Wikipedia talk:HK wikipedians' notice board

/Archive 1 - discussion from Jan 28 to Jun 2 2005

MTR naming conventions

This is the start of a discussion to precepitate a large scale edit war over all the MTR articles. I personally believe that the best way to name the MTR articles is XXX (MTR) for all the MTR lines, and either (MTR) or the line name, such as (Kwun Tong) for the individual stations. I also find the use of the word station in the bolded title redundant, as station is the very next word. Its very redundant. It also shouldn't be included because it is standard on all the already existant articles to not include the word station in the hyperlinked text, for example "Central station", not "Central station.

Any other opinions?

I thought about the redundancy issue too, but having the word in the bolded title definitely help differentiate stations from lines which share the same name, and standardise all articles with the word "station" would be better. In fact the word "station" forms part of the names of the stations on sign at the entrances/exits (see Lai King, Tsing Yi). I am still thinking how to deal with the link to the list of stations to reduce redundancy.

IMHO, the best way to title the articles on lines and stations, as stated in the section above, would be "Something Station, MTR", "Something Line, MTR" for MTR, and "KCR Something Rail", "Something Station, Something Rail" for KCR. — Insta ntnood 08:28, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but why the comma? Its not used on any other subway or metro system for the station names. See New York City Subway, Toronto Transit Commission, Montreal Metro, etc. I think it looks ugly, and unprofessional. And it goes against the pre-existant Wikipedia standard. As to the confusion, I don't think there is much if the very next word is station. How could anyone get confused if they read the word station immediately after? For example, for a town named "Sky" you wouldn't write "Sky Town is a town" or anything else like that. Páll 08:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As an outsider who's been asked to weigh in, I suggest Central (MTR station), similar to what I've been using for the New York City Subway. It disambiguates in the case of any lines and stations that share the same name. Somewhat importantly, it makes linking easy - you can type [[Central (MTR station)|]] (note the vertical bar) and it expands to Central. I'm assuming here that stations don't repeat names (for instance in New York, you have a bunch of stations all called simply 125th Street), so further disambiguation is not required. --SPUI (talk) 09:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Or how about XXX MTR Station, XXX MTR Line, and so on? Having commas and brackets usually means you cant link to them directly (ie, you need to use "|" ), and they wont make much sense to anyone who dosent know what MTR or KCR stands for. An example of this naming method can be seen over at Category:Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)--Huaiwei 09:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you going to want the text to say something like "After passing Bar MTR Station on the Foo MTR Line, trains enter Central MTR Station"? Seems a bit redundant, and the vertical bar problem is fixed by using the bar with nothing after. I've also been asked about whether the word "station" should be bolded - I think that should depend on local usage. If people, train announcements, signs, whatever, usually say "Central Station", include the station (and possibly include it outside the parentheses in the article title too). If "Station" is usually omitted, then don't include it. --SPUI (talk) 09:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Haha....no of coz not, but the "redundant" word here isnt "station" or "line". Its "MTR", but even then, it only seems redundant if you have to keep repeating it. There is nothing wrong with saying "I am going to Central MTR Station". Try saying "I am going to Central (MTR)" instead? :D--Huaiwei 10:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So finally I can see the famous PZFUN! (I said to myself this guy really rocks -- look at the number of languages he knows! :-O *stunned*)

Pzfun's suggestion is pretty good. Even the MTR Corporation skips the word "station" in its official website. In fact the "xxx station" format has a tinge of Chinglish somehow. But I must say his Sky Town theory does not apply: people would say, for example, Skyville is a city, rather than a ville. Just the same when it comes to Sky Town. :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 09:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not really Chinglish actually. It is what the signs are like at entrances/exits of the stations (see Lai King, Tsing Yi). — Insta ntnood 09:59, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Chinglish?? Haha..why?--Huaiwei 10:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(response to SPUI) I see. I never know [[Central (MTR)|]] would be expanded to Central automatically. In that case I would suggest using the format "Something Station (MTR)", "Something Line (MTR)". — Insta ntnood 09:59, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the page name matters most...in fact, page name can be reasonably redundant so as to avoid overlapping of articles, e.g. Kowloon Tong for MTR, and another for KCR; smiliar cases applied in Tsim Sha Tsui and Nam Cheong, likewise the page names of New York Subway stations. But the word "station" can be omitted in the contents, I suppose. There seems a rather great disparity in the naming systems of both western and eastern societies. Let's make a consensus. :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 10:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am now inclining to support Shinjiman's proposal above (phases 1 and 2), except on the titles of KCR systems, and the choice between KCR/KCRC/Something Rail for stations on the KCR network, after learning from SPUI about the miracle of using round brackets. :-) — Insta ntnood 10:26, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

So can we agree that this should be the standard formatting for the MTR and KCRC articles?

The article name is xxx (MTR) or xxx (KCRC)
The bolded title does not include the word "station"
When linking to a station name, the word station is not included in the link (Central, not Central station)
The first reference to an MTR line uses the bolded and coloured text, each subsequent reference does not.

