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)
• Traditional/simplified characters (1)

Traditional and Simplified Characters, Romanisation, Etc.

As others have mentioned, the English-language wikipedia is not a Chinese dictionary, and including traditional and simplified characters, as well as a plethora of "competing" romanisation methods in various HK/TW/Macao/China-related articles is cumbersome and at best annoying when readers must sift through the lead paragraph's linguistic information before reading the article. I'm not sure where to post my thoughts on the subject, so I hope someone will move this message if necessary.

I wish we had a clear-cut policy on the matter, and if we do, please direct me to it. My thoughts are below:

If I may interject, 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) 04:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

1. For Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao-related articles, simplified chinese should not be necessary. De facto usage in these areas is traditional chinese only. In addition, why is it necessary to include Mandarin pinyin in HK-related articles when the de facto standard, even in formal and government situations, is Cantonese? For English-speaking readers, the place name Kowloon Tong and its Cantonese romanisation (Gau Lung Tong) may be useful, but the Mandarin Jiulong Tang would not be, just as the simplified chinese (九龙塘) would be arguably less useful than the traditional counterpart (九龍塘), at least in Hong Kong (e.g. in the case of tourists, although we speak English in HK too). For the users who insist that Pinyin and simplified Chinese are useful for Chinese readers in these articles, please remember that Wikipedia is blocked in the Mainland, and that there is already a Chinese-language wikipedia which offers character conversion in articles (simplified/traditional) to avoid this issue.

2. On the other hand, I see no problem including Mandarin pinyin romanisation in all China and Taiwan related articles, since they are used as official (government) languages in these areas. Taiwanese romanisation may (or should) also be included provided its placement in the article is not distracting or cumbersome -- but again, both Taiwanese (romanised) and Chinese-character wikis exist.

3. For (mainland) China-related articles, then, traditional Chinese characters and any romanisation other than Pinyin may not be necessary. Romanisations in local languages such as Shanghainese and others may be included. However, what makes Cantonese stand out per item 1 is that it is the de facto (government) standard in Hong Kong and has a long history of being used instead of Mandarin, unlike places in the mainland. Therefore, the utility of including local language romanisations outside of HK/Macao is harder to determine.

Whether editors are not sure about the unique status of Cantonese in HK and Macao or simply want to add Mandarin pinyin to every article is unclear. In the Cathay Pacific article, for example, why not include Cantonese romanisation for this HK-based company? Why is Mandarin necessary? It is the official language of China, and HK is a SAR within China, but it is not the official language of Hong Kong (legally it is "Chinese" so we must assume Cantonese based on current de facto standards).

I am not anti-Mandarin and while I do not use simplified characters, I respect their place in China. I just want to see the same respect and representation in HK/Macao related articles for Cantonese and Traditional Chinese (and for TW/Traditional Chinese only). That inlcudes letting Traditional Chinese and Cantonese romanisation stand alone in articles where Mandarin and Simplified Chinese do not apply, for the sake of having (1) neater articles and (2) a more accurate representation of Chinese place names, language differences, etc.

Edited to add 137.189.4.1 07:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's not stir this up again. All the romanizations anyone would need is just one click away in the Pronunciation of Hong Kong article. It's not a perfect solution, but I don't want to go back to the edit wars of a few weeks ago. This issue should be handled on a case-by-case basis until there is a consensus in the Manual of Style. — Kelw (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the Hong Kong article in particular, although I agree that having a second pronunciation-only article is not a viable solution for all China/HK/TW related articles. Perhaps I should move this post to the related Style Manual Page and delete this posting? 137.189.4.1 07:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe one possible reason why this site has gradually moved away from that old tendency of dividing scripts and romanisations by political entity is simply due to the need for political nuetrality. If we are to follow the above suggestions, we are replicating the result of political history in this part of the world, and invariably becomes politicised. By having all scripts and all romanisations in all Chinese language articles, we effectively ignore all political viewpoints.--Huaiwei 07:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with you - in theory, wiki should not be politicised. But I think it is more politicised by omitting or not acknowledging Cantonese in the case of HK, and other Chinese languages in favour of "standard" Mandarin. Political neutrality is not the same as political correctness - which is what I see in these articles (towards the mainland). History shapes places, HK included. Cantonese and English are bigger parts of its history than Mandarin. My original thoughts on the matter came out of concern that wiki was being politicised in this other direction.

