Wikipedia talk:HK wikipedians' notice board/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page .

Since I joined Wikipedia early this year I have had gone into

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. — Instantnood 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

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. — Instantnood

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]

A recent example would be

China Southern Airlines destinations. :-) — Instantnood

09:50, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

A very recent example for Macao would be the list of casinos [1]. — Instantnood 15:47, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

]

Your definition of "dependency" is not universal, and until this moment, not widely accepted on Wikipedia. — Instantnood 09:50, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

2 points:

1. Hong Kong is not a sovereign state but an automomous dependent region in PRC.
2. 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. — Instantnood 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]

Hmm...it really depends on how its put across I suppose. It could even be as subtle as a line which suggests that HK's connection with Cantonese culture, which is, of coz, a subset of Chinese culture. No hard and fast rules, of coz! :D --Huaiwei 08:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The culture in Hong Kong is not only Cantonese, Hakka is also substantial, Teochew, and later Shanghai, are influential too. By simplifying the picture and saying that Hong Kong culture is part of Cantonese culture, Hong Kong cuisine is Cantonese cuisine, how Hong Kong is like in your imaginary impression is revealed. — Instantnood 09:50, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

It is a plain fact that HK culture is much more influnced by Cantonese culture then anything else, just as Taiwan is said to be includenced by Hokkien (even thou it has a sizeable Hakka populance), or that Singapore is said to be Hokkien despite a big Teochew and Cantonese populance too. I am of coz not blind to the fact that culture is often cross-influenced, so what is the point of the above post? And what does it seek to archieve in this discussion?--Huaiwei 10:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I must say the case in Singapre and that in Hong Kong are definitely poles apart. What you are mapping out at the moment is just only half, if not quarter, of the entire fact. I must say a in-depth observation would surely help give objective statements; perhaps a two-to-three-year dwelling in this city would do. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What a nice way to show how you're familiar with Hong Kong. :-) — Instantnood 11:08, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

and that is a weak way in trying to show my unfamiliarity with it. I dont think I need to quantify all my statements to the last detail just to demonstrate anything, do I? ;) --Huaiwei 11:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting way to hide what you don't know. ;-) — Instantnood 11:20, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Haha...move aside kid. Why would I bother about this? I am more interested in the above discussion, thank you, and your latest whines seems to be yet another delibrate attempt in breaking it down again? ;) --Huaiwei 11:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You made an inadequate, if not false, statement, I pointed out the problem, and you went on to insist that you actually knew it but you didn't say it explicitly. Who's deliberately attempting to break the discussion down? If you're really going back to the discussion, show it by action. — Instantnood 12:10, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

The fact is quite the opposite: since the open-door policy of the PRC, the Hong Kong culture apploies a greater influence upon the Cantonese culture. Hong Kong people has remade, or re-exported, the standard of many traditional values, like yum cha, festivals, cookery, you name it. Playing down the cultural role of Hong Kong is obviously no good. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 14:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A recent "Red-whie-blue" exhibition has introduced the culture of Hong Kong to the public in details. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's indeed very true. China had been in years of hard times until the late 70s. Cultural assets, literature, customs.., are all better preserved outside of mainland China, in places including Hong Kong, Macao, Chinese communities in Southeast Asia, Confucian-influenced Korea, and, after the 50s, Taiwan. In terms of modern culture the role of Hong Kong should not be downplayed. — Instantnood 15:16, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's a really sad thing, likewise a horrifying memory to some people like Zheng Yihe, whose book The Last Noble has become a page-thumbing must-read in Hong Kong. Many Chinese would find it very ridiculous when the Korean attempted to make Dragon Boat festival a UNESCO-recognised cultural heritage of theirs. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Yihe. Deryck C. 04:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see no points for why the political status of Hong Kong can lead to large-scale dispute. Unlike Taiwan, Hong Kong is clearly a special administrative region of the People's Republic of China. This is a fact, and a fact does not really change by having two groups of Wikipedians argue against each other.

As Hong Kong is part of China, all the indication of this fact by words or pictures should not be condemned. Some people say that it is reductant to indicate that Hong Kong is a part of China. I do not agree with that. As a know, a lot foreigners, especially Amer_ _ans :-P , do not pay attention to international affairs. Even up to this moment, they may think that Hong Kong is a sovereign nation. So, it is still important to make it clear.

Also, as a special administrative region, Hong Kong is a province-level administrative region of China. So, Hong Kong should be placed at the same level as Macao, Beijing, Guangdong, Fujian etc. in the hierachy of political division in China, rather than a country level. Moreover, I would like to point out Hong Kong is not a dependency of China, although it was once a dependecy of the United Kingdom in the past. As Hong Kong is a provinced-level administrative region, and a city that is incoporated as part of China, we would not call it a dependecy, right? Just like, we don't want to call Hebei Province a dependecy of China, or Florida a dependency of the USA, or Okinawa a dependecy of Japan, or Paris a dependecy of France.

Alanmak 02:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing Alan. Mind telling if ordinary Amer__ans can tell if Guam and the Northern Marianas; and the Marshall Islands and Micronesia are sovereign States, and where they are? Why the Pan-PRD Regional Co-operation and Development Forum is known as "9+2" but not "group of 11"? — Instantnood 10:27, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Well, your concerns above has been mentioned before, but as we can see above, Instantnood is likely to react with emotional gusto. :D--Huaiwei 10:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for thanking me for my sharing, Instanthood. :-D But I would like to point out that we cannot compare Hong Kong and Macao to Guam and the Northern Marianas. As I mentioned before, Hong Kong and Macao are province-level adminstrative region of China. And this is the reason why Hong Kong and Macao should be considered as intergrated parts of China. But on the other hand, Guam and the Northern Marianas are oversea territories, which do not have the same status with the 50 states in the United States of America. This also explains why some people on Guam have been struggling for the "statehood" of Guam. Another good example is the "Oversea Departments" of France, which have status like the provinces in the mainland France. For the "9 + 2" thing, I think they mean "9 Provinces and 2 Special Administrative Regions". The reason for not using "group of 11" may be that, although "Province" and "Special Administrative Region" are both of province level, their administrative systems and titles are different. But this does not alter the fact that special administrative regions are integrated parts of China, rather than dependecies or sovereign nations. Just like...it is silly to say that St. Petersburg is a dependecy of Russia. - Alanmak 09:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, St Petersburg is not an SAR, is it? Though HK is of province level, she's not a province but an SAR. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 09:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think this is a question of whether HK is a "province" or not, but whether it is a province-level entity of the PRC, for the former is merely a technical term. Actually, "province-level" sounds funny too. First-level subentity of the PRC sounds better perhaps. But whatever the case, it just shows how different this is with "dependencies" of other countries. HK is a part of China granted a level of independenceautonomy. Normal dependencies are normally not part of their countries, and had a level of their independence taken away. The end result may appear similar to the casual observor, but the underlying notion is hugely different.--Huaiwei 10:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. First-order or first-level would sound better, and more accurate. Provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities are subordinate to the State Council, and have to listen to the ministries of the State Council. Hong Kong and Macao are "come directly under the Central People's Government" (Article 12 of both basic laws [2] [3]). And no, many dependent territories are part of their sovereignty holder. See below. — Instantnood 10:34, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

