Talk:Hong Kong/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Hong Kong as a city

In the table on the right side of the article, some users put "Central" for the capital of Hong Kong, and "Sha Tin" for the largest city. I wonder if this is correct. As I know, a lot of texts would rather put Hong Kong itself as a city, those entities like Central and Sha Tin as areas within a city. In Wikipedia, I found a sentence in the article List of current and former capitals of subnational entities of China that reads like this: "Excluded from the list: First-level units that are cities, such as the municipalities or the two special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau." In that way, it seems that Hong Kong is "a first-level administrative region that is a city." By definition, the capital city of a city is the city itself. A good example is Singapore, which is a city-state. Its capital city is Singapore, its only city. Using this logic, should the capital city of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region be "Hong Kong"? Or, should we put "Not applicable" in the blank for "capital"? Meanwhile, in the blank for "capital", I have put Central as the de facto capital of Hong Kong, and mentioned that it is the location of the Government headquarters. Similarly, in the "administrative divisions" section, some users added that "There are several cities and towns within Hong Kong, the largest of which include Kowloon." I wonder if the wording should be changed. - 70.231.51.124 08:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Central is formerly named as Victoria City, which is the designated capital of colonial Hong Kong. Sha Tin, IMO, should really be the largest community, but I think the largest "town" is more suitable than largest "city".

"There are several cities and towns within Hong Kong, the largest of which include Kowloon." This sentence is strictly incorrect, as Kowloon is never recognized as a town or city in within Hong Kong. It is a high-level geographical adminsistrative division, or more precisely, a peninsula. "Capital" of Hong Kong is central, but it cannot be regarded as a "city". If we can accept the term "capital town", then Central is the capital of Hong Kong, and Sha Tin is the largest "town". The only city in Hong Kong is Hong Kong. --D e ryc k C. 08:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

In response to your point about Victoria City, I have several questions. As far as I know, Victoria City was only a small city set up by the British when they first acquired the Hong Kong Island but has not yet acquired Kowloon and the New Territories, had it ever been officially declared as the capital city of Hong Kong? Even if so, it seems that Victoria City only exists in the colonial era. Does it still exists nowadays? Also, Victoria City is not the same thing as Central. Central is only part of the Victoria City. Is it true to say that Victoria City was already broken down into the Central and Western District and the Wan Chai District at some point? If that is the case, should the Central and Western District be the capital nowadays?

Another thing is that the official subdivisions under Hong Kong are the 18 districts. Those entities like Central, Ma On Shan or Tseung Kwan O are not official administrative divisions amongst Hong Kong. There respective official administrative divisions should be the Central and Western District, Sha Tin District and Sai Kung District. So, I think it is more appropriate to say that the Central and Western District is the "capital town", and the Sha Tin District is the largest town. But there comes other questions. Is there really such a thing as "capital town"? Should we change "captial" to "seat of Government headquarters" in the template? Also, Sha Tin District is not the largest District in terms of area. In that case, which would be the largest district or town? Should we change "largest city" to "largest district"?

It seems that the country template on the right hand side of the article is not really useful in this specific article. Because Hong Kong is more like a city than a country. I think we may have to change some terms in the template to make it more suitable for this article. - 70.231.51.124 08:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"Largest town" doesn't imply the town has to be officially declared as a "town". If the community concensus says it is, then it should be recognized as is. --D e ryc k C. 09:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. This snuck in converting the infobox from a specific infobox template:Hong Kong infobox to parameters in infobox country, and then substing that template. Both the section for "capital" and "largest city" are useless for this article. Just remove them from the table. SchmuckyTheCat 09:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That's why I insist you not to delete the Hong Kong Infobox. That infobox was originally created to move the complicated box out of the article so as to shorten it, and now you ask us to subst the new infobox onto it and change the contents? Ridiculous. Doing so means we are reverting the efforts done a few months ago when this article is being promoted to FA. We are stepping backwards by deleting the Hong Kong Infobox. --D e ryc k C. 14:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I know. I didn't do the subst nor make the policy the other users are stating that single use templates get deleted. I closed the templates for deletion and archived the infobox, rather than delete it, so we could possibly restore it later. If I hadn't done that, it would have been deleted by some admin and lost forever. I like the infobox being external because the "code" in the article itself makes it daunting task to newcomers to try to edit. SchmuckyTheCat 17:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