Are there any obections, and am I forgetting anything? Páll 10:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes for xxx (MTR) and coloured text for lines. Not for xxx (KCRC), and not for the bolded title and the word station in links. :-) — Insta ntnood 10:49, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

For. The draft proposed by PZFUN is OK by me. :) Btw, I think it should be xxx (KCR) instead of xxx (KCRC). KCR is a railway, but KCRC is a corporation. Otherwise, the article name of the MTR should have the format of xxx (MTRC) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 10:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) Further negotiation is demanded. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 11:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I'd prefer "Sha Tin (East Rail)" instead of "Sha Tin (KCRC)". If that's not the consensus I'd support "Sha Tin (KCR)".

On the leading sentence, what about changing "Causeway Bay is a [[List of Hong Kong MTR stations|station]] on MTR's Island Line..." into "Causeway Bay [[List of Hong Kong MTR stations|'''Station''']] is on MTR's Island Line..."? — Insta ntnood 10:49, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

No, not at all. I absolutely dispise bolded links, I think it looks tacky and should be avoided at all costs. Can you please spell out your reasons why you wish to include the word station? Its not even used by the MTR website! Páll 10:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The simple reason why you need to mention "Station", is because Causeway Bay is not a name specifically used only by a rail station in Hong Kong. It is also a place name, and a geographical feature. Nor is the word "Central" only perculiar to a rail station in HK, and not used in any other rail station or place name elsewhere.--Huaiwei 11:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but that logic is not followed on any other metro line apart from Singapore's. For example, 59th Street (IRT Lexington Avenue Line station) has the bolded title of "59th Street", which is a street foun din many cities around the world as well as in New York City itself. Kennedy (TTC) which is a station on the Toronto Subway and RT has the bolded title of Kennedy. And there's no confusion, because if you can't be bothered to read the rest of the sentence to find out the context, then I can't help that person. Páll 11:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ya... the boardcast in the train would say: "next station, Causeway Bay", but not "next station, Causeway Bay Station". Similar in Chinese: "下一站，銅鑼灣。" instead of "下一站，銅鑼灣站。" -- Jerry Crimson Mann 11:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This reminds me of the 广州火车站站 in Guangzhou Metro. :-) — Insta ntnood 17:12, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

A new ground-breaking evidence: the word "station" would go along with the names of the British railway stations, e.g. Kings Cross railway station. Both Hong Kong and Singapore had been colonies of the UK, and that's why I see a reason the word "station" should be kept... -- Jerry Crimson Mann 11:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's the same for Australian railway stations. The word station forms part of the title. :-D — Insta ntnood 14:59, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Oh you were actually talking about the linking of the word station, rather then the mention of the word station in the article? Haha...I tot it was the later. Anyway, I dont think this has any geographical pattern to it. Taipei's system mentions the word station in all in-train annoucements and on LED displays (Yes...they go "Next station...Ximen Station", while Singapore's actually dosent ("Next station...Hougang"). That dosent stop us from adding the word "station" to Singapore's stations? Btw, if you look at Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore), you will notice we dont insist that have to refer to the stations in one standard method. For a hypothetical eg, "Hougang", "Hougang Station" and "Hougang MRT Station" are all used, with each refering to the "Hougang MRT Station" article. :D --Huaiwei 12:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uh, the London Underground articles do not use the word station. Please see Barbican station. Páll 12:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My intention was just to make the differentiation between articles on lines and on stations, for the case of Kwun Tong Station and Kwun Tong Line, more easily identified. If the consensus here is to drop the word station from the leading sentence, I would request only keeping the word for cases like Kwun Tong, but not for cases like Causeway Bay. — Insta ntnood 14:59, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

For my suggestion, we can do with the name about that:

Metro Lines / Railway Lines

Kwun Tong Line (MTR) as stated in Phase 1 before.
East Rail (KCR)
Ma On Shan Rail (KCR)
etc...

Metro Stations / Railway Stations

Kwun Tong (MTR) as stated in Phase 2 after, and this should be operated after cleaning up the old link that have done after Phase 1.
Ma On Shan (KCR)
etc...

The word KCR should be used instead of KCRC to distinguish between the railway services and the corporation.

This option can reduce the modification times with the current title names. :D --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 16:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pretty much the same as the proposal above. I now incline to support this proposal, except that I prefer "KCR East Rail" to "East Rail (KCR)", as they're branded as such by KCRC the company. In fact this was discussed with Mailer diablo and Juntung long long ago, during the discussion of spliting KCR and KCRC. — Insta ntnood 17:09, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I finally find out the previous discussion. It took place at User_talk:Juntung#Re:_KCR.2FKCRC_split. 17:17, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I would say that we have made some progress here, so here are my suggestions:

Lines

XXX Line (MTR), e.g. Tung Chung Line (MTR) (Same as Phase 1 above)

Reason: for the sake of simplicity

KCR XXX Rail, e.g. KCR Ma On Shan Rail (Same as Juntung's approach in his talk page)

Reason: official corporative branding

In Articles:

Bold and colored for first time appearing in the article (even as a link), every time in the list of stations, but normal for other instances. Emphasis on individual lines needed to ease reading.