(response to Jerry's comment at 09:29, August 2, 2005) I don't think it is meaningful for you to point out that St. Petersburg is not an SAR. All of us know that different countries have different names and different systems for their administrative divisions. But the similarity between Hong Kong and St. Petersburg is that both of them are cities and are first-level adminstrative regions of their corresponding countries. Also, St. Petersburg has a kind of special situation like Hong Kong. It is "special" because it is a federal government-administered city, rather than a "republic" or "state" in the Russian Federation; just like Hong Kong is not a "province" of China. But the fact is that St. Petersburg is not a dependency of Russia, despite that it is not a "republic" in Russia, which corresponds to a province in China. - Alanmak 23:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested to take a look at

subdivisions of Russia. By the way I'm interested to know how would you compare Hong Kong and Macao with Beijing, Chongqing, Shanghai and Tianjin. — Instantnood

09:21, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hong Kong is similar to Beijing, Shanghai and Chongqing because they are all first-level adminstrative regions but are not provinces. Also, all of them are not the dependencies of China. - Alanmak 10:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In that case why Hong Kong and Macao are members of the WTO and send their own teams in international sport events, but not Beijing and Shanghai? — Instantnood 10:35, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, Macao does not have her own team in international sport events, although Hong Kong has. I have read some newspaper articles about this before. The reason why Hong Kong can have a representative team separated from that of China has something to do with the fact that Hong Kong was once a British colony. When Hong Kong was a British colony, its sovereignty obviously did not belong to China. But meanwhile, it was not an intergrated part of Britain. That is why Hong Kong could have her own sport team. After Hong Kong was handovered to China, Hong Kong has become a part of China, and was not supposed to have a separated team. However, because Hong Kong used to have her own team before, the International Olympic Committee or other sport organizations could not take away Hong Kong's right to maintain her own team. That is the reason why Hong Kong can have her own sport team after returning to China. The situation is just like...some people may think that there is no point for the United Kingdom to have three separated teams (one for England, one for Scottland, and one for Wales) in most international soccer matches. But the three teams of the United Kingdom were active participants in international soccer matches in the early days, when the rules for forming national teams were still not mature. As they used to have three teams, we cannot combine them to one single team. (Otherwise, it would lead to some boycott in international sport events or some large-scale disputes. People want to avoid that.) But on the other hand, the Portugese government in Macao did not apply to form a sport team in the Olympic Games during the colonial era. After Macao was returned to China, the International Olympic Committee did not grant Macao the right for having an own team, for the fact that Macao is a part of China, and a intergrated part of a nation cannot form any new team. That is why Macao does not have her own team. These auguments also explain why Beijing and Shanghai do not have their own teams. - Alanmak 21:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Macao does have its own team in international sport events. It is a member of Asian Football Confederation (AFC), as well as Olympic Council of Asia (OCA). It is not an IOC member because Portugal did not actively petition for its membership. This was coupled with the time when minority nations of Spain were also applying for membership, and therefore the door was nearly shut for the admission of non-sovereign States [4]. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are separate members to FIFA, but the UK is one member to the IOC. A little bit interesting is that Northern Ireland and Ireland play as one team in Rugby [5]. Meanwhile you have not answered why Beijing and Shanghai can't be WTO members, but Hong Kong and Macao. :-) — Instantnood 22:22, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Forgotton to mention, Macao is a FIFA member. It is stated in both basic laws that Hong Kong/Macao can join international organisations not only composed of sovereign States, and send their own teams to international sport events. — Instantnood 07:08, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I view the SARs/One country, two systems formular as one which helps to preserve the status quo. By itself, it does not accord HK and Macau the right to field teams to the olympics. They are only able to do so because they have done this before 1997. Assuming they have not, the SARs status would not have given them the right to. This rxplains in one fell swoop why Beijing dosent field a team, for example. Its not so much about the "special" status of the SARs at all. It is the same in many other aspects. Does the SAR status grant them the right for self-election? No. Does it grant them the right to adopt a national flag? No. These were not given to them before 1997, and Beijing is not obliged to do so now. Giving HKers the right to elect their own governer is a priviledge, not a right, under present institutional guidelines.--Huaiwei 07:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's the way you view it, but others may not view it in the same way. The basic laws does stipulate Hong Kong and Macao can field their team to sport events. Hong Kong and Macao can hold their own elections, but the electoral systems of the first few elections are stated in the basic laws. Electoral system of later elections have to be decided according to the procedures provided in the basic laws (Annex II). The designs of the flags and emblems are stated the articles 10 of the basic laws. — Instantnood 09:58, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

It appears to me that you cant understand what I am saying. The basic law allows for existing conditions to prevail post 1997, including the fielding of sports teams, the participation in international organisations, the conduct of international trade, and so on. You comments above does not waver from this at all. The basic law, for example, did not grant the two SARs the right to have their own national flags, while a regional flag was permitted to replace the flag used to represent HK pre-1997. The law states the designs of the flag, something which does not grant it any greater autonomy at all, but allows for a replacement of an existing entity. Indeed, it specifies that this flag is a regional one. Greater autonomy from pre-1997? I doubt so.--Huaiwei 13:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The invention of special administrative region and the "one country, two systems" formula is tailored for the former colonies, and for the ROC / Taiwan. I don't think it's logical at all to say the status and the formula itself does not provide for their rights to send their own sport teams and delegations to international organisations. The flags of Hong Kong and Macao are "regional" as opposed to the PRC flag as "national". But the word "national" in common use can, as like national dish, refer to something that represents the territory-wide. It is not exclusive for sovereign States. — Instantnood 14:23, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, "one country, two systems" was a concept introduced to deal with the Taiwan issue first and foremost, before being applied to the two SARS. I wont think they are "tailored" for the former colonies so to speak, and even then, what difference does that make? These guidelines are there to maintain the status quo. You continue to give the mis-informed impression that those quidelines accord "special priviledges" previously not enjoyed by the two territories. They are not "special" for having greater autonomy. They are only "special" for being able to keep their status quo. In fact, the laws may even be seen to be "restricting" autonomy, since it now says the two territories can be represented in international sporting events and in international organisations under the banner of "Hong Kong, China" etc. I dont remember seeing "Hong Kong, United Kingdom" very often, if at all. And again, I wonder how your statements about the flags are supposed to contribute to this discussion at all. They were officially known as regional flags, nothing more, nothing less. And I dont recall the basic law ever stating that the two SARs can now call any dish "national" :D--Huaiwei 15:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(response to Alan's comment at 09:26, August 2 2005) Not every sovereign State consider dependent territories not part of itself like the United Kingdom. The Faroe Islands and Greenland are part of the Kingdom of Denmark, whereas Aruba, the Netherlands (on Europe) and the Netherlands Antilles are three constituent parts of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Different sovereign States have different treatments for their dependent territories. It's therefore not logically correct to say Hong Kong and Macao are not dependent territories because they're part of a sovereign State. Guangxi is not a province but autonomous region, so why is it 9+2? Why not 8+1+2? — Instantnood 10:04, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

We arent exactly idiots of history either. The traditional definition of a "dependency" is a territory colonised or occupied by a foreign entity, intergrated into the parent country in various degrees. So some countries consider them part of their country? Fine. It still dosent move away from the fact that these are actually occupied territories. Hk and Macau are obviously different here. China is no "foreigner" colonising either entity. They were forcibly taken away from China by a foreign power, and has been returned. In other words, this is like gong back in time to the period prior to the foreign siezure of these lands, to a time when all were simply considered China.--Huaiwei 10:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dependent territories (or dependencies) and colonies are not the exactly same thing, although most of the current dependent territories were once colony of their sovereignty holder. Dependent territories is a much broader term to cover colonies, protectorates, mandate territories, etc. which are not sovereign States on their own. The term dependent territories does not posess any connotation that they are occupied or colonised, though they can be. — Instantnood 10:34, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