(response to Deryck Chan's comment at 14:31, March 31) For your information, the infobox is archived. See below for details. — Insta ntnood 18:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

What does the English word city means can be viewed from different perspectives, e.g., geographical, ceremonial, and administrative. Geographically there're several urbanised areas within the territory of Hong Kong, that are geographically qualified to be considered cities or towns. Administratively, Hong Kong is unitary and there's no sub entity designated as city (or town). The extents of the City of Victoria, Kowloon and New Kowloon, are respectively demarcated by law. So far I have not found any information showing if Victoria City (or any other part of Hong Kong) has received a charter from the Queen/King or not.

Victoria City, legally speaking, still exists, and many government offices, including the headquarters of almost all departments are within Victoria City. But in modern conversations few people actually use this name. They call the names of the areas instead. It's also interesting to note that the boundary of the City of Victoria does not follow those of the modern districts.

If you're taken a geographical perspective, Kowloon (including New Kowloon) would be the urbanised area with the largest population, wheareas the City of Victoria would be the legal entity where the government headquarters are located. — Insta ntnood 21:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Victoria City, legally speaking, still exists. No, it doesn't. SchmuckyTheCat 00:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

After "85,000" Incident in Hong Kong, some people suggested that if something used to exist, but the Government no longer mentions about it, then it no longer exists. Could this principle be applied to the case for Victoria City? - Alan 01:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

(response to user:SchmuckyTheCat's comment at 00:29, April 1) Yes it does. Go check Cap 1 Sched 1. The definition is still useful for assigning land lot numbers, for instance. — Insta ntnood 10:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC) (modified 18:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

It seems that the currect info box is not really suitable for the article about Hong Kong. Because it is the standard country info box. Although some users have been repeatedly arguing that Hong Kong is a country on its own, Hong Kong is not quite the same kind of entity as those common examples of countries that we can come up with, like the United States, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Korea, the People's Republic of China (PRC) etc. The fundamental policy of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) is "One Country, Two System", which means practicing two political systems (the one within the HKSAR and the one in the rest of the PRC) in one country (the PRC). Therefore, it would be more correct to say that the HKSAR + the rest of the PRC = the entirety of the PRC = one country, rather than the HKSAR = one country. But when Hong Kong was a British colony before 1997, Hong Kong is not an integral part of Britain. Due to this historical, and pragmatical reason, Hong Kong has usually been put in a separate entry in a list of countries. However, Hong Kong is now a special administrative region (SAR), and does not have all the characteristics possessed by those common countries like the United States, the Russian Federation. An SAR is a very special kind of political entity / administrative division of the PRC. It would be useful to design a unique info box specifically for an SAR. If we insist to use the standard country info box, we really don't know what to put for "capital city". It seems silly and providing no useful information to say that the capital city of Hong Kong is Hong Kong. I would prefer, as some users suggested above, changing the "capital city" to "seat of the Government headquarter", and the "largest city" to "largest district". This would make the info box tailor-made for the special situation of Hong Kong. - Alan 00:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't agree. If the ROC or Taiwan were to be a special administrative region, it were going to have several cities, one of which would be the capital. The problem with this country infobox your mentioned is not related to special administrative regions. The same problem exists for countries (by saying countries I refer to sovereign states and other you-know-what which are not sovereign states) which do not designate its urbanised settlements as cities, as well as those which do not officially proclaimed by legal procedures their seats of governments as capitals. — Insta ntnood 10:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. The ROC is a state / a regime, and Taiwan is a province / an island under the administration the ROC. It does not make sense to imagine what if they were special administrative regions. Some users pointed out, in the discussion above, that Hong Kong is "a first-level administrative region that is a city". I think this is the main problem with using the country info box in the article about Hong Kong. For those first-level administrative regions that are not cities, there is no problem at all. For instance, the capital city of Guangdong province is Guangzhou, and the capital city of the Tibet Autonomous Region is Lhasa. But for other first-level administrative regions that are cities, such as the mulicipalities of Beijing, Tianjin and Shanghai, you may ask the same question. As I read the articles about Beijing, Tianjin and Shanghai, they have a special kind of info box that avoid mentioning about their capitals and largest cities. I wonder if we should do the same for Hong Kong. - Alan 01:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Zhíxiáshì, dìjíshì and xiànxiáshì are shì (cities), special administrative regions are not officially recognised or designated as such. — Insta ntnood 15:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether Hong Kong is a city or not. What matters is whether or not that style of infobox is more appropriate to this article. SchmuckyTheCat 15:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