Stations

XXX (KCR), e.g. East Tsim Sha Tsui (KCR); XXX (MTR), e.g. Kennedy Town (MTR); not East Tsim Sha Tsui (KCR East Rail), Kennedy Town (West Island Line). Lines passing the station, be them planned or real can often change over time, but rarely would its ownership change.

-Carlsmith 19:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I guess phase 2 suggested by Shinjiman should also be done - at a later stage - to standardise the titles of station articles.

One of the only problems left is the title in the station template, i.e. "Station of the Hong Kong MTR" or "Station of Hong Kong's MTR". The another problem is the word "station" in bolded form in the leading paragraph. — Insta ntnood 20:12, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Wow, look like we've made some progess while I've been asleep. I do not mind having the word station when there could be confusion, ie the difference between Kwun Tong Station and Kwun Tong Line, however in that case i think we should find a way to rewrite the opening sentence so the word station is not repeated. I'm OK with the KCR East Rail, as it is branded that way by the KCRC. As for the Station of the Hong Kong MTR/Station of Hong Kong's MTR, I believe the former to be better as I cannot really imagine that many people would come across an individual station article without being onto the MTR page first if they were not familar with the subject. I also was always taught growing up that it is best to avoid using possessive apostrophies whenever possible in formal writing, thus "The metro of Hong Kong" is more formal than "Hong Kong's metro". Páll 21:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Near to consensus finally. :-) I guess we've agreed with each other on most things except the word station. What about <nowiki>'''Kwun Tong [[List of Hong Kong MTR stations|Station]]''' is on the [[Kwun Tong Line (MTR)|]] of the [[MTR]] in [[Hong Kong]].</nowiki> (which expands to " Kwun Tong Station is on the Kwun Tong Line of the MTR in Hong Kong. ")? — Insta ntnood 23:49, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

No, never. I think using bolded links in a title should be avoided at all costs, and I have made hundred of edits to articles to remove them. I would never condone producing them as a standard. Páll 00:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm running out of ideas. :-) What about adding a disambiguation notice at the top of the article, for instance <nowiki>:''This article is about the station, see [[Kwun Tong Line (MTR)|]] for the line with the same name.''</nowiki>? (And a picture of the entrance like Lai King and Tsing Yi would be great too) — Insta ntnood 00:27, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

That works, so for the above example: "This article is about Kwun Tong station, for the MTR line of the same name, see Kwun Tong Line."

Yes, so it would be like this:

This article is about Kwun Tong Station. For the MTR line of the same name, see Kwun Tong Line.

Kwun Tong is a station on the Kwun Tong Line of the Hong Kong MTR system...

I think the word "station" should be capitalized in the first sentence since "Kwun Tong Station" is the complete name of a place. What do you think? Carlsmith 03:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't buy that format in which "station" is capitalised. Let's see the case of British railway's stations:-

Kings Cross or King's Cross station is a railway station in Kings Cross to the north east of central London... -- freely adopted from Kings Cross railway station.

Another case of British railway's stations:-

Leicester station is a railway station in Leicester, England. It is just east of the city centre, on the A6 road. -- adapted from Leicester railway station.

Here is the case of Australian railway's stations:

Ormond railway station (station code: OMD) is on the suburban Frankston line in Melbourne, Australia. -- adopted from Ormond railway station, Melbourne.

The words "station" in these cases are not capitalised. Well, if you ask me why, I will tell you like the way my English told me: that's usage. ;-D --Jerry Crimson Mann 07:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But take a look at Taipei Main Station, Namba Station, Jurong East MRT Station, Union Station (Washington, DC) and Pennsylvania Station. The word is capitalized. There is clearly lack of consensus among English speakers.

The debate would perhaps be unneccessary considering this:

This article is about the MTR station. For the MTR line of the same name, see Kwun Tong Line.

Or better yet, simply:

For the MTR line of the same name, see Kwun Tong Line.

Clear and concise. (Adapted from Star Wars) --Carlsmith 13:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agree. The same notices are now added to the articles on Tseung Kwan O and Tsuen Wan stations. — Insta ntnood 14:26, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Seems the MTR article has been put on Today's featured article. :D --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 08:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shall we carry on and implement the proposal, such as Sha Tin (KCRC) → Sha Tin (KCR)? — Insta ntnood 13:49, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

It's OK by me :D--Jerry Crimson Mann 13:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have put up a bot request to have the articles retitled. — Insta ntnood 19:27, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't know the discussion until today. But I strongly demand that all station's articles should be given the word "Station" in the name. I feel very frustrated that somebody deleted the words in the title (or created articles with his forms of title), and I regretted that I didn't take any action against it when I discovered this half a year ago. I feel that I must do something to revert those changes. Patrickov 16:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which country does Hong Kong belong to?

Recently, I read a lot of Hong Kong-related article and I find something that I would like to point out here.

As I know, it is a common practice that the first sentence in many articles in Wikipedia tell the reader the LOCATION involved (if applicable). For instance, "Kung Pao chicken is a classic dish in Szechuan cuisine originating in Sichuan province in the western part of China." or "Heping District is a district in the center of Tianjin, in northeastern China." In these two examples, the information about the LOCATION tells us about the CITY, PROVINCE and COUNTRY.