For example, (assuming that) including Mandarin pinyin in articles like Cathay Pacific is fine, why did my addition of Cantonese romanisation get deleted (18/7)? From that time, I've felt that this discussion was necessary. Is Cantonese substandard on wiki? I assume that consensus will involve simplified chinese/pinyin in all articles, but will traditional chinese and cantonese romanisations be relegated to a lower status? I feel uneasy to see a language I speak every day edited out of articles because it is not "standard" enough for readers -- that is politicised as well, isn't it?

Assuming we can use those language info boxes to make articles neater, and include all romanisations and both character sets, then do we get into another debate about which character set and romanisation comes first in any given article? My suggestions weren't meant to politicise so much as to avoid politicisation. My personal views aside, isn't judging by de facto standards neutral enough? No simplified Chinese in HK articles and no traditional Chinese in mainland articles doesn't say that one way of writing them is better, it simply reflects the truth of the matter in both areas. Interested in everyone's thoughts.

137.189.4.1 11:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Recording

The recording is extremely poor and most of the time I cannot understand it. It's fine if you are using a native English speaker of the region (in this case with a Hong Kong accent) but if the recording is so poor then most of the English world won't be able to understand your accent. If it is not recorded within a certain period of time I will re-record it myself. Native speaker or not, no one can understand static. 75.72.162.175 10:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

go for it. Benjwong 05:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Introduction added. Working on the rest of the article in sections. QUESTION, ayai...... I know there is an Anglicized name for every Hong Kong location but they sound so dumb, can I just mash both semi-Canto, semi-English versions of them? Also its a bit hard to pronounce it in Canto if I don't have the Chinese character in front of me so sorry if my tone is way off. Btw.... 太長啊！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！ 呀。。。。。。。講不完啦 .:DavuMaya:. 07:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting page blanking

The IP 59.62.140.194 was from Beijing. Behind the Great Firewall of China? Benjwong 05:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought I read somewhere that they only block certain articles. But anyway, one way to tell the extend of the current blocking is to see if there are many Chinese IP editors on Chinese WP. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation

A citation needed tag has been placed after this paragraph in the Climate section:

Hong Kong's climate is subtropical and prone to monsoons. It is cooler and dry in the wintertime which lasts from around December to early March, and is hot, humid and rainy from spring through summer. It is warm, sunny, and dry in autumn. Hong Kong occasionally has tropical cyclones in the summer and early autumn. The ecology of Hong Kong is mostly affected by the results of climatic changes. Hong Kong's climate is seasonal due to the alternating wind directions between winter and summer. Hong Kong has been geologically stable for millions of years, though landslides are common especially after heavy rainstorms. Flora and fauna in Hong Kong are altered by climatic change, sea level alternation and human impact.

Can we find a source for this? And if not, how should we modify the text? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this is a summarization of Climate of Hong Kong. So if this section needs citations, the main article needs some as well. Chris! _{my talk} 21:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

District icons

Anyone know why the many district icons were deleted? Benjwong 03:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

They were deleted from Commons because they were presumed to be copyrighted with no permission given to be used in Commons. I have all the icons saved on my personal computer, but I'm unsure if they qualify as fair use to be uploaded on English WP itself. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you know who the original uploader was? Was it missing some kind of license? This seems to fit {{non-free logo}} easily with some kind of simple rationale. Benjwong 05:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah original uploader was me.  :) I took them from Chinese Wikipedia and uploaded them to Commons. I thought they were in the public domain, but Commons admins presumed they were copyrighted instead. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to try {{PD-HK-PR}} at Commons? This stuff seems really public. Benjwong 17:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the admins believe them to be public domain. And there's really no hard proof that they are in the public domain. At least I haven't found it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Need map

