Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flag of Hong Kong

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

Flag of Hong Kong[edit]

After some weeks of collaboration by many wikipedians from Hong Kong, this article had gone through the Peer Review and lots of minor edits, which finally made it qualifying all the FAS criteria. Now as one of the editors of the page, I'll nominate this article as a Featured Article. Deryck C. 07:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Support: Deryck C.. Self-nom. See comments above. 07:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Fun to read! Jerry Crimson Mann 07:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Zscout370 07:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Thanks so much for Deryck's and Jerry's efforts, and Zscout370's pictures the pictures Zscout uploaded. :-D — Instantnood 08:13, August 9, 2005 (UTC) (modified 09:14, August 9, 2005 (UTC))
    • Disclaimer: The photos are not mine, but were taken by my friend in Hong Kong. He agree to release them under GFDL (I can provide the email if yall chose. Let me know on my talk page, please). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 08:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • In fact Jerry did most of the things (the contents) and what I did was just provided a little bit of material to the Jap occupation section and dug out all the problems after he finished writing the article. Deryck C. 09:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Users around the world can gain more knowledge about the flags of Hong Kong. --Shinjiman 12:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Hoping to see you in Golden Bauhinia Square. Deryck C. 15:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting. — Andrew Eng 13.30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:50, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support CrossTimer 06:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