But in a lot of articles about the stuffs in Hong Kong, the writers just simply say "Hong Kong", which only gives information at the level of CITY. As a student from Hong Kong in the United States, I now know that not all foreigners know where (and what) Hong Kong is. (Actually, a lot of them don't know, and would ask "Where is Hong Kong? Is it in China?") Because Hong Kong is, in fact, just a small place in terms of area. It is not even easily found on a world map. Although the Government of Hong Kong pays a lot of effort to promote Hong Kong as an "Asian World City," we cannot assume all readers of Wikipedia know so much things about a foreign place.

Therefore, I suggest writing "Hong Kong, China" rather than merely "Hong Kong" in the Hong Kong-related articles in Wikipedia, to make sure foreign readers have a picture about that Hong Kong is part of China and that it is in Asia. This gives information at the level of COUNTRY as well as city. (In fact, China is much more well-known than Hong Kong in foreign countries.) That actually makes sense, as Hong Kong also participates in international events such as the Olympic Games under the title "Hong Kong, China."

I know some Wikipedians from Hong Kong do not find it proud to admit that they are Chinese, or that Hong Kong is a part of China, because of they dislike the Government in Beijing. But it is a fact that Hong Kong is a special administrative region of China. Wikipedia should tell readers the FACT.

For the sake of clarity, I hope all Hong Kong folks in Wikipedia use the term "Hong Kong, China" in future edits. Thanks.

Hong Kong Man 5:05pm June 14th, 2005 (Pacific Daylight Saving Time)

be bold and do it. If you find yourself in an edit war with someone who objects for a biased reason find community consensus. I certainly don't object. SchmuckyTheCat 04:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then why don't the BBC and CNN reporters use the term you've mentioned above. We ofter hear: "Jenny Parkman of BBC News, Hong Kong" but not "Jenny Parkman of BBC News, Hong Kong, China". (On the other hand, "Jenny Parkman of BBC News, Tianjin, China" -- this is no discrimination, mind you, but that's the sheer experience of a potato couch :-D) Similarly Jenny Parkman would not tell the audience where Hong Kong is when reporting the resignation of Tung Chee Hwa. That means Hong Kong has her own fame to a certain extent.

Well, most atlases do include Hong Kong (even a toy map like "It's a Fun, Fun World Atlas" made in Malaysia (ISBN 983-191-785-5) does so, so I wonder what kind of atlas you're using). I found the news that the US people don't know where Hong Kong is is no surprising; a pretty large proportion of the Americans don't hold a passport (and they seldom travel to other countries), and constantly mix up with the names of other countries. In fact, the American did badly in an international geography competition (though I forgot the name of it). Apparantly, this is not a matter of pride, nor hatred, nor face, nor you name it; over-using Hong Kong, China is really redundant and verbose. If other wikipedians do not know where Hong Kong is, why don't they type Hong Kong into the search box so as to get an even more detailed picture of this so-called unknown teensy-weensy island city? The page is tellling the FACT. And if my pals say they don't have the foggiest idea where the US is, should I rephrase the USA into the USA, America?

Should the same logics be applied to Taiwan, it's not, internationally, a country level, too. So what? So they have to gain a country level by liaising with the PRC?

Certainly, Hong Kong can be equavalent to Hong Kong, China, likewise HKSAR, likewise HKSAR of the PRC. So which one do you prefer? But I admit that sometimes it's necessary to use "Hong Kong, China", particularly in certain geographical and important political issues. Otherwise, with a high degree of autonomy, the name Hong Kong would be duely enough in most cases. :-D

PS It would be nice that you can share some example pages which are accused of "understatement".

PPS SchmuckyTheCat (or 猶太陰莖貓 (is that your Chinese name!?))'s just a bit pessimistic: how come you can prophesy that there would be an edit war? :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 05:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(Quoted by Jerry Crimson Mann 07:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) from Hong Kong Man's user talk)

I understand that. Quite a lot of American people do not know very well about places far away, not as much as they do for the 50 states. But then it has actually become a little unwritten convention (tho we can discuss and change it) that "China" is not necessary when making a reference to Hong Kong, partly because of its independent status except with diplomatic relations and national defence, and partly because of its relative importance in the region.

Furthermore there's another problem that if China has to be mentioned, the link should be pointed at People's Republic of China, instead of China. — Insta ntnood 06:59, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

> Well, most atlases do include Hong Kong (even a toy map like "It's a Fun, Fun World Atlas" made in Malaysia (ISBN 983-191-785-5) does so, so I wonder what kind of atlas you're using).

So what? That a childish toy map in Malaysia includes Hong Kong do not necessarily imply that all people in the World are familiar with Hong Kong. A lot of map has Hong Kong on it too, but we cannot assume all people in the world cares so much about a small foreign city. There are a lot of foreigners misunderstanding that Hong Kong is an imdependent nation, rather than a special administrative region of China. This should be clarified. As it is common for people to say "Los Angeles, CA, USA" or "Paris, France", I see no point for saying that it is mistaken to write "Hong Kong, China". Another problem is that Hong Kong is not really as well-known as New York, Los Angeles, Beijing, Paris around the world. "Hong Kong, China" provides a clear picture without having the readers type in "Hong Kong" and search. "Hong Kong, China" is just one word more than "Hong Kong". I don’t think it is untoleratably clumsy.

