Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Hong Kong and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

[[:|WT:HK
WT:WPHK]]

Use of the flag of Hong Kong

Recently I found that people always use (Flag of Hong Kong) to illustrate one's place of birth or something like that. However, I think a lot of people have mistakenly put this flag into some people's profile even when these people were actually born in Colonial Hong Kong. Examples include "Court of Final Appeal", where Justice Andrew Li Kwok-nang and many others are stated to be born in HKSAR. It does not make any sense! Should we patrol around the Hongkong-related topics and replace all those "wrong" flags with flags like (Flag of Hong Kong 1959) or so?
Nxn 0405 chl 19:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Just use the current flag. It symbolises HK now. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then how would you explain the use of

(Flag of Hong Kong 1959), for example, in so many articles (esp. of those contests or competitions)? Aren't these flags also symbolising HK? Also, in article Bruce Lee, his place of death is illustrated with

. Should this be amended then?Nxn 0405 chl 19:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think those older flags should only be used in articles on the history of HK. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to the competitions before 1997, the previous flag is used because Hong Kong was officially represented in that event with that flag. On the other hand, when it comes to dates of birth and death, the current flag should be used since there are no official bindings. It's just like the old flag of Italy used in the 1934 FIFA World Cup article.--Kylohk 16:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be worth while setting up a subpage within this WikiProject (as DeryckChan has suggested) to consolidate Hong Kong-related conventions made through consensus. Ex. when to use the colonial flag vs. the post-97 one, naming conventions, and other related conventions? Luke! 21:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe first we can look for existing conventions and guidelines that may be relevant to this issue. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Each flag has its own meaning, not only symbolising the territory, but also the era and the government. — HenryLi (Talk) 00:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even certain why flags are included in something like birth place and death place on the biographical template. What's the point? I'm guessing it's there only to indicate geographical location, but it's completely unnecessary. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though flags can aide in the quality of an article, they sometimes do not. WP:FLAGCRUFT, an essay examines the use of flags on Wikipedia. Luke! 19:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Octopus card almost ready for GA nomination

Octopus card is now substantially cleaned-up and it's almost ready for GA nomination. But several statements still need citations and I was not able to find sources for them. Please see the article's talk page for details and help find some sources. If sources are not found in a week or two, I'll be removing or modifying those statements so I can nominate the article for GA. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried looking for a few and couldn't find a thing. Some of those might be from people working internally? Benjwong 05:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 5 out of the 8 statements for which I'm looking for references can actually be verified by just personal experience. I think a lot of the content of the article came from personal experience of using the card. I had to spent a lot of time inline referencing the article already. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to do a "personal subway experience" or a "MTR subway manual" reference to substitute. I see no reason why anyone would object. Benjwong 03:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the remaining statements for which no sources were found, and have the article for GA status. Please re-insert the statements I deleted if sources are found. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bus Uncle up for FAC again.

I have improved The Bus Uncle and nominanted it to be a Featured article again. Since only one other user has commented on the article here, I will be grateful if some of you can go and post your opinions on the matter. Cheers.--Kylohk 22:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did some clean-up on the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Das ist gut then. Hopefully a concensus can be made finally.--Kylohk 15:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FACs can take a long time. Don't be surprised if it takes several weeks. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that. The reason why I posted about it here was that, the nom did not receive any comments for an entire week. Whereas other nominations received comments within hours of its appearance. Probably that is because not many people know much about the subject.--Kylohk 22:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. There not being many commentators could either be good or bad for an FAC. :p Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, you'd be surprised that an Australian user has voiced support on the article, when I checked it today.--Kylohk 10:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone interested, there are WP:BLP concerns raised at Talk:The Bus Uncle#Removal of names of names of private individuals, leading to the removal of content. FA status uncertain. –Pomte 19:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, per Raul654, the article is still featured, even though a user removed it, but it's reinstated.--Kylohk 19:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh jeebus. Stupid WP:BLP dispute is affecting everything. I wish they would discuss process and policies first, come to an agreement on how to enforce WP:BLP, before they go around deleting articles and removing content as they please. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible use of wikipedia for product placement

Whilst in Hong Kong recently I came across an advert for a health supplement in the "Apple Daily", an url to an wikipedia article was given a prominent position at the bottom of the advert, as an endorsement for this product. The wikipedia article may be legitimate and the health supplement company making a legitmate reference. However being the paranoid that I am, I fear a company may have created an article on wikipedia, and then used wikipedia's credibility as prop for their product.

