Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong

[edit] Status Colours

[edit] So how about that Collaboration of the Month...?

• A lot needs to be done for the Geography of Hong Kong article. Much of the information in that article is just straight figures and facts. They need to be much better sourced. I found that the CIA Worldbook has a lot of the figures, but I can't seem to find the same amount of information on HK government websites (websites that end with .hk.gov). I assume that figures from the HK government would be more accurate. Please help in finding sources that come directly from the HK government.
• Also, the CIA source I found actually has some facts that are not yet included in the article. But I'm wondering how to present them all. Do we want to keep doing what the article is doing, which is to make small sections for each set of different facts? Would that not make the article too cluttered? Please take a look. The CIA source should be listed in the References section.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

A sentence in the Geography of Hong Kong article states that only 25% of the land in HK is developed. Does anybody have a source for this? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That 25% land usage cannot possibly be true. Of all the statements, that one need the most reference. Benjwong 01:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's quite possible. Large tracts of land in New Territories are not developed. HK is just densely populated in the... populated areas of HK. I just think that percentage needs to be verified. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need Photographer Volunteers

I am currently not physically in Hong Kong and won't be for a long time. Is there any good photographers who can help me take some pictures of historical sites/objects etc from museums or select places in HK using a decent camera preferably 5.0 megapixels or better? Where would I go about finding someone who can help in this area? Benjwong 17:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a massive archive of recent Hong Kong Photos- How can I contribute? Here are some examples of my work: [1] Contact me via the website if you're interested. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.77.97.54 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-19 07:20:43.

If you are willing to release these pictures to the public domain free of charge, you should consider uploading them up to Wikimedia Commons. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I just contacted someone at the website. Now I am just waiting for a response. Benjwong 21:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

For anyone who needs pictures, email Liza@hiphongkong.com. There are some seriously good pics on that page. Benjwong 01:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Culture of Hong Kong

I tagged the article as needing attention. Accordingly, this article is of Top importance. Yet the section on popular culture and the section on mass media are completely empty. With all that Canto-pop and a globally recognised movie industry, I'm surprised those sections are still empty. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. Apparently the content in those two sections were removed by long-standing vandalism that never got fixed. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Also what I saw on that article is very different to what I expected to see. In addition to those mentioned in the article, I thought I would also find something like "scaffolding", "Cantonese opera", "tea restaurants (茶餐廳, I am unsure about the English translation)", etc. and they are all missing. I hope someone will add those things onto the article soon. --Raphaelmak 03:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If the individual pages like food, cuisine, literature are all well done and in place. Then the culture page is just putting everything together. The problem is that all the side pages are so incomplete and need attention. Benjwong 07:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom case

SchmuckyTheCat has placed a proposal for the re-opening of Instantnood's arbitration. Since the dispute mainly concerns Hong Kong and Macau related articles, members from WPHK might want to join the process. --Deryck C. 08:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a nice gesture, although I hope the said discussions remain impartial.--Huaiwei 15:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Places of worship in Hong Kong

I have found that there may be too many churches in Hong Kong according to Hong Kong Church Web Page. I wonder if it is possible to add them all even to the List of Protestant Church in Hong Kong.

The website: [[2]](The website is written in traditional Chinese, some of the words are translated in English. Shrimp wong 04:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like there's about a little more than 50 churches from that list, and each church has multiple locations in HK. I suggest we list each church and just mention how many locations each of them have, instead of listing every single location of every single church. Even then, we may consider having a seperate article for them, like the List of Catholic Churches in Hong Kong article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

While it may be important to have such lists of Places of worship in Hong Kong and List of Catholic Churches in Hong Kong, it may not appear explicitly so. To other editors, and admittedly so at first glance myself as well, these articles may appear as just lists and nothing more - therefore meeting criteria for what Wikipedia is not and possibly AfD. We should strive to establish notability through verifiable sources to these lists first. Luke! 16:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chief Executive Election of 2007

Does anybody want to start an article on this? I'm interested, but not sure if I'm interested enough to work on it all by myself. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Looks like there's already an article for this. And for the election in 2005 as well.

