Chanheigeorge (talk | contribs) |
Instantnood (talk | contribs) |
||
(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 458: | Line 458: | ||
fyi, the article is now featured! rgs, [[User:Zzzzz|Zzzzz]] 11:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC) |
fyi, the article is now featured! rgs, [[User:Zzzzz|Zzzzz]] 11:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC) |
||
:Great job. — [[User:Instantnood|Insta]][[User_talk:Instantnood|ntnood]] 11:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Hong Kong as a city == |
== Hong Kong as a city == |
||
Line 519: | Line 520: | ||
::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). [[User:Chanheigeorge|Chanheigeorge]] 20:00, 28 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). [[User:Chanheigeorge|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 <span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hong_Kong&oldid=50646657#Infobox_footnotes footnote]</span>, IMHO, is already adequate in providing necessary information to readers. |
:::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 <span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hong_Kong&oldid=50646657#Infobox_footnotes footnote]</span>, IMHO, is already adequate in providing necessary information to readers. — [[User:Instantnood|Insta]][[User_talk:Instantnood|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-state]]s) 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. [[User:Chanheigeorge|Chanheigeorge]] 00:26, 29 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-state]]s) 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. [[User:Chanheigeorge|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. — [[User:Instantnood|Insta]][[User_talk:Instantnood|ntnood]] 11:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Old infobox== |
==Old infobox== |
||
Line 543: | Line 545: | ||
::::Yawn, the evidence is in the archives. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] 21:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC) |
::::Yawn, the evidence is in the archives. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] 21:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC) |
||
:::Cite it please, if there's any there. Thanks. — [[User:Instantnood|Insta]][[User_talk:Instantnood|ntnood]] 21:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC) |
:::Cite it please, if there's any there. Thanks. — [[User:Instantnood|Insta]][[User_talk:Instantnood|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) |
|||
:::::--[[User:Winhunter|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 - ''[[list of countries|Country]]'' ≠ ''[[list of sovereign states|sovereign state]]''. Not only sovereign states can have capitals. — [[User:Instantnood|Insta]][[User_talk:Instantnood|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 [http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/Mandarin.html], Mandarin is equal to Modern Standard Chinese which is the official language of China. |
|||
:::::::- Definition of Country: [http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/country.html], 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. |
|||
:::::::- [[User:Winhunter|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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hong_Kong/Infobox&&offset=20060219193759&limit=42&action=history]. 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. — [[User:Instantnood|Insta]][[User_talk:Instantnood|ntnood]] 13:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Need Chinese language help == |
== Need Chinese language help == |
Revision as of 13:23, 29 April 2006
Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles.
Spoken Wikipedia | ||||
|
Cities Unassessed | |||||||
|
Image formatting
The moving of images is advocated by the comments from the FAC page. Surely you don't want the page to lose FAC right? Please let the images flow around. Deryck C. 7 July 2005 10:41 (UTC)
Removed pictures
On the FAC, there were several complaints about copyrihgt issues with the photographs here. I checked through, and two of them had problems, so I've removed them. Given that this article is already heavily laden with pictures, the removal of two shouldn't be a major issue. →Raul654 16:40, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
- At the same time, some images are replaced. :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 17:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- I really liked the one of the ship. It drives home the point that the Brits came in with guns blazing and took the place. What was the problem with that pic? SchmuckyTheCat 20:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- Don't look at me - it's got an acceptable copyright, so I didn't touch it. Mcy jerry removed it with this edit →Raul654 20:42, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, that was addressed to him. No flies on you, mate. SchmuckyTheCat 20:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- It's artistically va-va-voom. But in fact it's from the article about the First Opium War. Yes, the Brits came in with guns blazing, but did not take over the place promptly in the war. So I think it, together with its caption, has a weaker link to the contents. You may put it back to the original position, nevertheless, if you like. It's fine by me. ;-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 06:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- Whatever, but I think it's time to archive these comments... Deryck C. 11:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- It's artistically va-va-voom. But in fact it's from the article about the First Opium War. Yes, the Brits came in with guns blazing, but did not take over the place promptly in the war. So I think it, together with its caption, has a weaker link to the contents. You may put it back to the original position, nevertheless, if you like. It's fine by me. ;-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 06:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
There is a duplicate picture of the Heng Seng Index. Please remove one of them from either the History or the Economy paragraph. --Kvasir 14:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I'm afraid I might have made a bad situation worse by adding two pictures, but how can you have an article on Hong Kong without the canonical shot of Hong Kong at night?
Isewell 17:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
User PZFUN deleted an image of HK's colonial flag, stating "Why the flag? It's hardly the best image." I have restored the picture for the following reasons: (1) The flag is historically significant, and rather aesthetically pleasing too. (2) The resolution of the image is clear enough; a high-resolution image would take up too much space. --Lapin rossignol 08:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
History
I've just noticed one big gap in the coverage of the history of HK that isn't covered in this article or any other of the linked articles - the period of colonial occupation, e.g. structure of government, list of governors etc... that would be nice to have I think. Enochlau 03:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps a brief discussion on how Hong Kong, both in leased and occupied terroritories, was decided to be returned to the PRC shortly after WWII. The current article implies that the decision was made at the time of the Joint declaration in the 1980s. I don't know the details myself, so maybe someone would be interested to elaborate? BW 03:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Alignment of old_hong_kong.jpg and 1945_liberation....jpg
User:61.61.254.9 moved the above pictures to the left again and again - reverting reverts by myself and others. I believe there was a massive debate on this a while ago - and I believe the reason for it is because left-align creates odd-looking paragraphs (although right-align creates white spaces on certain non-complaint browsers). I don't want to get in an edit war so lets discuss here before any further reverts.