And that's beyond the subject of this section. — Insta ntnood 15:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it's exactly the subject of this section. The first sentence of this section refers to the infobox. What others have proposed as a solution is that using the city infobox might be more relevant than using the country infobox. SchmuckyTheCat 17:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

In that case other city-countries will have to use the city infobox template too, since they're cities. — Insta ntnood 18:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

That kind of demand is rather presumptuous and makes you look like a donkey. SchmuckyTheCat 03:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The suggestion to use the city infobox instead is already presumptuous. Who first suggested to use the city infobox, by the way? — Insta ntnood 18:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's take a look at the article "Political divisions of China", the subsection about "Special Administrative Regions" is listed under the section "Province level". In the "Summary" section, "special administrative regions" is again placed in the box for "Province level". Apart from this, in both the articles "List of China administrative divisions by population" and "List of China administrative divisions by population density", the first sentence is "This is a list of the first-level administrative divisions of People's Republic of China." Meanwhile, the two special administrative regions - Hong Kong and Macau - are included in the lists. These clearly shows that special administrative regions are province-level, i.e. first-level, administrative regions of the PR China. That is, Hong Kong and Macau are part of the hierachy of the administrative regions of the PR China. I feel that some Hong Kong Wikipedians have been trying to deny this fact for many times, but no matter what, that is the fact. As a first-level administrative region of the PR China, it makes sense for the "Hong Kong" article to use the kind of info box that has been used in the articles for other first-level administrative regions, such as Shanghai, Guangdong, Guangxi, Beijing etc. But this could have a certain extent of flexibility.

Although a lot of people like to compare Hong Kong with Singapore, their status in the hierachy of administrative divisions should not be equated. Singapore is an independent state, or a city-state. Hong Kong is a special administrative region of the PR China, and coincidently a city. Regardless of whether a special administrative region is automatically a city, it is a first-level administrative region. - Alan 03:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If you're so sure that what you claim is the fact, could you please kindly show us the evidence from constitutional or legal sources? I just cannot find any that compares special administrative regions with the province-level divisions (autonomous regions, muncipalities and provinces), or defines Hong Kong or Macao as a city. I've yet to find out any source saying special administrative regions are administrative divisions, too, in the same or similar manner like the province-level ones are specified. — Insta ntnood 20:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

As we can see, the fact that special administrative regions are first-level administrative regions are mentioned in a lot of articles in Wikipedia. I think those many Wikipedians who put such information must have already done some research and verifications. But if you want to say that special administrative regions are not administrative regions of the PR China, then you have to first provide constitutional evidence to prove that Hong Kong is already a separate country from the PR China and that the "One Country, Two System" principle is entirely fake. - Alan 22:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has ever tried to assert nor imply that Hong Kong is a sovereign state independent from the People's Republic of China. As mentioned many times before, each of the two existing special adminsitrative regions is constitutionally defined as " an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China " (" é parte inalienável da República Popular da China ") (cf article 1 of both basic laws). It's a fact, and is not a matter of dispute. Nonetheless we don't have any evidence to justify the claim that any special administrative region established according to Article 31 of the 1982 Constitution is an administrative division, nor do we have any to justify the claim that the two existing special administrative regions are administrative divisions. If you do have such evidence, please kindly show us. — Insta ntnood 18:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we can follow the example of the Nauru page, and list those "cities" as districts?Arbiteroftruth 01:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
What about listing Sha Tin District as the "most populated district"? — Insta ntnood 19:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hong Kong simply doesn't have a capital, according to an government official. Thus IMO it is ridiculous to put Central / Victority City as the "capital" of Hong Kong. You can call Central as the administrative center but not "capital". --Lorenzarius 09:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please kindly read, with great care, how they justified their claims. In the first e-mail, that person disregarded what is prescribed in Cap 1 Sched 1. In the second one, the person failed to recognise the fact that the English word country is not always used synonymously with sovereign state, and not only sovereign states have capitals. Many British crown colonies had capitals too. It's true that the name City of Victoria or Victoria City is no longer commonly used, it still exists, and within its limit are where the Government Headquarters and the head offices of most departments located. — Insta ntnood 20:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