• Hong Kong Chief Executive election, 2005
• Hong Kong Chief Executive election, 2007

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination

I've nominated Foreign domestic workers in Hong Kong for GA status[3]. Please review if interested. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Article's been passed as a GA article.  :-) Now on to FA status! Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another article that's a mess

I just did some clean-up on Languages of Hong Kong, but that article is still a mess due to the fact that good portions of it read like they were written by high school kids. I replaced the "copyedit" tag with a "grammar" tag. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This page is now completely fixed. I had to delete a considerable amount of info that were repeats and incomprehensible. Took alot more work than I expected. But the content is genuinely good. Benjwong 04:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All Articles from 1997 and Beyond

If someone was to look at the History of Hong Kong like a logical timeline, articles after 1997 are very unbalanced. We already have the 70s, 80s etc. The current 90s page, should point to the Transfer of the sovereignty of Hong Kong and that is it. I think the following should be merged, and then deleted.

Hong Kong after transfer of sovereignty

Hong Kong handover ceremony

Everything after 2000 is in a monthly page format. I think we should move to the format of decade pages. Create a 2000-2009 article. I appreciate any opinions. I am trying to set a framework that allow users to expand smoothly in the future. It cannot do that right now. Benjwong 21:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

December 2006 in Hong Kong

July 2006 in Hong Kong

June 2006 in Hong Kong

September 2006 in Hong Kong

November 2006 in Hong Kong

October 2006 in Hong Kong

Those "monthly" articles are archived versions of Current events in Hong Kong. Althought it may be beneficial to make something like 2006 in Hong Kong.

Also, I think it may be better to keep the Hong Kong after transfer of sovereignty article. Only maybe we should rename it to Hong Kong after 1997. A lot of news coverage makes it a point to distinguish Hong Kong before and after 1997. After 97, a lot changed in HK. It wasn't just politically, it was socially as well, because of the Asian financial crisis in 97. I think those last three years before 2000 are a lot more similar to how HK has been from 2000 to 2007, and information for those years should probably be kept in the same article. Maybe after at least three more years, when the new decade begin, it would be better to specifically split off the rest of the 90s and the 2000s in terms of what articles they are contained in. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok I understand where those monthly pages are from now that you mentioned "Current events". If you look at the History of Hong Kong page now, you can see that everything up to 1999 is basically covered under 1990s in Hong Kong. I just made these fixes tonight. That includes the leading paragraphs to the Asian financial crisis aka the 3 years before 2000. What I am about to do is take every major event from 2000-2009 and put it in an article called "2000s in Hong Kong" to be consistent. I think "2006 in Hong Kong", "2007 in Hong Kong" is too much overlap, especially if you already have a current events page. Benjwong 04:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The right panel would then read

   Modern Hong Kong (1950s - 1997)
       1950s | 60s | 70s | 80s | 90s
   Handover to PRC rule (1997)
       2000s 

The Hong Kong after transfer of sovereignty article is a totally separate discussion. Is this suppose to remain 100% political? If not, then it is basically a duplicate of "2000s in Hong Kong"? Guess I am trying to see where it is going. Thx for the reply. Benjwong 04:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not supposed to be just political. Both socially and politically, HK was in a much more similar state in the last three years of the 90s when compared to the 2000s, than it was from 1990 to 1997. That's why I think the events and the state of HK from 2000 to 2007 should be in the same article as that of 1997 to 1999. Plus, a lot of news media frequently refers to HK before 1997, and HK after 1997. Anyway, let's see what others think about this. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You might want to lay out the format. Let me see if this is what you are suggesting.

