Talk:Hong Kong

Hong Kong's Nicknames

In other city sections like New York City's Etymology section, they state NYC's nicknames include the "Big Apple" and Shanghai's Etymology section includes "Paris of the Orient". Hong Kong has also had various nicknames in English, such as "Pearl of the Orient", "Asia's World City" (HK Gov't brand name), and most importantly the "Gateway to China". I don't see any reason why we can't include Hong Kong's nicknames when other city sections do too. Paris has "City of Lights" in her Wiki section. Phead128 (talk) 01:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Full view

Full View of Kowloon peninsula and Hong Kong Island. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lichunngai (talk • contribs) 09:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

5 Big Clans

In this article it states the 4 big clans. This is wrong and it is written in history there are 5 big clans. Which are: Tang, HAU, Liu, Man and Pang. This is mistake needs to be rectified. Poorly written History section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.65.17 (talk • contribs) 2010-06-27T21:56:16 (UTC)

Gini coefficient

The first change I made was to remove the word “wealth” and replace it with income, which is both what the Gini coefficient measures, and a very different concept from one of wealth. I have also added the frequently ignored criticism of the Gini coefficient as a means of measuring Hong Kong’s income gap. I believe I’ve provided sufficient footnotes to lay this particular straw man to rest, but naturally others are welcome to add their citations. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Police75, 13 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} According to reference no. 108, the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology should be ranked no. 2 in Asia while the Chinese University of Hong Kong is ranked no. 4. The order is reversed at present. I would like to change this information. Please also look at: http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/asian-university-rankings/overall —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yfyuen (talk • contribs) 09:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Police75 (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{editsemiprotected}} I've found a wrong information under the "education" section. I'm not sure how I can amend it as I'm new to Wikipedia. Should I request permission to correct that piece of info here or shall I do any other things instead? Thanks.

Yfyuen (talk) 08:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Michael

 Done updated thanks, it does not look like the 2010 world rankings have been updated yet, so its 2009s world rankings and 2010 Asia rankings now in the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! It looks great now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.30.128 (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

another push for FA status?

A lot more information was added from since the last FA nomination, but after doing a scan of the problems pointed by the reviewers' comments, I think we may have missed a few items. Potential issue may be related to image alt text, clarity, and awkardness. I don't have access to some of the sources, so it makes hard to fix the problems. Tvtr (tlk–cntrbtn) 21:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

POV problem in Opening Sentence

"under colonial rule, it espoused positive non-interventionism". right there, we are implying that UK rule was less "authoritarian" and thus better than current SAR administration. HK's economy was and continues to be very free. ---何献龙4993 (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well provided there is a source the sentence could be added to saying "which has continued..." etc or we could change it to say "Since colonial rule, Hong Kong has espoused positive non interventionism". What ever the sources say. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I am also perfectly fine with that. However, shouldn't the "freest [on capitalist sense] city" ratings make it clear? ---何献龙4993 (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Government intervention is very different from authoritarianism. Most European states, and even the United States, can be properly described as welfare states, in which the government frequently intervenes to provide social services. Government intervention is not necessarily bad nor necessarily good. As such there is no POV problem here. If you take time to actually read the entire article, you'll find somewhere (I think it's in the Economy section) it says Hong Kong has been displaying a decreasing measure of non-interventionism since the latter part of the colonial era. Examples given include the Mandatory Provident Fund and the minimum wage. How on earth can you describe these two social policies as "authoritarian"? However, for the sake of clarity, I suggest amending the sentence to "For most part of colonial rule, it espoused minimum government intervention under the ethos of positive non-interventionism. However, government intervention was increased by the latter colonial governments and has continued since 1997."Craddocktm (talk) 07:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I was not being wholly serious about "authoritarian", and regret this usage. ---何献龙4993 (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

If Hong Kong were still practicing positive non-interventionism, there might be a point to this discussion, but it isn’t. Then-Financial Secretary Sir Donald Tsang Yam-kuen spelled out very clearly in his March 8, 2000, 2000-01 Budget Speech the limits of positive non-interventionism, including citing predecessor Sir Philip Haddon-Cave, in paragraph 24, in ways intended to suggest that intervention is proper in certain circumstances. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move

There's a proposal to move History of colonial Hong Kong to British Hong Kong at Talk:History of colonial Hong Kong#Requested move. There were only two people last time a page move was discussed, so hopefully more people can participate in forming a consensus. Spellcast (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing

As requested, I'm providing a list of sourcing-related issues that should be addressed before renominating at FAC. Reference numbers are based on this revision. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• SAR should be spelled out on first occurrence, as should C.I.C.R.E.D. (and why does this use periods when SAR doesn't?)
• Use a consistent format for citations and entries in Further reading. For example, a book entry should appear nearly identical in both sections except for the page numbers
• Hong Kong Government or Government of Hong Kong or The Government of Hong Kong?
• Book titles should be italicized
• Ref 9: why "[2001] (2001)" (applies also to some other refs)? Was there a reprint in the year of publication? Also, don't include "Contributor Professor"
• Ref 10: publisher is CNBC
• Ref 11: retrieval date?
• Ref 15: publisher and retrieval date?
• Comparing refs 11 and 16 - why are the dating formats different for date of publication?
• Be consistent in including or not including publisher locations
• Ref 19: page(s)?
• Ref 21: publisher?
• Be consistent in providing or not providing a translation of Chinese titles, and italicizing or not italicizing such titles. Also be consistent in where (in Chinese) is placed in the ref
• Ref 25: publisher?
• Be consistent in providing or not providing retrieval dates for web links to print-based sources
• Be consistent in how you list author names - including commas or not, last name or first name first
• Ref 30: publisher?
• Ref 32, 33, 34, 35, 39, 41: page(s)?
• Ref 42: spell out "July"
• Ref 49: "BBC Chinese" should not be italicized
• Ref 50: retrieval date?
• Ref 53: is "June 2009" the retrieval date or the creation date? Format it like the others if the former, add a retrieval date if the latter
• Ref 58, 59: page(s)?
• Provide page numbers for multi-page PDF documents
• Be consistent in abbreviating or not abbreviating months in creation dates
• Ref 60, 61: retrieval date?
• "Department of Justice" or "Department of Justice, Government of Hong Kong"?
• "Census and Statistics Department, The Government of Hong Kong SAR" or "Government of Hong Kong, Census and Statistics Department" or "HKGov Census and Statistics Department" or just "Census and Statistics Department"?
• Ref 65, 66: date formatting
• Ref 73: publisher is Olympic Council of Asia
• Ref 74: retrieval date?
• Ref 79: date formatting
• Ref 80: formatting
• Ref 84, 85: page(s)?
• Ref 87, 88, 89, 90: retrieval dates?
• Spell out HKTDC and HKDF
• Ref 92: publisher is Hong Kong Democratic Foundation
• Ref 95: what kind of source is this? Missing information
• Ref 103: why does this start with a period?
• Ref 104: author? Creation date? Spell out publisher
• Ref 106: theses are generally discouraged as sources at FAC
• Ref 107: retrieval date?
• What makes marimari.com a reliable source?
• Spell out publishers instead of using website names
• Ref 113, 119: publisher?
• Ref 120: publisher is Hong Kong University Press
• Ref 131: cite the publisher of the book, not the web host. Also, page(s)?
• Ref 132: retrieval date?
• Ref 137, 138: publisher?
• Ref 141: "Tong, C. O.; C. O. Tong"?
• Ref 144: title is "The Skyscraper Museum"
• Ref 156: page(s)?
• Ref 160: publisher is Hong Kong Tramways Limited
• What makes thehongkongtravelguide.com a reliable source?
• Ref 162: author?
• Ref 166: publisher and retrieval date?
• Ref 167: retrieval date?
• Ref 168: about.com is not a reliable source
• Further reading: alphabetical order? consistent formatting?

• Fu: why are authors listed twice?
• Ngo: why two periods before publisher?
• Shuyong: date? Also, self-published sources are generally discouraged
• Tsang 2007: date? publisher? isbn?
• Welsh: "3rfd ed"? publisher?
• Lam: author before title? isbn?
• Forts and Pirate: number of pages?
• Endacott: publisher?
• Tsang 1995: publisher?

• • I've swept the above list and have addressed the concerns accordingly; I think locations and publisher names are only necessary to DAB, so I will refrain from being exhaustive. I have not put in retrieval dates, but I suppose we could out today's date for the retrieval so long as they are accessible today? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's fine, and it's also a good way to check for any dead links that Checklinks doesn't pick up on. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

For the HKSARG, there is no universally accepted version of The Government of Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Government or other ways of saying it. We don't have to be 100% consistent at the expense of being accurate, do we? DOR (HK) (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand: if there's no universally accepted version, you could pick one - any variation - use it consistently, and be completely accurate. Is there a variation that the government itself uses? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I opted for 'Hong Kong Government' throughout. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 122.162.210.232, 9 September 2010

1. REDIRECT Template:Edit semi-protected/preload

jhgvawgejgjvfweyqvhjcgyewgqvcgewr6yqvdghetfw

Edit request from 122.162.210.232, 9 September 2010

1. REDIRECT [[Template:Edit semi-protected/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.210.232 (talk) 10:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead image

Skyline

Collage

User:NInTeNdO insists on replacing the skyline image with this mediocre collage. I consider it to be way too tall and the whitespaces are out of place. Since NInTeNdO keeps replacing the picture I'd like to hear some other opinions. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Hofmann. That skyline is a little bit old. Collages are modern and many articles use them. Just view New York City, London, Tokyo, Paris, Singapore, Brussels, Beijing, Karachi, Bombay, Delhi, Bangkok, Dubai, Perth, Copenhagen, Helsinki (and there are many more cities which have a collage). But just Hong Kong doesn't have one, it's a very famous global city and because that I placed a collage in this article. How do you think about it now, Mr. Hofmann? Kind regards, NInTeNdO (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind having a collage at all, my point is that yours isn't good enough. It's 1) too tall and 2) the whitespaces make it look very unprofessional (compare to File:NYC_Montage_12_by_Jleon.jpg). — Jan Hofmann (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)