I would investigate this myself and bring it to the attention of somebody, but the cuttings I made of the paper have dissappeared somewhere since by return to the UK. So can any Hong Kong editors out there keep an eye out for this ad (pretty conspicuous as they took a full page advert). The only other thing I remember was a supposed link to its use by the Argentinian national football team.

Thanks to anyone who takes this up.Koonan the almost civilised 07:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

would you mind stating the name of the health product? Thank you. Justicelilo 13:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the problem and why I'm making this request, I was relying on having the cutting and didn't make a proper note of all the details.I think it was some kind of concentrated drink thing made from a supposed South American super berry/fruit.

Sorry for the lack of details and thanks again to anybody who can take this up.Koonan the almost civilised 06:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, if some article was created to read like an advertisement for the product, it probably would have been removed by the WP community at large already. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not if the article is not well-known. Besides, a seemingly neutral wiki article when used in a particular context might give rise to some non-objective effect. no matter how good wikipedia seems to be, let us not forget that ANYONE can become an editor, and that is dangerous if false information on wiki about some health products is depended on by people Justicelilo 18:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, for things to be objective, you'd need to fulfill the verifiability criterion. There had better be multiple third party sources saying that it is true. Or else it's likely to be unneutral or selfpromotion.--Kylohk 09:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you missed part of the point, even seemingly objective information can be used dubiously in dishonest context. Justicelilo 07:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that basically cover all of Wikipedia? We can only go so far as to ensure that information is presented in an objective and neutral manner, how this information is used, even if it is in advertisement, is really beyond our control after that. However, if the information is not presented in an objective manner in the first place, then we should definitely fix that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen people on both sides of an argument twist statistics to their liking. That happens every day. If that is so, then it is still POV. Tag it, or remove it. Cheers.--Kylohk 08:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review of Kung Fu Hustle

I've listed the Hong Kong film article Kung Fu Hustle up for peer review at WikiProject Films. If anyone is interested, please leave feedback here. Thank you for your attention.--Kylohk 13:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April Fifth Action

Take a look at the April Fifth Action article. It reads like it has some POV problems while being poorly sourced. Can somebody who knows more about the subject or can devote more time to it take a look and possibly clean it up? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A possible reference would be to look through the archives of local newspapers, like Ming Pao, but through a subscription. Then you can jump back to year 2004 where he said this and that, and so on.--Kylohk 08:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm just concerned about statements like:

Although the group strives for an anarchist-communist, revolutionary ideal akin to Che Guevara...
The group is well known for its aggressive and civil disobedience-style of actions to protest against governments of China and Hong Kong during celebrations and visits of state leaders, often resulting in confrontations with the police.

Statements like that are kind of bold without sources, and look kind of bias. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it sounds extremely biased without sources. Although I could think of several incidents regarding "Long Hair" and his female equivalent, they often get carried out at important events after scuffles. One example is the Chief Executive Election of 2007. Man, that was funny. And I remembered reading it on SCMP.--Kylohk 19:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a few minor changes to the article, and also suggested on the Talk page that the English title should be "April Fifth Action Group", which is the form usually used in the English-language media.

