Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.66.200.21 (talk) at 03:51, 4 September 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage WPT

Template:WPHK Navigation

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:14, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

The Hong Kong article

I can't believe the Hong Kong article is no longer of FA status. Even the MTR article is, but Hong Kong is much more important. From a year ago, I noticed that a lot of information has been removed and the length has been incredibly shortened. Fixing it up should be everyone in WikiProject Hong Kong's first priority. 加油 everyone! Toyotaboy95 - Hong Kong (talk) 10:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing it up is actually not as difficult a job as the tediousness of maintaining it in FA quality. There are not enough experienced editors patrolling the article to fix or revert the edits made by the numerous anonymous and inexperienced editors. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Zheng Sheng College

I have self-nominated the article of Christian Zheng Sheng College at Did You Know. Feel free to comment at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_June_21. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raphaelmak (talk • contribs) 2009-06-21T18:44:42 (UTC)

Proposed merger: Bilingualism in Hong Kong and Code-switching in Hong Kong

I have proposed that Code-switching in Hong Kong be merged into Bilingualism in Hong Kong. Code-switching is relatively short (not too to be stand alone, but not too long to be merged), and Bilingualism already contains a section on code-switching. Discussion is here. Cnilep (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transport in Hong Kong

Recently, I added some references to the page. But I think it needs more. Therefore, can somebody help me by putting [citation needed] tags at unreferenced texts? Thanks. I hope this page can be a FA one day. --Jackl 15:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong International Airport

HKIA is in dire need of an update. The article is lagging behind Singapore Changi Airport and others in terms of detail and history. When editing history (especially needs information during construction stage), please see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwtOV-8RpqU&feature=related (Building Hong Kong's Airport 香港國際機場 (2004) by Extreme Engineering - Discovery Channel) ref name is buildhkg. More references are needed. Toyotaboy95 - Hong Kong (talk) 10:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Public housing in Hong Kong

Summary: what should we do with Hong Kong estates articles?olivier (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The long version: I believe the topic to be of high importance on several levels: society, history, economy, etc. Maybe the demolition of Shek Kip Mei Estate, the evacuation of Lower Ngau Tau Kok (II) Estate, as well as various local exhibitions and programs have added to this perception. In any case, the mere fact that about half of the population of the territory is currently living in some sort of publicly subsidized housing makes the topic difficult to ignore, and a proper treatment of the topic contributes to the overall quality of the HK related topics in Wikipedia. As far as I know there has not been any concerted effort to work on HK public housing related articles within Wikipedia. Now, some of you have probably noted that User:Ricky@36 has been busy creating many such articles recently. Among other things, he has been creating articles for virtually each of the ~200 public housing estates of the territory. He has also created many articles for private housing estates. Admittedly, many of his articles are stubs and lack references. The natural consequence is that some of these articles are routinely tagged for potential lack of notability and/or are the subjects of requests for deletions, invoking WP:N and WP:V (references from the government agencies being technically not considered as third-party). Several of them have been deleted in the past. While the deletion of inappropriate articles from Wikipedia is certainly a very healthy practice, I have some reservations about the way it is conducted for these articles. Articles are tagged for lack of notability, and after a while a deletion request is made. The discussions made to decide whether the article should be deleted or not is usually mostly conducted by people not familiar with the topic. In addition, the request for deletion of articles about HK public housing estates typically attracts very little interest and usually a decision is made to delete the article after just a few people have noticed that a given estate is not important by itself. My experience with French communes was similar. I created hundreds of articles, other people created thousands of them, and some of them were randomly tagged for notability and/or deletion. What probably helped was the creation of the Wikipedia:WikiProject French communes, which attracted some attention and made the project official. Now, what then seemed as a wild dream became reality: there is an article for each of the 36,782 communes, and judging by the status page a group of editors is actively working at improving them. The community also agreed, that, like for many other countries, each individual commune was worthy of a Wikipedia article. The reason why I am relating this story is that I believe that because of the highly urbanized nature of Hong Kong, public housing estates in particular, and probably other housing estates as well, play the role of villages and towns in other territories. Now I would like to open the discussion and ask the members of this WikiProject (and others) what we should do with these articles: keep them all, merge some of them as it has been attempted in Public Housing Estates on Tsing Yi Island, let some them disappear without a trace, and if so, which ones? For examples of recent discussions, you can look at Wah Ming Estate, Shek Yam East Estate, Tin Tsz Estate, Tsui Lok Estate. Thanks for reading and thank you for your comments! olivier (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC) (I have also contributed with my alternate account User:Underwaterbuffalo).[reply]