The right panel would then read

   Modern Hong Kong (1950s - 1997)
       1950s | 60s | 70s | 80s | 90s
   Handover to PRC rule (1997)
   After Handover (1997 - 1999)
       2000s  

Is this is what you mean? That is 3 articles covering 1997. 2 articles covering 98-99. IMHO it is way too much overlapping. You end up with the original problem of too many articles with not enough contents, references etc. Benjwong 07:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm saying the article for the 2000s and for the period from 1997 to 1999 should be one article. Meaning, I think we should keep Hong Kong after transfer of sovereignty or rename it to Hong Kong after 1997. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok so there will be 2 proposed moves. We are going to rename the 1990s in Hong Kong to 1990-1996 in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong after transfer of sovereignty article is renamed to 1997-2010 in Hong Kong. The contents will move and there is no overlap at all. Let me see if I got this right. Benjwong 19:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Why can't we just keep 1990s in Hong Kong and rename Hong Kong after transfer of sovereignty to Hong Kong after 1997? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

We could. But... someone formalized on the every 10 year format. 70s, 80s, 90s. That has been here quite some time. Now all of a sudden we are changing the format, doing "1997 to whenever"? Benjwong 01:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem with that for now, especially since we're still in the 2000s. Maybe in three years when we reached a new decade, it would be better to split the articles off into the 90s and 2000s. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Could someone else weigh in on this discussion? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If we do "1997-whenever", we will need to eventually rip this out again. If we do "2000-2010", we will never have to look back. All the framework for the history section is basically done after this. We can move on to completely new sections. Benjwong 04:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from. I'd like to see what other editors think of this as well. I wouldn't mind going along with your suggestion if other editors agree with you. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok I am about to move this from Hong Kong after transfer of sovereignty to 2000s in Hong Kong. I am not going to specifically end it in 2010. It will also have a link to Current events in Hong Kong. How does this sound? Benjwong 16:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The section can be archived. Framework is done. Benjwong 00:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Good work taking charge of the history articles. I admit I haven't been able to allocate time to take a look at them. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No prob. Benjwong 01:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Companies listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange

I've revamped Companies listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange to include the entire list of companies listed on HKEx. But it needs to be wikified. If somebody can do Perl or are willing to do it all by hand, please work on this. The companies need to be wikilinked, and the list just generally needs to look better. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I took one crack at it using auto patterns of search & replace. There are too many null links. I cannot guarantee these are even going to be proper links, for example I saw "playmate" in there. Is not a playmate company. Just whatever is spelled out with the fastest auto result with the minimal amount of manual work. Benjwong 05:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that the organizations on this list are better served through the exclusive use of the present category Companies listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange? This article list seems redundant to the role of the category. Companies listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange may also meet criteria for AfD as what Wikipedia is not - not a collection of internal links and not a directory. Any thoughts? Luke! 06:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I had considered that. But one thing a category can't offer is a listing by stock code. I'm not absolutely stubborn about keeping the article, but that is one reason to keep it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The advantage of this page is that it can list stock numbers and companies with no articles. Category pages cannot do that. It's up to you guys. If you plan to delete, do it soon before more people hop in. Benjwong 22:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