We very much need a map showing the location of Hong Kong in relation to the Guangdong Province--a map similar to that seen at Shenzhen or Zhuhai. This was pointed out more than 1 year ago and still we have only maps showing close-ups of Hong Kong, leaving the reader clueless for where it is in relation to other nearby cities. Let's get this done. Badagnani 21:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. It seems to me that Hong_Kong_Location.png already has what you are asking for. — Kelw (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That map is very unclear, showing only a tiny portion of coastal Guangdong, and leaving the reader very unclear about where this place is. Please compare with the map at Shenzhen and you will see what I mean. Badagnani 02:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't find it unclear at all. It shows that Hong Kong is located south of Guangdong and faces the South China Sea and its position relative to Macau. That seems fine to me. Keep in mind that Hong Kong is not part of Guangdong province, whereas Shenzhen and Zhuhai are part of Guangdong. Let's see if other editors feel differently. — Kelw (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's very unclear, and we do need a map comparable to the other maps of nearby cities, showing more than a small coastal strip. Of course Hong Kong is not part of Guangdong. Badagnani 03:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps administratively Hong Kong is not part of Guangdong, but geographically it most definitely is. Administratively speaking, both Shenzhen and Zhuhai are not exactly part of Guangdong either, they both have provincial-level privileges. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

None of this matters. A map should make it clear exactly where this place is in relation to its region. No map in the article does this, except showing a very small coastal strip which does not provide context for those unfamiliar with the region. Badagnani 04:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, I think a map similar to the one at Shenzhen would be great. Except I don't necessarily want such a map to replace the current maps. The current maps show more clearly where Hong Kong is in the context of the continent of Asia. A map like the one at Shenzhen only shows where the city is in relations to the rest of Guangdong and China. But granted, there is a matter of consistency with other Chinese cities articles to consider. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean for it to replace any other map. If a similar map is to be made, User:Croquant is the editor who has the skills to do it. Badagnani 04:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking again at the map up top, it can't even be determined where Shenzhen or Guangzhou are in relation to Hong Kong. This is basic information that even I have wanted to know for over a year, yet cannot figure out from this article. I'd also like a map showing the Pearl River and where it is in relation to Hong Kong. Badagnani 04:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The map in the Shenzhen article doesn't even show Hong Kong, so it's not really different from the map in Hong Kong's article. I think the current map is best for the infobox. I won't mind another map showing the Pearl River Delta region, but that should go in the Geography of Hong Kong article. Shenzhen and Guangzhou are not relevent in the infobox here. — Kelw (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely certain if we've reached consensus on keeping the current maps in the top infobox. But there is a Gallery of HK maps in Commons, and I've added a link to it in the article[2]. Looking at the Category of HK maps in Commons, however, it looks like more images could be added to the Gallery. I'll do this later (have to go offline in a few minutes). Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's Croquant's new map:

Map showing the location of Hong Kong in relation to the Guangdong Province of China (of which Hong Kong is not part). The area just to the north is Shenzhen and the body of water just to the west is the Pearl River Delta.

. The location of Hong Kong in relation to its surroundings is lacking in the article and this article fills that gap. I finally understand where Hong Kong is, something I didn't get from the maps that are currently in the article. Badagnani 20:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort that went into making the map, but I prefer the current map in the infobox. This new map is very confusing because it strongly implies Hong Kong is part of Guangdong (despite what the caption says). I honestly don't understand why the entire province of Guangdong is displayed when Hong Kong is not part of Guangdong. There is enough context provided in the current map which clearly shows Hong Kong and its surrounding area. So my vote is to stick with the current map. — Kelw (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added more maps to the Commons gallery and moved the Commons link in the article up to the Geography section (not sure if this is a MoS problem though). Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the Manual of Style Wikipedia:Guide to layout, interwiki links should be under the appendices sections of the article. I've moved the link back down and repositioned some images to hopefully reduce the clutter. — Kelw (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Kelw on this, who seems to have some kind of ingrained political POV for not wishing to show the entire geographical context of where Hong Kong is located. It's really very simple: before Croquant made this map, I could not determine where exactly Hong Kong was located from this article. Now I can, quite easily. It's very important that we provide a contextual visual understanding of where Hong Kong is located in relation to its surroundings, and the blue-and-gray map showing only a tiny coastal strip is quite inadequate for this purpose. I don't believe the map implies that Hong Kong is part of the Guangdong province, and if you see the caption (did you even look at it?), it states clearly that Hong Kong is not part of the Guangdong province. Let us put the map in, of course taking comments for how to improve the map from all the regular editors here. Badagnani 19:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think if I remember correctly, earlier you said you didn't want to replace the current maps in the Infobox. If so, where would you like to insert the new map? Also, it may be useful if you left a comment at WikiProject Hong Kong. The three of us seem to be the only editors commenting so far, and it may be helpful to get some other opinions. I think qualitatively speaking, all three maps (the 2 currently in the Infobox and the newly created one here) have something to offer that the others do not. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Insert it anywhere, but down at the bottom where nobody will see it isn't a good place. Badagnani 19:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we will have to replace one of the current images if we are to insert it into the article, because I really think we've reached a "critical mass" in terms of images on the article. Can you make a suggestion and we can see if anybody objects? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If it helps convince people that this Special Region is not part of Guangdong, Croquant could probably add the other nearby provinces like Guangxi and Fujian into the map as well. Badagnani 20:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't care that much about showing that HK is not administratively part of Guangdong. But I guess others feel strongly about it? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