Rodparkes 01:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the page up some more. There were so many "big words" in the article adding confusion. I don't think that entire group is tied with che guevera, maybe 1 member. It's quite misleading. Benjwong 03:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I though Che Guevara is long dead. But still, Leung Kwok Hung is the most frequent wearer of Guevara T-shirts, so he must be the one and only fan. I remembered a certain "Young Post" article in SCMP a couple of years ago about how he aspires to be a "Trotskyist-Leninist" whatsoever.--Kylohk 07:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those Che Guevara shirts are basically a fashion trend in HK. I've asked a few people in HK wearing those shirts if they knew who he was, and none of them knew. But Leung Kwok Hung, being who he is, he may be wearing it because he's actually a fan of Guevara. Still, it's very speculative to say he's a fan just because he wears those shirts. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, he's never mentioned Guevara on the newspaper or television. Although someone should dig up whatever that Young Post article about him. I remember it was like 2 years ago on a Sunday. Oh and by the way, I looked around the pages and found one article that may be POV: League of Social Democrats. It's questionable whether they are really radical.--Kylohk 17:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed a POV tag at the top of April Fifth Action. Not sure if it's the best tag, so please replace it with a more appropriate one as applicable. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Class?

Currently, both Tung Chung and Mong Kok are rated class A. I've never rated anything class A because I've always found the rating kind of ambiguous, but one thing's for sure, both articles seem to be very under-referenced, and there may be MOS problems with them as well. Do these articles need re-assessment? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A class articles are considered to be 1 step higher than Good Articles. They have to be extremely well written, only lacking in certain aspects of the subjects. For Mong Kok, the History section isn't very detailed, and the whole article lacks reliable sources. So I'd suggest downgrading it to say B or even Start class.--Kylohk 19:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Class A being one step higher than GA never made sense to me, because GA requires third-party review, but Class A requires no such process. If I were to review either article for even GA, I wouldn't have passed them on the basis that they're both very under-referenced. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, when assessment is concerned, both A class and GA class are obtained in similar ways. All you need is a person who has not edited the article significantly to come and give it the grade. It's just that for GA, an additional step is required that you add those templates, and notices to the GAC page and so on. But the awarding process it's the same.--Kylohk 20:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kung Fu Hustle now a GAC

Kung Fu Hustle has now been nominated a good article. Feel free to assess and review it and leave feedback on any improvements that can be made if there are any--Kylohk 13:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I think it's basically ready. There may still be minor prose and grammar problems. But I don't see any major problems with it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now, is the moment where you sit around, waiting for someone to come around and promote it to a GA status.--Kylohk 16:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And make sure nobody messes up the article in the meantime. I also put Octopus card up for GAC, but I think that's going to take a long time because there are like 6 or 7 articles before it in the same category (Transportation). Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The GA section is really known for all the backlog. Something tells me there should be some designated "quality control" people responsible in that area, much like the FA section.--Kylohk 20:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And just as we were complaining about what a backlog the GA nomination page has, someone passed the article. :-P Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was certainly very kind of the reviewer. Now, I guess the next step is to nominate it for a FA.--Kylohk 16:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should put it through a peer review? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is up for a peer review right now. Cheers.--Kylohk 19:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Logo

As I seen some big WikiProjects have their own logos. I don't think the coat of arms of Hong Kong will do. Please discuss more or create a logo for this Wikiproject. --Jacklau96 15:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think the HK coat of arms is fine. Either that or the HK Brand logo. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the Brand Hong Kong Logo is coprighted. It cannot be used on templates. --Jacklau96 01:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So do HK coat of arms. — HenryLi (Talk) 16:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curious, what don't you like about the current set up? Luke! 04:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The coat of arms clearly represents Hong Kong. If you don't like it, it may be a good idea to draw a new logo with a junk in the middle, and that's another symbol for Hong Kong.--Kylohk 16:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like using a junk as a symbol of HK. It's too touristy. I mean, there's only one junk left in HK, and they only bring it out just to show the tourists. Stick with the Bauhinia as a symbol, even if we create a new logo. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Coat of Arms is a great symbol. Just maybe a little bit bigger so some ppl can read the words w/o having to click into the pic. Herenthere (Talk) 22:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the coat of arms is too formal --Jacklau96 02:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are in general, several possibilities. Either you use the government emblem, an item that symbolizes HK (Tsing Ma Bridge, Bauhinia etc) or the shape of Hong Kong as the logo.--Kylohk 11:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Location map