I was really surprised by that when I wrote "Hong Kong, China" in an article, a person edited the article only with the word "China" deleted – nothing else was changed! In my opinion, this was really an unnecessary change. "Hong Kong, China" is actually more precise than "Hong Kong". Why some people like to make things from clear to ambiguous?

> The page is tellling the FACT. And if my pals say they don't have the foggiest idea where the US is, should I rephrase the USA into the USA, America?

Please read my post again and make sure that you understand my point first. I didn’t say that we have to use "USA, America" instead of "USA", "China, Asia" instead of "China", or "France, Europe" instead of "France". I didn’t say it is necessary to add the continent after the name of a country.

> Should the same logics be applied to Taiwan, it's not, internationally, a country level, too. So what? So they have to gain a country level by liaising with the PRC?

Please understand that Taiwan is not controlled by the regime of the "People’s Republic of China" (PRC), but the regime of the "Republic of China" (ROC). Taiwan itself is not a country, but the ROC is. If we really want to refer to Taiwan at a country level, we should say "Taiwan, ROC". In fact, many overseas Taiwanese write "Taiwan, ROC" in the address when they send a letter to someone in Taiwan.

But, if we wrote "Taiwan, China", it may be misleading, as Taiwan is not controlled by PRC, which is commonly known as "China". Plus, it can be seen that Taiwan is more well-known internationally than Hong Kong. I think, for the case of Taiwan, it is fine to just write "Taiwan". But for the case of Hong Kong, Hong Kong really participates in international events under the title of "Hong Kong, China". Also, it is undisputable that Hong Kong is a part of China. Therefore, I think it is good to write "Hong Kong, China".

> Certainly, Hong Kong can be equavalent to Hong Kong, China, likewise HKSAR, likewise HKSAR of the PRC. So which one do you prefer? But I admit that sometimes it's necessary to use "Hong Kong, China", particularly in certain geographical and important political issues. Otherwise, with a high degree of autonomy, the name Hong Kong would be duely enough in most cases. :-D

First of all, I don"t agree that Hong Kong has a high degree of autonomy. Second, even she has a high degree of autonomy, her soverignty is belong to China. That"s why I see no points for deliberately deleting the word "China" even if it already appears in the article. In China, there are several autonomous regions. For those regions, it is also common to add the word "China" after the name of the region. If your logic is valid, then let us delete all the name of the countries in all the articles about geographical areas of all the countries. Do you think that is a good idea?

Hong Kong is a part of China. This is an undisputable fact. I just wonder why some Hong Kong Wikipedians feel shameful to admit that Hong Kong is a part of China. I understand that some of us hate the PRC regime very much, but the entire China – including Hong Kong – share the same Chinese cultural tradition. Hong Kong needs "national unity" – feeling of being part of China.

In fact, Taiwan is historically part of China too. But due to the fact that China (the mainland and Taiwan) is now under too different regimes – just like North and South Korea or East and West Germany, Taiwan is being drawn away from Chinese community. But I can see that both North and South Korean feel good to admit themselves as Koreans. But Chinese people do not have this sense of unity that Korean people have. We need some introspection. I am not a left-wing Chinese, but I just hate separatist thoughts.

I really don’t like that fact that every time I type in “Hong Kong, China” in an article that I wrote, the word “China” is deleted so quickly. I will keep on preserving the word “China”. But if the word “China” keeps being deleted, my friends and I will consider stop contributing Hong Kong-related articles in English Wikipedia. I may also consider deleting all the pictures that I uploaded.

Hong Kong Man June 15th, 2005

From alpha to omega we are just talking over a pov matter in a friendly fashion; just wonder why Mr HKMan seemed to act like a water-soaked sodium when stating his own view. Dropping the word "China" DOES NOT mean there's a loss of nationality, it much too far off the track. If you like point-forms, fine, I'll do that in the same way. :-)

>So what? That a childish toy map in Malaysia includes Hong Kong do not necessarily imply that all people in the World are familiar with Hong Kong. A lot of map has Hong Kong on it too, but we cannot assume all people in the world cares so much about a small foreign city.

So you're contradicting yourself. You said you liked to add "China" after "Hong Kong" because, one of your reasons, few maps on Earth included Hong Kong the city. Now, you're saying that many atlases would have "Hong Kong" printed on their pages. Originally I wasn't intended to use this analogy, as it lacked the slightest horse-sense. Mind you, a children toy map may not be childish; it may include something beyond our ken. ;)

>There are a lot of foreigners misunderstanding that Hong Kong is an imdependent nation, rather than a special administrative region of China. This should be clarified. As it is common for people to say "Los Angeles, CA, USA" or "Paris, France", I see no point for saying that it is mistaken to write "Hong Kong, China". Another problem is that Hong Kong is not really as well-known as New York, Los Angeles, Beijing, Paris around the world. "Hong Kong, China" provides a clear picture without having the readers type in "Hong Kong" and search. "Hong Kong, China" is just one word more than "Hong Kong". I don’t think it is untoleratably clumsy.