I suppose, the best way forward would be to see what the page was like when we were given featured article status, no? My vote would be for right-aligned because left-aligned creates odd looking pages for users with lower resolution screens due to the Cities information panel (or whatever its called) at the right. Pictures lower down, however, would be all right left or right aligned although the existing layout is probably best. --Mintchocicecream 08:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- At the FAC page, most people demanded left align. However a major writer of this page, PZFUN rejected to do so (left align). In the end the FA was passed with the right align kept, yet, many hope for a left align. Deryck C. 08:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was not aware of the support for left-align, though I still think it can create issues with lower resolutions - even on 1024x768, it looks rather cramped; and we must remember many people run resolutions even lower than that.
The above screenshot (found in the relevant discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hong_Kong/Archive3#Image) is probably what User:61.61.254.9 experiences - although I cannot replicate the behaviour as it is probably a browser-specific bug. Perhaps, a new solution has to be found - for example, removing the pictures entirely or moving them lower down the page, or making them smaller? In any case, a solution has to be found or else this left/right picture editing war will continue... --Mintchocicecream 08:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- In this case the pictures are not responsible for the problem. It's the info box which is responsible. That user's browser probably had set the default value "br clear=right". Deryck C. 03:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Gourmet Paradise
A bit surprised there's little content in the article about the eating culture of Hong Kong, as well as music, cinema, etc. The section on culture can be expanded a little bit, and there's still lots to do for the culture of Hong Kong article. :-) — Instantnood 18:05, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
I've added content to the Culture section.--Sir Edgar 06:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- This article is somehow too long. Better put the details onto other articles. Deryck C. 06:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it's too long, but I did notice some unnecessary details (too much on politics, vague history, etc). The information that I added though (economics/demographics), I feel, is relevant. I'll see if I can edit/move out some stuff.--Sir Edgar 02:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Nationality
I've always wondered, what is someobody who comes from Hong Kong called? - Cypriot stud 16:29, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
- A Hong Konger, or a Honkie (jokingly), but the adjective is usually just Hong Kong. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 16:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- Well, it depends. Someone would call themselves Chinese while some Hong Kong people. About a hundred thousand of Hong Kong people gained British citizenships before the handover in 1997, and a ten times more population had BNOs. SCMP would call Hong Kong people Hongkongers, while some westerners call them Hongkongese. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- I believe the standard is Hongkongers or Hong Kongers. "Hong Kong people" is frequently heard too. Hongkongese sounds like neologism to me. :-) And yes many Hongkongers of Chinese descent are having dual nationality. British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand.. All ethnic Chinese automatically became PRC citizens at the time the sovereignty was transferred. The PRC government does not recognise dual nationality and the foreign citizenships of these people if they have not renounced the PRC citizenship formally. — Instantnood 17:01, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
- I've NEVER heard Hongkongese in normal usage. Deryck C. 17:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- Originally I had an odd sense upon "Hongkongese", but a friend of mine who have studied in Canada for some time told me that people in Toronto preferred Hongkongese to Hongkonger, due to a more smooth and less strange pronunciation. The reason that you've never heard may be you've never lived in Canada. :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 18:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- Possible reason ^_^ Deryck C. 11:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- I've NEVER heard Hongkongese in normal usage. Deryck C. 17:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- I believe the standard is Hongkongers or Hong Kongers. "Hong Kong people" is frequently heard too. Hongkongese sounds like neologism to me. :-) And yes many Hongkongers of Chinese descent are having dual nationality. British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand.. All ethnic Chinese automatically became PRC citizens at the time the sovereignty was transferred. The PRC government does not recognise dual nationality and the foreign citizenships of these people if they have not renounced the PRC citizenship formally. — Instantnood 17:01, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, it depends. Someone would call themselves Chinese while some Hong Kong people. About a hundred thousand of Hong Kong people gained British citizenships before the handover in 1997, and a ten times more population had BNOs. SCMP would call Hong Kong people Hongkongers, while some westerners call them Hongkongese. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- I doubt upon hearsay regarding the term. Nevertheless, it appears that "Hong Kong people" is more frequently used from Google:
- "Hongkonger" - 30,700 results
- "Hongkongese" - 1,890 results
- "Hong Kong people" - 110,000 results
- Taking a more accurate stance, this one was done to eliminate phrases such as "Hong Kong, People's Republic of China" and "Hong Kong's people":
- "Hong Kong people" -"people's" -"kong's" -"," - still 47,000 results
- Carlsmith 15:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- Hey Carlsmith you've gotta add up the results of Hongkonger, Hongkongers, Hong Kongers and Hong Konger. :-) — Instantnood 16:03, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Here are the results (for pages in English or Chinese)
- These give a total of 38,990. Without specifying the language we may get pages from other languages. (For instance, German gives 25,300 for "Hongkonger".) Based on Google search "Hong Konger(s)" is more common than "Hongkonger(s)". Nevertheless as for local usage, SCMP, which online version requires subscription (i.e. it does not contribute to the number of hits on Google), uses "Hongkonger(s)". — Instantnood 17:07, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Hey Carlsmith you've gotta add up the results of Hongkonger, Hongkongers, Hong Kongers and Hong Konger. :-) — Instantnood 16:03, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- I doubt upon hearsay regarding the term. Nevertheless, it appears that "Hong Kong people" is more frequently used from Google:
- Well almost simultaneously, I've got these results:
- "Hong Konger": 1,840
- "Hongkongers": 5,820
- "Hong Kongers": 21,200
- However,
- Well almost simultaneously, I've got these results:
- "Hongkongers" and "Hongkonger": 460
- Subtotal: 1894
- Results for "Hong Konger", "Hong Kongers", "Hongkonger" OR "Hongkongers" = 30,700 + 1840 + 5820 + 21,200 - 1894 = 57,666 at most (as more repeated combinations have not been subtracted)
- But then the same criteria needed to be applied to "Hong Kong people (or Hong Kong's people)" and "Hongkongese (or Hong Kongese)".