To Badagnani, I don't like being accused of having political motivations. I have already given very clear reasons why I don't support this map and it has nothing to do with politics. It just makes absolutely no sense to show Guangdong because Hong Kong is not part of Guangdong. It's simple as that. Should we also have a rule saying any map of New Jersey also needs to show the entire states of New York and Pennsylvania? Look around Wikipedia and you will see that the convention is to show a territory in the context of its parent level jurisdiction. That's why we have a map showing New Jersey in context of the United States, and that's why we have a map of Hong Kong in context of the PRC (not just Guangdong). Guangdong itself has nothing more to do with Hong Kong than New York has to do with New Jersey. It's a matter of common sense.

With all due respect, Badagnani, I just honestly don't see anything confusing about the current map. You say you can't figure out where Hong Kong is in the current map, but it clearly shows Hong Kong and Guangdong coast on the South China Sea. This map has been used in the article for years now and everything was fine. I think you need to make a better argument for replacing the map than "I can't figure it out". I am curious to see if any editors besides Badagnani find it confusing, because I have no trouble with it at all. — Kelw (talk) 02:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

New York City does have such a map, which shows clearly where it is located in the state. Showing only a small coastal strip doesn't assist the reader in knowing where this place is located in context. If we add the other nearby provinces, and add the names of other nearby cities such as Guangzhou, Macau, and Shenzhen, I think the map would be even better, and assuage the political problems you have with showing Hong Kong in its geographic context--at least more than a tiny coastal strip. Yes, the article has existed for two years or so, and during that entire time, it had no map clearly showing our users where Hong Kong is in relation to its surroundings. The reason this was not changed was due to the efforts of editors such as yourself, who know intimately where Hong Kong is in relation to its surroundings, but who maintain that other users should somehow also have this knowledge without a map showing the city's actual context. Thus, the contextual map is needed. Of course, I have always been willing to compromise regarding the labeling and captioning of the map, and Croquant is skilled in altering it per consensus. Badagnani 03:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, New York City is part of the state of New York, therefore the map shows New York City in the context of New York state. However, Hong Kong is not part of Guangdong, therefore we do not show Hong Kong in context of Guangdong. Instead we show Hong Kong in the context of the entire PRC, which is its parent jurisdiction. Take a look at the New Jersey article and notice how it shows the state in context of the United States. If you pay attention to the currrent map, there is already an insert which shows exactly the portion of China's southern coast that is displayed in the main map, so readers know exactly where Hong Kong is located with respect to the PRC.

