Talk:Hong Kong

 'Topics already discussed:

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

Recent changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First Opium War

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

Cityscape

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not to flame any fires but I have so far supported the changes to these articles including new photos. This article needs much more revision and fine editing. We are letting far too many editors add bits and pieces in that really should go toward the main article of that section. This is an overall summary of Hong Kong in various aspects and text such as explanations need to be trimmed down to accepted facts. Explanation goes into the section article. I would however recommend Joowwww that you do not use subsections if at all possible. 20-sections is a good maximum limit to a city page. As for the debate over HK as territory/city-state versus city, let me suggest you consider if this is an encyclopedic article for the English-speaking world what would be most appropriate? Because if you edit it in a perspective that is not true to the place's actual function, the text will fail and sound ridiculous. I would say based on the way HK government is run, the way services are administered, etc that it is a bonafide city as much as New York, Stockholm, or London is. It may be a super-city or mega-city but it's a city alright. Perhaps the ambiguity over HK is that we generally call it "Hong Kong dei6" instead of "Hong Kong zhou1" (state) or "Hong Kong sing3" (city). But the terminology we give to label city workers and various places equates to HK as a city than a territory. Food for thought! .:DavuMaya:. 20:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Politics and government section

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

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

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

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

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

Since it appears no one objects to summarizing the section, I went ahead based on the outline above. Feel free to revert or make changes and state disagreements here. Also, should this section be merged further with the legal system section? The FA Canada keeps the Government and Law sections separate. — Kelw (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Kelw, your recommended changes seem overly legal / technical. Where are the politics of "politics and government"? Surely the politcal parties and non-party groups deserve a major subcategory under such a section. And, Joowwww, seeing as Los Angeles, London and La Paz don't need sections on a city's military, perhaps it isn't needed here. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Los Angeles, London and La Paz don't need sections on their own military because they don't have their own military. I never said Military should have its own section, I said it should be merged into a single section covering government and law. --Joowwww (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Hong Kong doesn't have its own military, either. The People's Liberation Army unit based in HK is not under the authority of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Military status is very important to Hong Kong because it is one of major focus when negotiating about the sovereignty of Hong Kong. While Hong Kong people were against the idea of the presence of communist military forces in the territory, it was Deng Xiaoping dictating that the force would station in Hong Kong as it is the symbol of Chinese communist controlling the sovereignty of Hong Kong. There is an agreement about this between the governement of UK and PRC, and it is scribed in the Basic Law. Military status in Los Angeles, London and La Paz is not a concern within their states. It worth a section to mention. — HenryLi (Talk) 05:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sections

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

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

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

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

Makes sense all around. Healthcare, Demographics, etc might go under "Society," though. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go at condensing Economy. Most of it was statistics/historical info more suited to the Economy of Hong Kong page instead of this summary article. I've kept a lot of the relevant content, it was mostly a matter of rewording sentences to make paragraphs smaller. --Joowwww (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good in its condensed form. Dionix (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Pearl of the Orient"

Does anyone remember this nickname for Hong Kong? --Tesscass (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

There are still some sites that mention it, but it has been used for both Hong Kong and Shanghai. --Joowwww (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've heard this term used for so many places and things (such as boats, cruise ships, etc.) that I don't think it's a unique phrase to HK, although I've certainly heard HK called that. I think many people also use it for the Philippines. Dionix (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Pearl of the Orient is correct, probably from the Pearl River Delta. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect - the British used to call Pulau Pinang (Penang) in Malaysia the 'Pearl of the Orient'. Jim B 25 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.22.194 (talk)

The term is also used for also used for Manila Adacore (talk) 09:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I Googled it, and with no other references, there were 166,000 hits. Add "Hong Kong" and it drops to 24,000. Singapore (w/o HK) is 23,500, Manila 19,000 and Shanghai 14,600. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It would seem the Orient has a lot of pearls. Adacore (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The former Emblem of Hong Kong has a lion holding a pearl. — HenryLi (Talk) 18:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

was looking for some informations that i need...and found out lots lots of them had been deleted.. 1/3 of pages erased in 2 months? i would be glad if someone can fill in some back..especially the economy of HK..and living.. and the awards..need it for school works..n research.. thank you so much!

) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angellinissima (talk • contribs) 22:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Some content was removed from the Hong Kong page because it was getting too long, but you can find more info in the subpages. Take a look at Economy of Hong Kong and International rankings of Hong Kong. --Joowwww (talk) 10:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

question concerning the Hong Kong ID card

First of all I´m really sorry that this question doesn´t help to improve that article but I made everywhere equieries and didn´t get the answer for the following question which could have a strong influence on my future so please don´t delete it and try to help me if you can. Here´s my question: I´ve european citizienship and want to apply for a Hong Kong ID card (NOT the permanent one, just the ordinary without the right of abode) in order to be able to apply for a job in Hong Kong. Are there any possibilities for me to get this card? Many thanks for you help and understanding in advance! Dagadt (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As is the case in most places, it works the other way around: first, get the job; then move to Hong Kong; and finally, apply for the ID card. There are relaxed rules that allow people to stay in HK for up to 1 year to look for work, but that is on a visa basis, not an ID card. In short, you need to have a justification for being in Hong Kong for an extended period of time before you are eligible for an ID card. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

HKID card is for everyone except bona fide traveller who do not stay more than 180 days. You may find some information in Visa and HKID card (exemption from registering the card). You should get an appropriate visa that allows you to work in Hong Kong. Proving evidents that you can earn your living or an amount of investment in Hong Kong is one of the key for approval. — HenryLi (Talk) 01:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all thank you very much for this information, but to apply for the training (Cathay Pacific Cadet Pilot Programme) of Cathay Pacific to become pilot I have to own the ID like you will see here: ...To qualify for our Cadet Pilot Programme, you must be at least 18 years old and a Hong Kong resident... If you click later on apply for this job they ask you for your Hong Kong Id number.  ::Moreover a friend of mine told me that I´d meet the Hong Kong resident requirement if I would have such a Hong Kong Id card (and just the ordinary one without the right of abode)... Dagadt (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that it is not. From Cathay Pacific FAQ, it states more clearly about the requirement. "Who can apply as a Cadet Pilot? .... You must be a permanent Hong Kong resident... " (FAQ). Obviously, the purpose of the programme is to train Hong Kong people and rather than transient resident. — HenryLi (Talk) 18:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You´re unfortunately right HenryLi, but maybe it´s not correct what stands there because it´s not really up to date (8. What is the expected intake this year? We are planning to hire 225 pilots by the end of 2005!). And secondly under the section educational standart in the FAQ there doesn´t stand like in Cadet Pilot Program "or the equivalent educational standard obtained overseas". Thirdly

my friend is Cathay Pacific pilot and said that they changed some things. I´ll ask him, but anyway, please tell me how to get the ordinary ID card, in case that would be their new requirement. Dagadt (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You'd better read the visa link above. Investment or study is a pretty good reason to stay in Hong Kong. — HenryLi (Talk) 03:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Skyline Panorama

Is there anything to be done about the panorama pictured under "Architecture of Hong Kong"? It's a very wide picture, and on some screen resolutions juts out away from the text, disrupting the article's flow. Perhaps the image could be deleted altogether. I find two images of the city skyline to be kind of redundant. JeffDaniels (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:wide image allows scrolling of a wide image in cases of lower screen resolutions, so it should not be a problem. But I do agree with you that two images of the city skyline is redundant. And Template:Infobox Country or territory is not supposed to include a skyline image in the first place, so the infobox image should be deleted. — Kelw (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

But there are no rules saying there shouldn't be. And an image in the infobox sticks to established convention, it's where users would expect to find a picture of the city like in every other city article. --Joowwww (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hong Kong isn't like every other city. Leave the panorama picture as is. DOR (HK) (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Joowwww, I don't understand why you bring up the city infobox, when this article clearly uses Template:Infobox Country or territory and has much more in common with articles like Singapore, Monaco, or even Macau. The picture in the infobox serves no purpose other than providing eye-candy. That's why we should keep the panorama image, and remove the infobox image instead. — Kelw (talk) 02:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't bring up the city infobox. Please quote where I did. I know this article uses the country/territory infobox, hell I've edited it enough times. I don't care what template this article uses. You seem to be under the impression that Hong Kong is a country. It's not, it's a city. You can beef it up with "special administrative region" "it has its own laws" "it's a special case" all you want, but the majority of people who visit this article and who don't know any better will see it as a city. It looks like a city, acts like a city, smells like a city and can easily be defined as a city. It is a part of the PRC. It is Wikipedia convention to have a picture of the city in the infobox, like in other city articles. I don't understand why you have such a problem with this. We have already had this discussion. --Joowwww (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

<< You said "it's where users would expect to find a picture of the city like in every other city article," but this is not a city article and it doesn't use the city infobox. I don't know why you say "it is Wikipedia convention to have a picture of the city in the infobox"; there is no such convention, unless you are trying to bring up template:infobox city. As I said before, look at the infoboxes for Singapore, Monaco, or even Macau and tell me if they violate Wikipedia convention. Your rhetoric that it looks acts and smells like a city is, bluntly put, lazy logic. We might as well label whales and dolphins as fish. What is so important to you about having that picture in the infobox, that justifies misusing an infobox parameter and going against nearly every other article that uses this template? And from this discussion alone, it's quite clear that I am not the only one who finds two skyline pictures redundant. — Kelw (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)