my edits regarding the HK protests are reverted. Editors strive to maintain neutrality, but there is limited coverage of the other side and lesser-known side of the protests. The article in of itself is neutral, but the information provided is totally one-sided to the side of the protestors. Therefore, I proposed adding a section - "criticism of protestors," to which you deleted. If there is criticism of police responses, there should also be a criticism of the protestors section to balance things out and maintain a neutral even-handed tone. The criticism of violent methods, the counter-protests, and the people's negative views of the protests should also be presented to an audience who may not know about these protests. There are always positive and negative evaluations in any controversial article or Wikipedia pages of controversial figures, and I believe it is only right to do that. As a new user, I understand my citations and content may be a bit off, but I believe with the help of VIPs and other more senior and experienced editors like some of you here, we can add a section like this and highlight the concerns and criticism of the protests that are essential for one's complete understanding of the situation.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is written in Hong Kong English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
Cheng Ching-Tse (5 October 2019). "Wikipedia becomes a battleground for Taiwan and China". Taiwan News. Retrieved 5 October 2019. According to UDN, the Hong Kong protest page was edited 65 times in one day, mainly on the issue of whether Hongkongers should be referred to as "rioters" or "protesters."
Manas Sharma, Simon Scarr (28 October 2019). "How Hong Kong's keyboard warriors have besieged Wikipedia". Reuters. Retrieved 28 October 2019. A Reuters analysis found a seven-fold surge in edits of the Hong Kong Police Force page over the 10 months to October, compared with a year earlier. Similar spikes occurred in articles about the protests and Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam.
2019–20 Hong Kong protests → 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests – I was asked by Matthiaspaul to revert my rename of this page to the proposed name. Reasoning was " 4-digit years are the preferred form per MOS" (on my talk page). When it was initially moved to that article, it apparently against a discussion on 1 January 2020 (archive 11), and I feel that another discussion must be needed to move it back to the 2019-2020 one. Starzoner (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I posted it because the previous Rm chose the 2019-20 name. It needs another RM to move the title, and the MOS allows it so. I don't think the title can be inerpreted as yyyy-mm. Seriously? no one will interpret it as the 19th or 20th month of the year. I don't support the move of the page. Starzoner (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the 2016 RFC and our Manual of Style (MOS:YEARRANGE), according to which 4-digit years are the preferred form. Our MOS defines a number of exceptions (and "2019–20" is one of them), but still "2019–2020" is the preferred form. The exception is typically used for things like sport seasons and other annual events overlapping the flip of the year, and for which a common naming pattern exists per WP:COMMONNAME. Not so much for events of arbitrary length. The usage of the long form is also backed up by our general guideline to avoid abbreviations where they are not necessary (WP:ABBR, WP:NOTPAPER) or might cause confusion. More specifically, the form "????-??" should generally be avoided because it can be interpreted as either "yyyy-mm" or "yyyy-yy". While we do not support ymd dates except for in some specific areas (like in tables or citations), the underlying ISO 8601 international date format is meanwhile a common (and sometimes even mandantory) date format in most countries. Consequently, many people would attempt to interpret "????-??" as "yyyy-mm" first and only switch to decode it as "yyyy-yy" after recognizing that the month value is larger than 12, thereby unnecessarily slowing down the interpretation. (This interpretation is even more likely since the introduction of EDTF dates in 2019, where "extended month" values like "2019-21" are defined to mean "spring 2019".) All this can be avoided by not using this form in the first place. "yyyy-yyyy" cannot be misinterpreted in a similar way.
Further, if the Hong Kong conflict exists for a bit longer (unfortunately quite likely), we would have to switch to "2019–2021" anyway, because the form "2019–21" is not allowed to be used by MOS. Only, if the conflict is still solved this year we were allowed to retain the current form. Since there are other articles already spanning over three and more years, using the long form also improves consistency (WP:CONSISTENT, WP:TITLECON). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia "does" ISO 8601, but only in some forms (the "yyyy-mm-dd" form) and only in some areas. And there is a reason for this:
Ironically you are making an argument pro the name change to "2019-2020", because the very reason why our MOS does not follow ISO 8601 more generally (despite it being in widespread use in the real world outside of Wikipedia) is because we deprecate the "????-??" form (which is also an ISO 8601 form) due to its ambiguity. In many countries of the world it traditionally means "yyyy-mm", whereas in some other parts it can be interpreted as an abbreviated year range "yyyy-yy". Our goal at Wikipedia is to be as clear as possible and therefore to avoid ambiguity. That's why we avoid the "????-??" form where it is not necessary to be used. So should we do in this case.