- "Hong Kong people" -"Hong Kong : People's" -, - to prevent phrases like "Hong Kong people in the PRC" being filtered: 86,300
- "Hong Kongese": 3,760
- "Hong Kongese" "Hongkongese": 32
- "Hongkongese" or "Hong Kongese" = 3760 + 1840 - 32 = 5568
- But then the same criteria needed to be applied to "Hong Kong people (or Hong Kong's people)" and "Hongkongese (or Hong Kongese)".
- I won't argue that "Hong Konger" is not popular enough for regular usage. But "Hongkongese"? It certainly has a much longer way to go into our daily vocab. --Carlsmith 17:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- How about "Hong Kong (Special Administrative Region) citizen"?
- Hong Kong is not an ethnic nationality. Hong Kong is not a nation, ethnically nor politically. China is a nation of the majority ethnic Han Chinese. Hong Kong is a region within a territory populated by Han Chinese.
- Ethnically, the majority of the population of Hong Kong are ethnic Han Chinese. Unless the people of Hong Kong regard themselves having a seperate ethnicity from the ethnic Han Chinese of PRC, Hong Kong would not constitute itself as a nation. For there to be a nation, there must be an ethnic consciousness of a distinct ethnic nationality. Therefore, Hong Kong is not an ethnic nationality, but a regional difference seperate from the Han Chinese population of the PRC.
- Politically, Hong Kong is a region, ie "Special Administrative Region" of the PRC, and not a "nation". This is highly emphasized for the PRC and SAR governments. Hong Kong was a village and was simply chosen as a port by the British for economic purposes. There were no distinct Hong Kong culture before that, except for being Cantonese along with those from the rest of Guangdong, which may be argued to be a cultural trait seperate from the Northerners, but I don't believe these differences could be enough to consitute itself a seperate ethnic identity.
- "Hong Kong-ese" and "Hong Konger" both sound ridiculous, and are ethinically and politically unfounded for the most part. It would only exist if there were a strong Hong Kong ethnic consciousness within its people. Generally, a more neutral and accurate term would be a citizen of the Hong Kong SAR--the "nationality" based on virtues of citizenship, regional, and political differences, but not a nationality based on ethnic group.--Ruthless4Life 23:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- Correction: I don't think "Hong Kong citizen" would be the correct term either, as the people of Hong Kong of Chinese descent have become "citizens of the People's Republic of China with the right of abode in Hong Kong." Nationality-wise, that would be the legal term for Chinese in Hong Kong. Ethnicity, on the other hand, would be a totally different story.--Ruthless4Life 06:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- My experience with my defacto and her family and friends is never call them Chinese, this implies the are from the mainland and in HK they are looked down upon by some people. To call them Chinese give them the thought of dirty and rude. So any version of Hong Kong or properly Heung1 Gang6 Yan4 is correct. Enlil Ninlil 00:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- First, I assume when you say "Chinese", you are referring to Jung Gwok Yan or Zhong Guo Ren (中國人). If so, secondly, it really depends on who you talk to. My own experience tells me that in fact, despite what western media may portray, HKers have become prouder than ever to being Chinese ever since 1997. (This, however, does not mean they are particularly fond of the mainland government. A distinction should be made in regard to this between the PRC and the Chinese people themselves.) Hong Qi Gong 01:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Date for article to appear on Main Page / spoken version of article
Does anyone know when will this article appear on the Main Page? I'm asking since I'm planning to take over User:Forschung's work on the spoken version of the article as he hasn't been active since May, if time is still available before the article shows up there. --Carlsmith 17:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- Nobody knows. FYI, the article Porgy and Bess, which gone onto FA 2 weeks after the HK article did, had already gone to the main page last week. Deryck C. 12:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Finally it's listed on Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/September_2005! I guess I'll have to do it as soon as possible then. -Carlsmith 05:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
The spoken version of the article is finally done! Please feel free to leave any comments here. --Carlsmith 09:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Shall there be separated clippings for different sections, for this long article? :-D — Instantnood 15:40, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, good. I'll like to volunteer if a voice-actor is recruited. Deryck C. 15:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Little Hong Kong accent~ good anyway to show characteristical difference from other English-speaking countries! -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- My accent consists of HK and Australian parts. Deryck C. 17:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, good. I'll like to volunteer if a voice-actor is recruited. Deryck C. 15:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
FILTH?
"Prior to the handover, British expatriates were able to live and work in Hong Kong for up to a year, without work permits, which gave rise to the acronym FILTH - Failed In London, Try Hongkong."