True that this article does list organizations by stock code and also lists stock numbers of organizations with no articles; however as the page is currently set up, it remains to be a predominantly red linked article/list. Thus by wiki-linking every organization, it may eventually spur the growth of new articles for organizations for which they are not notable. For the notable organizations that currently have articles, I propose that we add an inline mention within the appropriate article indicating that they are traded on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange under the corresponding stock code. In combination with the use of the category Companies listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, this, I believe, will better organize the articles. Thoughts? Luke! 04:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles for companies listed on HKEx should already mention that the company is listed and provide the stock code with the template Template:sehk. See for example Hutchison Whampoa. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If this is the case with all the articles then I am going to move ahead and propose that this be deleted. Any objections? Luke! 00:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Why does the existence of the template call for deletion of the list? The template does not exactly function like the list does. The list is, firstly, a listing by stock code, where as the template only lets readers see what one particular company's stock code is. Secondly, the article lists companies with no articles yet, and could spur editors to actually create those articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 10:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, not every organization is notable. And for every non-notable organization out there, their wikilink will forever remain a red link. Thereby this will be a list of internal links, of which many will be a red link. But, I too can see this article progress a little more through the addition of more content. I ran a quick search for other list of organizations on stock exchanges from around the world and found that most of the major stock exchanges do have a wiki-list (ex. List of companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange). However, just because others exist is not rationale for inclusion here. However in spite of this, there are examples of articles similar to this one that are encyclopedic in value. One good example that we can strive for is the London Stock Echange article FTSE 100 Index. Luke! 19:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that just the fact it's a listing by stock code, the article ought to remain. I noticed you put a "prod" tag on the article. I'm going to remove it, because I think it's better to list it for an AfD if you want to delete it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Its just a proposed deletion. Since my reply, I was actually going to remove it myself too. I'm going to try and improve it. Luke! 20:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You can count the number of items in the category list. That is how many blue links will be available, and it isn't much. Benjwong 07:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, Luke, feel free to list it as AfD. I'd probably vote to keep, but if an AfD says that it should be deleted, then so be it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've put sections in the list. That should make navigation a little easier. I've also fixed the wikilinks for the first few companies. It'll take a while to fix them all, but I'll do them a little at a time. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hongkonger listed for AfD

Article Hongkonger has been listed for AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hongkonger. I voted to delete as I've had problems with the article for a long while now. It needs a complete rewrite. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Universal District Areas Format

I am looking at the Central and Western District article, and it is currently listing the area as political divisions matching up to the electorial map. However, doing it this way can be a problem. For example, the political division A05 on the map is called "university". However you cannot really have an article called "university". I propose listing the political division as unlinked, and then showing everything below it.

University A05

University of Hong Kong

Lung Fu Shan Country Park

Mid-Levels East A02

Mid-Levels

Unless someone plan to have actual articles about political divisions, I just don't feel it is worth linking. The page is half listed by entity type, like school. Half listed by political divisions, half listed by landmarks? I volunteer to make 1 big edit to put this in a very organized table format. You guys can revert if you think it is not better. I am open to any suggestions. Benjwong 07:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I am not sure if the political districts are that important altogether. I think every district page at the moment has a different format. It would make sense to standardize all district pages to 1 format. Benjwong 08:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea to standardise the format for all the districts. A while ago I went through them all to add infoboxes on the ones that were missing infoboxes, making sure the infobox formats are all the same and all have the district emblems uploaded at commons. It's not exactly exciting editing in my opinion, but somebody had to do it. What do you have in mind in terms of a standardised format? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about the district A01, A02, A03 the harder I think it is to incorporate. For example you have a landmark, in order to categorize it into A01, A02 zone you need to know where it is on the map. The infobox format is ok IMHO. I would like 2 things.

1. Is it possible to convert pdf to jpg and upload the district pictures under some image license? 1 picture will take care of all the district info.

2. Afterwards just list by Area/Transportation/Schools/Hospitals etc with no descriptions. Just a list consistently. Benjwong 15:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

We'll have to figure out if those district maps with the administrative divisions are free to the public or if they are copyrighted. If they are not free, then we can't use them either way. As for the listing of areas, transportation, etc, I think it's fine to just do a listing. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

They are copyrighted. Bottom right corner of the Pdf said so in tiny fonts. We'll list those as political divisions unlinked, and maybe that is it for now. Benjwong 17:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe we can just mention how many administrative divisions there are without actually listing them. It's pointless to list them unless we either give some details on each of them or they are actually articles in their own right. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I just sent an email to that government link where the pdf belongs. I hope someone respond to my email. You are right that listing the administrative divisions by itself is pretty useless. I know Henry Li did a map for the Kwai Tsing District page. If the government people ignore me, we should find alternatives that look like that page. Benjwong 18:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright I talked to the people at the district office and they definitely don't recommend we use the electorial maps for map purposes at all. It is subject to change based on election. Starting with the central & western district, the page needs to be overhauled to not mention the political division like an actual boundary line. Benjwong 01:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MTR FAR