Mistunderstang. Well, I did mention that clumsy point, but I ALSO admitted that "Hong Kong, China" should be duely implemented under certain circumstances, particularlly in goegraphical and political issues. Furthermore, if Hong Kong is a nobody as you consider, then why don't the BBC and CNN reporters use the term you've mentioned above. We ofter hear: "Jenny Parkman of BBC News, Hong Kong" but not "Jenny Parkman of BBC News, Hong Kong, China". (On the other hand, "Jenny Parkman of BBC News, Tianjin, China" -- this is no discrimination, to be frank, but that's the sheer experience of a potato couch :-D) Similarly Jenny Parkman would not tell the audience where Hong Kong is when reporting the resignation of Tung Chee Hwa. That means Hong Kong has her own fame to a certain extent.

Do you know where Nauru is? It's a small island country next to Australia, and I think this place would gain less fame than Hong Kong. Then how could we let the foreigners KNOW MORE about it, accroding to your logics?

>I just wonder why some Hong Kong Wikipedians feel shameful to admit that Hong Kong is a part of China. I understand that some of us hate the PRC regime very much, but the entire China – including Hong Kong – share the same Chinese cultural tradition. Hong Kong needs "national unity" – feeling of being part of China.

Who told you about the hatred thing? Who told you that we don't have the sense of unity? Would that be your educated guess or what? Please explain in detail. :)

>First of all, I don"t agree that Hong Kong has a high degree of autonomy. Second, even she has a high degree of autonomy, her soverignty is belong to China. That"s why I see no points for deliberately deleting the word "China" even if it already appears in the article.

Well, that sees how you define "high"; I wrote "high" here as I think it's truely "high" -- at least not "full"! :) And I'm not sure whether someone is deleting the word China, but I'm sure you're doing the opposite deliberately. :D And of course that's your own one-sided thought, that's the way how you thought. Have you ever thought of other creators' intentions? C'mon, you're just forcing your fellow HK wikipedians to appreciate your deed, and dislike those who act up otherwise. It's a high time for a consensus.

>I really don’t like that fact that every time I type in “Hong Kong, China” in an article that I wrote, the word “China” is deleted so quickly. I will keep on preserving the word “China”. But if the word “China” keeps being deleted, my friends and I will consider stop contributing Hong Kong-related articles in English Wikipedia. I may also consider deleting all the pictures that I uploaded.

Just wonder who dare keep on deleting your prestigious "China", show us the suspect. One thing is clear that, however, you used a threatening and unfriendly tone from the very beginning. No one in this page would like to speak daggers in an irrational manner, but you broke the ice in a sense. :D Anyway, don't make any holier-than-thou speeches, or rather, debates at any cost. Of course you may delete all pictures of yours; it's your choice, nothing is lost -- no big deal.

Seemingly you're a newbie here. Take it essy, my friend, or you'll set yourself ablaze within months. :)

Show us the exmaples, or we can't help with your accusation. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 06:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, if you don't like to have the word "China", go ahead and delete them all. Everyone knows that "Hong Kong, China" is more precise than "Hong Kong", and Hong Kong also participate in international event under the title "Hong Kong, China". I think some folks in Wikipedia may agree that it is good to write "Hong Kong, China." But if some people like to make clear things ambiguous, I don't care now. If you like, just organise a campaign and delete all the "China" in Hong Kong-related articles. I think I should not intervent this issue any more. "Edit Wars" are not exciting. But I decide not to delete all the pictures that I uploaded at this moment. The pictures are for the good of all readers. I should not delete them in order to show my disagreement with someone who has a strange liking of opposing the word "China." - Hong Kong Man

Well, well, well, dear, stop acting like a baby. There, there. Yelling, blaming, and being stuck-up not the correct attitude to get the ball rolling. Don't take it for granted that "everyone knows that", likewise "the men in the street", "every man jack", and "every Tom, Dick or Harry" "know that"--that's a totally non-scientific justification to your viewpoints, no matter how eloquent it is. Don't make threats and noises and dingdongs; they don't help reach a consensus. I've got your points somehow, plus very positive replies (at the beginning), but seemingly you pooh-poohed mine, didn't you? ;)

Again, you're contradicting yourself. You threatened that if someone was going to delete the word "China", you would delete your photos. Now you ate your words up. What's next, sonny? Just can't understand why someone could lose their temper that quickly, not sitting well before the conference table.

Once again, I did not oppose adding "China" (what makes you think of that, anyway?), but just want to make a consensus up to the minute. And, though not true, if I have a strange liking of "no-China", then someone must be a fetish of "add-China"! :-D You are just barking up the wrong tree; I'm not the one who delete your "China"s, and you should show your dissatisfaction to those who mess up your works.

What we want is a rational talk, but not big-mouth and hot air. So you can make your further argument (reasonable of course) as you wish, but please don't bring about the entire population of the human race to show your anger.