How important is this in a Hong Kong article? I understand the acronym FILTH is found [1] on different sources, but somehow I feel this is tagged onto the article for the sake of it rather than for any good reason. It would go well as a separate article but I don't think it warrant inclusion in an overview of Hong Kong... --Mintchocicecream 05:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Removing it from here and putting it in "history of Hong Kong series" maybe a better choice. Deryck C. 07:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- One more note, adding it to "Britons in Hong Kong" may also be a good choice. Deryck C. 07:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Education in HK -> Exams
"However, the local system is publicly recognized as much more in depth than their British counterparts and a distinction in the GCSE is almost only equivelent to a credit in the HKCEE."
I removed the above from anonymous contributor 62.97.220.66 for the following reasons:
- It is an oft-held opinion (which I happen to agree with) but is not backed up by any studies.
- There is no such thing as a "distinction" in the GCSE; it is graded A, B, C, D, E and U.
- I would argue it is not the content that differs; it is the grading - it is much much easier to get an A in GCSE than in HKCEE - but this is a moot point because:
- Students taking GCSE + GCE A-Level and/or HKCEE + HKALE can end up in the same universities and have pretty much the same knowledge and achieve pretty much the same results which suggest it is a matter of the way GCSE is taught vs HKCEE.
(A similar point can be made of GCE A-Level versus American college exams - but even then, it is different as GCE A-Levels can count towards credits in some American universities and in some cases may even allow a fresh student to skip the freshman year)
Thus I feel the above inclusion is unnecessary and POV statement for a featured article. It would be more appropriate in the Education in Hong Kong page, if sources can be found to back it up. --Mintchocicecream 18:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Well, this is a general view of Hong Kong people. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 18:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- So is something like "dentists are most likely to commit suicide". Needs a source; and better inside Education in HK anyway. --Mintchocicecream 18:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- In fact, difficult to find a source for general view. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 18:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Very true; though I'm a bit uncertain about including something that is not sourced; in particular a statement as strong as "publicly recognized as much more in depth" (by whom?) and "almost only equivalent to a credit in the HKCEE" (simply not true, when most universities (yes, unfairly) take GCSE A grade = HKCEE A grade).
- Furthermore, I still believe my other points justify its exclusion from the main body of the HK article - it focuses on one single exam and in a comparative context - hardly a concern to the average Hongkonger. If it was to be included I suggest something included after the sentence ending "two-year matriculation course leading to the Hong Kong Advanced Level Examinations.":
- The reason my version is much better is because it is both justified and quantified. --Mintchocicecream 21:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- I agree Mintchoc. We can also say that according to experience of many applicants to schools and universities in the UK, their HKALE results are given concessions by the institutions for the purposes of calculation and comparison with the GCE AL, instead of taking as direct equivalence. — Instantnood 12:47, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- The reason my version is much better is because it is both justified and quantified. --Mintchocicecream 21:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Grade boundaries do vary each year, however, for science subjects, is about as follows: GCSE , an A is somewhat between 60%over to 70%over. About 30% candidates from 2005 archieved A or A*. HKCEE, an A is normally around 90%, does not change a lot.
Not only that the boundaries look scary. HKCEE syllabus has a lot more than GCSE In maths, HKCEE candidates are expected to know Calculus, however in UK, Calculus is not introduced until As-level "Further Maths" and (I think) is not available in "Maths". Hong Kong students learn "Total Internal Refraction" etc, in "lenses" in form3 (that's year 9 in UK), however, "Total Internal Refraction" is not intruduced to candidates until As-level. In Chemistry, sixth form students in Hong Kong have to learn Quantum Theory together with the introduction of atomic sub-shells s, p, d, f. But UK candidates do not need to know Quantum Theory.
I knew all these because I bought the HKCEE past papers, and they include the charts. And I myself did GCSE in 2005. jynx 21:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Sport?
Is it normal for a featured article appearing on the main page at the moment to have a stub section? It's not just a stub, it's a one sentence long lone. We should either remove it or expand it (the second being the better choice, of course). --TodorBozhinov 09:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'd suggest to move it to a stub article, and to expand it there. — Instantnood 09:34, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Good. Deryck C. 10:20:39, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
- Perhaps move it to sport in Hong Kong, following the format of sport in the United Kingdom, sports in Canada, sport in New Zealand and sports in the United States, for instance. :-) — Instantnood 10:34, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Just do it lah!!!! Deryck C. 10:36:01, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
- Whoppee!!! Deryck C.
- Good. Deryck C. 10:20:39, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
- Hey guys I was the user that put this section - since I have an interest in the Commonwealth Games, and there Hong Kong no longer competes, so I had to put something in a Hong Kong section. Thanks for moving it to a better location. I will add more information to this part - can those of you who are in Hong Kong add more information about the other sports activities in Hong Kong. Cheers. Rhyddfrydol 21:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Some bug...
When I tried to click Hong Kong today, it showed up the page Randy West and I'm logged out... Help... Deryck C. 15:46:40, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
Uncomplicated title and pronunciation
I've changed the actual lead title to just Hong Kong, since the full official name is simply never used outside of official or extremely formal situations. The status of Hong Kong as a SAR is very clearly explained in the first sentence following the Chinese and pronunciation links, making the title look nothing short of clumsy in it's full form. Especially when the infobox clearly states the full name right at the top in huge bold letters.