As with other cities,large housing developments on the scale of thousands of apartments will always be notable--and there will always be references if they are looked for. The Googles are not appropriate for this sort of subject. Printed newspapers are. There is always enough steps in the planning to get articles in the appropriate general and specialized news sources. Whether smaller ones are notable might vary--it looks as if some of the smaller ones in Hong Kong are abortive projects, and the fact they they have failed (or been destroyed) would only increase the notability, as that usually gets some publicity. I'm aware that because of the density there are likely to be relatively more large projects in Hong Kong than in many more dispersed cities, but I don't see that this would decrease the notability either. DGG (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is pure invention on your part. As I calculated on one of the AfDs, about 20% of the world's population lives in high rise apartment buildings. I estimate there are 135,800 such apartment buildings, and all of them can't be notable. Abductive (reasoning) 23:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abductive, would you mind identifying the part of DGG's comment that you are labeling as "pure invention"? that would be useful. Thank you. olivier (talk) 07:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The whole statement has a lot of wishful thinking. Such apartment complexes are not always notable. There are not always sources. The Googles are appropriate. The steps of the planning are not covered by journalists unless there is controversy. The only reason the smaller complexes have more sources is that they tend to be older. The complexes don't always get publicity when they are demolished. Because of the density and large numbers of similar buildings, they tend to be ignored. Abductive (reasoning) 08:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did a great deal of research when I found this cluster of articles, and the majority are not notable. I found that having a shopping center or a train station attached to the complex generally results in mentions in books, news articles and journal articles. The rule of thumb I would use; if you can't find anything to say about the complex that can't be reduced to numbers and design codenames like Single H, it isn't going to be notable. Abductive (reasoning) 08:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they were composed of several thousands of apartments, it is likely they will be notable (Taikoo Shing, Mei Foo Sun Chuen) what we are talking about here for the most part are estates containing a few HUNDRED (or low thousands) - with a typical HK estate housing 3–5 thousand people - thus not all that significant. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than willing to acknowledge the possibilty that individual housing developments may be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. In the United States there have been cases where some have garnered national attention (Cabrini Green comes to mind, for example). However, I am unwilling to acknowledge that every housing project automatically merits an article. The argument that half the population of Hong Kong lives in such places actually decreases their individual notability, to my way of seeing things. (I estimate that over 95% of all Americans live alongside of paved streets; does each street therefore merit its own page?) On the other hand, the fact that such a high percentage of Hong Kong's people live in such places does constitute a noteworthy fact. My suggestion would be something along the lines that I think that olivier has already suggested elsewhere. An article on these estates deserves to exist, and should include a list of all of these developments. Then someone like Ricky@36 can come along and look for individual estates (is that the right word?) that possess singular noteworthiness. If someone was to write an article on the first such development, and the largest such development, and any other such superlatives (along with documentation; not of the development's existence, but of its individual notability), then I think we'd be on our way to something acceptable to all parties. Unschool 00:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of an article like Public Housing Estates on Tsing Yi Island? It covers 8 public housing estates located in a quite small area and all built around the same time. The article as is stands today is probably not perfect, but having the estates grouped together in this manner gives context, and avoids having non-notable individual articles. If any individual estate of the list is particularly notable by itself (and among all of them, maybe only Cheung Ching Estate might be eligible), then we could have individual articles for them. In total we could have the material about all public and semi-public estates grouped in ~25 articles, with maybe another ~25 for individual estates. Would that be a possible option? olivier (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with that. To my mind, these apartment complexes are like vertical suburban subdivisions, which are not typically considered encyclopedic enough for their own articles, but to which nobody would object as a list. Grouping by Districts of Hong Kong and splitting geographically distinct areas like Tsing Yi Island, such lists would mean that none of the information would be lost, and even have space for all the photos (although in smaller thumbnails). Abductive (reasoning) 08:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed with you at this point. If the articles are grouped, it is better to group them by District Council of Hong Kong. Ricky@36 (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Home Ownership Scheme courts, I suggested merging some of them into respective public housing estates, because they are usually regarded to be a part of the public estates. Ricky@36 (talk) 08:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Partly responding to comments made during my AfD] It's not a cultural bias on my part, as can be seen from my contributions. I put Wah Ming Estate‎ up for AfD, as I have for other non-notable housing estates because I feel they not only do they not satisfy the requirements of WP, their presentation in any meaningful way should be within a better/wider context. As has been pointed out, an overwhelming majority of the HK population lives in high-rise blocks, so housing estates are a norm; just under half the HK population lives in public housing, so they are banalised. A housing estate is not a commune; it has no governing structure except an owners corporation (required by law). People rarely know one estate from another unless they happen to live in the vicinity. There are certainly those which are notable, but as always, the Pareto principle tends to apply to their individual notability. Yes, the government is quite transparent with housing information, so there are sources such as Planning Department, Housing Association etc which give the background to the housing developments, but none of that makes an estate notable in an encyclopaedic sense. They cannot be compared with community facilities such as leisure centres and hospitals.

    I am responsible for the Public Housing Estates on Tsing Yi Island article, which I was hoping would be adopted as a model for other HK housing estates. I was a bit dismayed when Ricky decided to undo the redirects on the individual estates' articles without even attempting to expand any of them (which I felt was not a sound approach to developing articles). Typically, housing estates are localised in clumps, which allows them to be treated in an agglomerated fashion, particular in 'new towns'. Except for government sources, examples of sources usually cited to preserve articles from deletion are frequently about events which occur there, making the mentions 'trivial' according to WP:N.