MTR has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 03:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There are 3 red links on the page. Unlink it before you nominate. Benjwong 14:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why no one take action to improve the articles. It is much easier to improve a featured article in the review than to go through feature article normination process. It saves lot of previous effort in the normination. While taking to much time discussing and arguing for/against other articles/topics, please think about the priority and importance of this MTR article. — HenryLi (Talk) 22:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I corrected a red-linked "by-census" and re-directed that to Census in Hong Kong. I've tried searching for the firms that helped in the construction of the MTR; however, I don't think that their firms have been notable enough for an article to be created about them yet. Perhaps we should de-wiki-link those? There is no article for the magazine Recruit either and I have removed that link. The depot Siu Ho Wan also currently does not have an article yet. I've re-directed it to the most relevant district - in this case Lantau Island. Luke! 23:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well-done. A few red links are acceptable and not a concern in the review. Don't worry too much about it. The reviewers require better writing, reduction of the fare and ticket section and arrangement of headers. We need a copywriter to improve the article. We should primary address to the comment in the Wikipedia:Featured article review/MTR. — HenryLi (Talk) 02:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some problems that editors participating on the FAR are noticing that I can't seem to see.

1. No spaces between numbers and their units of measure.
2. Non-standardised date formats - some are using the "yyyy-mm-dd" format while others are using the "month day, year" format.
3. Hyphens and/or dashes are incorrectly used per WP:DASH.
4. Lines with colours are used outside of the "Network" section.

I can't seem to find these problems but they have been mentioned on the FAR. Please help. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

An article move has been proposed at Talk:MTR. Please vote in the poll if you have an opinion about this. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WPHK Navigation template

I've started work on a navigation template for WPHK, basically a simplified and modified version of the same template for Wikipedia:WikiProject China. Right now it's in a subpage in my userspace (User:HongQiGong/scratch), as it is not yet finished. But please help in finishing it. It'll give us a little more direction on how to develope WPHK, plus maybe we can clean up the main page of WPHK a little bit too. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. It will help keep of project pages in an organized fashion. Taking a look. Luke! 05:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should remove the Notice Board wikilink; as the HK Notice Board is pretty much depreciated. I have put the question of its existence out there on its talk page, if anyone is interested in commenting. Luke! 05:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The noticeboard links don't link to the HK Wikipedians' noticeboard. It links to a subpage of "Hong Kong-related topics notice board", which is not yet created. But you're probably right. With the main Talk page and other subpages that can be created for specific tasks like New Article Requests and a Tasks subpage, I doubt we'd need it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm thinking that one use of the template is to help us move large chunks of information that's currently on the main page onto subpages. The list of Tasks for example, has grown quite large. And the list of HK-related categories is not short either. Take a look at the template for WPChina to get an idea of how to structure it. Obviously the one for HK will be smaller and more simplified as we don't have nearly as much developments, like taskforces and sub projects, etc. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I like how its going so far. We should wait to see what other editors think. Luke! 06:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What else do you imagine would be in the "Departments" section? If nothing else, should we move the Assessment link up to the main navigation section? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Taking a look at other WikiProjects, besides Assessment its generally those such as: Collaboration of the Month, Translation, Peer Review, etc. Luke! 07:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I imagine any translation requests can be put into the future Request subpage, along with new article and image requests, clean-up requests. I'd prefer to have all the editing requests in one place, unless we get too many, which I don't think we will anytime soon. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you/we should introduce the navigation template into the main projectspaces? This will heighten the profile of the navigation template and encourage more feedback from editors? Luke! 17:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I had added a "Stubs" link on the nav template, thinking that we can make a subpage to list all the different HK stubs. But should we just put the stubs in the Templates subpage, since the stubs are templates anyway? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion: List all Good Acticles as well