Matthiaspaul MOS states "Although non-abbreviated years are generally preferred, two-digit ending years (1881–82, but never 1881–882 or 1881–2) may be used in any of the following cases: (1) two consecutive years". As said below it cant be confused with mouth as it is 19-20 which can't be mouths. Consistency only applies beucse you moved most pages with 2019-20 format. We shouldn't assume that the protests will last till 2021 ether as that goes against WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. As for WP:COMMONNAME most people wright it 2019-20 not 2019-2020 in general and it is often refured to in the news as just Hong Kong protests. I think the common wright convention of 2019-20 justifies using the less favourable option. — RealFakeKimT14:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is about a seasonal event for which a traditional COMMONNAME scheme exists. This does not apply to our case at hands here, so the outcome of that RM is of zero relevance here.
Oppose. This move proposal is based on a misconception. While we should indeed have year ranges expressed as 4-digit to 4-digit in other cases, MOSNUM permits years in the format "20XX–XX+1". There's no possibility of misconstruing it as yyyy-mm, both because of the ndash (obligatory separator for year ranges, as opposed to the hyphen in year-month) as well as the number that exceeds 12; also, "2019–20 Hong Kong protests" is more concise and elegant and easier to type than "2019–2020 Hong Kong protests". --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ohc on the move: Still, people used to the yyyy-mm says abbreviation will be momentarily confused, which is best to avoid. Also, it’s rather hard to distinguish the ndash from the hyphen at a glance. sam1370 (talk / contribs)02:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a completely different case. Annually or seasonally reoccuring events such as sport seasons often follow a traditionally prescribed COMMONNAME naming scheme, something that does not exist for out-of-a-sudden one-time events of arbitrary length which just happen to last over the flip of a year like the Hong Kong protests. They could be a matter of months or years, we simply do not know. There is no naming scheme for them in the outer world, therefore we are free to choose from all titles that accurately describe the topic and are allowed by our MOS. In this case, both forms are allowed, but one of them is recommended, and the other is only allowed as an exception to the general rule (and only until the end of the year, anyway). In addition, we also have other guidelines advising against the latter form. So, with a trivially easy solution at hands, why should we still choose the abbreviated form, which may save us two bytes (which is not of any value per WP:NOTPAPER), but is more difficult to decode in a project where we aim for the highest editorial and linguistical standards? I'm afraid, this doesn't make sense to me...
Oppose MOS allows it, it’s short and doesn’t use unnecessary spaces, and pretty hard to confuse for the month. For example, “2010-11” or “2008-09” reads just fine. Also keeping in line with the name of articles such as the previous name for the COVID-19 pandemic, 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic. sam1370 (talk / contribs)21:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If "2010-11" or "2008-09" read fine to someone is ultimately a matter of taste. If you want to hear my opinion on this, I think they do not. To me this indicates someone hasn't learned a bit from Y2K (which boiled down to the usage of an abbreviated year form).
However, what is more important than our personal preferences is that we are here to write an encylopedia adhering to the highest standards of presenting information in an unbiased and easy to understand form for everyone, not only a limited audience used to some specific forms. For this to achieve we have to avoid ambiguity.