The simple reason why the word "colony" is increasingly being avoided contemporarily is because of the global backlash against that practise for the past decades. Various other terms has since appeared, collectively known as "dependencies", which includes the differing ways these territories came to be occupied by a foreign sovereignty. Now there is clearly no clear cut rule dictating that all forms of "occupation" or domestic autonomy has to be refered to as a dependency. Scotland is not commonly listed as a dependency, but the Channel Islands are. Why? History is the answer. Circumstancial and temporary factors clearly play a part here. Hence, in what way is HK considered a "dependency" of the PRC today? Just having autonomy does not automatically qualify it, for that would mean Tibet is a dependency too. Tibet is generally not called a dependency because the international community largely recognise Chinese soverignty over it, and to call it a dependency is an obviously sensitive issue. Calling HK and Macau "dependencies" of the PRC similarly questions Chinese soverignty over them.--Huaiwei 11:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes dependent territories is used in place of colonies very often, but they are not necessarily exactly the same thing, as I have mentioned. "Dependent territories" carries no connotation of occupation or colonisation, and should not automatically be associated with occupation and colonisation. Tibet is not a dependent territory because autonomous regions are not special administrative regions. Autonomous regions are part of the same administrative structure, whereas special administrative regions are not. There is no immediate connection between dependent territory status and legitimacy of sovereignty. There are many territories on Earth which sovereignty is disputed, few are dependent territories. — Instantnood 11:32, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

So we know dependencies are not always the same thing, so now we have to start asking ourselves just what constitutes a dependency as one, right? I outright disagree with the comment that "dependencies" do not connote occupation or colonisation. If they are not occupied or colonised, then why are they called "dependents"? And the next statement is even more ridiculous. What makes a special administrative region a dependency, while an autonomous region not? And what "administrative structure" you refer to here? And by your last few statements, again we do question how SARs are dependencies. If they are not so due to autonomy, then what? Racism?--Huaiwei 11:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you've equated dependent territories with colonies, and considered dependent territories a modern alternative terminology to colonies. Quote from dependent territory: " Dependent territories are commonly distinguished from subnational entities of the same country since they in most cases represent a different order of separation. A subnational entity typically represents a division of the country proper, while a dependent territory might be an overseas territory that enjoys a greater degree of autonomy. ", special administrative region of the PRC, set up according to the Article 31 of the PRC Constitution, is a different order of separation. In many aspect, including (but not limited to) law, customs, trade, immigration, extradition, public finance, civil aviation, etc., special administrative regions maintain their own administration. Like many other dependent territory, they have their own representations at many intergovernmental organisations. — Instantnood 09:21, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

As for the administrative structure, take a look at the articles 30 and 31 of the PRC Constitution. There's nothing to do with racism by the way. :-) — Instantnood 10:35, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

(response to Instantnood's comment at 10:04, August 2, 2005) Although Guangxi is an autonomous region, its adminstration is almost nothing different from a normal province. But special administrative regions have more different systems. I think this is also a reason for why they say "9 + 2". But anyway, this does not imply that special administrative region are dependencies or any kind of separate entities from the nation. Hong Kong has a high (but very limited) degree of autonomy. (I read the discussions above. Someone said this depends on how we define "high." :-) ) But a high degree of autonomy does not imply that Hong Kong is an independent country. That is why I find it justified for some folks to say that Hong Kong should not be placed in the pages for nations or countries. Merely autonomy, special systems do not make a region become an indenpendent country. Just like Washington D.C. is not one of the 50 states in the USA, but a special federal district. However, it is not an independent nation. - Alanmak 21:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody here is saying Hong Kong and Macao are independent sovereign States. And yes the disagreements are all around the level of autonomy and the criteria of dependent territory.— Instantnood 22:22, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

It seems that most of the space in this discussion page is preoccupied by the argument on whether Hong Kong is a dependency whether Hong Kong should be considered independent and separated from China. It is boring, and there is really no need to pay so much effort arguing. :-) I remember that when I first joined Wikipedia, Instandhood and some other Hong Kong folks sent me a welcome message telling me to "have fun editing". Yes, it is important to have fun. It is not good if we turn out to be unhappy when we contribute in Wikipedia. Okay, it seems that the majority of the Hong Kong folks want Hong Kong to be considered independent and separated from China. This can be seen from the deliberate exclusion of "Hong Kong MTR" in the "Underground railway in China" template, and the intention to add a page called "Hong Kong independence movement" (some people's wish for separating Hong Kong from China, rather than something that really exists) into the fre_king "Cantonese Wikipedia" (which is now on test). As it seems to be a taboo to consider Hong Kong together with those mainlanders, why don't we just take all the information about Hong Kong away from the pages about China? If you guys feel more comfortable to exclude Hong Kong from China, just go ahead and do it. Whether it is the fact is not important. Even the Jap_nese can modify their History textbooks with some non-facts. They like it, they find it cool, then they do it. They do have fun. :-) As it seems that most Hong Kong Wikipedians don't like "China", should we just start with deleting the word "PRC" from "HKSAR of the PRC" in the "Hong Kong" article? Let's practice democracy. Should we have a vote for that! :-) Alanmak 23:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:-| Wikipedia is not a democracy. Consensus building is much more important. Further, nobody here is advocating to separate Hong Kong from the PRC, or saying Hong Kong is independent from the PRC. Nobody is presenting or pushing non-facts. The issue here is that some people do not recognise Hong Kong's special status, and pushing their point of view in their edits. — Instantnood 09:21, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Democracy is a good way for consensus building, isn't it? :-) I think those who want to separate Hong Kong from China are only the minority of Hong Kong Wikipedians (like those silly guys that "created" a "Hong Kong Independence Movement" page in the on-test "Cantonese Wikipedia"). I don't mean that you are doing any treason or pushing any non-facts, Instanthood. I understand that you have been an active participants in Wikipedia. You are just aiming at improving the Hong Kong-related articles. I appreciate this threshold, this starting point. It doesn't really matter for me whether Hong Kong is considered as a separated entity from China in Wikipedia articles. Those are just articles, which I spend my leisure time editing. I just want to have fun editing. I don't want to spend time arguing. - Alanmak 10:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes.. but polls are not a good alternative to consensus building through discussions. Thanks so much for your understanding Alan. What are those guy actually doing with the Cantonese trial by the way? :-D — Instantnood 10:35, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