I think making a Hong Kong location map according to this standard should be useful to the project. Anybody interested in doing this? --Der yck C. 03:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but I don't know anything about it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the examples there. We only need a blank Hong Kong map and some coordinates and it's done. Do you have a blank Hong Kong map? --Der yck C. 04:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This topic comes up quite often. The best thing to do is to take the many regional maps and trace over it. This is alot of work. I was tempted to do it, but have a stack of projects on my list. If you are looking for the full HK map in a single color, there might be one in wikimedia commons. Benjwong 06:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instantnood

Just realized that Instantnood (talk · contribs) was totally banned by some non-process decision. I think WPHK might want to know this. Personally, I am in deep sorrow for his departure, but since we are process-abiding people, I can't do much. Probably I'm the only person in the world who's sorry for this. --Der yck C. 07:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel sorry about that. Instantnood (talk · contribs) had contributed a lot in Hong Kong-related articles. — HenryLi (Talk) 07:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's been banned for a while now. I think when he actually takes the time to discuss, he was a very good contributor. But most of the time he is revert warring across multiple articles, with him being the sole editor that agrees with the changes he himself is making. That kind of behaviour eventually got him on revert parole (one revert per article per week). If he had just abided by that, he would still be here. But he started revert warring with sockpuppets instead. I think this is why he's been permanently blocked. Again I feel he was a very good contributor when he wasn't revert warring, but he needed to understand that WP is a collaborative process and that there are going to be times when he cannot have things his way. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And many a time I agreed with Instantnood's viewpoint. Now he's banned and Wikipedia had lost the best (in my opinion) devil's advocate from Hong Kong. Now I retrospect the days back about one and a half years ago when Instantnood, Jerry and I collaborated the Hong Kong article stack together... --Der yck C. 15:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having read his talk page archives, it seems that he has had a lot of conflict with others, over whether to use "mainland China" in articles! His also argued over whether Taiwan or Republic of China should be used in articles. I mean, aren't there better things to argue about? Being sent to RfC or Arbcom over such trivial matters really amazes me.--Kylohk 17:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has endless conflicts with SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs) and Huaiwei (talk · contribs). It's really amazingly long. — HenryLi (Talk) 18:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did they ban his username? Or they ban his IP permanently? Benjwong 19:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess they banned his IP. The block log stated that he's prevented from creating any new user accounts for a certain period of time.--Kylohk 19:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to his account log, the block is indefinite. Although knowing his behaviour, it's possible he's been editing under a different IP. As long as he does not revert war, nobody would take notice, and it wouldn't really matter anyway. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think everybody in Hong Kong edits from multiple IPs. And many a time proxies and tors are used. Sigh. But the community has to take responsibility - who made all the ArbCom rulings against Instantnood? If I were him, I'd also go crazy. --Der yck C. 01:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main Hong Kong article

The main Hong Kong article is starting to become under-referenced, especially the "History" section and the "Politics and government" section. Referencing for the latter section is especially important because it discusses currently living persons and some admins are very strict in applying WP:BLP. Right now the article is still in FA class, but I fear it will not survive a FAR if it is nominated for one. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the under-referencing because of the new content or content that existed even when the article is nominated for FAC back then? --Der yck C. 15:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was promoted to FA almost 2 years ago, and back then FACs are less stringent than they are now. It does look like the version that was promoted was even more under-referenced. If you take a look at any FARs that are going on today though, you'll see that reviewers want to make sure that an article is very well referenced. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But "very well referenced" does not mean over-footnoting. We should be careful not to add too many superscript notes, especially for stone-hard facts. --Der yck C. 17:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I don't think we should over-reference the article. But I do think right now it is under-referenced. We must remember that we should be writing articles as if it is read by someone that doesn't know anything about the subject. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can go and do something with the politics section in a few days. --Der yck C. 17:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. I don't think the content of the article needs much work. I just think that for the information that's already presented in the article, we need to reference them better. But don't you have to study for your A Levels? :DHong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure we are under-referenced? We have never been slapped with a "Unreferenced" warning. If anything I think we are overdoing it. Stuff like statistics should definitely be referenced, but alot of the facts are already in the internal articles within history/politics etc. Benjwong 19:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Qigong is concerned mainly about the BLP content of the politics section. The history part really needs little work, as history is concrete facts. --Der yck C. 01:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the content needs to change, I just think it needs more footnotes. Just saying that it's "concrete facts" is not going to fly with FAR reviewers who want every fact to be provided with a source. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I just wonder if the FAR folks are crazy? --Der yck C. 04:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen some that are pretty stringent. As an example of today's standard for an FA class article, check out the recently promoted Kung Fu Hustle. Note how frequently footnotes appear. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benjwong - To clarify, I don't mean it's so under-referenced that it needs an "Unreferenced" tag. I mean it's under-referenced for an FA article and I fear it may not survive a FAR if it was tagged for one. I would like it to stay FA class. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added more footnotes. I think it is already overdoing it. Try getting it reviewed again. I think the reference requirements are getting ridiculous. Benjwong 03:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! I'll try to find the time to do some of the other sections as well. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Octopus card passed GA