For example, over here the usage of the ISO 8601 format "yyyy-mm-dd" is mandantory (which includes "yyyy-mm" as an abbreviated form), so the form "????-??" is interpreted as "yyyy-mm", not "yyyy-yy". If that isn't the case where you live your mileage might vary, but with ISO 8601 being an international standard in widespread use, even where it is not mandantory many people will first interpret "????-??" as "yyyy-mm" rather than "yyyy-yy". In the case of your two examples, this is even possible and they might make (or not make) sense of the form only from context. In the particular case up for discussion here ("2019-20"), the reader will, of course, recognize that a month "20" does not exist and therefore will deduct eventually that someone must have meant "2019-2020" instead. However, in many people's minds this will be a second guess, not the default. In cases such as "2019-21" or "2020-21" even this won't work any more, because, per the international date format's EDTF, this means "spring 2019" or "spring 2020", not "2019-2021" or "2020-2021". So, we are again in guessing territory, and will have to derive the correct interpretation from context - if the context is good enough for a reliable interpretation. Either way, this will cost time, and having to second-guess at something is inconvenient - and if it could have been avoided in the first place, it will be seen as an annoyance. Knowingly imposing ambiguities and inconveniences/annoyances on our target audience and not doing something about it is unprofessional.
The known ambiguity of the "????-??" form is the very reason why this form is generally deprecated in Wikipedia and why our MOS recommends to use the unabbreviated form "????-????" instead. There is no pre-existing naming scheme in the outer world we would be obligated to follow in our case, nobody forces us to abbreviate the year here, it is completely unnecessary. So, why should we first send our target audience hunting for the proper meaning when we can make it trivially easy for them to understand what is meant simply by not removing two digits?
@Matthiaspaul: Hm. I see, that makes sense, I did not know yyyy-mm was used that commonly as an abbreviated form elsewhere, and would cause ambiguity. I change to support. However, this is fundamentally different from Y2K as this one includes the first two digits of the year at the start. sam1370 (talk / contribs)02:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for keeping an open mind striving for the best possible solution for our project.
Me and OceanHok have teamed up to improve this article, subarticles and related articles. If anyone else wants to join or help with something you can reply to this thread or message me on my talk page (rember to ping me and I will respond quicker). Any help will be appreciated our goals as of today are:
Make sure all articles relating to the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests are up to date with the latesting information from English and Chinese news sources
It is just a goal for the distant future. We are simply curious to see if there is any other editor interested in this project. OceanHok (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, I'm guessing you will be doing minor edits and fixing typos as that's what your doing now which is much appreciated. — RealFakeKimT09:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can trim the article a bit and see whether some less important information can be moved to the subpage without repeating here. The article is getting a bit too long. I have gone ahead to trim the history section a bit. I think the Deaths and Reaction can be trimmed a bit more. I do have plans to start a "Media coverage" section similar to Umbrella Revolution, but I am not sure if it really needs a separate page. OceanHok (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm planning on added an effect on health and effect on mental health in the impact section so it could be spilt after? — RealFakeKimT14:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with OceanHok that the article has been getting a bit too long, especially as there must be some spare room for information on future developments without having to restructure over and over again. I am still not sure how to restructure it. One particular question which may serve, at least in my view, to exemplify the problems is this: How to deal with the duplicate occurrence of the "yellow object" incident in the article? In quite a few instances, the description can be made more compact *and* clearer by combining sentences (without making them too long of course) and putting the relevant references at the appropriate junction of the sentence, instead of at the end. This has of course already been done in many parts of the article, but not in all. This work may also require checking of the references, which could perhaps be the starting point. This will likely lead to the deletion of some references. It will bring the article closer to achieving GA/FA status no matter how we decide on the structure, and hence be a worthwhile investment, I believe. --CRau080 (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hong Kong protest edits
Hey, I have noticed my edits regarding the HK protests are reverted. Editors strive to maintain neutrality, but there is limited coverage of the other side and lesser-known side of the protests. The article in of itself is neutral, but the information provided is totally one-sided to the side of the protestors. Therefore, I proposed adding a section - "criticism of protestors," to which you deleted. If there is criticism of police responses, there should also be a criticism of the protestors section to balance things out and maintain a neutral even-handed tone. The criticism of violent methods, the counter-protests, and the people's negative views of the protests should also be presented to an audience who may not know about these protests. There are always positive and negative evaluations in any controversial article or Wikipedia pages of controversial figures, and I believe it is only right to do that. As a new user, I understand my citations and content may be a bit off, but I believe with the help of VIPs and other more senior and experienced editors like some of you here, we can add a section like this and highlight the concerns and criticism of the protests that are essential for one's complete understanding of the situation.
.svg){kind=small}