Second, I still don't know why you insist the map doesn't give context. It clearly shows that Hong Kong is on the South China Sea in the southern part of China and is next to Macau. That's plenty of context. On the other hand, very few people know where Guangdong actually is, so it the average reader would have no idea where Hong Kong is located by looking at your map. Maybe you like your map better because you are familiar with Guangdong, but it doesn't give any context as to where in the world Hong Kong is located. That's why it's better with the current map, which shows Hong Kong in the context of China as a whole. I'm not sure if there really is a problem because I honestly haven't heard any user beside you complain about the current map. — Kelw (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, your comment doesn't make any sense. There is no map in the article clearly showing the position of Hong Kong in relation to its geographic context other than one showing a narrow, small coastal strip. The article is thus deficient and in need of a map showing a wider geographic area, in a clear manner. The map Croquant has designed can of course be altered to suit your political preferences. It has been stated, and re-stated, that the map's caption clearly states that Hong Kong is not a part of the Guangdong province. Badagnani 03:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Having a caption doesn't make up for shortcomings of a confusing map, I think that's obvious. I've already tried my best to explain it to you; I'm sorry if you still can't understand. Do you know what I mean by parent level jurisdiction? That's the main reason why your map should not be used. It has nothing to do with politics and has everything to do with logic and consistency. — Kelw (talk) 04:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm neutral as to whether or not we should insert the map, but I think instead of New York State, the better comparison here would be Beijing and Shanghai. Both are Chinese cities with provincial-level administration. Can we agree to a map that looks like the maps on those two cities? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see more input from other editors beside us three. I don't see the need to change everything if only one user has trouble reading the map. This map has been in place for years and things seemed fine until now. — Kelw (talk) 04:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Unlike Shenzhen and Zhuhai, Hong Kong is a separate entity from Guangdong. There is no need to showing the location of Hong Kong from Guangdong prospective. (There are no maps for Beijing and Tianjin in Hebei, Shanghai in Jiangsu, Chongqin in Sichuan, too.) The current 4 maps are clearly indicating the location of Hong Kong. — HenryLi (Talk) 05:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Having seen the maps on the infoboxes in Beijing and Shanghai - I want to state for the record that if we are to include a new map, I would prefer a map that is similar to the maps in those two articles, rather than the newly-created map that was linked above here in the Talk page. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to have a map showing Hong Kong and its surrounding region. The "issue" of giving the impression that HK is or is not a part of Guangdong can be avoided simply by extending the map to include a slightly wider area ie parts of Guangxi, Fujian etc, with HK in one colour and the rest of China in another. Also what I presume are county boundaries are not needed, instead the main cities should be indicted. LDHan 09:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

New images ready

The two new images showing the context of HK's location within the area of coastal southeastern China have been completed by the intrepid User:Croquant, incorporating all the suggestions and corrections submitted to him/her (and replacing the black-and-white map above, which only included Guangdong province, which led one editor to comment that that map was unsuitable because it implied that Hong Kong is part of the Guangdong Province). These images will enhance our users' knowledge of Hong Kong as they clearly show the location of Hong Kong in relation to the surrounding regions of China.

Badagnani 07:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You can be WP:BOLD and put it in the article. Chris! _ct 22:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

A1 (current)

A2 (current)

B1 (proposed)

B2 (proposed)

I disagree. While the new maps are better than the black-and-white map you proposed earlier, it doesn't automatically mean they are better than the ones we have now. It's very nice that User:Croquant made these maps for you, but he did so because you requested them, not because he feels there is anything wrong with the maps here. I just don't find any convincing reasons why these maps should replace the good ones in the infobox, which have been in place for years without trouble until Badagnani began to insist that they be replaced. I am going to put up my reasons against the replacement shortly. — Kelw (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have placed the current and proposed maps side-by-side above and labelled them so they can be compared. A1 and A2 are the current maps in the infobox; B1 and B2 are the replacements proposed by User:Badagnani. Here are just some problems I found:

• The reason User:Badagnani wanted to replace the current maps is because he believes the current maps only show "small coastal strip" of Guangdong. Now compare the current A1 with the proposed B1—the two maps show exactly the same coastal area! Now compare A2 with B2 and it's clear the proposed B2 shows much less coastal area than A2. Badagnani has said the current maps are "very confusing", but I honestly don't understand what's wrong with them or why he believes the prposed maps are that much better.
• The proposed maps are themselves very confusing for any reader unfamiliar with East Asia. The proposed B1 and B2 provide absolutely no suggestion to the region of the world that is being displayed or the area that is covered. An average reader looking at these maps would have no idea where Hong Kong is located. In contrast, the current maps A1 and A2 have inserts that explain exactly the areas that are displayed; A1 shows the exact location of Hong Kong within the PRC and A2 shows its exact location in the world. This is consistent with Wikipedia practice. The proposed maps are understandable by someone from mainland China, but without proper context they are meaningless to the general reader.
• The map B2 contains an enlargement of Hong kong but does not explain which area on the main map is being enlarged. The maps also fail to show the water boundaries of Hong Kong SAR.
• The labels on both maps are very small and likely not readeable in the infobox. And since this is English Wikipedia, why is Chinese text used for the labels? Why do some labels contain Chinese while other do not? The proposed maps are also much taller than the current maps A1 and A2, making them unsuitable for the infobox.

