Talk:Hong Kong

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

File:Flag of Hong Kong SAR.png

Welcome! This talkpage is to discuss the article Hong Kong only. Past discussions can be retrieved within these archives (Archive1, #2, #3). For discussion regarding Hong Kong-related articles and issues, please visit the discussion page of the HK wikipedians' notice board.

Cities Unassessed

	Cities portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:FAOL Template:FAOL

Image formatting

The moving of images is advocated by the comments from the FAC page. Surely you don't want the page to lose FAC right? Please let the images flow around. Deryck C. 7 July 2005 10:41 (UTC)

Removed pictures

On the FAC, there were several complaints about copyrihgt issues with the photographs here. I checked through, and two of them had problems, so I've removed them. Given that this article is already heavily laden with pictures, the removal of two shouldn't be a major issue. →Raul654 16:40, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

At the same time, some images are replaced. :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 17:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really liked the one of the ship. It drives home the point that the Brits came in with guns blazing and took the place. What was the problem with that pic? SchmuckyTheCat 20:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't look at me - it's got an acceptable copyright, so I didn't touch it. Mcy jerry removed it with this edit →Raul654 20:42, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, that was addressed to him. No flies on you, mate. SchmuckyTheCat 20:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's artistically va-va-voom. But in fact it's from the article about the First Opium War. Yes, the Brits came in with guns blazing, but did not take over the place promptly in the war. So I think it, together with its caption, has a weaker link to the contents. You may put it back to the original position, nevertheless, if you like. It's fine by me. ;-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 06:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whatever, but I think it's time to archive these comments... Deryck C. 11:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a duplicate picture of the Heng Seng Index. Please remove one of them from either the History or the Economy paragraph. --Kvasir 14:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History

I've just noticed one big gap in the coverage of the history of HK that isn't covered in this article or any other of the linked articles - the period of colonial occupation, e.g. structure of government, list of governors etc... that would be nice to have I think. Enochlau 03:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a brief discussion on how Hong Kong, both in leased and occupied terroritories, was decided to be returned to the PRC shortly after WWII. The current article implies that the decision was made at the time of the Joint declaration in the 1980s. I don't know the details myself, so maybe someone would be interested to elaborate? BW 03:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alignment of old_hong_kong.jpg and 1945_liberation....jpg

User:61.61.254.9 moved the above pictures to the left again and again - reverting reverts by myself and others. I believe there was a massive debate on this a while ago - and I believe the reason for it is because left-align creates odd-looking paragraphs (although right-align creates white spaces on certain non-complaint browsers). I don't want to get in an edit war so lets discuss here before any further reverts.

I suppose, the best way forward would be to see what the page was like when we were given featured article status, no? My vote would be for right-aligned because left-aligned creates odd looking pages for users with lower resolution screens due to the Cities information panel (or whatever its called) at the right. Pictures lower down, however, would be all right left or right aligned although the existing layout is probably best. --Mintchocicecream 08:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At the FAC page, most people demanded left align. However a major writer of this page, PZFUN rejected to do so (left align). In the end the FA was passed with the right align kept, yet, many hope for a left align. Deryc k C. 08:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:Screenshot of the article 'Hong Kong' (0940, 21 Jun 2005; 1024 by 768).png

Thanks. I was not aware of the support for left-align, though I still think it can create issues with lower resolutions - even on 1024x768, it looks rather cramped; and we must remember many people run resolutions even lower than that.

The above screenshot (found in the relevant discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hong_Kong/Archive3#Image) is probably what User:61.61.254.9 experiences - although I cannot replicate the behaviour as it is probably a browser-specific bug. Perhaps, a new solution has to be found - for example, removing the pictures entirely or moving them lower down the page, or making them smaller? In any case, a solution has to be found or else this left/right picture editing war will continue... --Mintchocicecream 08:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the pictures are not responsible for the problem. It's the info box which is responsible. That user's browser probably had set the default value "br clear=right". Deryc k C. 03:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gourmet Paradise

A bit surprised there's little content in the article about the eating culture of Hong Kong, as well as music, cinema, etc. The section on culture can be expanded a little bit, and there's still lots to do for the culture of Hong Kong article. :-) — Insta ntnood 18:05, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I've added content to the Culture section.--Sir Edgar 06:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is somehow too long. Better put the details onto other articles. Deryc k C. 06:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's too long, but I did notice some unnecessary details (too much on politics, vague history, etc). The information that I added though (economics/demographics), I feel, is relevant. I'll see if I can edit/move out some stuff.--Sir Edgar 02:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality

I've always wondered, what is someobody who comes from Hong Kong called? - Cypriot stud 16:29, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

A Hong Konger, or a Honkie (jokingly), but the adjective is usually just Hong Kong. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 16:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it depends. Someone would call themselves Chinese while some Hong Kong people. About a hundred thousand of Hong Kong people gained British citizenships before the handover in 1997, and a ten times more population had BNOs. SCMP would call Hong Kong people Hongkongers, while some westerners call them Hongkongese. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the standard is Hongkongers or Hong Kongers. "Hong Kong people" is frequently heard too. Hongkongese sounds like neologism to me. :-) And yes many Hongkongers of Chinese descent are having dual nationality. British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand.. All ethnic Chinese automatically became PRC citizens at the time the sovereignty was transferred. The PRC government does not recognise dual nationality and the foreign citizenships of these people if they have not renounced the PRC citizenship formally. — Insta ntnood 17:01, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I've NEVER heard Hongkongese in normal usage. Deryc k C. 17:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Originally I had an odd sense upon "Hongkongese", but a friend of mine who have studied in Canada for some time told me that people in Toronto preferred Hongkongese to Hongkonger, due to a more smooth and less strange pronunciation. The reason that you've never heard may be you've never lived in Canada. :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 18:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possible reason ^_^ Deryc k C. 11:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt upon hearsay regarding the term. Nevertheless, it appears that "Hong Kong people" is more frequently used from Google:

"Hongkonger" - 30,700 results
"Hongkongese" - 1,890 results
"Hong Kong people" - 110,000 results

Taking a more accurate stance, this one was done to eliminate phrases such as "Hong Kong, People's Republic of China" and "Hong Kong's people":

"Hong Kong people" -"people's" -"kong's" -"," - still 47,000 results

Carlsmith 15:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Carlsmith you've gotta add up the results of Hongkonger, Hongkongers, Hong Kongers and Hong Konger. :-) — Insta ntnood 16:03, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Here are the results (for pages in English or Chinese)

These give a total of 38,990. Without specifying the language we may get pages from other languages. (For instance, German gives 25,300 for "Hongkonger".) Based on Google search "Hong Konger(s)" is more common than "Hongkonger(s)". Nevertheless as for local usage, SCMP, which online version requires subscription (i.e. it does not contribute to the number of hits on Google), uses "Hongkonger(s)". — Insta ntnood 17:07, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Well almost simultaneously, I've got these results:

However,

"Hong Kongers" and "Hongkongers": 208
"Hong Kongers" and "Hongkonger": 136

"Hongkongers" and "Hongkonger": 460
Subtotal: 1894
Results for "Hong Konger", "Hong Kongers", "Hongkonger" OR "Hongkongers" = 30,700 + 1840 + 5820 + 21,200 - 1894 = 57,666 at most (as more repeated combinations have not been subtracted)

But then the same criteria needed to be applied to "Hong Kong people (or Hong Kong's people)" and "Hongkongese (or Hong Kongese)".

"Hong Kong people" -"Hong Kong : People's" -, - to prevent phrases like "Hong Kong people in the PRC" being filtered: 86,300
"Hong Kongese": 3,760
"Hong Kongese" "Hongkongese": 32

"Hongkongese" or "Hong Kongese" = 3760 + 1840 - 32 = 5568

I won't argue that "Hong Konger" is not popular enough for regular usage. But "Hongkongese"? It certainly has a much longer way to go into our daily vocab. --Carlsmith 17:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Date for article to appear on Main Page / spoken version of article

Does anyone know when will this article appear on the Main Page? I'm asking since I'm planning to take over User:Forschung's work on the spoken version of the article as he hasn't been active since May, if time is still available before the article shows up there. --Carlsmith 17:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody knows. FYI, the article Porgy and Bess, which gone onto FA 2 weeks after the HK article did, had already gone to the main page last week. Deryc k C. 12:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Finally it's listed on Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/September_2005! I guess I'll have to do it as soon as possible then. -Carlsmith 05:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got the software for the .ogg format? :-) — Insta ntnood 08:01, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