Alright, Octopus card has passed its GA nomination. The first step to bringing that article back to FA status has been accomplished. I may not get to it right away, but what I plan to do next is:

Create stub articles for the red links in the article.
Request a peer review.
Nominate for FAC.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! --Der yck C. 17:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. That's good news. Benjwong 19:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've requested a peer review for the article. Wikipedia:Peer review/Octopus card. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kung Fu Hustle promoted to FA

Thanks goes to User:Kylohk for all the work that he did on the article. Good job! Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! This really is a first for WikiProject Hong Kong. It is the first Hong Kong film article to be featured! I'm happy because of this, also because England managed to draw Brazil 1-1 at the new Wembley stadium!--Kylohk 21:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work once again! –Pomte 22:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the spoiler tag for the plot section? --Jacklau96 04:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SPOILER, a section with the heading "Plot" is clearly discussing the plot, thus {{spoiler}} is not necessary. Resurgent insurgent 05:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that spoiler warnings aren't very professional. You don't have film magazines tagging each article with that warning, since it's obvious they will expose the plot.--Kylohk 07:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Centamap article request

I noticed that an editor requested that an article about Centamap be created on the project requests page. An article previously existed for this Hong Kong mapping service; however, it was deleted (not by myself) per CSD criteria - A7 (Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content...)

I contemplated re-creating the article for this service, however a quick Google search (first three pages only) does not yield much notability. Putting it out there, if we all feel that there are enough sources out there to support this article, then we can ask for a deletion review to restore the previous article. Any thoughts? Luke! 19:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see what the article looked like before it was deleted actually. But definitely, if we can't assert notability, then there's no point recreating it or asking for a deletion review. I'm just going by personal experience that I know a lot of people use it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The worst thing is that the article Centamap is deleted without discussing with any major contributors or related project / noticeboard (According to Wikipedia:Notability). The nature of Centamap makes it notable in Hong Kong only but not the rest of the world. If you search its Chinese name 中原地圖 in Google, you can find more extensive usage. — HenryLi (Talk) 03:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's why I'm curious what the article had looked like before deletion. It probably failed to assert notability. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the article and moved it into my user space. It is now here: User:Resurgent insurgent/Centamap. Anyone who wishes to cleanup the article can do so. If the article is sufficiently cleaned up to assert notability, it can be restored to its former name with no DRV discussion required. Resurgent insurgent 03:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a piece of information to try to assert notability. Not sure if it's enough though[1]. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough. WP:WEB demands multiple (two or more) detailed write-ups from sources that are independent of the website itself. Resurgent insurgent 12:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, between User:Luckyluke and I, three sources have been added to state that:

1. It's the first mapping service licenced by the HK Census and Statistics Department.

2. It's monthly page views jumped from 0.1 million to 4 million from 1999 to 2003.

3. It was ranked the top website in HK's online travel industry in March of 2007.

Do we need more? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a point to show, but a main problem is that the harsh people at deletion review and deletion requests do not accept foreign-language sources as notability evidence; and btw Resurgent insurgent be careful, an admin has previously been desysopped by Jimbo's intervention for simply offering to unveil deleted content to others. --Der yck C. 06:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the three sources that are now provided are all English-language sources. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think restoring a deleted article whose revisions all do not violate key policies (such as WP:BLP) will pose any problem. Also, I'm restoring it for it to be worked on, not for some newspaper reporter or external critic to gawk at. Context is important. Resurgent insurgent 08:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the article now. :-P It's been moved back. And if anyone wants the sources, email me; I have a PDF with all of them. (Thanks Factiva.) Resurgent insurgent 10:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice expansion! I don't think the article is in danger of failing a notability test now. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lam Tin on WP:GAC

After two years of (hard?) work, the article's finally up-to-standard and I've nominated it for GA. Give some comments please! --Der yck C. 07:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sections look a little under-referenced, but I think unless you get a strict GA reviewer, the article will pass. I didn't know Lam Tin used to be salt fields though. Good job on the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks bit under-referenced because I wanted to avoid over-footnoting. Most of the references have now become bulleted lists at the bottom of the page instead of inline footnote links. But if this should really be reversed, it can be done. Nevertheless, I think putting in all the footnotes will make the page less readable. --Der yck C.^{review my hometown!} 10:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the readability of having footnotes is a matter of preference. But I do think that many article reviewers are looking for footnotes these days. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close-file - the article was given a detailed fail. If possible, everyone can help fixing the problems as addressed by the reviewer. For the inline references, I should be able to fix them. --Der yck C. 10:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The article needs a format fix. As reported, it currently looks broken on IE. Anybody using IE is able to fix it? It is alright to fix the article at the expense of removing a few images. --Der yck C. 09:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reply to Qigong as of above) Well, it is indeed a case that people actually prefer the presence of a (probably) excess amount of footnote links. I've added a lot to the article, more than doubling the number. Thanks Qigong for helping with the layout of the article, if there's no objections I'll put it up for a GA renom tomorrow. (ie. later today HKT) --Der yck C. 16:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would leave a note at the Talk page of the original GA reviewer about the improvement, and ask if he'd be willing to re-evaluate it. That way you can cut out any possible wait on the GA candidate queue. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So would you do it? Thanks. --Der yck C. 15:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use image problems in The Bus Uncle

There is this fair use image problem in 3 of the images in The Bus Uncle. The argument is that since they are living, free pictures of them can be taken at any time. Yes that's possible, but what is the likelihood you will bump into 1 of the 3 in one day to take the photo? Also, the pictures show them in specific scenarios, that can't be reproduced by anyone anymore. How is anyone able to reasonably obtain free images of the 3? Are there really free images available on the internet?--Kylohk 08:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The images don't have to be replaceable with much likelihood, as long as it is possible. The argument seems to be that the specific scenarios aren't very significant. Them being in interviews is not a central topic in the article, and anyone can imagine a man being interviewed on TV. Reading the article, it did seem that the images were used solely to show their faces. I've responded to your proposal of 2 other images here. –Pomte 04:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bus Uncle FAR

The Bus Uncle has been nominated for a FAR - Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Bus Uncle - just about one month after it was promoted. Please help improve the article. Keep in mind the current ongoing WP:BLP dispute that's been going on. I think that many editors are going to hone in on the FAR to try to get the article demoted. It's a shame. But try to accomodate the FAR reviewers instead of arguing with them if you happen to disagree with them. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need Template Opinion

I was about to go down the food or items list and try standardizing the format on a number of articles. However, I cannot decide which one to really use Template:Chinesename or Template:Chinese. Before I make a ton of changes, I would like to hear some opinions on it. For example you can see the difference between Chinesename template in effect and Chinese template in effect Benjwong 22:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination for Stanley Internment Camp