    SO, in conclusion, my suggested approach is to develop articles on an agglomerated basis, except in cases where estates are genuinely notable (e.g. Shek Kip Mei Estate, Choi Hung Estate), which would retain their own article. This would not stop links for individual estates from being created, redirecting to the most relevant agglomeration. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grouping of the articles is also preferable. I know the purpose of your aims now. If all public housing estate articles are reserved, I don't care about the modes of presentation, so "grouping" may be more preferrable. For "notable" (large and famous) estates, I suggested to remain them as dependent articles, but others are merged to an article about the estates of the district. The first thing is to identify which public housing estates need to be independent. Ricky@36 (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, everybody is on board for grouped articles except the articles' creator. Abductive (reasoning) 04:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody? You said you would like to remove all articles bu not to reserve or merge them, right? Ricky@36 (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I think you 2 guys agree, in fact. 1) Have articles for groups of estates, including the material of currently separate articles. 2) Keep an article for the important ones. 对不对？olivier (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, do you know Chinese? Ricky@36 (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like it... Ohconfucius (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ricky@36 while you are making the articles for the groups, as I said above, any estate which can be described with numbers alone is a good target for merging, but ones with big shopping malls and/or trains stations in them are fine to keep as stand-alone articles. Also, any that are the oldest, tallest, have the most inhabitants or whatever in Hong Kong, or won some sort of award are fine. Abductive (reasoning) 03:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer using population as one of the criticia to define what estate articles are treated to be independent. Ricky@36 (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Population is a good metric too, but I would not want you to merge an estate that has a "claim to notability". Abductive (reasoning) 18:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to add that the other type of "news" (for private estates) is where the developers hype and publicise a launch, hiring Miss World, creating a frenzy with column inches of stories about the limited number of units available, the queues of speculators scrambling to buy, and the prices achieved - which may contribute to its notability. However, these are not firm foundations either - there is plenty of crap published by HK newspapers, most of which are heavily reliant on developers' advertising dollar - to the extent that many newspapers' front page news is relegated to the second page (those in HK will attest). Ohconfucius (talk) 04:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using Emporis to search, there appear to be ~8000 results for buildings (which I think is high rise buildings) and ~1000 for complexes, which I think is the sort of article we are talking about here. There are also 156 neighbourhoods, which I think is what we're talking about merging the articles into. (Can someone who knows more about this let me know if this is correct!) Picking a random neighbourhood such as Tin Shui Wai, Kingswood Villas clearly seems independently notable. However the rest of the Public Housing Estates, I'm not too sure about. I think it would be preferable to merge these estates into the one article as discussed above. The content would be preserved and we'd have much better articles out of it. It would also enable the housing complexes to be better explained in context with each other. Quantpole (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there are some "questionable" arguments presented. If articles merged together with same contents as before validates notability, then why do the individual articles not meeting the notability guideline? There's no text or images added but just combining text together. It doesn't magically becomes notable after merge. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If individual articles don't meet the notability guideline, but an editor has put a lot of work into them, the typical compromise is to merge them. The only reason these articles are not being deleted is because people don't want to upset their creator, not because they have any demonstrable notability. Abductive (reasoning) 17:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 flu pandemic in Hong Kong

I had began work on this article in my userpage subspace months ago, but then suddenly became very busy and stopped working on it. I've moved what I've already added to a main article space. There is really a wealth of information that can be found on the topic. There should be no difficulties finding sources. The Chinese version of the article (for those who can read Chinese) is a good guide for what to search for. The work here really is to collect, organise, and present the main relevant issues. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in adding sources in the article. Just put context in the article and I will be happy to put citations in. Cheers, Jackl 12:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will most likely find sources before I add content to the article. But check out the articles that are already used. Maybe there are relevant points that should be added that I haven't added. And I've only added content for up to when they started closing down schools. There's about two months of development that isn't covered by the article yet. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Wong Chau Sang

Anthony Wong Chau Sang is under a rename debate. 76.66.202.213 (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Hong Kong to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Hong Kong/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 01:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of public housing estates in Hong Kong

Mergers have now taken place for the majority of lone housing estates per the discussion we have had, and a number of new articles containing merged information now exist. One or two estates have been merged into their localities per WP:LOCAL. A very small number have not been merged due to their notability, or because they somehow defy classification. Any comments on any aspect of the merger/non-merger would be most welcome. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have also started merging some of the less notable private estate articles into their localities. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indigenous inhabitant people in Hong Kong

Category:Indigenous inhabitant people in Hong Kong has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.200.21 (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unequal Treaties

Unequal Treaties is up for rename and a relate page is to be deleted. See Talk:Unequal_Treaties#Requested_move

76.66.200.21 (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hong_Kong&oldid=311776632"