Talk:Kowloon Bay

Map needed

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Hong Kong may be able to help!

This article is written in Hong Kong English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Hong Kong Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hong Kong To-do:

Attention needed (60)

...needing expert attention (4) • ...without infoboxes (21)

Collaboration needed

Recommend topic

Improvement needed

GA-Class articles (60) • B-Class articles (291)

Cleanup needed

C-Class articles (1,052)

Image needed (348)

Destub needed

Start-Class articles (5,473) • Stub-Class articles (6,695)

Deorphan needed

...orphans

Page creation needed

Requested articles

Miscellaneous tasks

...maintain popularity • ...assess the un-Class (388) • ...assess the un-Importance (1,340)

Expansion

Just curious. What kind of expansion does the tagger expect? --Der yck C. 09:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Body of water or district

This article seems to be introducing the article as Kowloon Bay the body of water and then moved on to discussing Kowloon Bay the district. Which is it? --Kvasir 06:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of bay

Need photo of the actual bay. Badagnani (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transport section

As much as I think the mass removal of transport connection details is outright unhelpful, as an admin I do hope to live up to the standard set by other fellow editors and admins and be courteous, so here is the discussion.

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. However, WP:NOTTRAVEL serves to remind editors not to give travel instructions to readers, not to ban listings of transport connections. Indeed, if "Not Travel" is interpreted to exclude details of transport should be from Wikipedia, New York State Route 22 should never become a Featured article because it should've been deleted.

The current convention of articles concerning metropolitan geographical areas is that important transport connections into and out of the area should be described or listed, citing references where appropriate. See Ickenham and Lam Tin, both good articles, for example.

I understand the lack of sourcing may have cast doubts to the quality of the content. However, in geographical articles it is simply inappropriate to remove relevant content from an article without indication that the information may be incorrect. If anyone think the article has multiple issues, please change them, don't just slap templates onto them. --Der yck C. 23:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but no offence as I do think I've made my points within the context of WP guidelines and policies, especially on WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTTRAVEL and lastly... WP:BURDEN for you. Not being harsh but the aforementioned article page isn't the first one where I've removed directory-looking kind of unencyclopedic information(s), though you're free to reinsert them if you think I've made the wrong call. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Again, I don't agree with your interpretation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTTRAVEL on this article, but I do concur that there is a burden of proof on the other side. The external sources should be fairly handy and I'll put back the content with citations when I get around to it. --Der yck C. 22:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split tag

No consensus, a majority of editors expressed some support for a split, but outstanding concerns about the feasibility of doing so were not resolved. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No one appears to be intrested in discussing this. Other similar places e.g. Torbay and Robin Hood's Bay treat both the landform and settlement in 1 article. I see no need to treat this article differently, so I am removing the tag. Op47 (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I can't see why they can't be in the same article either. Der yck C. 00:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the body of water is much bigger and cover a very wide area, much wider than the neighbourhood. 13:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.48.155.127 (talk)

In theory i agreed the split of area/neighborhood from water body. The latter was connected to Kai Tak Nullah, which had some significant to dig out material for news report and academic papers regarding the water pollution and improvement work.

However, in practice, for the cancer of all geographical articles of Hong Kong, since most place name of Hong Kong had undefined boundary by law, it cause much much inconvenience of the scope of each article. Either it had material that overlapped with other article, or outright wrong by unsourced edit that called out material from memory and speculation. (e.g. City University of Hong Kong is not located in Kowloon City District, but may be part of Kowloon Tong the neighborhood according to some publication, with some other publication rebutted that definition of community-based concept of the boundary . The uni was misplaced in the wiki article of the Kowloon City District in the past)

For Kowloon Bay (body of water), it had to be defined the boundary by summarized existing publication first. So far, it seem this article before split, is full of WP:OR. Matthew hk (talk) 09:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as a note of interest, the article was not tagged for {{split}} from 2012 to 2019. It was just tagged by this edit: Special:Diff/897792934. Matthew hk (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why the ip is spamming split tags ...it's odd to deface the article so much.... accessibility hard.--Moxy 🍁 14:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.