To me, a political territory (country, state, province, SAR, etc.), soveriegn or not, defines its own capital. And Hong Kong, just like municipalities such as Beijing or Shanghai (all at the same province level), does not define an official capital. So there's no capital of Hong Kong. You can say that the seat of government is at whatever district, but you cannot say Hong Kong's capital is that district, 'cos this is determined solely by the government of Hong Kong (maybe together with the government of PRC). Chanheigeorge 20:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd actually be interested to compare how other places define their capitals. I believe many countries simply treat where the permanent residence of the monarch is located, or where the parliament, or the government is located, as the capital, without extra designation. I'm not saying whether the City of Victoria is or is not the capital, but it's an actual fact that it has been considered the capital by many published sources. The footnote, IMHO, is already adequate in providing necessary information to readers. — Insta ntnood 21:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Capital and seat of government are two different concepts. The capital is designated officially by the government, and the seat of government is where the administration (or monarch, or parliament) is physically located. Just because they happen to be the same for most countries (or territories) does not mean they are the same concept. Some countries (e.g. Netherlands) designate one city as a capital and its government is located elsewhere. One country (Nauru) does not officially designate a capital. Three countries (Singapore, Monaco, Vatican City) designate the whole country/city (since they are city-states) as its capital, and do not designate the district where its government is located as its capital. So if Hong Kong does not designate a capital, it has no capital. IMHO what is currently in the infobox is wrong. Chanheigeorge 00:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know how countries like Japan designate their capitals. Some people are arguing that Kyoto is still technically the capital, although all functions are now performed by Tokyo (cf capital of Japan). In what way is London defined as such? And Amsterdam was not legally or constitutionally recognised as the capital until 1983, although considered to be for a long time (cf capital of the Netherlands). Singapore does not designate any capital (probably the same case for the Vatican City), and Monaco-Ville is the capital of Monaco. — Insta ntnood 11:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I cannot claim to know how every country (or territory) in the world decide on their capitals. But from the examples I've read, the government takes an official position, such as in their constitution. Whenever I'm unsure of what the capital of a country is, I try to find the information on their government webpage, 'cos you'd think they know where their "official" capital is. BTW, I think the capital of Monaco is just Monaco (I've reverted that page; see Talk:Monaco). I've yet to read a source (not counting Wikipedia pages... we all know they're unreliable without sources) that says Monaco-Ville is the capital of Monaco. Chanheigeorge 21:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright. If there are places like Japan (the Netherlands, too, before 1983), we've gotta ask if it's a must to have capitals officially designate and explicitly recognised. Nevertheless I don't find anything wrong to say "the Government Headquarters and the head offices of most departments are within the legally-defined area of the City of Victoria". The statement simply describe an actual fact without dealing with whether or not its status is officially designated and explicitly recognised. — Insta ntnood 19:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a problem because it misrepresents the fact that nobody uses the term "Victoria City" any longer. Saying so implies that people recognize that name with that area, which isn't so. SchmuckyTheCat 19:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

From a historical-sociological point of view, if nobody uses the name any longer, it might be correct to say it no longer exists. From a legal point of view, however, it exists until the law is repealed. Not to mention the fact that the definition is still useful until this moment for certain administrative (well, perhaps bureaucratic, or even red tapes in some people's points of view) functions. — Insta ntnood 20:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It is defunct. The "law" definiting it will never be repealed because other laws, contracts, deeds, etc, depend on a legal definition. This definitely DOES NOT mean that "from a legal point of view it exists". Law books are full of stale definitions and clauses because it's a requirement for continuity, especially in common law jurisdictions. SchmuckyTheCat 23:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you suggest an example in which other laws, contracts, deeds, etc., has to depend on the definition of the limits of the City of Victoria? Even if there is such an example, could you please explain why Cap 1 Sched 1 cannot be repealed with a new clause stating "any reference to the City of Victoria shall be construed as a reference to whatever"? What's the point of keeping this particular schedule? — Insta ntnood 23:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Victoria City again