In short, I think there are just too many problems with the proposed maps for them to replace the current maps (which are perfectly fine, in my opinion). The new maps are just much more confusing and will create more problems while trying to fix something that is not broken. — Kelw (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am mostly neutral at this point as far as map replacements are concerned, but my complaint about the two proposed maps is that they don't show at all where HK is in relation to China as a whole, and where HK actually is in the world. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the tiny blue map shows only the coastal strip was only one of many problems with that map, most prominent of which is that it does not show any context for other nearby cities. The new map does that. If you'd like the map to be improved (which I'd already asked about, and you did not volunteer any suggestions), Croquant can easily do that. I disagree that the tiny blue map contains the same information as the new map, which contains many more place names and shows a wider area in a much clearer way. Regarding bilingual English/Chinese text, I believe it is a beneficial thing to have for our bilingual users. Regarding the second map, it indisputably shows Hong Kong in context, actually naming the regions of southern China that surround it. Not to include any map showing where Hong Kong is in relation to these areas is doing an extreme disservice to our users and presuming that everyone who uses this article is probably already from Hong Kong and knows where Hong Kong is in relation to the surrounding areas of southern China. That, however, is not the case, and these maps help to remedy this. Of course, these are only two maps and even more maps would provide more context such as the location of Hong Kong vis-a-vis all of China. But that is shown in one of the maps we already have, and that was not the situation I was attempting to remedy with the new maps, since that is already shown in the pre-existing map. Regarding legibility of the text, the map can be clicked upon to see that text in a clearer way. Badagnani 06:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Imho if readers want to know where HK is (in relation to nearby cities) they would look it up in an atlas or something similiar, like an actual detailed map. And I feel that this is not the job for the infobox map at the very top of this article. Pojanji 08:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you insist people won't know where Hong kong is unless mainland Chinese cities are shown. Your position is very much from the POV of a mainland Chinese person, and will not be meaningful at all to the general reader. The general, international reader does not need to see Guangzhou or Shenzhen to understand the map; those cities mean nothing to them. According to you logic, people won't know where New York City is unless we show New Haven and Trenton on the map. The point is the current maps already show exactly where Hong Kong is located in relation to the PRC and the world, while your maps do not accomplish that at all. Plus, what you are advocating seems inconsistent with other Wikipedia infoboxes.

Croquant seems to be a great map editor and I appreciate his work here. But like I said before he was only nice enough to create these maps because you asked for them, not because there is anything wrong with the current ones. I am not asking you to go back and forth repeatedly requesting him to change the maps. My point is that there was never any need for new maps to begin with and you are the one who keeps asking him to make them. — Kelw (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If you take A2 and B1 that give you the global view + the nearby view. Benjwong 14:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The same can be said if you take A1 and A2. I wouldn't mind a new map of the Pearl River Delta region in the Pearl River Delta article, but it won't belong here in this article anyway. — Kelw (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - No, it clearly doesn't, and thus your comment really doesn't make sense. Map B1, as you call it, gives a huge amount of context more than the tiny blue map. Yes, a map showing Hong Kong in relation to its surroundings is absolutely necessary and valuable for our users in this article, not some other article. Please list the factors that you believe provide more information and context regarding Hong Kong in the tiny blue map more than the map just created for this article. Badagnani 00:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