Alright, I'm finally satisfied with the state of Stanley Internment Camp, and I've nominated it for GA status. Hopefully the images won't be a problem. I had to tag 2 out of 3 of the images as fair use, justifying that since the camp was only in existence from 1942 to 1945, a new version of the images cannot be produced. The third image, fortunately, should be public domain since it was Crown copyrighted more than 50 years ago. I've uploaded it to Commons instead. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Try nominating it. Benjwong 02:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WPHK Userbox

The original image that the WPHK Userbox uses (Image:WPHKuserbox.PNG) is supposed to look 3D, but the 3D aspect of the image doesn't really show up at the small size of the userbox, so I made some slight changes to it. Take a look and see if it looks OK. Template:User WPHK. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the infobox wasn't red, it'll likely show up 3D. Benjwong 02:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the userbox need to be red (that symbolized the Hong Kong, as it is used in the flag) and the image need to appear in 3D. --Jacklau96 09:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this:

--Jacklau96 10:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine! -Herenthere (Talk) 19:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That new image looks fine. But why do you think the image that goes in the userbox needs to appear 3D? I don't think that's necessary, especially since the userbox is so small. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive! That looks professional. Let's use it in the userbox. Benjwong 02:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I'm going to change the template to use the new image. If anybody has any problems with it, feel free to revert or discuss. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the colour is too sharp, consider a duller colour. --Jacklau96 10:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user is a member of Wikiproject Hong Kong.

How's that? Or alternatively, we can just make it white.

This user is a member of Wikiproject Hong Kong.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Society of Cinematographers

User:Ohconfucius has placed a "prod" tag on Hong Kong Society of Cinematographers, and the article will be deleted in a few days if the deletion is uncontested. I don't know too much about this organisation or association. But if someone think it's notable enough for an article, please expand it a bit to assert notability. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is 香港專業電影攝影師學會, one of 13 organisations managing Hong Kong Film Awards. — HenryLi (Talk) 00:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaomai and Siu maai

I just noticed we have two different articles for 燒賣. If there are no objections, I'll be merging Siu maai into Shaomai. Since Shao Mai/Siu Maai is not limited to Cantonese cuisine (correct me if I'm wrong), we should probably use the pinyin romanisation standard here on WP. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to merge it however you like. I am not too concerned with any of the names as long as there are redirects. In fact, I don't have a history of its actual origin to make a call on the romanization etc. Benjwong 19:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a food of Cantonese origin (isn't it?), so should be under the Cantonese romanization, the way Jiaozi or Bing (Chinese bread) are northern and under pinyin romanization conventions (though one can sometimes find these foods in Cantonese restaurants). Badagnani 19:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think articles like Jiaozi are named by Mandarin pinyin because pinyin is a naming convention for romanising Chinese things that do not otherwise have popularised English names. I really don't know if Shao Mai/Siu Maai are Cantonese in origin, but it's probably been popularised in the west as a dim sum dish. Actually it doesn't matter too much to me what name we use as the article title. Let's see what others have to say about this before we do any merging. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's now redirected into shaomai. Benjwong 00:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myolie Wu and TVB article guidelines

I think it is best to set guidelines for TVB related articles. The article Myolie Wu was written inthe form of an advertisement. I've cleaned up that part, but there is still referencing to do. I would suggest creating a page or a TVb Wikiproject and lay out some guidelines, like the style of writing and the use of acotr/actress/drama show poster images, as most are non-fair use.--TVB dx iang (Ta lk) 13:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There really aren't that many active participants in this WikiProject as it is, I don't think you'll get much activity in a WikiProject devoted entirely to TVB. But we can certainly talk about establishing some guidelines for TVB-related articles right here. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first guideline should be to move list of TVB series to list of Hong kong TV shows. It looks like a monopoly list owned by TVB at the moment. Benjwong 17:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think the lists are fine where they are. They are specifically about TVB shows after all. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cuisine redirect

I requested that Hong Kong-style Western cuisine merge into Cuisine of Hong Kong either via deletion or become a redirect page. The discussion didn't get anywhere. Keeping this article around adds confusion. Anyone have an opinion on how to handle it? Benjwong 16:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think keeping the article adds confusion? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]