But it really seems that a lot of Hong Kong Wikipedians simply don't like China. As in the "Which country does Hong Kong belong to?" discussion, Huaiwei quoted that you said that a lot of Hong Kongers will be displeased if we consider Hong Kong together with China. I would like to know...is this really the case among Hong Kongers? It is a fact that Hong Kong is a part of China. Why displease? I really don't understand why. I don't agree with those extreme left-wing belief like ... "All Hong Kong people must love the Communist Party, as a prerequisite to be patriotic." But I think it is, at least, necessary for all Hong Kongers to be proud of being a Chinese citizen, rather than clinging to the "good old days" during the British colonial era. Some acts of a certain minority of Hong Kong Wikipedians seem very "sinophobic" to me. But if I point out that they are wrong, then a lot of people may think that I am a left-wing extremist or a extreme communist-fan (but in fact, I am not!). Sigh... - Alanmak 21:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where he quoted from. Most Hongkongers are Chinese, and there's no such thing as sinophobia among them. At the same time I don't think there's anything wrong for them to maintain their own self-recognition of identity that is distinctive from the mainland. But then these are all irrelevant to the discussion around the status of Hong Kong. — Instantnood 22:22, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Muahahahaa!! Oh yes yes...so now Instantnood is justifying his actions by claiming that others are "not recognising HK's special status". What a load of bull, to put it bluntly. It was instantnood who chose to interpret "Hong Kong, China" (and equavalent usages) as demeaning to HK and a failure to recognise its status. Prior to that, I personally dont even consider it any way demeaning at all, and I dont consider it in any way questioning the status of HK. when they are used, Instantnood goes on the defensive, wails that we are "undermining" HK, and then goes on a frantic wikipedia-wide drive to assert HK independence. Needless to say, this becomes overdone, and it wont be long before even people who previously wont have bothered about Chinese issues starts wondering just why this is happening. We have had some western editors, for example, who react in bewilderment and ask...but HK IS a part of China isnt it? So whats the freaking problem with "HK, China"??. Sums up my sentiments perfectly well. I dont think wikipedia has a place for anal retentive and cronically insecure individuals, to be honest.--Huaiwei 09:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object using "Hong Kong, China" when it is necessary and appropriate, and I don't consider it demeaning when it's used appropriately. And yes Hong Kong is part of the PRC, and I never tried to assert Hong Kong's independence (as a sovereign State on its own). Show us the url if there's such comment from western editors, and we can try to illustrate what the situation is like. — Instantnood 09:45, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

If my faltering memory didnt fail me, I remember quite clearly that instantnood says that the "first" instances of his clashes with me was over the way airline destinations were presented. By this relevation, he himself admits to his reluctance in seeing HK being associated with China. As for the "url", again if my memory dosent fail me, we have had several episodes of people bursting out and questioning the whole issue. Pity I cant quite remember just where exactly these comments are by now, but I might just be able to dig them up some day. Anyhow, I probably have plenty of time to do this, since I dont forsee any early resolution to this. It does take some time for people to grow up, I suppose, to learn to be more self-confident, and realise people out there arent exactly "enermies" of HK autonomy just because they write "Hk, China".--Huaiwei 09:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say Hong Kong is not part of the PRC. What I said was that airports in Hong Kong and those in mainland China should not be grouped together. In fact I'm never reluctant to say Hong Kong is part of the PRC, and associate Hong Kong with China. Writing "Hong Kong, China" is nothing wrong when it is used appropriately. Not sure what're you talking about with "grow up". Looking forward to seeing the comments from western (and other) editors. — Instantnood 10:11, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I think I have said a million times that action is more important then words. Of coz you cant say HK is not part of the PRC. Not only is that factually inaccurate, it will also probably mean your career in wikipedia is effectively over. So quit boring us and tell us you didn say this or that. By your actions in seperating all things to do with HK from China (and this includes even chinese issues...non-political issues which are not entirely related to the PRC government), and your inability to explain these actions besides the robotic "HK is autonomous!!! This has NOTHING to do with HK!!!", I think you seriously dont have to bother "saying" anything.--Huaiwei 10:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I can say is that you've misinterpreted my edits. It's not easy to understand why you could have interpreted my actions in this way - sinophobia and Hong Kong's independence. It'd better be called labelling. — Instantnood 10:30, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Instanthood is very robotic, but User:Mcy jerry is. (Somehow I find it pretty humble for that guy to use the word "Masterpiece" to discribe things. This shows that he also knows that many things are already of masterpiece quality when compared to his _ _ _ _ (an example). :-D) Everytime when Hong Kong is included in the category about China, or is made have any association with China, he goes to delete it very efficiently. Huaiwei, I think every time you try to associated Hong Kong to China, User:Mcy jerry would get pissed. If you consistently hold do something oppoosite to him, at some point you guys may have edit wars. It would not be fun. Should you just let them be? :-) - Alanmak 04:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alanmak, let's please be polite, ok? We can all solve our hate by getting together in an OK club. SchmuckyTheCat 05:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who is impolite at first? Well, it was someone that use the word "masterpiece" ironically to humiliate my contribution to Wikipedia at first. But now he is saying that I am agressively showing off? So, he is not, eh? Ridiculous! To that guy how likes to complain: Before complaining other people, please mind your tone every time when you say something. I can complain your humiliation to the admin too, if I want. Even if both of us complained to the admin, the heaviest punishment would be just deleting our accounts in Wikipedia. Okay, I would just contribute by texts, instead of pictures then. But it seems that you don't feel sorry about your attitude. I am very disappointed about that. I want this to be an OK club. But it seems that I cannot cooperate with those kind of person with poor attitude. Think about, who started the humiliation first? Who made me mention the word "masterpiece" here? - Alanmak 05:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this's your second time of humiliation to me. Last time you stroked away my comment, and now you call me names. I'm afraid you're just much of an artistic la-di-da who consider his artwork holier-than-thou. I'm not the only one who slamed your aggressive showing-off actions. User:PZFUN and User:Instandnood have made objections to what you've made in the Wikipedia, which are totally _ _ _ _ as you've mentioned. Originally I didn't want to report your misconduct to the admin even Huaiwei told me to do so, as Instandnood told me "not to bite newbies". But what you've written here is absolutely disappointing. I think I would take some actions sooner or later, unless you've made a good reason. Personal attack should no be encouraged here at any cost, mind you. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 05:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did I? I used the same word to describe K.C. Tang's work. [6]. So am I humiliating him? Obviously not. Originally I use that word is to make comprimises with what you've contributed to Wikipedia, though they're no my cup of tea. It's always bad to say your works are rubbish, not to mention _ _ _ _. You should know your work are not that welcomed by other users. PZFUN remarked your HK altitude map as ugly picture, did you remember? I dun mean to hurt you, so I use a constructive word in hope of encouraging you to contiue with your contribution. Never realised that would made an impression that I'm just making another sarky comment. *Sigh* I'm not afriad of lawsuit. You should know what you've made and I've done. Conspicuously I'm no warmaker but somebody is. It's not a problem to make a report, cos I know I'm innocent. But if you're still thinking my words as personal attack, which are obviously not, I'm terribly regreted. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 05:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC) PS You have made your unfriendly feedbacks concealed with a tougue-showing emoticon ( :P ) all the time, and I wonder why you're doing so. And I don't think it's mature to delete the ugly picture in the page North District.[reply]

Alan, you have been a wikipedian since at least January, so I do believe you are quite familiar with most of the guidelines in use here. Honestly, I dont think I am in the position to remind you about this at all, since I probably flout this ruling more often than you do (:D), but lets do try to avoid such methods to get back at each other over disagreements in another page? I know there are some issues over at Image talk:AdministrativeDivisionOfMacao.png, so lets talk aimicably over there. I know both sides are offended over the words used, so lets learn from that experience and move on. Shall we? ;) --Huaiwei 07:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I always like to settle disagreements. And yes, I am offended by some words everywhere written by someone who accused me of offending him. But that person seems not regretted about his attitude at all. That person can report to the admin if he wants. He is good at making arguments. The admins may be persuaded and block my Wikipedia account for a period of time. But I don't care. I think I cannot collaborate to such kind of person with super poor attitude. - Alanmak 07:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afriad someone would continue with one's groans for some time. And I suspect someone is using two accounts of different user names. I have made my regrets to the misconception, and I hope someone would stop destructive argument for no good reasons. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 07:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How was I impolite, huh? What's wrong with the use of "masterpiece". I quote my use of this "controverisal" word in Instantnood's talk page:

See the MTR page, over the top right-hand corner...what do you think? In fact, I found Alanmak, the creator of the template, maniac in doing wiki-artworks, unfornately, though, he's not a very good artist...Worst still, he's pretty confident with his masterpiece. I dare not make a complaint to him...Catch-22! *sigh* :-/

I don't think it's personal attack. And you should see what I've said "I dare not make a complaint to him" for the reason I've mentioned aboce: not to deter you from contributing to the encyclopedia. But you're just too touchy and paranoid. I'm not making bad-mouth, but someone acted otherwise [7] [8]. Don't ask who was impolite at first. The point is you're making serious humiliation on me, which I didn't do from alpha to omega. Shame on you. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 08:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(response to Instantnood's comment at 09:45, August 3, 2005) I am sorry to say that I think you are , Instanthood, actually objecting the use of "Hong Kong, China". From this edit history page, we can see that you deliberately deleted the "China" at least twice. That guy called "Hong Kong Man" was so pisted. Haha.(I see from another discussion above that he would like to insist adding the word "China".) - Alanmak 10:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's because few articles on Wikipedia are written in this way, and some may consider it redundant and unnecessary. If the consensus is to write it in this way, then go with it. That's little to do with Hong Kong's status, unlike force inclusion of Hong Kong and Macao into the lists of mainland-related topics, for instance. — Instantnood 10:40, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Ah see? That is just YET another example of Instantnood's lies and hyprocrisy. While he continues to claim that he dosent "object" to the idea of "HK, China", notice he always have a "disclaimer" which comes right after..."so long that it is appriopriately used". And it is percisely this vague condition he adds to this viewpoint which he then exploits. Everytime he wants to rid the "China" tag, he claims it was "superflous" [9] (ie, "not appriopriate"). Yet he thinks it is not superflous (ie. "appriopriate") in adding long-winded explainations on HK independence in pages as varied as

Value added tax. These are just two recent examples. I dont even want to comment on his 7 months of wikimanipulation. Yet.--Huaiwei 11:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Stop the labelling. To anybody who's been watching the edits around Hong Kong status since I joined Wikipedia, it wouldn't be surprising that there're more articles presenting Hong Kong as an ordinary subnational division of the PRC, and more Hong Kong-related items are included in mainland China-related lists and articles. Who's manipulating and enforcing her/his point of view? — Instantnood 11:35, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

What labelling? And now it seems like you have taken to weighing the number of articles of one with that of the other. Am I wrong to then assume that you have taken your existance in wikipedia to be primary based on "correcting" this balance to suit your agenda? And meanwhile, what do you mean by your last sentence? Oh you mean the so-called "imbalance" you talk about was the result of the POV of any single individual? Which then makes me wonder. When you first came to this site, was there an imbalance? Who's POV was in force to cause such an imbalance? And do you think this fierce backlash against your little "balancing exercise" was prior to or as a result of your activities? You think you can shift the blame on others now?--Huaiwei 11:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Finally I can announce that the conflict has come to an end! :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 09:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First, as a new contributor here, my apology if I have missed any important point in the above discussion which, frankly speaking, is a bit longwinded and involves some unnecessary exchanges of, let's say, personal opinion. I'd like to get back to the original point raised by User:Instantnood: have we come up with any consensus on how to address Hong Kong under various context on wikipedia? If so, where is it? If not, is this still something pending resolution here?

(I wish I haven't re-opened a can of worms...)

--Pkchan 10:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should I put the history of 1997-1999 into the article

(At 12:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)) presently I've assumed that 1997-1999 goes to

Hong Kong after transfer of sovereignty. Then how about 2000-2005? Deryck C.

Not really. The

The 1990s in Hong Kong might includes matters on coummunity life, economy, etc.. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 14:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Agree with Jerry. That's what in my mind too. :-) — Instantnood 14:51, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Then shall I start an article on "2000s"? Deryck C. 16:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure.. let's work on one by one Deryck. We'll know if we need it or not by then. — Instantnood 17:02, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

So let's concentrate on the current HKCOTW,

The 1990s in Hong Kong. Deryck C. 17:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Recently, I have made a map showing the administrative division in Macao. I want someone to help translating the words on the map to some foreign languages, so that we can put the map onto some foreign-language Wikipedias too. I already have English and Chinese versions. (Click here to see the map) For those who know a foreign language (any language other than Chinese and English), would you please send me the translations in my talk page? Thank you.

Alanmak 05:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I have posted the Portuguese names for the places. I posted them on the discussion of the map.Image talk:AdministrativeDivisionOfMacao.png
• I hope this is helpful for you.--HeiChon~XiJun 16:42:40, 2005-07-31 (UTC)

I wonder if there are any Sysops (aka. administrators) in Hong Kong. If none, we should propose somebody as administrator on RfA. Deryck C. 13:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. Sysops do not represent any regional, territorial or personal interests.. :-| — Instantnood 14:42, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I mean, if there's a sysop in HK, we can have access to help easily. Deryck C. 14:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Every sysop will be happy to help. Other Hong Kong wikipedians can help too, no matter they're sysop or not. :-) — Instantnood 14:55, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

But most foreign sysops are in US, that means whenever we're online they're sleeping. They, techinically, can't help. Deryck C. 15:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No worry.. From my experience they are all around round the clock. :-) — Instantnood 15:02, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm a born night owl and I'm proud of it. XD Fixen 22:02, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Seems that I'm the only afternoon bird here... Deryck C. 14:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should I let the page a go at the FAC? I want some people to second:

• Support -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Hmm...hyst one little "nitpick", and that is maybe you guys may want to do a litle more tweaking to the text, as I noticed some lines or even paragraphs were lifted cleanly from a third party source? Once this is done, it is a clear FAC-quality article! :)--Huaiwei 15:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you can point out the "nitpick" directly. :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm..it seems that quite alot of information are lifted from [10], although at least one or two words per line were changed. The section from "Design requirements" was clearly from [11], for example. "Proper display of the flag" had at least an entire paragraph copied word for word from [12] too, just to name a few examples. Can the text be rewrittern least we run into copyright issues, or is the copied text open source?--Huaiwei 19:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So I did get what you mean right now. Some questions now: (1) The website has no any official claim for copyrights, so is it possible to use the text right now? (2) Design requirements is in fact from the Basic Law (see the page that you've mentioned). Is this an open source? (3) What kind of tag should I use to show that the page needs a rewrite? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 19:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That website is maintained by the Administration Wing and Protocol Division of the Chief Secretary's Office, so I guess the following applies: [13]. I guess {{