PS Yeah, you're right. Hong Kong DOES participate in many international events under the title of "Hong Kong, China", as it's diplomatic issues, but does it imply people don't know Hong Kong? Do you write "Hong Kong, China" when you write a letter home? That's obviously not necessary. Though I am a supporter of understatement, I'm too lazy to change it. But I'm not against the thought of showing the "sense of nationality". After all, I love my country -- you're not the only one as John Lennon sang ;-). -- Jerry Crimson Mann 08:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) (deleted by HKman)

PPS>Mr. Jerry Crimson Mann accused me of having a impolite tone, but his "burning" tone doesn't seem polite

Kiddo, unfriendly is different from impolite, as well as threatening from rude. What do you mean by "burning": intense or of great importance? I'd better check up in my dictionary for other explanations. :)

Well, first understand what I said before saying that I contradict myself every time. But I don't want to response to you on that. It seems that you only like "burning" other people (Where are you from? "Burning" may have different meaning in the slangs in different places. It seems that you are British.), or accuse those who support adding the word "China" of extreme nationalism, rather than having meaningful discussion. Anyway, just from the discussions of we two people, we cannot see whether the majority of Hong Kong Wikipedians support using the term "Hong Kong, China." I don't find it meaningful to talk to this guy. I don't want to reply this guy on any "burning" messages. It is more meaningful for us to just hold a referendum - voting whether we should use "Hong Kong, China" in some circumstances. Okay, you said I am "newbie". Then, let this "experienced" guy tell us how to do that.

Okay, in short: NO "burning" or blaming replies. Start the referendum mentioned above.

Hong Kong Man 19:45, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Oh ho ho. This is the THIRD time you're contradicting yourself, as you seriously said you would NEVER care about this issue any more, eh? :) (I hope this time I'm fully understanding what you mean) Hey, I didn't accuse you of extreme nationalism -- you're just acusing me that I accused you! :-D Well, first understand what I said before saying that I'm blaming one you. I'm no opponent to your "add-China" issue, i.e. I'm fully neutral in the whole scheme of thing. I'd just like to bring discussion about, then you're just splashing plain water to extinguish my so-called "burning" messages.

If you like public games, that's fine by me, Mayor. Let's call upon a referendum.

So unfortunate to tell you that, I'm too a newbie here (perhaps 2 months earlier than you to join Wikipedia) and I'm a Hong Kong Chinese!(educated guess is not always right! :)) "Burning" is no Cantonese slang, no Britsh slang, no American slang, no Australian slang that possesses the meaning as you have mentioned. Perchance you learnt it in South Africa or Fiji, didn't you? :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 20:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In response to "Who told you about the hatred thing? Who told you that we don't have the sense of unity? Would that be your educated guess or what? Please explain in detail. :)":

Actually, I could distinctively remember User:Instantnood making a suggestion of it when I asked what constituted the reluctance of HKers in interpreting HK as a Chinese city. He just said "Most HKers will be displeased" without quantifying anything. But I sort of find his response predictable. Isnt it interesting to notice just how more and more non-HKers are beginning to either realise this "reluctance in admitting the Chinese link", or openly question them about it? Surely this cant be without its basis at all?--Huaiwei 17:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mind telling where and when I said such thing? Thanks. :-) — Insta ntnood 17:44, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Merge PLA Hong Kong Garrison and Military of Hong Kong

User:Huaiwei has proposed to merge PLA Hong Kong Garrison and Military of Hong Kong [1] [2] [3]. — Insta ntnood July 6, 2005 12:30 (UTC)

Your Help is Needed!

Hi fellow HK wikipedians!

So happy that we have our Hong Kong article promoted to be an WP:FAC, gaining an overwhelming popularity. I think it's not the time to cool down our ambition. The page flag of Hong Kong is now asking for your helping hand! I have greatly modelled it on flag of South Africa and flag of India, plus some brand-new illustrations added which is drawn by me with Flash, and the standard of the article has been greatly boosted, and, nearly, lived up to the feature article's standard. Still, some crucial information is absent, and that's whay your help is urgently needed!

What you can help

The following information are still missing:

Symbolism, e.g. the meaning of the design, the bauhinia flower, the red-coloured background, etc.
History
Photos, e.g. Flags raising ceremony at Golden Bauhinia Square, Flags in parade, desecration cases (I think Long Hair have tried that before ;-P), etc.

I hope you guys could collaborate on this project at full stretch, and shouw yor pride of being a HK wikipedian!

Yours sincerely, Jerry Crimson Mann 6 July 2005 15:15 (UTC)

Persistant attempts to undermine Hong Kong

Since I joined Wikipedia early this year I have had gone into User:SchmuckyTheCat and User:Huaiwei for billions of times over the status of Hong Kong. Their tactics include forcing to place Hong Kong under China or People's Republic of China on lists and categories, removing Hong Kong from lists of countries and territories, and adding "China" or "People's Republic of China" after references to Hong Kong.

Their rationale is that Hong Kong is a special administrative region, which is an administrative division of the PRC; regardless of the fact that special administrative regions are different from other administrative division, and Hong Kong is listed on the list of countries and list of dependent territories.