Also, I've redirected the quite misleading sub-stub pronunciation of Hong Kong in English here. PZFUN mistook the idea of having pronunciation files for an attempt to make English people pronounce Hong Kong in Mandarin or Cantonese. They're there only to inform of the pronunciation in Chinese and is not an attempt to force non-English diction on the average reader.
Peter Isotalo 16:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- But I do suggest you to refer to articles of other countries and territories before making any changes to the full name mentioned in the introduction. Besides, the popular name is already used as the title of the article. The same goes for Australia, Russia, even for Jersey and hundreds of other articles, even with full name enscribed in template on the right. Please do think twice before attempting to do so. --Carlsmith 16:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- How about applying some common sense instead? It's one thing to include Russian Federation in a title. Including the full-name monstrosity that is the full official name in the lead when it's status is explained in the very same sentence with the very same words is being more concerned more about guidelines than readability. This seems like the absolute best example of where an exception should be made. Could someone object to this on grounds other than "other articles do it"?
- Peter Isotalo 17:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- I consider this kind of auto-revert behavior very inappropriate. Especially when it's a rather obivous auto-revert that disregards other changes. Either revert only that which is relevant or don't revert at all. This is a good way to start an editing war, not to reach a reasonable decision.
- Peter Isotalo 17:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- I assume that you do bear a positive mind when you performed that edit which "shortened" the name mentioned in the introduction. I would never try to start an edit war with such a reasonable editor, which I suppose, would be inappropriate. But a more appropriate and reasonable action would be to ask for a third opinion, preferably in the first place before making such a drastic edit to the article, as the situation has existed since this article was established. The fact that this is a featured article also means that every change must be carefully carried out "without compromising previous work".
- But all is not lost. A third opinion is hereby requested on the appropriate address of the city in the introduction. No further changes should be made concerning the issue without reaching a consensus.
- Besides, the auto-revert you have mentioned also concerns the deletion of a paragraph by 216.16.239.146 in the history section [2]. If that bothers you, I shall express my deepest regrets for any misunderstanding that may have caused.
- Carlsmith 17:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with the anon user's unmotivated removal of info. That should be reverted because its obviously not a constructive edit.
- I don't see this as the least bit controversial. To me it just seems as one of those situations where a common guideline simply craps up the article and should be disregarded; that's why it's a guideline rather than policy. It's not as if I'm trying to steer the article towards any sort of political POV. I'm just trying to de-clutter the lead and avoid a seperate article for pronunciations that aren't the least bit contoversial. I've also requested Jerry Crimson Mann to record a file that simply says "Hong Kong" (in Cantonese) rather than the full name to compliment the full title-recording.
- Peter Isotalo 18:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
As I do assume good faith in your behaviour, might you consider:
- The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (Chinese: 中華人民共和國香港特別行政區, commonly known as Hong Kong 香港 pronunciation) is a dependent territory/Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China...
The full name should still be mentioned as:
First of all, it doesn't hurt mentioning the full title of the city once in the article text. If it weren't of great importance to the article, it wouldn't be chosen as the official name.
Secondly, don't we need to care about those using text-based web browsers that don't support tables at all? Or those reading on an alternative medium that doesn't support templates in-line like WikiReader? You will not be able to tell those reader the title just by putting in the template. It just will not show up. Wouldn't that inhibit their right to access of information when compared to other country articles?
Finally, it's the custom. You have dismissed it, but it's still the custom.
Carlsmith 18:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Carlsmith's view that the full name of this entity should exist in its opening line as is the established convention in wikipedia, and that includes the full Chinese name as well for reference.--Huaiwei 18:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello Peter I would say it is the Wikipedia standard for country articles to include the full name on the first line. It is also a Wikipedia guideline to include names in other languages, and for non Roman letter-based languages, romanisation. The article on pronunciation is to make the first line less bulky, and to present that piece of information in a better layout. You may not agree with it, but frankly here is not the right place to propose to change the conventions. — Instantnood 06:56, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- I was hoping to see a discussion that wasn't about Wikipedia guidelines as an object in of themselves for once. I guess I was hoping for too much. Rather than applying a modicum of common sense and not viewing guidelines as the absolute policy documents that they never were meant to be, you're claiming that we have to stick to convention... well... because it's convention.
- Consensus obviously will decide this, but I vehemently oppose any type of sub-page for pronunciations. I'd rather see no pronunciation files at all than invite the establishement of a whole new breed of pointless pronunciation sub-stubs.
- Peter Isotalo 14:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Momentary appearance of dubious adult oriented material
Adult oriented and dubious text appeared momentarily in HK page (20050908). Shocked - was trying to fix it (am newbie) but then it went away while I was trying to how to delete/revert.
Whoever fixed it. Thanks. - 210.84.215.153 00:53, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- I assume you meant this material. It was reverted two minutes later by OwenX (talk · contribs). If you're interested, you may want to consider signing up for an account. Cheers. :-) Tomer TALK 03:31, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Article for deletion
It would appear that Karmosin has listed Pronunciation of Hong Kong on articles for deletion. The voting page is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pronunciation of Hong Kong. I find this a move to disregard all discussion that's taken place on this talk page. I think we should all oppose it. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 14:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Páll, please read the discussion here and make an honest effort to participate instead of engaging in indirect and skewed polemics like this. So far you seem to have either not understood or completely disregarded my motivations for opposing separate pronunciation pages.