For the hundredth time, map A1 already shows HK's surroundings. It shows HK and its two neighbors, Guangdong and Macau. If you insist that the "tiny blue map" doesn't show the surroundings, then maybe you should tell me what exactly "surroundings" mean to you. I have already told you before why mainland cities like Guangzhou and Shenzhen are not neccessary. Your proposed maps don't even accompish the most basic task of showing Hong Kong's location in the world. Honestly, I'm getting tired of repeating my answers over and over to you ... — Kelw (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The tiny blue map, showing only a tiny coastal strip and not providing place names of surrounding cities and regions, clearly doesn't provide proper context, and thus your maintaining that it provides superior context for Hong Kong is an untenable argument. I've already shown that the new map, which was created over a period of weeks, with community input and consensus, in order to fill in the lacunae left by the current maps, provides much greater context, listing many more toponyms, explaining where the Pearl River Delta is, etc. (with the exception that it does not show the marine boundaries of Hong Kong, something that User:Croquant can certainly correct easily. Thus, your comment again really doesn't make sense. Regarding the tiny white map, it does show, in a quite inadequate way, where Hong Kong is located in the world, without using any toponyms or showing nearby provinces, etc. This is why a map showing a more "zoomed in" and detailed view, listing all important toponyms, is still needed in the article. Not to provide this context in the article does do a great disservice to our users, and basically makes Hong Kong's actual geographical context rather a mystery for our users who are not from Hong Kong (as it was for me until I saw Croquant's new maps several weeks ago). Badagnani 03:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would most prefer a map similar to the ones at Beijing and Shanghai. It would give conformity with maps of other Chinese locations, and it would show where HK is in the context of China as a whole. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The current map A1 already accomplishes that, just as A2 shows HK's location in the world. Unlike Beijing and Shanghai, the HKSAR territory is not large enough to be displayed in the whole map of the PRC. There is no confusion as long as the map shows HK's exact location within the PRC, as map A1 does. It is also important to keep in mind that HK is not just another Chinese city. Its status as a self-governing territory is derived from and enforced by international treaty. Rather than Beijing or Shanghai, It is more appropriate to compare HK's map with those of other non-soveriegn territories like Greenland, Bermuda, and of course Macau. — Kelw (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The tiny white map provides no place names and very little context where Hong Kong actually is located in context, in relation to its surroundings. Using only this tiny white map, and not a map actually listing place names and showing other nearby cities and provinces, does an extreme disservice to our users, and your vehement protest against any map that actually lists place names is, thus, inexplicable. Badagnani 00:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with any kind of mainland Chinese person and take great offense at the characterization that this is the reason for my strong recommendation that Hong Kong be shown in context of where it actually is in relation to other parts of China. In fact, that comment sounds very much like what is called a WP:TROLL. Not showing Hong Kong in context of where it is actually situation, in relation to other nearby areas of mainland China, does an extreme disservice to our users. I am one of those users, and keeping only the tiny blue map provides inadequate context for our users. In fact, until Croquant created the two maps showing this context, I really had no idea what was near Hong Kong, or what Hong Kong was near, from the tiny blue map. Badagnani 00:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The so-called "tiny white map" you refer to is the most common map style used on Wikipedia: please check out the maps in Singapore, Canada, Brazil, and about a hundred others. All those pages use the same "tiny white maps". I have absolutely no idea how you can possibly feel "offended" from my point above, but saying you are "offended" is not going to prove your argument. All I said is that your proposal, in my opinion, is POV towards the mainland Chinese perspective, and I gave my reasons for that. You did not answer any of the points from that reply. It's stange that you can speak for millions of Wikipedia users. These "tiny white maps" have existed for years on hundreds of Wikipedia articles viewed by millions of people, and just because you don't like them doesn't make this an "extreme disservice to our users". Please don't speak for everyone and try to see this from the perspective of an international reader. — Kelw (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have never asked for nor advocated the blanking of the tiny white map. However, it provides little context for the actual surroundings of Hong Kong. That is, it shows Hong Kong in a very broad context. The tiny blue map shows Hong Kong in an extremely narrow context. Thus, a map such as the two new maps created specifically to fill this lacuna by User:Croquant fill this void, providing the context, giving the actual names of the nearby provinces and cities. Prior to seeing Croquant's maps I had little sense of where Hong Kong is located in context to its surroundings (although, from the tiny blue map, I knew that Macau was nearby. But that's all I knew. Users who are from Hong Kong or who know the geography of Hong Kong and its surroundings intimately may not require such a map as the new maps Croquant has created for this purpose, but all other users do require such maps, which provide the proper context for Hong Kong's location. I don't believe it is unreasonable to show where the nearby cities of Shenzhen and Guangzhou, as well as the special region of Macau are located vis-a-vis Hong Kong; in fact showing these cities and naming the other nearby regions does enrich the article and context for this special region immeasurably, as I have explained earlier, and apparently must explain again, due to the inaccurate comments by the one user who believes the tiny white map and tiny blue map to provide a comprehensive and complete context for Hong Kong's location in regard to its surroundings. They do so quite inadequately, thus the need for the addition of the two new maps, which provide greater context. If you wish the second of the new maps to also show Hong Kong's water boundaries, I am sure that Croquant can prepare this addition with no problem; I had asked if there were any additions other users had to suggest regarding these maps, in order to improve them and create consensus, and other users did give input; however, the user in question did not give any suggestions. Thus, the new maps were finalized. If there are more such suggestions, please provide them so that we may finalize the new maps *again*, satisfying everyone that they are the best maps possible to enhance our users' knowledge of exactly where Hong Kong is located in relation to its surroundings. Badagnani 03:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