I would like to invite fellow Hong Kong wikipedians, and wikipedians who are interested in and familiar with Hong Kong-related topics, to express your opinion on how the status of Hong Kong should be handled on Wikipedia. — Insta ntnood 11:49, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Could you explain how should the above be interpreted as undermining Hong Kong? Is the consideration of HK as a part of the PRC negative, since you use the word "undermine"? And therefore, does this then suggest the kind of Sinophobia attitude suggested by the Which country does Hong Kong belong to? section above?--Huaiwei 11:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a sort of sinophobia. Hong Kong is not a country, it's included on lists of countries because of it's special status that people will look for it there and because in most "by countries" lists, HK has a seperate system, but it's certainly not a country.

Instantnood simply wants to practice a curious sort of denial by removing ", China" after HK when it appears.

And in any case, this is the wrong place for a discussion on how HK should be treated on wikipedia. Cart, horse, etc. SchmuckyTheCat 14:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to give out a few points to consider.

First, Hong Kong is a part of PRC, thus it's OK for Hong Kong to be placed under China / PRC in general.
However, I'd also like to state that some articles for Hong Kong are not only related to China, but also Britain (especially historical articles). These articles should be handled with care. Simply putting them under China (or adding ", China" after "Hong Kong") might lead to confusions.
Another thing is that, if a certain list includes both countries and territories (which implies "dependent territories"), then Hong Kong should not be excluded.

P.S. Macau should follow the same rules.

Patrickov 04:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well it really depends. While Hong Kong and Macao are part of the PRC, they are at the same time on the list of dependent territories. They do posess many characters of a country, although they are not sovereign States. It is obviously incorrect and inappropriate to present them in a manner that would imply they're just like ordinary subnational entities. — Insta ntnood 16:45, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it's more appropriate if you can give out examples for us to investigate. (Sorry that I don't have the effort to find them out by myself). Patrickov 04:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the HK and Macau entries in list of dependent territories has come under debate before. I dont know why it is not considered "undermining" for a territory to be called a "dependency" when "autonomy" sounds far more "independent". :D --Huaiwei 06:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 points:

Hong Kong is not a sovereign state but an automomous dependent region in PRC.
However replacing "Hong Kong" with "Hong Kong, China" is strictly redundant as specification is not needed to tell "Hong Kong is a part of China". Such acts will only create inconvenience to users and extra burden to computers.

-Deryck C. 06:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here here. Ya, "Hong Kong, China" is definitely superfluous. It's just the same kinda tomfoolery if we add "Earth" behind "China". I thought every Tom, Dick, Henry, cat and dog should understand that Hong Kong is part of China and no mistake. ;-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's like saying Exit C, Central Station, Island Line, MTR, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, People's Republic of China, Asia, Eurasian Plate, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, M60, the Milky Way Cluster, the Local Supercluster, Universe when you're telling a friend to wait for you in Central Station (although this is a great exaggeration). Deryck C. 17:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is neccessary for Hong Kong wikipedians and wikipedians who are familiar in Hong Kong to collaborate to work on a guideline. — Insta ntnood 16:42, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

With regards to that "superflous" commentary on the "Hong Kong, China" presentation, allow me to express my POV on the issue. Yes, it is indeed unnecesary to change every mention of, Hong Kong to Hong Kong, China, particularly when they are in the same article, or depending on the context of the passage it is used. It is of coz "superflous" to use it in such an extreme manner, and I kinda wondered if this is delibrate.

Hong Kong-specific articles: Say, for example, the article for Hong Kong. The title isnt "Hong Kong, China", and that is alright, so long that the first paragraph states its full name and which country it belongs to. If the article is about an ascpet of HK, it is usually only neccesary to either write "Hong Kong, China" (or its longer variants) in the first instance the word appears, and not in every occurance of it in the rest of the passage. This is basic common sense, and is so in most published texts. Long names are usually defined first, and then their abbreviations or shorter formats used subsequently. Of coz, we dont have to use the format HK, China in all introductory paragraphs. Often, mentioning it as part of a sentence or paragraph will do.

General articles with HK mentioned: When it comes to, say, Cable television, whereby HK is mentioned either in-text or as a sub-heading alongside countries. Use some discretion. I would consider this a grey area, whereby adding "China" is optional, and repends more on the content and presentation style. In general, I consider it preferable that "China" be added when other entities listed are countries. But of coz, this only needs to be added once, either in the heading, or in the first mention of HK.

Country-lists with HK mentioned: In all circumstances when there is a listing of countries, such as in List of airlines, and particularly for all topics and lists in Category:Categories by country, Hong Kong, since it appears only once, should be listed either under the PRC, or as "Hong Kong, China" (or its derivatives). It should not appear seperate from the PRC without any form of quantification (including footnotes if neccesary).

Therefore, I dont know if people are demanding that every instance of HK appears as HK, China. The above should make it clear what a possible framework could be adopted, although the second point might need some ironing out to reduce room for contention. "Superflous"? I dont think so at all.--Huaiwei 06:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Huaiwei's view on general HK articles and country lists, however I don't think it's necessary to put "China" with Hong Kong in Hong Kong specific articles. It's quite strange to have the first sentence telling you "Hong Kong is a part of PRC" when you read a passage about, say, the eating culture in Hong Kong. The reader should be assumed knowing HK belongs to PRC before he interprets the term "Hong Kong". (If he really doesn't know, he should be looking at the Hong Kong article, and there a clear definition is given.) Deryck C. 08:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]