The spoken version of the article is finally done! Please feel free to leave any comments here. --Carlsmith 09:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A (possibly) silly question: why ogg? Deryc k C. 15:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's the standard prefer by the spoken article WikiProject. :-D — Insta ntnood 15:40, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Shall there be separated clippings for different sections, for this long article? :-D — Insta ntnood 15:40, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, good. I'll like to volunteer if a voice-actor is recruited. Deryc k C. 15:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Little Hong Kong accent~ good anyway to show characteristical difference from other English-speaking countries! -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My accent consists of HK and Australian parts. Deryc k C. 17:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not really that kind of Hong Kong accent that many people, including myself, consider inferior. :-) Just some very slight Hong Kong-style. Anyways thanks so much Carl. — Insta ntnood 12:40, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

FILTH?

"Prior to the handover, British expatriates were able to live and work in Hong Kong for up to a year, without work permits, which gave rise to the acronym FILTH - Failed In London, Try Hongkong."

How important is this in a Hong Kong article? I understand the acronym FILTH is found [1] on different sources, but somehow I feel this is tagged onto the article for the sake of it rather than for any good reason. It would go well as a separate article but I don't think it warrant inclusion in an overview of Hong Kong... --Mintchocicecream 05:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removing it from here and putting it in "history of Hong Kong series" maybe a better choice. Deryc k C. 07:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One more note, adding it to "Britons in Hong Kong" may also be a good choice. Deryc k C. 07:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Education in HK -> Exams

"However, the local system is publicly recognized as much more in depth than their British counterparts and a distinction in the GCSE is almost only equivelent to a credit in the HKCEE."

I removed the above from anonymous contributor 62.97.220.66 for the following reasons:

It is an oft-held opinion (which I happen to agree with) but is not backed up by any studies.
There is no such thing as a "distinction" in the GCSE; it is graded A, B, C, D, E and U.
I would argue it is not the content that differs; it is the grading - it is much much easier to get an A in GCSE than in HKCEE - but this is a moot point because:
Students taking GCSE + GCE A-Level and/or HKCEE + HKALE can end up in the same universities and have pretty much the same knowledge and achieve pretty much the same results which suggest it is a matter of the way GCSE is taught vs HKCEE.

(A similar point can be made of GCE A-Level versus American college exams - but even then, it is different as GCE A-Levels can count towards credits in some American universities and in some cases may even allow a fresh student to skip the freshman year)

Thus I feel the above inclusion is unnecessary and POV statement for a featured article. It would be more appropriate in the Education in Hong Kong page, if sources can be found to back it up. --Mintchocicecream 18:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a general view of Hong Kong people. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 18:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So is something like "dentists are most likely to commit suicide". Needs a source; and better inside Education in HK anyway. --Mintchocicecream 18:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, difficult to find a source for general view. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 18:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very true; though I'm a bit uncertain about including something that is not sourced; in particular a statement as strong as "publicly recognized as much more in depth" (by whom?) and "almost only equivalent to a credit in the HKCEE" (simply not true, when most universities (yes, unfairly) take GCSE A grade = HKCEE A grade).

Furthermore, I still believe my other points justify its exclusion from the main body of the HK article - it focuses on one single exam and in a comparative context - hardly a concern to the average Hongkonger. If it was to be included I suggest something included after the sentence ending "two-year matriculation course leading to the Hong Kong Advanced Level Examinations.":

While the two examinations are equivalent to the system of GCSE and A-level, they are consistently harder than the British equivalent; with only XX% of HKCEE students gaining 'pass' grades of A-E compared to XX% of GCSE students gaining 'pass' grades of A*-C.

The reason my version is much better is because it is both justified and quantified. --Mintchocicecream 21:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Mintchoc. We can also say that according to experience of many applicants to schools and universities in the UK, their HKALE results are given concessions by the institutions for the purposes of calculation and comparison with the GCE AL, instead of taking as direct equivalence. — Insta ntnood 12:47, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Just a supply of materials: approx 4% get A in HKCEE, while approx 10% get A* in GCSE. Deryc k C. 13:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sport?

Is it normal for a featured article appearing on the main page at the moment to have a stub section? It's not just a stub, it's a one sentence long lone. We should either remove it or expand it (the second being the better choice, of course).