- Peter Isotalo 15:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
To return to the name of Hong Kong in the first sentence
Páll, please note that Peter expressed doubt about the validity of the separate Pronunciation of Hong Kong stub on its talk page as early as March; if you're imputing some underhand motive to him in AFD'ing it now, I reject that notion out of hand. Peter, please don't imply dishonesty by exhorting to honesty, that hardly ever has any good result. All right. I can only agree with Peter that "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (...), is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" is a pretty bad opening sentence. If it's considered essential to open with the official full name, then let's leave out the repetition. How about this for a first paragraph: "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (...) is located on the southeastern coast of China."? The links in the bolded name aren't elegant, I grant you (I actually prefer Peter's version), but it seems to me better than saying the whole thing twice. Bishonen | talk 19:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Just for the record, I am restoring the full Chinese names into the article. Makes no sense for us to restore the English one, and not the Chinese.--Huaiwei 09:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
- There are several ways of handling the native name in several country articles. If you take a look at Iraq, Iran and Egypt, they avoid cluttering the lead with the official native name and put it above the infobox along with the pronunciation link. Placing the pronunciation link in the infobox was my idea, but only because the native name was already there. This is a lot smoother and avoids crapping up the lead with a lot of long parenthisized names and variants that are repeated elsewhere anyway. Here's what the lead would look like:
- Hong Kong (香港, Cantonese: ⓘ, Mandarin: Audio file "zh-Xianggang.ogg" not found), is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (PRC) located on the southeastern coast of China.
- The articles of Egypt, Iran and Iraq all have the full name in the leading paragraph. I don't know any Persian or Arabic, but from the way the sound files are presented I would expect they are for the full native names of these countries. Unlike Pinyin which is having an official status in mainland China and several cities/counties of the ROC which mayors/magistrates are from the Kuomingtang, Cantonese has no official romanisation standard, and none of the romanisation methods is particularly popular. It may not be appropriate to use only one method of romanisation. — Instantnood 14:33, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Please comment the actual proposal and avoid suggesting we should use anything other than Pinyin. Hong Kong belongs to the PRC, with or without a dual political system. This not an article about Taiwan. Also, please don't nitpick the other examples. We're discussing this article, not general guidelines. If you want all guidelines to be included as official policy, start lobbying for it. 'Til then, don't rules lawyer non-rules. That's not what they're intended for.
- Peter Isotalo 15:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
- Pinyin has no official standard in Hong Kong. Even Mandarin is not having legal official standard. I'm not objecting to use Pinyin for one of the romanisations of Hong Kong's Chinese name in this article tho, since its the most popular standard. — Instantnood 16:24, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
- You respond to my request for less rules lawyering with even more petty details? Since I know your editing history and disputes with other editors rather well I can't consider this either good faith or stupidity. Whatever it is, it's not constructive. You've accomplished your objective, though; I won't try to discuss this anymore. / Peter Isotalo 16:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
- Pinyin has no official standard in Hong Kong. Even Mandarin is not having legal official standard. I'm not objecting to use Pinyin for one of the romanisations of Hong Kong's Chinese name in this article tho, since its the most popular standard. — Instantnood 16:24, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
- " Cantonese has no official romanisation standard, and none of the romanisation methods is particularly popular. It may not be appropriate to use only one method of romanisation. " was response to your comment " but only one each for Mandarin and Cantonese ". Petty? Perhaps.. — Instantnood 17:03, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
- visit http://www.langcomp.com.hk for more. Deryck C. 10:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Just a question
I hope I'm doing this right. My question is: Is Hong Kong actually a city, or only the name of the Special Administrative Region? It had been pointed out to me, that it was only a region, but the 3 major cites (Kowloon, Victoria and Aberdeen?) are often referred to as the city of Hong Kong. Is that correct? Horrorkid64 15:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
- The meaning of city actually depends. As an administrative divisions, Hong Kong does not officially defined itself as a city, or any part of itself as city, though the official name of Victoria is the "City of Victoria", often called Victoria City, and in earlier text Victoria and Kowloon are sometimes called twin city. The administrative structure in mainland China is not extended to Hong Kong (and Macao). If you're taking about city as we speak, which means any metropolitan area or urban place, Hong Kong is usually known as a city, but its built-up area is not actually that contiguous (and that's why sometimes different parts of it, for instance, new towns in the New Territories, are described as cities or towns). — Instantnood 16:24, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Victoria and Aberdeen can be referred to as "cities", but Kowloon is simply a peninsula with a big number of towns. Deryck C. 09:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- In older texts Kowloon never includes New Kowloon, and Kowloon itself is like one contiguous urban place. The only town I can think of is Kwun Tong, which was originally planned as a satellite city in the 50s. Mei Foo Sun Chuen at the time it was built was also quite outlying. — Instantnood 09:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- You're correct. I'm living in Lam Tin, however Lam Tin is an extension of the Kwun Tong town. Deryck C. 09:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- Victoria and Aberdeen can be referred to as "cities", but Kowloon is simply a peninsula with a big number of towns. Deryck C. 09:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
For the sake of all, can MSN/ICQ-like conversations like the above be cut to the minimum in all future correspondance in wikipedia for the sake of greater productivity in discussions and to maintain its editorial standards? I do not think discussing over where a wikipedian lives really contribute much to this discussion. Thank you.--Huaiwei 14:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment on data
The first sentence in "Demographics" states that "...reaching about 7.1 million by 2000.". The figure of population is different from that in the table, which shows "Population - Total (2005) 6,898,686". Samuel 13:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Many Hong Kong people were executed by the Japanese army during the war?
