Talk:Queen's Pier

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleQueen's Pier has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 8, 2008Good article nomineeListed
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 10, 2022.

Queen Elizabeth II?[edit]

As far as I concern, the original Queen's Pier was built in 1925, which was a year earlier than the birth of Princess Elizabeth! So how can the pier be named after her?--Clithering 08:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. It was named after Queen Victoria.Shrimp wong 17:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great! On the other hand, could you state the references for supporting this belief? Narold 03:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Built in 1957?[edit]

Regarding the History of Queen’s Pier, the author says “Built in 1957 on reclaimed land” and “designed by British architects Ron Phillips and Alan Fitch in 1956”. However, the existing Queen’s Pier was built in 1953-1954 (Antiquities Advisory Board 129th Meeting BOARD PAPER AAB/16/2007-08 Annex B). It seems unlikely that Queen's Pier was design only in 1956 and built in 1957 when it had already been completed.

A new Queen’s Pier, i.e. the existing one, was constructed at the reclamation area in 1953. Pile driving for the pier took place in April of that year. The tendering for constructing the superstructure of the pier began in December 1953, and construction started in February 1954. The Queen’s Pier was opened to the public by the wife of Governor Sir Alexander Grantham (1947-1957) on 28 June 1954. The old Queen’s Pier was demolished around January 1955.

http://www.amo.gov.hk/en/antiquities_meetings_paper129.php Sot60s

GA status?[edit]

Perhaps it's time to make a push for GA status? This article is well-referenced enough. With some copy-editing and proof-reading, I think it wouldn't be difficult to get it promoted.

Also, as an aside, I hope the activists keep up the fight to save the pier. It should really be marked as a historic site so it'll be protected. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking dates and correctness of the name[edit]

Take a look at Wikipedia:DATE#Autoformatting and linking. It suggest that dates be linked for autoformatting, but that "days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia" should not be linked. As far as the correctness of the Chinese name is concerned - it's merely a translation of the English name. The pier is dedicated to Queen V, so it would seem that the English name is incorrect, no? In that it is not named "Queen Regnant's Pier"? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the date formatting is the only concern, then I can do it manually. In fact, I had ensured that all dates were "month dd" until you changed them with your edit. I really have an enormous dislike of articles where all sundry dates and years have been linked to date articles. My view is that most of these are unlikely to "deepen readers' understanding of a topic". If anything, it produces clutter (per m:Help:Date_formatting_and_linking#Unlinked_date)
  • I am merely questioning the removal of the sentence concerning the "incorrect translation" into Chinese, not the English name. The Chinese name, by virtue of the dedication, is incorrect, and perhaps warrants a mention, no? Ohconfucius (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the date format to "dd MM" because that's the format usually used in Hong Kong - day before month. I linked dates for autoformatting because that's what WP:DATE suggests. As for the Chinese name being incorrect, that's an irrelevant mention unless it is mentioned that the English name is also incorrect. The Chinese name is a mere translation, incorrect or not. I mean, what's the point in pointing out that the Chinese name is supposedly "incorrect" unless you also mention that it is only carrying the "incorrectness" of the English name? Anyway, I guess we disagree with how to handle the dates, so I'll bow out of editing this article now. It does need MoS improvements before it is GA quality though. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only reason why the dates were "put back" into MM dd was because I was lazy. I have no issue one way or another, so long as it is consistent throughout. My real objection being with the wikilinking. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    The lead is too short, it should be 3-4 paragraphs (include opening details, architect?, summary of principal dates in controversy) (see WP:LEAD)
    Dates should be wikilinked - instead of it being December 16 2006 it should be December 16 2006 and dates should be in a consistent style throughout the article - the first para of 'History' contains both day-first and month-first styles.
    Many paragraphs within the history section are too short. Suggest combining or expanding sections to 3-4 paragraphs.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Per WP:MoS, web references should include dates of access
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    In checking copyright issues, they use a rationale I am not familiar with. I think it's fine, but US copyright law surely applies due to the location of the servers.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Overall, it's a well written article that is not far from meeting the criteria. Principally, attention needs to be paid to issues in the WP:MoS. You could consider using a template for citations, such as {{cite news}} or {{citeweb}} to standardise your references. Hope that helps. I've put it on hold to allow you to fix these minor problems. Kbthompson (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for taking the time to look at the above per my request. I think I have now taken this article as far as I can; most of the proposals above have been incorporated. Kindly note that I do not intend to deal with wikilinking of dates.
per WP:DATE:"Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic." While there will undoubtedly some dates which require linking, I believe the vast majority do not warrant linking.
Ohconfucius (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ohconfucius - WP:DATE specifies that "days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia" should not be linked, but it says that dates should be linked for autoformmatting. A date is a unit that includes all three of day, month, and year. I don't think it ever says that a date should not be linked. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't get the distinction, I'm afraid. Common sense tells me that pervasive wikilinking of dates is distracting. However, if the absence means no reviewer will agree to giving it GA status, then I'll reluctantly give way. In that connection, I have asked for an opinion on the relevant talk page. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, one other obvious thing that needs to be corrected is that all footnotes should come after punctuations. I can't find where the appropriate MoS guideline on this is, but I'm pretty sure this is a standard. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While WP:MOS strives to achieve consistency within any given article, there is no requirement to use citation templates, nor prescription on whether the ref is placed before or after the punctuation mark. In fact, as I understand it, both are acceptable: Americans (e.g. The Chicago Manual of Style) tend to place it after the punctuation, while the British convention is before it. The only requirement in this connection, per WP:CITE, is that the "whole article should conform to that style". Ohconfucius (talk) 07:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are two issues that consistently come up during GANs and FACs. The difference between linking dates and linking the other day/time units is that wiki code autoformats dates when they are linked. This article may pass GA depending on the GA reviewer, but the issue will come up in FAC unless WP:MOSDATE is changed. I'm not trying to be argumentative or difficult. I'd like to see this article get GA and eventually FA. I'm only pointing out issues that exist which I myself have encountered in the past during GANs, FACs, and FARs. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 10:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review comment:

dates
I've looked into the issue of wiki-linking full format dates. If necessary, I'll ask for a second opinion, whether it's a sufficient reason for a fail.
  1. I would ask for a consistent use of dates throughout the article. For example, the third para' of the lead uses August 1, 2007 (American format); the first para of the History section gives 31 October, 1925 (International format). As per WP:MOS#Dates, the embedded commas in both those examples must also go.
  2. [[ ... ]] dates; making this markup in the text for dates allows the reader to specify their preferred date presentation - so, if dates are correctly formatted, a reader with US preferences set, will see month-first, and a user with International preferences set, will see day-first. This is detailed in MOS:DATE#Autoformatting and linking. The issue is not one of linking - but of presentation to the reader.
reference tags
  1. My view is that placing of reference tags should merely be consistent. Before, or after punctuation has to be consistent within the article, and to change it there must be consensus. For the purposes of a GA review that is not an issue for me - it may be an issue should someone from the GA-review task force, or if the article goes forward for FA status - some reviewers will insist on after punctuation. (for reference the section is WP:CITE#Where to place ref tags)

HTH Kbthompson (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the dates, only consistency is needed to comply with MoS and by extension, FA criteria. But in my opinion, the dates and day-month units should really be in the format of dd MMMM yyyy and dd MMMM in order to keep with how dates are usually written in Hong Kong. For example: "6 January 2008" and "6 January". Again though, using that format is not necessary to comply with MoS. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review comment Hi, I've taken advice. It remains a complex issue, but have now received advice that it is not a determining criteria for GA. However, there are still a number of consistency issues between dates. If we can that fixed, then I will be in a position to pass the article. Cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Passed[edit]

Thank you for addressing the above issues. I have passed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. Also, to anyone that is reading this review, please consider reviewing an article or two at WP:GAN to help with the large backlog. Instructions can be found here. Each new reviewer that helps to review articles will help to reduce the time that articles wait to be reviewed.

Keep up the good work, and I hope that you continue to bring articles up to Good Article status. If anyone disagrees with this review, an alternate opinion can be sought at Good article reassessment. If you have any further questions about this review, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Kbthompson (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future? What Future?[edit]

I thought the pier was completely demolished with the rubble removed...why is there a section seemingly talking about the possible solutions to deal with the pier? Dengero (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was carefully dismantled and put into storage, with the promise that it would be rebuilt, at Central Harbourfront. Onanoff (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wishful thinking. The communist party will not allow a reconstruction of foreigner's imperialist's past on its soil. That was the main reason it was torn down in the first place, but the article soft-pedals that. Now that the gov't of Hong Kong is firmly in Beijing's hands, these sort of notices to make conservationists go 'way and don't bother us are just pat answers until the next one. 50.111.25.27 (talk) 08:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Queen's Pier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Queen's Pier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

source[edit]

https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3116208/queens-pier-belongs-central-and-should-return-there

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Queen%27s_Pier&oldid=1209927382"