If anybody cares about Instantnood's current revert war on this article: [1] [2] [3] SchmuckyTheCat 19:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The footnote already explains that the City of Victoria the legally-defined area in which the Government Headquarters is located. It's a fact the City of Victoria is a legally-defined area, and it's also a fact that the Government Headquarters is within this area. The footnote is not saying whether the name City of Victoria (or Victoria City) is used in modern times or not. It, neither, tells whether the City of Victoria enjoys any official status or recognition as the capital. Cf user:wshun [4], (147) [5], — Insta ntnood 19:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You aren't a lawyer, so don't try to interpret laws to say they are still in effect when the Hong Kong government says it no longer exists. SchmuckyTheCat 19:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Any proof that it no longer exists, that the section of the ordinance had been repealed? Any evidence I am or I am not a lawyer? — Insta ntnood 19:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yawn, I referenced 150k of archived discussions with you on this issue. Please tell me when you bring about some new discussion instead of just recycling everything. SchmuckyTheCat 20:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty apparent that the law is there. You've yet to show that it had been repealed, and the City of Victoria no longer exists. Don't keep saying it doesn't, with presenting any evidence or proof. Nothing would be changed even if you said the same thing for a million times. — Insta ntnood 20:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yawn, the evidence is in the archives. SchmuckyTheCat 21:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Cite it please, if there's any there. Thanks. — Insta ntnood 21:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Little comment on the revert war:

1. Image:Flag of Hong Kong SAR.png should not be used, since it is rendered redundant as explained in the image page.

2. I feel it should be "none" in the District name since Hong Kong is not really a country.

3. Leader name is Donald Tsang! Why would anyone just want to say it's merely "Chief Executive"?

4. Mandarin is how it is how PTH being said in English. (PTH is just a "sound" translation to English)

--Hunter 08:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Re #1 - Please refer to the edit history of the infobox. It has already been explained, for a few times, why the .png image should still be used. User:Mcy jerry could perhaps further explain on this. Re #4 - Its English name in Hong Kong is Putonghua. Putting Mandarin in round brackets is already adequate to readers. Re #2 - Country ≠ sovereign state. Not only sovereign states can have capitals. — Insta ntnood 10:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I prefer to reply in point form:

- As par Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Format, Drawings, icons, political maps, flags and other such images are preferably uploaded in SVG format as vector images. Images with large, simple, and continuous blocks of color which are not available as SVG should be in PNG format. unless it's under fair use claim. Image:Flag of Hong Kong SAR.png is not used under a fair use claim either and therefore SVG format is preferred. And please be link to the edit history of the infobox you are talking about, because I failed to see where it is.

- If you lookup [6], Mandarin is equal to Modern Standard Chinese which is the official language of China.

- Definition of Country: [7], people list Hong Kong in list of countries for convinence purposes only, Hong Kong is not a country but merely a administrative region inside a country.