Currently, only Featured Articles are listed in the project page. I suggest that Good Acticles can be also listed as well, in order to let HK wikipedians have a look and take them as references. (I would really like to know how many HK articles are in GA status.) -- Kevinhksouth 16:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We'll eventually make a subpage that lists the featured and good articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As soon as development/feedback of the WikiProject Hong Kong navigation template finishes, we'll be having a lot more project pages, one of which would be a featured and good articles page. Luke! 17:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

For now though, you may considering looking at the category, Category:GA-Class Hong Kong articles for Good Articles, of which there is only 1. And Category:FA-Class Hong Kong articles for Featured Articles, of which there are only 7. Luke! 17:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article assessment reports

Do you have a link to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Hong Kong articles by quality on your assessment page? --Ideogram 11:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Importance of articles seems to be accessed arbitrarily. Articles like Tsuen Wan, Tsing Yi, and Stonecutters Bridge are of low importance for Hong Kong while Shek O, Yuen Long, Siu Sai Wan are of mid importance. — HenryLi (Talk) 07:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Before continuing, I would like to cite the following lines from the assessment page of the project.

• "Mid: Actors, actresses, politicians, celebrities, other notably alike figures and their associated productions (ex. movies, books, albums, etc.). Includes local administration districts (as defined by the Hong Kong District Councils site), Hong Kong government organizations (and associated projects), internationally recognized Hong Kong tourist attractions, accredited higher learning institutions"
• "Low: Generally those articles meeting local notability guidelines. Local in interest and notability yet little known outside in the international community. All other un-official districts falling outside the scope of Hong Kong District Councils site are included (ex. Shau Kei Wan may be considered a district but is not an official administrative district). All Hong Kong educational institutions, private or public, offering pre post-secondary education."

Now let's evaluate the articles one by one.

• Tsuen Wan: The article is on the area of Tsuen Wan, not the official district. =>low-importance
• Tsing Yi: More obvious. Not an official district. =>low-importance
• Stonecutters Bridge: it is not an "internationally recognized Hong Kong tourist attraction" (still in construction), and its notability is "yet little known outside in the international community". =>low-importance
• Shek O: Tourist attraction =>mid-importance
• Yuen Long: Article on the area of Yuen Long not the whole district =>should be low-importance, article is assessed arbitratily
• Siu Sai Wan: Not an official district =>should be low-importance, article is assessed arbitratily

In my opinion not many articles are assessed arbitrarily, arbitrarily assessed articles only contribute a small portion of assessed articles. --Raphaelmak 12:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WPHK Assessment Concern

First, Although I am going to give my opinion below, I really appreciate those Wikipedians who do the assessment work on the Hong Kong articles.

The assessment of importance in this project is quite different from the ones of other regional projects. Usually, only trivial matters will be classified as Low Importance for a region. That all areas are classified trivial seems not very appropriate in a Hong Kong project. Some of them are with demographic, strategically or historical importance to Hong Kong. Structures like Stonecutters Bridge which is going to be a world class structure should not be classified as Low Importance. Under current scheme, some class of articles, e.g. actors, departments, films, is always classified more important than others, e.g. areas, structures, regardless its actually importance unless articles are about tourist attractions. Although international notability is a good references for assessment, as a regional project, local importance ought to be another reference in assessment. An articles that is important to a project might not be important to another.

I found some of them are not appropriate. Tung Chee Hwa is an influential figures but classified as Mid Importance. University of Hong Kong is of historical and educational importance to Hong Kong but classified as Mid. Districts are not on the same scale. Victoria Prison of historical importance is classified as Low. Vivian Chow is less important than Aimee Chan. Aimee Chan is on the par with Jacky Chan. More historical market town Tseun Wan is lower than the area Lam Tin in importance. Topics like Chief Executive of Hong Kong should be higher than Mid Importance. There are more not mentioned above.