For the last time, the map does not have to show mainland Chinese cities to have so-called "context". Wikipedia is meant for a general international audience, not just for people who are familiar with mainland China. A general reader does not need to see Guangzhou or Shenzhen just to understand where Hong Kong is. Therefore, your proposed maps are only for mainland Chinese audiences and are unhelpful to any readers from outside mainland China. Also, it is not Wikipedia convention to display unrelated cities, neighbouring or otherwise, unless they are part of the subject's parent jurisdiction. As I've said before, take a look at other infoboxes. As far as I know there are no other infoboxes on Wikipedia that supports what you propose. You keep calling the current maps "inadequate" and "confusing", but those are purely subjective claims. The maps have not received complaints from anyone except you.

Again, no one is asking you to "finalize" your maps. There is no need for new maps and I am sure Croquant has other important things to do. I've already addressed your arguments in this and previous edits many times over, and I hope this discussion can stop going in circles unless some new points are raised. — Kelw (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The objection makes no sense. We have a duty to our users all over the world to show where Hong Kong is in geographical context. Contrary to your insistence that our users "should not be able to know" where Guangdong, Shenzheng, Guangzhou, etc. are located vis-a-vis Hong Kong really does not make any sense at all. Before Croquant created his maps, I had really no idea other than from two tiny maps that provided little context about where Hong Kong was located in regard to other nearby cities and provinces. Unless you provide a cogent reason to prevent our users from having this context, consensus shows that the maps are something that are needed, to fill the lacuna that continues in the article. If you do not wish to provide input regarding further improvement in these maps, as other interested editors have done, that is your choice. I understand that you are very familiar with Hong Kong and its geographical context and location, but please be aware that a great many of our users in other countries are not, and do need this context. Badagnani 03:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course a map showing HK and nearby cities in addition to the maps already in the infobox would be helpful to readers from outside mainland China. HK and nearby cities are not unrelated, they are all part of the PRC. The only objections to such a map are political and cultural, according to this view, HK should be presented as unrelated and separate from mainland China as possible. LDHan 14:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hong Kong photo

The photo Image:VictoriaHarbour.jpg is probably good enough to represent Hong Kong in the lead, but was just removed. I support this photo's integration into the article, as representative of this vibrant modern city. Badagnani 03:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a nice photo, but it's just too cluttered to stick it up at the upper left corner, sandwiching the intro between the photo and the infobox. If we are to insert the photo, let's put it somewhere that doesn't clutter things up, or use it to replace another image. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Most city articles have a lead image of the skyline, and currently this article has no skyline image. I think it needs to be reinsurted. Yahel Guhan 04:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Crown Colony

Why isn't there a separate article on just the British colony? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.60.232 (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean like Colonial Hong Kong and the 1950s, 60s, 70s? Benjwong 06:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hong Kongese???

What do you call a person from Hong Kong? Is it Hong Kongian? Hong Kongese? Hong Kongishman?

It should be Hongkonger.

Thanks.

or a person from Hong Kong  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.181.118 (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC) 

the new Healthcare section

I've done some copy-editing of the new Healthcare section that was added by User:Professorial. There was a lot of POV content praising HK's healthcare system, and some usage of WP:Weasel words, plus an unnecessary lengthy discussion of how the UK's Trent Accreditation Scheme works. But perhaps it is time to start an article on Healthcare in Hong Kong. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:13, 1 November 2007 (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.[3] 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.[4] 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) [5]. 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 - [6] - 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[7] (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? — Kelw (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)