An anonymous editor added the line "Many Hong Kong people were executed by the Japanese army during the war". This is absolutely true, but I don't see how such a vague statement can belong in an encyclopedia. Does anyone have any data on this? It would read a lot better if it said "XXXXX people died in the war, of which XXXXX were executed by the Japanese army".
Without the data, I think the sentence is better removed, as after all there's already a link to (excellent) main article on the Japanese occupation of Hong Kong.--Mintchocicecream 09:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
IT sector in HK
Hi! I'm a graduate of Computer Science who currently works as an information analyst here in the Philippines. I am planning to go to Hong Kong to find employment there. But I'm not sure if this is the right time to do so. I'm sort of worried about my chances there. I wanted to know the status of the information technology sector in Hong Kong. Thanks! --Apple_1980
Romanisation
Hi all, I edited the romanisation stuff according to the Manual of Style.
And I put in romanisations for the full name "中華人民共和國香港特別行政區" instead of simply for "香港". Imagine someone who doesn't speak Chinese at all, comes to this article, sees the ultra-long full name for Hong Kong in Chinese, but realises that the romanisations are as short as two syllables (Xiānggǎng, hoeng1 gong2, Heūng góng)! Wouldn't make any sense, huh? When the full name of Hong Kong is provided, I think we should be consistent with the romanisation.
The exception is the Yale romanisation. My computer cannot open the voice file that comes with it (HKSAR.ogg). Therefore I have no idea whether it plays "香港" or "中華人民共和國香港特別行政區". Even if I do, I have no idea how this Yale thing works... better not mess with it! So if you do know Yale romanisation, please help with it!
Thanks! 199.111.230.195 04:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with further spoiling of the article layout by the insertion of even mre transcription trivia. There's been reasonable compromises suggested to solve the currently rather sub-standard layout a few threads above. How about working with that instead of cluttering up every China-related in sight?
- Peter Isotalo 08:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- I have a little experience with Yale romanisation, but I can never remember how the accents work so I still have to look them up. Will do this when I get home from work. Hong Qi Gong 15:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Suggestions for intro
IMHO, as an ignorant observer, it is totally redundant to say "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China....is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (PRC)" - that's the sentence once you strip the chinese characters etc out.
The opening sentence being painful to parse, might I suggest you just change it to "Hong Kong is a SAR of the PRC", proceed with the intro, then immediately afterwards have a "names" section where you detail all the other names in the various languages etc? It's really a bit over the top atm. I'm not at all qualified to make changes here (not speaking Chinese or knowing anything about Hong Kong), but there's my $0.02. Stevage 00:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your suggestion. The same matter is actually brought up from time to time. It's like a dilenma. Almost all country articles begins with the full names of the countries, such as "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and "Commonwealth of Australia". "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" is its official full name. — Instantnood 07:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Map request
Could someone create a map for this article showing Hong Kong's location in relation to the Guangdong province, as in the Shanwei article? Badagnani 06:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I already knew that, but that is not what I was proposing. Nowhere in the Hong Kong article is it made clear with the use of a map where Hong Kong is located in comparison to its surrounding regions of China. All we see are large maps showing only Hong Kong and Shenzhen. For educational purposes (please be aware that not everyone who uses this site is as familiar with Hong Kong's location in relation to Guangdong as those who work on this article regularly), I am asking that a map be added to the article showing Hong Kong's location in relation to the Guangdong province. The important information of Hong Kong's being situated near central coastal Guangdong, near Guangzhou and the Pearl River is not made clear. A map similar to that at Shanwei, maybe also showing Hong Kong's proximity to Macau, would be helpful (of course not implying that Hong Kong is part of Guangdong province). It's similar to having a map of Washington, D.C. and showing its proximity to neighboring Maryland and Virginia. Without that context, a large map of Washington, D.C. city only doesn't provide the complete information necessary for readers. Badagnani 22:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I might try to make the map that you requested. But I would like to have the opinion of you guys about the following points:
- Should this new map be used to replace the current locator map in the info box?
- Is it okay if the new map is not derived from this map?
- Is it okay if the colour scheme of the new map is not the same as the currect locator map in the info box? (Because I don't want to use grey and green.)
- Alan 00:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Politics and government, end of year cleanup
This section needs to be culled of current events from 2005. These events are notable, but need to be moved to the more relevant dedicated articles. SchmuckyTheCat 01:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. It feels more and more like a hack job as the year goes on. See whether anyone's willing to do it though :P --Mintchocicecream 16:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
External links
I think the external links are in a mess. I removed the links to mondophoto (because they weren't free) and one backpacker's photo (if (s)he can put his/her pictures, why can't everyone else?).. Left Flickr but moved it down because at least that's an aggregate of different people's photos. Then, many links appear to be mildly related to Hong Kong (e.g. the private Yahoo Group?? or the many Expat sites?? Wikipedia isn't meant to be a link farm/web directory; we should be more forceful about what links stay and what doesn't. E.g. why isn't there even DiscoverHK the official tourism site? I'd like to see what the general feeling is here before I edit it, though. --Mintchocicecream 16:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- I love discoverhk. I mostly know my way around now, but I still go wander in to their booths at the star ferry to get maps and such. The tourist board website is aweseome. www.info.gov.hk is a great resource as well, the portal into all hk govt websites.
SchmuckyTheCat 19:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Not objective
Caution!