rewrite}}?) would the right tag. — Instantnood

19:57, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'll acknowledge the Department later on. :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 20:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well "acknowledged" here means it has to be specified that it's (derived from) the original work of them. :-) — Instantnood 20:23, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I see. So we have shown their links already. Is that enough? Is the wording suitable? So we don't have a rewrite, do we? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 20:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Just try. Deryck C. 05:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Finally... Finish!!!!!!! FA Flag of Hong Kong !!!!! Deryck C. 14:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the efforts everyone. :-) — Instantnood 14:45, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Some of our Hong Kong folks are recently working on some articles about Cantonese terms. But I would like to point out that not all Cantonese terms need an article in English Wikipedia. As this is the English Wikipedia, only those common English loan words that were from Cantonese should be included here. That is, we should not simply romanize a Cantonese term and write an article about it, for a romanized Cantonese term is not necessarily an English term. For example, "chow mein" (炒麵), "lo mein"　(撈麵) and "dim sum" (點心) are English term. They are common used in English writing, and are even used in Chinese restaurants in English- speaking countries. In contrast, "Jau Gwei" (走鬼), "dap toi" (搭枱) and some Cantonese cursewords are just romanized Cantonese terms that are never used in English. In these case, we should translate the terms into real English but meanings, instead of pronounciations. For some cases, we can just ignore the Cantonese term and don't put it into English Wikipedia. (You may put it into the Cantonese Wikipedia, which is now on test. :-) But still, in my opinion, the idea of "Cantonese Wikipedia" should not be encouraged. Because it is just as silly as just directly copying a Chinese-Wikipedia article and replacing some Chinese words by some other words that are ambiguous to Chinese readers outside Hong Kong. I don't want some small groups of silly people to make all Hong Kongers look silly as a whole.) By the way, I saw some folks have made a link to "tong shui" (糖水) in some articles about the food in Hong Kong. But in Chinese, is it more correct to call it "甜湯" (pinyin: tián tāng)? - Alanmak 08:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In fact Wikitionary should be used for a better reason. For the Chinese dessert question, I think the pinyin should be used, while "tong shui" would be preferred when making a fork page about "Cantonese tiantang". The idea of "Cantonese-English Encyclopedia" (or "Mandarin-English Encyclopedia; I see there's oncoming trend of this dreary phenomenon :-/), as you've mentioned, should not be encouraged at any cost. Some conceptual or ideological words should be, desirably, exceptions, nevertheless, e.g. compare mo lei tou with schadenfreude. A more detailed guideline should be promptly listed on the agenda for further discussion. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would just like to point out that I found the article

Kung hei fat choi amazingly skewed. Never did I know in all my years of celebrating CNY that the entire Chinese community around the world has been using a phrase invented in HK!--Huaiwei 16:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

It (恭喜發財) is, though now popular in other Chinese-speaking communities, a Cantonese phrase. It enters English as "Kung Hei Fat Choi" through Hong Kong. — Instantnood 16:18, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure if "Kung Hei Fat Choi" has just became an English phrase, but "Gong Xi Fa Cai" is quite well known here in English usage, thank you very much. And I suppose you are saying "Kung Hei Fat Choi" appeared on this planet before "Gong Xi Fa Cai"? When was it invented? By whom?--Huaiwei 16:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...this comes another problem: the origin of the Chinese term and the English translation are sometimes different. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mind explaining? The article actually says the phrase was invented in HK. Heaven's forbid, but that was quite a shock to me!--Huaiwei 16:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A new round of the

sifu debate? — Instantnood

16:25, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

You cant seem to tell the difference. At least you arent doing anything as silly as saying HK invented the word "Sifu". But now it is claimed that 恭喜发财 is a HK invention? Huh?? Well...educate me, because I have never known this!--Huaiwei 16:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody says 恭喜發財 is a Hong Kong invention, but "Kung Hei Fat Choi". Not actually a real invention, but 恭喜發財 did enter English in this the form of "Kung Hei Fat Choi" through Hong Kong. — Instantnood 16:39, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Oh...so now "Kung Hei Fat Choi" is not 恭喜發財. Another new knowledge I have learnt today. So may I know what is it? And btw, "Gong Xi Fa Cai" did "enter English" too...in fact, far more then "Kung Hei Fat Choi" did. I suppose there is a need now to create an article calld

Gong Xi Fa Cai, since "Kung Hei Fat Choi" is not 恭喜發財, while "Gong Xi Fa Cai" is? :D--Huaiwei 16:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

I think Instantnood has spoken for my thought. But there're more questions behind...but dun wanna talk about it now, 'cos it's already witching hour. Better go to get some shot-eyes...;-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I searched site:bbc.co.uk with Google. "Kung Hey Fat Choi" gives 20 hits, "Kung Hei Fat Choi" gives 27, "Gong Xi Fa Cai" gives 7, "Kung Hei Fat Choy" gives 7 too. There's only 3 hits if search for "Gong Xi Fa Cai" excluding "Kung". — Instantnood 09:32, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I am not too surprised why you didnt want to just seach google-wide this time. Because "Gong Xi Fa Cai" gives us 14,600 hits, very much comparable to "Kung Hey Fat Choi"'s 15,000. "Kung Hei Fat Choi", btw, gives just 5,860. I dont see how one version is very much more in use then the other, and meanwhile, I am still wondering what "Kung Hei Fat Choi" stands for if it is not 恭喜发财? :D--Huaiwei 09:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to tell you guys about my observations. It seems to me that the Chinese term "恭喜發財" was not originated in Hong Kong. It has been used in all Chinese communities outside Hong Kong for many years. But, this Chinese term really came into the realm of English language through the Cantonese phonetic translation "Kung Hei Fat Choi" (the translation "Kung Hay Fat Choy" is also popular). These phonetic translations are pretty well-recognized - even in the United States. I think, if people have to phonetically translate Chinese terms that are used not only in Hong Kong, the pronounciation in Mandarin should be used, for Mandarin is the universial dialect for all Chinese people. But since "Kung Hei Fat Choi" came into English before people concerned about this rule (Maybe it was because Hong Kong people translated it in the colonial era, and at that time Mandarin was not considered important.) , and people are already used to say in this way, this should not be replaced by "Gong Xi Fa Cai".

As mentioned above, "Kung Hei Fat Choi" is a widely-accepted English term. But I think neither "tong shui" (糖水) nor "tian tang" (甜湯) is a widely-accepted English term. In this kind of cases, if possible, we had better write articles about those stuffs by translating them into English by meaning. A possible translation may be "Chinese desserts". (Hope someone can come up with a even better translation). But things like "sifu", "diu", "diu lei lo mo", "gan ni niang" are obviously not an English term - for some of them, people write about it simply for fun. "Mo lei tou" is kind of ambiguous - a minority of the people in Hong Kong use it, but it is too "mo lei tou" to say it is widely-accepted. Again, we don't need every Chinese word to have an article in English Wikipedia; and a romanized Chinese term is not necessarily an English term.

In another post that I made above, I suggested putting all those Cantonese terms that are unrecognized in English into Cantonese Wikipedia. Jerry suggested putting them into Wikitionary, the dictionary of the Wiki project. It may be a good idea, but we have to specify that those are Cantonese terms, but not used in all dialects in China. It is better idea than putting them into the silly Cantonese Wikipedia. Recently, I see some Hong Kongers writing a personal-attacking article about Mrs. Tung, the wife of Mr. Tung Chee Hwa. Also, in a discussion board in Cantonese Wikipedia, some Wikipedians from mainland China pointed out that the purpose of Cantonese Wikipedia can already be served by Chinese Wikipedia, and it was not necessary to make a new similar Wikipedia separated from the Chinese Wikipedia. But those Hong Kongers there scolded the mainlanders with some harsh words. It can be seen that the Cantonese Wikipedia was requested by some Hong Kongers for them to have fun vandalising there. Furthermore, those Cantonese slang are not the standard writing method of Chinese language. It is a very unprofessional way to use those "0既", "咁", 0係" in Wikipedia, which is a place for more academic aricles. If they write something using Chinese characters, it should be readable by non-Cantonese Chinese speakers. I think they should concentrate their efforts in Chinese Wikipedia. The non-standard writing method of Chinese should not be encouraged. I think we have to do something to stop those silly Hong Kongers in Cantonese Wikipedia from vandalising (maybe by banning the Cantonese Wikipedia), to prevent them from worsening the reputation of all Hong Kongers.

