Talk:The Cenotaph (Hong Kong)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I was sure I saw three flags (including PRC) on this monument when I last visited HK in early April 2009, possibly a special occasion. Maybe they were just flying nearby and I got confused. Any HK residents can confirm or deny this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The description of the ceremony is wrong![edit]

I am a HK resident, and what you saw was true. Actually, the description of the ceremony nowadays is wrong. There is still a formal ceremony taking place, with top government officials, legislators, policeman and British veterans attending every year. The flags of Hong Kong, China and another unknown flag are raised on that three poles. You may refer to the following video showing the ceremony taking place in 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Image Change[edit]

I am a student who travelled Hong Kong last year. Since Ebonelm continuously reverted my image change, I was to ask other administrators and users. Which image is better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasPark02 (talkcontribs)

Hi @ThomasPark02: It's good that you have started a discussion here, but it is now essential that you wait for a consensus and do not replace the image until you get one. Also, it would help if you could explain why you think your photo is better than the current one. Finally, you can't expect other editors to just "Search it on Wikimedia Commons", you need to provide a link to it yourself. I'll do that for you:
  1. (ThomasPark02's new image)
  2. (the existing image)
Please note that in my admin capacity I offer no opinions on the two images - the admin role does not permit the making of decisions over content. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • For my image (image #1) I think it is better because Ebonelm said a long image is better for infobox and it was taken more recently than the current page.
  • Has the monument changed in any way between 2014 and 2015 and does the new photo contain any more informative content than is in the current one? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Boing! said Zebedee, Nothing has been changed, but since Ebonelm said that long image is better for the infobox, I think my image is better for the article. Also, my image is taken more recently, and has better quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasPark02 (talkcontribs) 13:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I have never stated that a 'long image' is better for the infobox, why do you think that you and your socks have been blocked in total five times for trying to promote your own image on Wikipedia, if I liked it I wouldn't have reverted it! The current image is superior in regards to both the background and lighting. Indeed in this instance a horizontal shot is far preferable as this is a portrait of an individual but a landscape shot of a piece of architecture. Ebonelm (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Just a few general thoughts here about what constitutes image "quality", offering no opinions on which photo is better. Pixel count is not necessarily an arbiter of quality - images with more pixels do not necessarily look better than images with fewer pixels, and generally when you get above the pixel count need for pleasant viewing at typical image sizes increases in pixel count make less and less difference. Also, not all pixels are alike - for example, some sensors with lower pixel counts produce far better colours, dynamic range and gradation than others with higher pixel counts. And it's far more than technical "quality" too - for me, that elusive concept of "quality" incorporates these technical issues, plus composition, lighting, informational content (this is an encyclopedia), context... etc. Don't know if this helps. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)