*Weak support Great article, but looks terrible on an 800x600 screen (thin strips of text between two pictures = ugly). Amend it so there's no side-by-side pictures, and it'd be a near-perfect article. Proto t c 21:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Now support with new layout. Great article. Proto t c 08:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I moved the table flag photo down and to the right. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak object- the "proper display of flag" section does not seem appropriate. It seems to be the same protocol regarding state/national flags, and does not seem unique to Hong Kong. I would prefer that this section be trimmed, and linked to a main article on the display of flags. Otherwise, it is a great article! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Each national and region has their own laws for the display of national and regional flags. We have to explain how to properly fly the HKSAR and PRC flag while in Hong Kong. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with Zscout. Each country has its own laws on the display of the flag. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:21, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've added a link to the PRC's flag, likewise a bracketed remark. I hope this could do ambiguity away. :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 14:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
      • OK, sorry. I'll support, though I still think some of it could be moved to a "main article". Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. As mentioned in Wikipedia_talk:HK_wikipedians'_notice_board#Flag_of_Hong_Kong, has the article been copyedited to reduce the amount of lifted material from [1], or has it been fully established that information from that site is 100% public domain? If yes, it will be a support from me too.--Huaiwei 06:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • IMHO, it should be public domain. If the information was not going to be lifted from the above website, we would have found the laws and just copied the information from there. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I've also edited significant portions of the article so that much of the text deviates from the original source, if that helps. If handling procedures for the flag are codified into law, wouldn't it by definition be in the public domain? --HappyCamper 06:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
        • If the text has been edited, then I suppose it is ok (although I notice the opening lines in Flag_of_Hong_Kong#Proper_display_of_the_flag still looks similar to text in [2]. Btw, texts from statutes are not always in the public domain, as copyright rules differ between country/territory, and differs according to how this text is being presented. In addition, this site appears to be paraphrasing the regulations, and to copy their paraphrasing is not quite the same as copying texts from the statutes directly.--Huaiwei 06:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
          • I went ahead and reworded the paragraph. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
            • Thanks! Please all help to check through the rest of the article and edit accordingly.--Huaiwei 06:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
              • Your welcome and I can see what I can do tomorrow morning. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Huaiwei I suppose you should have noticed my response at the notice board talk page before challenging on the same thing here. — Instantnood 11:05, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • Of coz I have, but I am also looking for helpful, definitive answers, and not those trying to look for loopholes in the system and circumventing a very important issue here. There has been no improvement since I brought it up there, so I am compelled to bring it up here again. And see the difference? There are people here who are willing to improve on it instead of seeking excuses, and this is how articles are improved. And btw, this is not a "challenge" as you see it. That sounds rather hostile and provocative to me.--Huaiwei 13:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
        • May I know in what way the copyright notice is not a definitive one? — Instantnood 13:40, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
          • You cited a notice from another website, claiming that notice applies to this because the other organisation manages this site. Do you consider that definitive?--Huaiwei 14:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
            • Thanks for telling. This copyright notice applies to most government websites, except for a few. — Instantnood 17:04, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Just one note. Even slight editing of paragraphs create a new copyright license and therefore those paragraphs in the passage, although covers materials from external websites, have been edited and therefore don't come to copyright violation. Deryck C. 10:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, but copyrighting also often includes forbidding people from amending the text and using it elsewhere.--Huaiwei 10:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
      • May I kindly suggest that perhaps you edit that paragraph yourself so that your concerns are met? It seems that you are unilateral on this position, and the best way to resolve it is to dive right in and edit! You're always most welcome to do so! This way, we do not have to dive into the subtleties of copyright law at all. What you have stated above is a particular interpretation of copyright law, which I will not attempt to refute nor dispute. What is more pertinent is that if you edit the article, it constitutes an intellectual effort on your part, which is then immediately released under the GFDL license. This is probably the best way to resolve your concerns, and it will only take 5 minutes! I'd say, we'll give this editor a chance to change it, and see how it works out. We can always revert and fix up things later. It seems apt to graciously extend this welcoming offer to you for editing, as it seems that you have not participated in editing the body of the article at all according to its edit history. Don't worry about making too many changes, there are lots of friendly editors around who can fix things up. That's how Wikipedia works! --HappyCamper 15:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Thanks for extending the offer, although I have to explain that the simple reason why I did not do the editing myself is my worry that I do not know enough of the topic in question beyond what is already available in that particular website. Now if everyone here thinks that copyright issues are not important to this project, and that I am the sole exception, then I suppose I have no choice but to just let it be. I find it disturbing, thou, that concerns over basic requirements such as copyright have to take the backseat in order to rush an article to be an FA.--Huaiwei 17:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
          • I do not know what the HK Basic Law says about copyright issues, but if this is something in the USA, it would be in the public domain. What Huaiwei is saying is that not our information is a copyvio, but we have sections that are word for word what the HKSAR website says. We can just fix that using just a few word changes. I am going to go through it now and see what changes I can make. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Copyright laws are exceptionally important on Wikipedia, and this article is no exception to that. In this case, it is simply the matter that your interpretation of the limits of copyright law is somewhat more conservative than mine. There is no need to isolate oneself over this difference. Granted, you will encounter these situations quite frequently on Wikipedia. Just think: in one day, you can meet upwards of 20+ users! I am elated to encounter someone who is so passionate about this aspect of lawful righteousness, and Wikipedia benefits greatly from your critique. I'd still highly recommend that you edit the article though, as it would be so much more improved with your expertise. You can take the responsibility to learn about this subject more, and participate - lead by example, as they say! After thinking about it, some of the wording might be better kept linked with an external reference instead and quoted verbatim. This is simply another option. That way, there is recognition of fair usage and proper attribution to the publications done by public agents of Hong Kong. --HappyCamper 19:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • As the FAC rule says, any comments have to be ACTIONABLE and I really hope that Huaiwei can demonstrate how to avoid possible copyright violations in this article (explicitly, to rewrite a paragraph) Deryck C. 05:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. People tell me the copyright stuff has been dealt with. I don't have time to read the article, so I can't support, but I'll withdraw my objection. Oppose until copyright issues are dealth with. I consider this actionable as it has been shown which paragraphs have been lifted from other sources. Even if Hong Kong law allows for this kind of use, we'd still need to say that the article incorporates their text, not just their ideas.Dave (talk) 03:28, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • I am going through it now and rewriting nearly everything that is there. However, what sections do you wish to be checked the most? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Aside from the ones that have been mentioned above? I'm not sure. I'll trust your judgment. Dave (talk) 06:10, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