-Alanmak 20:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A very interesting phenonmenon is that many Japanese- and Korean-related things go into the English vocabularies by direct transliteration. It is much less common for Chinese. While it is possible for most things, items like "mo lei tau" cannot be translated into English easily. And yet it definitely deserves an entry on the English version of Wikipedia.
Cantonese-specific characters might be unprofessional, but many are actually having their roots from archaic Chinese. Those characters may have fallen into disuse in history, although their usage in spoken form is preserved in Cantonese. There are books discussing them, such as [14] [15] [16] . — Instantnood 11:19, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Time to archive ^_^ Deryck C. 07:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Y'all may like to see some powerful insights of Kowloonese in his/her user page~ :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 07:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, all Hong Kong folks. This week we commemorate the 60th anniversary of the complete victory of the Allied Power in the Second World War. This was a significant moment that marked the end of Japanese invasion in Asia. But recently, some Japanese right-wing organisations are modifying their History textbooks, and trying to conceal the shame of the invasion to their yonger generations in Japan. To preserve the truth in the History, to let more people know about what happened in our land during the war , to acknowledge those who protected our land during the war, why don't we collaborate more on the articles about Japanese invasion in the Second World War? This is not limited to the articles about "the three years and eight months" in Hong Kong. Since this topic fits the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the victory of the Second World War, should we also collaborate on this topic this week, besides writing the usual "Hong Kong Weekly Collaboration"? It is a very meaningful task. You guys may take a look at this web site: http://www.rthk.org.hk/special/60yearsofSJWvictory/. You may find some useful information which you can take reference on when you improve the articles.

Here I quote an anti-war song, "Where have all the flowers gone?", to all Hong Kong folks. Let us introspect the harm of wars to the entire world, and the importance of peace. Enjoy the song!

-Alanmak 20:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where Have All the Flowers Gone?

(http://www.mychangshu.com/forum/images/upload/2005/08/03/072427.wma <- Click here to listen to the song from an external web site)

" Where have all the flowers gone
Long time passing
Where have all the flowers gone
A long, long time ago
Where have all the flowers gone
Young girls picked them every one
When will they ever learn
When will they ever learn

Where have all the young girls gone
Long time passing
Where have all the young girls gone
A long time ago
Where have all the young girls gone
Taken husbands every one
When will they ever learn
When will they ever learn

Where have all the young men gone
Long time passin'
Where have all the young men gone
A long, long time ago
Where have all the young men gone
Gone to soldiers every one
When will they ever learn
When will they ever learn

Where have all the soldiers gone
Long time passin'
Where have all the soldiers gone
Long time ago
Where have all the soldiers gone
Gone to grave yards every one
When will they ever learn
When will they ever learn

Where have all the grave yards gone
Long time passing
Where have all the grave yards gone
A long time ago
Where have all the grave yards gone
Gone to flowers every one
When will they ever learn
When will they ever learn

Where have all the flowers gone
Long time passing
Where have all the flowers gone
A long, long time ago
Where have all the flowers gone
Young girls picked them every one
When will they ever learn
When will they ever learn

Oh, when will they ever learn
Where have all those flowers gone
Ooo, I know those young girls picked them every one

Umm, Where have those soldiers gone
Gone to grave yards every one
Oh, won't they ever learn "

I'd love the The Brothers Four's version, the acoustic guitar version -- very ear-catching. ;-) Btw, I thought the lyrics were compyrighted. Alan, you'd better not post them over here. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave it. This is just a project page, not an article anyway. Deryck C. 15:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I want to hold a HK wikipedias' meetup in mid-September or Octember. I suggest it would be weekend day. See also the discussion at zh:Wikipedia talk:香港維基人列表#香港維基人聚會. Would anyone want to join? If you want to join us, you would sign your name under here.--Simon Shek 15:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joining or not is date-time dependent. Deryck C. 06:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been moved the discussion which relate to hte meetup to zh:Wikipedia talk:聚会/2005香港維基人聚會 page. :-)--Simon Shek 15:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me the results after the concensus came out. Deryck C. 17:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to join the meetup too. But I am not in Hong Kong now, and I will not be in Hong Kong during September and October. Would you guys please prospone the meetup to December, when more people (such as those who are students) will be having vacation? I may come back to Hong Kong in December too. Actually, it is a good thing if such kind of meetup is held more frequently. If you guys want to, can we have a meetup in September and then another in December? - Alanmak 08:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be in Kaiping during Christmas... Deryck C. 13:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Wikipedian meetup comes again, detail please see zh:Wikipedia talk:聚會/2006Q1香港. I don't have any idea now, but hope that will hold on this month or next month and get some suggestion about the time or venue. :) --Simon Shek 14:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got a generalised, this page not found when I clicked that link... --little Alex 04:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link that provided by 石 is incorrect. The correct link to the meetup is in zh:Wikipedia talk:聚会/2006香港春聚報告. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 05:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to put the Sun Yat-sen article onto FAC. Hope everybody can have a look of it and improve anything if fits. Deryck C. 15:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It could be seen that a lot of Hong Kong Wikipedians are working very hard on the Hong Kong-related articles recently. There are a few relatively new articles in which a lot of good information was added in a short period of time. The most noticible ones are

Alanmak 23:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transport in Hong Kong... good. Deryck C. 10:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which do you think we shall keep? — Instantnood 13:30, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I've created {{

How, for example? Deryck C. 10:24:57, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

FYI, there is a Hong Kong Wikipedians meeting this weekend. For more details: [17] - Fuzheado | Talk 12:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone familiar with the history of Hong Kong confirm the 1906 anniversary on September 18, please ? Were there 10000 people in Hong Kong in 1906 ? How many were left after the tsunami ? This entry looks odd and iffy to me. Thanks. -- PFHLai 11:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at

talk:Hong Kong/Archive3#1906 typhoon and tsunami. :-) — Instantnood 12:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

I am afraid I have declined the nomination, since the ArbCom case which has not been concluded will definitely affect, no matter positively or adversely, the opinion and the impression over my past records. Let's leave it to a better timing. :-) — Instantnood 15:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, I found the above comment mildly disturbing. It appears that instantnood assumes general public opinion about him is formed wholely by the arbcom case, and that his fall from grace is to be blamed on the arbcom process above all else?--Huaiwei 16:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The poll would best be conducted without interference. I don't want the voting process be affected by an unconcluded case... no matter it's going to benefit me or bringing adverse impact. To quote Mailer diablo's word on my talk page, this is not the right time. — Instantnood 16:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We shall wait patiently for the right time then, if it ever comes. Good luck.--Huaiwei 18:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Instantnood 19:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flcelloguy has nominated Deryck onto RfA... Hope you can support me!!!!! Deryck C. 16:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could anybody help introduce the noticeboard's Chinese counterpart to the participants here? The Chinese version is desperately in need of writers, the weekly collaboration projects there sometimes only sum up to a disappointing 2 edits in a week. Please! Fankiew ar! -- Tonync (talk) (講) 03:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong is supposed to be a bilingual place. But since a lot of Hong Kong people were educated in English, the proficiency in Chinese would often be neglected. I think it is extremely important to improve the collaboration and coordination of Hong Kong Wikipedians in both the English Wikipedia and the Chinese Wikipedia.