- Hunter 12:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Re #1 - Yes. But please wait until problem with the colour and the size of the stars is solved. The edit history is available at [8]. Re #3 - The word country is often used synomously with sovereign state, but they are not always do. Not only sovereign states can have capitals. Re #2 - Modern Standard Chinese can be referring to báihuàwén too. In Hong Kong (and probably in the rest of the PRC, tho I'm not too certain about this), the dialect is known in English as Putonghua. — Insta ntnood 13:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me the lost content in my last revert that is unrelated to the dipute. Yes I know the word Putonghua is being used in Hong Kong, this is very likely due to the fact that Hong Kong is a Chinese society. In other countries, to my knowledge, it's known more as Mandarin. Also, if you search Putonghua in Wikipedia, you'll get Standard Mandarin. For the capital thing, I can see that in earlier discussions, it has been shown that even Hong Kong government official pointed out there is NO capital for Hong Kong since Hong Kong is not a nation. For the flag, if you feel there is something worng about it please goto the flag page to discuss. Hunter 13:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. The English name used natively should be listed first. Following by a equally common or more common name in round brackets is already providing readers with adequate and necessary information. I've already pointed out (both above and in the archived discussion) the underlying fallacies with the e-mails. — Insta ntnood 14:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I fail to agree with your POV, and I feel that your points raised is unsupported. For country definition I already pointed out a widely used dictoinary (Encarta) which did not support your view. I also feel that you are the only one which disagrees with the official view of the Hong Kong government on the view on the capital city thing. Also, please stop further reverts, you are closing in 3RR Hunter 14:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Please read carefully what is said in the two e-mails, as well as my comment above and in the archived discussion. If you fail to agree with my comment, tell us why you don't agree. As for the definitions of the terms country and sovereign states, cf country, list of countries, sovereign state, list of sovereign states. Thank you. — Insta ntnood 15:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"Please read carefully" sounds like you have some pedantic issue with semantics. The statement made is obvious there is no need to quibble about words. SchmuckyTheCat 17:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

To put it easy to understand by user:SchmuckyTheCat, the way the persons used in the e-mail to justify that Hong Kong has no capital is illogical. The capital of California is Sacramento, and Ontario's is Toronto; Puerto Rico's San Juan, and Falkland Islands' Stanley. — Insta ntnood 18:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Then go argue with the government. I suggest taking a picket sign to the front of the information office. Their meaning is obvious even if you disagree with their "logic". SchmuckyTheCat 18:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you please provide the e-mail address(es) that you wrote to? Thanks. — Insta ntnood 20:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Need Chinese language help

Hi, we need Chinese language help at Chinese wine. There's a wine which isn't yet discussed that is sold as "hung-lu" wine. It is reddish in color, with a sharp smell and is sold by the Oriental Mascot brand (which also makes mijiu and formerly also made Shaoxing jiu). The largest photo of this wine is here, but the characters aren't easily readable. I think "hung-lu" isn't Hanyu pinyin. Can someone provide information about this wine, the characters, etc.? Thank you! http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/B0000DJZ0F/ref=dp_primary-product-display_0/102-4042702-9901704?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=3370831&s=gourmet-food Badagnani 22:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Infobox change

I made a major change to the infobox so we no longer use the country template to rid us of the problems associated with it. I've adopted an infobox a few other Chinese cities use (not a template) and made it very HK specific. Discuss if there is something missing or problematic. SchmuckyTheCat 03:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The new infobox is hideous, hard to read, and poorly formatted. I suggest we revert immediately. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 07:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not inlove with anything about the colors, layout or formatting. I lifted it from the box used at Shanghai. Feel free to modify them to improve hideousness and readability. When I created this box, I put it side by side with the old one, and IMHO, they are mostly the same. SchmuckyTheCat 17:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree something needs to be done with the infobox, but more discussion is required before an infobox change. However, I prefer the layout of the country template, too. --Mintchocicecream 09:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The new format is actually from Shanghai, and the original people who made the new Shanghai's box actually directly copied it from Berlin's style. I completely disagree on the change. Keep it all consistent. Is there a strong need to change? Heilme 02:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The 'new' infobox is not easy on the eyes. It is more difficult to read. What were the problems associated with the Template:Infobox Country?—MJCdetroit 16:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with infobox country was that it was inappropriate for a non-independent country. Trying to use that template here resulted in two years worth of revert wars. If the problems with the new infobox are hard on the eyes, fix them, it's not a hard coded template. SchmuckyTheCat 18:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This will need consensus, here and at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries, to be implemented. I oppose. Entities with sufficient autonomy (i.e., those given separate entries at the World Factbook) have the WikiProject Countries applied to them. For example, Puerto Rico has the country template, not the US state template.--Jiang 19:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Slight edits

Amidst the revert wars, I can't believed nobody noticed 17 footnotes missing from the article due to the missing <references/> tag. I have inserted it. Also, reworded the caption in the Victoria Harbour by night photo. Kimchi.sg 15:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tag in footnotes

Footnotes not in any proper citation format. Skinnyweed 14:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool image to add

I see this at the Chinese page: [9] no idea what it is, but it looks very cool. Consider copying it to Commons, using it here and nominating as featured picture? Stevage 20:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

it is 2IFC SchmuckyTheCat 20:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's already on commons, and usable anytime. Image:HK-2IFC-sj.jpg Btw, it was nominated to be featured picture though was later rejected. April 2005 Featured Pictures Candidates -Hunter 13:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Greeniest city?