        • I fixed the first section that was asked, and I went through a few more. While I can go through and fix every entry, I just do not know for sure what is being copied word for word or has been through a few copy edits. Just pointing them out to me will make things a lot easier. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
          • But that would require actually reading the article, instead of just complaining about it ;). I'll see what I can do, but right now, it's 2:24 in the morning here, and I'm going to go to sleep. I'm really impressed with your dilligence. Dave (talk) 06:24, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
            • Nothing stops the motivated Wikipedian! We might want to reword the technical description of the flag for starters (near the bottom where the 3:2 ratio is being discussed) --HappyCamper 06:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
              • Fixed it. How is it? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
                • Better now. That entire technical paragraph has been rewritten. Can someone nudge the grey picture of how to construct the flag a bit lower? I don't know how to fiddle with images on Wikipedia yet :( --HappyCamper 15:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Stunning article. -- user:zanimum
  • Comment. Just an update on the above, that I have actually sent an email to that site's owners to enquire on the above copyright issue, and requested for their permission to use them should it indeed be a case of copyright violation. They are taking quite some time to reply, hence my failure to "demonstrate" above that my comments are "actionable"? :D--Huaiwei 15:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Just drop it. I personally don't think any reference to "actionable" things should have been made above as it is too much of an intensifier, but to some extent a consistent impression was made that no intervention on your part would occur to fix the problem. Anyway, let us know what news comes about it. --HappyCamper 15:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose See the list below --HappyCamper 15:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    1. Opening paragraph: on which date were the laws passed by the 58th executive meeting? This historical information is missing.
    2. Under "historical flags" --> repetitous use of the root word "authority" here
    3. The phrase "...pile of merchandise" sounds too colloquial for an encyclopedia
    4. The comment made by Ho regarding funny designs of the flags should be elaborated. That is, some mentioning of an implicit comparison between "communist Russia" and "communist China" should be addressed - briefly only.
    5. Minor typo --> "Ar" should be "At"
    6. Some fiddling needed to make the technical design requirements section layout for the flag look better. Can we get rid of that table, or perhaps make a new section to explain that the numbers on the left represent size types labeled 1,2,3,etc... ?--HappyCamper 15:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The meeting should be held in May 2002, gotta double check. The typo is fixed. — Instantnood 17:24, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, please check and add if you find anything useful. I did some searching myself and couldn't find anything authoritative. It seemed to me that the 58th meeting was actually a set of meetings spread out over a long period, so it is a very minor point and probably not worthwhile adding to the article. After some thought, its absence does not take away from the article's content. --HappyCamper 07:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Previous objects seem to have been fixed b/c the article is now an excellent piece.--Alabamaboy 02:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Simply support. - HenryLi 04:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Everything's fixed up, so there's no reason to hold up the article's promotion to FAC! --HappyCamper 07:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. It is a very, very impressive article and probably the best resource on the Hong Kong flag anywhere on the internet and probably anywhere in the world. However, there are two problems that needs to be addressed before I can give it my unconditional support. (1.) I just spent a few minutes correcting the many, many spelling errors. There are also minor grammatical problems and I've corrected some but there are still more. (Sometimes, it is a matter of the use of English - e.g. offence (correct) rather than offense (incorrect) or centre (correct) rather than center (incorrect) because the former represents the usage in Hong Kong - e.g. in the passage of the law.) (2.) Some things are unnecessarily duplicated - e.g. how many times is things like dipping the flag mentioned? I think the article can be further cleaned up. If I spot any more mistakes I will correct them - but I think everyone should read over the article again before it can be a featured article. --Mintchocicecream 13:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    I've read through the article and made some futher corrections (see the diff). As far as I can tell the spelling is fixed up now. Still need to address this dipping thing though. Also fixed the dipping. There are only two occurences of that verb or action in that article now. --HappyCamper 14:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Support. The corrections are excellent and the article is near perfect! I still have minor quibbles with a number of things but it's because I am not sure whether they sound right: 1. On the first paragraph, "and passed its preparatory committee of HKSAR on 10 August 1996" somewhat sounds wrong... 2. The colours of the colonial flags are all different -- are they meant to be that way? 3. I was intrigued to learn of the design competition of the flags. Are there any links to the rejected designs? (And, if copyright permits, it might be worth showing some samples here...) --Mintchocicecream 18:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
        1. I changed that sentence to read ...and received formalised approval from its preparatory committee on 10 August 1996.
        2. As far as I can tell, yes the colours are different. Also the dyes used during that time were probably not standardized like today, and also, the preservation of the colours would have been difficult considering that they are so old on record. --HappyCamper 19:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
        3. I haven't found any links to the rejected designs, the originals might actually have been destroyed after the flag competition. Would be a really neat addition to the article though I admit --HappyCamper 19:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Cheers for the edits - and thanks for the explanations. --Mintchocicecream 21:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Follow up to copyright issue

To my slight amusement, the HKSAR govt finally replied to me with an email today which goes:

Thank you for your email message dated 11 Aug 2005. The content of your message has been noted and we shall reply to you, where appropriate, as soon as possible.
Administration Wing
HKSAR Government

In other words, I waited a entire week just to get an acknowledgement email and no answers...yet. --Huaiwei 05:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I have finally received a reply from the authorities, and yes, its a green light! ;) I reproduce the entire email conversation here for posterity:

Cheers! :D --Huaiwei 14:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

That's great! --Mintchocicecream 17:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)