Admittedly, there are good Hong Kong-related articles in the Chinese Wikipedia, such as the "Languages of Hong Kong" article. But in my impression, the Chinese proficiency of a lot of Hongkongers are relatively lower than that of a lot of Taiwan people in general, although both places use Chinese a lot. There is a lot of room for improvement in our Chinese level. :-) - Alanmak 02:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it seasonal..? Coz it's like editors are more active during the summer break. — Instantnood 21:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...I hope it's not seasonal!! It's exactly the fact that we don't have enough writers which gives you the impression that the noticeboard is dysfunctional. Please show your support! -- Tonync (talk) (講) 10:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, many here has an account in the Chinese Wiki, but the HKWNB there is so dark and hidden that nobody can find it... Deryck C. 10:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

......Not sure what you mean by 'dark', but the shortcut

WP:HKWNB works in both English and Chinese versions, can't get easier than that!! -- Tonync (talk) (講) 01:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

The Chinese version of the "Languages of Hong Kong" has already been proomoted to be a featured article in the Chinese Wikipedia. I hope that the English version can be given a featured status too. But base on my observation, there are a lot of information in the Chinese version that the English version does not have. Shall we further improve the English version for a little bit and try to promote it to be a featured article?

By the way, may those who know a foreign language please help translating the "Languages of Hong Kong" article to that language? I know very very little German, and I have already started the article in the German Wikipedia. I hope those who know German very well can help translating the article into German. Thank you.

-Alanmak 02:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that we really need to concer with: zhwiki has a lower FAS. Deryck C. 04:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The threshold seems lower over there. — Instantnood 21:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I should agree. It's different here, but I don't know if I should call it "higher".—Gniw (Wing) 03:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please help adding Hong Kong-related images to the category by adding [[category:images of Hong Kong]] to the image description pages (like this one). Thanks. :-) — Instantnood 21:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing research on four new airports, one of which is HK. I am interested in the degree to which an airport's planning process leads to accurate forecasts and positive outcomes. I will be in HK for a couple of days in late November and would like to meet with anyone who cares to discuss the airport's development with me.

Thanks in advance and apologies if this is not an appropriate post.

Joseph Szyliowicz [email protected]

- 63.164.145.198 21:07, October 29, 2005 (UTC)

The Chinese white dolphin of Hong Kong Collaboration of the Week is missing. Anyone knows how to get it back? HenryLi 16:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[18] or [19] for the time being. ;-) (seems like it was deleted because of the lack of source of information..) — Instantnood 16:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cont'd from archive 1: User:Jiang has started a WikiProject for Chinese surnames. — Instantnood 13:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just like the M-Train, I think it's time for the article to receive a bit of refurbishment to keep the article up to current FA standards. Basically at this time, there are two immediate issues I can think of :

• Revised reference format, i.e. new 'Notes' section. I'm referring to In-line citations. That'd be great.
• Revised prose for smaller and newer sections.

It'd be great if you guys can lend a hand and keep the article far away from FARC. Thanks! :)

-

Not too sure.. When this page was created, the choice among regional notice boards was split between w- and W-. — Instantnood 06:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those regional notice boards are split between w- and W-, I think the user

requested move guildlines to nominate the page move.--Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 14:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, if there have consensus to make a page move, the move needs to check any sub-pages assigned to that page to be redirected to prevent broken parent page.--Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 14:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer keeping the small 'w' for easy redirection under the "capital first-letter and then lowercase" system. Deryck C. 15:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from zh:

The HK Wikipedians in zh Wikipedia has been proposed a meeting at January, please see here for further details. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 15:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please join the discussion at WP:CFD#Category:Chinese newspapers to Category:Newspapers in the PRC, regarding how the category shall be renamed. — Instantnood 18:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some seroius factual errors have been revealed in the process of translating the article into Chinese. Please help! -- tonync (talk) (講) 05:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a template that will help when typing Chinese characters and then corresponding them with a Cantonese romanisation of the characters.

Usage: {{zh-tcy |t=中國 |cy=Jùng gwok}}

Hong Qi Gong 20:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need some suggestions on the Demographics of Hong_Kong series. I want to edit the menu because half the links on that menu are blanks. There's a short discussion on its talk page, but I would like more input. Thanks. (Also, I noticed that the Chinese version of the entry - 香港人口 - is completely different.) Hong Qi Gong 22:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is anybody going/having been to the opening of the Victoria Prison and take some pictures? :-) The Hong Kong Observatory is opening too. — Instantnood 17:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi, i see that

the article is up for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Hong Kong action cinema/archive1. any comments welcome! Zzzzz 20:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fyi, the article is now featured! rgs, Zzzzz 11:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you people think that it's a good idea to have a template that puts the romanizations in a separate box like with Korean articles? I refer to the Template:Koreanname template, which looks like this in these example articles:

• Gimpo International Airport
• Korean won
• Sinmiyangyo
• KBS

and so on. I know that such a template has worked very well for Korean articles, and has been in use for a long time. In my opinion, it is neater than always having a bunch of romanizations in brackets after the article name. I was thinking that a Cantonese one might consist of the characters, the Hanyu Pinyin, and one or more of Jyutping / Yale / IPA for the Cantonese pronunciation. -- KittySaturn 12:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer the inline style, with a hide button like the one used by some navigational boxes. The template:nihongo currently also allows users to set their own preferences by .css settings. — Instantnood 17:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waited for the long time.......... the new Cantonese Wikipedia has been launched. We welcome everyone to participate with this new project. (Cantonese Wikipedia Main Page) :) --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 16:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cantonese Wikipedia... lol... --Deryck C. 16:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Today HK wikipedians in Chinese Wiki discuss the possiblility of setting up a HK wikipedia local chapter (Wikimedia Hong Kong). This idea is mainly due to the recent bidding of the 1st Chinese Wikipedia Meeting, that a local chapter will be an advantage in organizing functions. Are there anyone here interested in this proposal?Chungpui 13:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently involved with the discussion surrounding the Australian chapter (meta:Wikimedia Australia), so if give us a ping if you want any guidance. enochlau (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But what does the chapter do? Deryck C. 04:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Hong Kong just has a Draft Constitution uploaded. Please take a look and modify it. Wikimedia Hong Kong is still just an idea now. So it welcomes all suggestions. Chungpui 13:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel interested in this proposal and if need any help ,call me!!!! tcymatthew

I've updated the page - Wikimedia Hong Kong, hopefully you guys can understand my poor English.－－Stewart~惡龍 (Chat&講！) 15:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, I am a HK Wikipedian mainly active on zh:, the zh:HK Wikipedians are planning a meetup in April. All of you are welcomed! (No matter you speak Cantonese/Mandarin or not) For more information, please refer to zh:Wikipedia_talk:聚会/2006香港第二次春聚. Cheers! --Lorenzarius 18:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

報名已經展開！請從速參加！！Please join us now!

• 日期Date：4月15日
• 時間Time：7.00pm - 11.00pm
• 地點Venue：水瓶座咖啡店Cafe de Verseau
• 最低消費Minimum Expense：每位約$20 (飲品一杯)
• 聯絡人Contact Person：Angus Lai

由於篇幅關係，詳情請參看這裏！

For more details, please look over here.

－－Stewart~惡龍 (Chat&講！) 00:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]