Of the territory's 1,102 square kilometres (425 square miles) and nearly 7 million residents, less than 25% is developed; the remaining land is remarkably green and significant portions are reserved as country parks and nature reserves.

This article says only 25% of the land in Hong Kong is developed. When I looked at the google satellite photo of Hong Kong, I doubt if the 25% is accurate because only a small portion of the land looked "gray" (urban) and most of Hong Kong is covered by vegetations. I remembered reading a tourist brochure from Hong Kong which said Hong Kong is one of the greeniest cities in Asia despite its high population because its population density is vertically stacked. Kowloonese 01:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Low density development like that in NT and on various islands won't show up well. If that statement doesn't have a citation, we should find one. I'll look later in the HK yearbook. SchmuckyTheCat 01:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

According to surveys, Hong Kong is 94% urbanised, so it can't be a greeniest city... Also, according to Guiness Record, "Ap Lei Chau" which is an Island in Hong Kong, is the most densely populated Island in the world. Cherubfish 11:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how that survey was based. No way would I believe Hong Kong is 94% urbanised. Satellite photos and google maps obviously show the opposite. I guess it all depends on how you define "urbanized". If urbanized means land management, I would say Hong Kong is 100% urbanized. But if you define urbanized according to how much land is covered by construction and human occupancy, then I would says 94% un-urbanised is about right. To be fair, the word "greeniest" also needs definition. If you define "green" according to the environmentalists as "pollution free", Hong Kong is a dirty city especially in the west side due to the bad air blowing from China. If you define "green" according to percentage of land covered in vegetation, then Hong Kong is extremely green visually according to the satellite photos. Kowloonese 19:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you please cite the survey user:Cherubish. The figure may refer to percentage of urban population (people living in urbanised area) with respect to total population, instead of percentage orof urbanised area to total area. Even Ap Lei Chau, the most densely populated island in the world, is pretty green. Only around half of it is built up. Most of the rest are two peaks, which are almost undisturbed. — Insta ntnood 20:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC) (modified 20:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC))

"Hong Kong is 94% urbanised" can be very ambiguous. It could mean 94% of Hong Kong population is urbanized just like what Instantnood has suggested. It is very unlikely to mean 94% of land in Hong Kong is urbanized. Kowloonese 21:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I remember, it was one of the GCSE Geography textbooks, about the urbanisation thing.

But I agree with you. There are pretty much outlying islands in Hong Kong that have no settlements on. My flat used to face the sea and there was a lot of these islands. Cherubfish 16:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anyone has had a smell of the fragrant harbour, the sight of stuff floating in the surrounding waters or the brown haze in sky around HK. Maybe it is green in the NT, but not in Kowloon of Hong Kong Island. Recycling is a joke in HK, there is too much packaging. Autos, lorries and buses still emit dirty emissions that coat the buildings in the urban areas of HK. HK is still auto dependent and throw away society. Don't blame China for the pollution, HK contributes its part to the South China area. User:fat_pig73 17:03, 13 June 2006 (EST)

Hong Kong is definitely not an environmentally green city. The question is whether it is green in color. At the current rate, the green vegetation in Hong Kong can be coated in a thick layer of black soot from the air pollution, then we don't need to ask this question any more. :-) Kowloonese 01:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hong Kong Article symbol

The symbol in the top right corner covers the original small star for featured article. --Samwingkit 13:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Just look the summer of 2006. The pollution levels have been unacceptable. The city is covered in heavy smog most of the time, and the air is hardly breathable. Calling Hong Kong green is like calling a toxic waste dump refreshingly natural.