This article is being managed by Beijing loyalists. They constantly watch for any content which is in opposition to the communist/totalitarian government of People's Republic of China and quickly edit it and/or delete it.
You are being warned to discount the political credibility of this article.
-- Unsigned comment by anonymous user, User:203.218.94.209
- Can you list some objective reasons to support your views? You might also like to know this article is a featured article in Wikipedia. --Mintchocicecream 05:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Economy
The article quite rightly mentions the extremely liberal economy and the success of this formula. However, mentioning it just as such might be slightly one-sided. Many sectors of the economy are completely cornered by big companies running duopolies etc. Supermarkets is a famous example. Another is of course the real estate developers. Former Governer Chris Patten tried to undo this one, but failed miserably --Prudentia 08:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Long Hair?
Will someone please fix the "Long Hair" joke?
Flag image
Someone has put the old colonial flag of Hong Kong in the history section. There must certainly be better images to cover the history of Hong Kong, and the flag image is pretty irrelevant to the area in discussion. Any other opinions? Páll (Die pienk olifant) 16:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- It is a good symbol to highlight HK's colonial history. Many other country articles have historic flags in thier history sections (eg Canada). Astrotrain 16:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but Canada's history sectionis much larger and has space for more images. If we only chose two images, is the former flag of Hong Kong really the best? 24.29.137.148 18:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't actually remove any images to place the flag image there. You could probably get at least pictures on the section anyway. Personally I think the historic colonial flag is a good representation for the fact that only 9 years ago, HK was a British colony. Astrotrain 18:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- While i think the colonial flag image is not inappropriate, I would like to see the images of an old fishing village painting of Hong Kong contrasted with the ultra modern vista of Victoria Harbour. That will definitely shows what history of Hong kong is all about. --Kvasir 19:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't actually remove any images to place the flag image there. You could probably get at least pictures on the section anyway. Personally I think the historic colonial flag is a good representation for the fact that only 9 years ago, HK was a British colony. Astrotrain 18:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Moving to Hong Kong
Subheadings:
Land Phone systems
This is free to use locally and doesn't cost anything to have in your home, compared to the crap Aussie phones this is great. Enlil Ninlil 05:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Internet connections
Mobile/Cell Phone Standards
Billing
Banking
Mail, packages and postage, and Post Office services
Education system
Work permits and VISAa
Transport
Someone forgot the Important minibusses, these are just as important and numerous and other forms of transport.Enlil Ninlil 02:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Minibuses are mentioned there -- as "Public light buses". --Mintchocicecream 02:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Photographs
I have just spent a great amount of time trying to gather photographs for the entry about Hong Kong. Most are from the government website, including the Hong Kong Tourism Board, Trade Development Council, Antiquities and Monuments Office, etc. I think they represent a large part of Hong Kong and I hope they will be restored. Also the beautiful photo with central was found in a website. I wrote to the author and asked him to put it on wikipedia, and he said he will. Also can someone help me put license information for the photos please? What is the catagory if its government department photos?
Revision in Politics section
The text reads
'On 24 September 2005, twenty-five Hong Kong pro-democracy Legco members, some of whom were previously labelled as traitors by Beijing after the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown and barred from entering the mainland, crossed the border into the southern province of Guangdong, following an unprecedented invitation by the PRC [11]. The invitation was generally regarded as one of the greatest goodwill gestures from the PRC to the Hong Kong democrats since the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989.'
It seems to me that that the last sentence here is poorly worded, making it sound as if the Tiananmen Square massacre was the previous good will gesture (and therefore, sounds kind of sarcastic).
--210.228.17.68 02:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Hong Kong action cinema
you may be interested to know the article Hong Kong action cinema is currently preparing to go for featured article status. at the moment, there is a peer review going on at Wikipedia:Peer review/Hong Kong action cinema. as the editors of this article already have experience in creating an FA, your input is highly valued. thx! Zzzzz 21:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
fyi, the article is now featured! rgs, Zzzzz 11:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
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. --Deryck 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. --Deryck 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. --Deryck 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. — Instantnood 18:31, 11 April 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. --Deryck C. 14:31, 31 March 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. — Instantnood 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)
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. — Instantnood 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)
- 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. — Instantnood 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. — Instantnood 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)
- In that case other city-countries will have to use the city infobox template too, since they're cities. — Instantnood 18:26, 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)
- And that's beyond the subject of this section. — Instantnood 15:24, 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)
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. — Instantnood 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. — Instantnood 18:31, 11 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)
- Perhaps we can follow the example of the Nauru page, and list those "cities" as districts?Arbiteroftruth 01:02, 12 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. — Instantnood 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. — Instantnood 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. — Instantnood 11:56, 29 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)
Old infobox
The old infobox template was deleted in Templates for Deletion. The infobox edit history and it's talk page were archived here:
SchmuckyTheCat 10:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Population Density
How can there possibly be more people per square mile than square kilometer? The latter is smaller than the former. Probably just needs reversing, but I'm not sure. --Raj Fra 02:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Victoria City again
If anybody cares about Instantnood's current revert war on this article: [3] [4] [5] 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 [6], (147) [7], — Instantnood 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? — Instantnood 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. — Instantnood 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. — Instantnood 21:49, 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? — Instantnood 19:59, 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)
- 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. — Instantnood 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 [8], Mandarin is equal to Modern Standard Chinese which is the official language of China.
- - Definition of Country: [9], 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 - 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. — Instantnood 10:53, 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 [10]. 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. — Instantnood 13:23, 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)