There is a systematic bias under current scheme. Assessment should not be based on the category of articles or solely tourist point of view. I suggest to review current assessment scheme and make reference to other regional projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan, Wikipedia:WikiProject France/Assessment, Wikipedia:WikiProject China/Assessment and many others.

Assessment is not an easy work. It is easier to criticise. :P

— HenryLi (Talk) 14:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Luckyluke and I had a discussion about the importance ratings a while ago. Check here - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hong_Kong/Archive_1#Criteria_for_rating_importance. Basically we decided that it would be very subjective to say, for example, so-and-so is definitely very important to HK, so he should be given Top importance. Some of the written criteria for WP China reads like "high impact in China". We tried to use more objective criteria, that's why Tung Chee Hwa is given Mid importance. I mean, Twins probably had more "impact" in HK than did Tung Chee Hwa, and they have hordes of fans all over Southeast Asia, too. How about Tung Chee Hwa? Similarly, some HK celebrities that have only appeared on TVB series had appeared daily on the family TV sets of large portions of populations in mainland China, reaching millions upon millons of people every night. Is that not more "impactful" than Tung Chee Hwa? The 1982 Condor Heros series was hugely popular in mainland China because it was the first of its kind to be shown there. What importance rating should be given to it and its stars if criteria is dependent on "impact"? Some of those criteria is subjective depending on who you ask. And I don't necessarily agree with User:Raphaelmak's assessment of, for example, Shek O to mid importance. I think it should probably be of Low importance. I did take a look at the assessment criteria for WP China when Luckyluke and I had our discussion (we waited for input from others also, but none came) and I object to the emphasis that is placed on international prominence, in lieu of domestic prominence, for the importance criteria for WikiProject China. Under a similar scheme, Geography of Hong Kong would be given Mid importance for WPHK. But such a topic that covers basically one area of the entirety of HK should be given Top importance, just like Languages of Hong Kong, Government of Hong Kong, etc. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Under current scheme, it gives a false sense of objectiveness. It bias towards some classes of articles and it is subjective too. Tung Chee Hwa is on the same scale as Aimee Chan. It does not make sense to Hong Kong. It would be better make a criteria base on the properties of a category. For example, in Wikipedia:WikiProject France/Assessment , "for cities with a population of more than 100 000", they would be classified as high. Population is an objective criteria for areas in Hong Kong. This scale would give the geographic importance based on demographic data. Another example is that biographies of "the top one or two Hong Kong in a particular field or persons of the greatest historical importance" (France replaced with Hong Kong) are classified as top priority. Tung Chee Wah meets the criteria as he is the greatest historical importance in post-1997 era politics. Tung Chee Wah would be classified as top importance instead of mid. If Twin is of greatest historical importance in entertainment, it ought be classified as top importance. If you found WikiProject China rather vague, WikiProject France (and other Europe projects) gives better idea how objective criteria form. — HenryLi (Talk) 03:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

While admittedly there are inherent problems with all assessment/rating systems, including those that exist on Wikipedia and in the real world, this is the best system that we came with. As HongQiGong has already stated, myself and him already had a discussion prior to implementing the assessment scheme. If you take a look at the previous discussion used to reach consensus, we both invited users to contribute to the WPHK assessment scheme and other editors had the opportunity to do so in a window of 5 days. The absence of any feedback at that time, and arguably at the present with this discussion as well from other editors besides us 3, clearly shows that while there are many editors who have indicated they are involved with WPHK, very few actually participate in the discussions.

It is also clear that other WikiProjects will have assessment criteria that is clearly different from our own. There are reasons for this. Foremost being Hong Kong is not a country like France. We are open to suggestions for improving the assessment scheme; however, your initial proposal does not improve on the current scheme. Firstly, the idea of using population as a basis for assessment with Hong Kong articles is not worthwhile - unless readily available statistical data is available for each official administrative district of Hong Kong. In addition, the problem with your proposal is that it is highly subjective. How do we tell and actually verify that Tung Chee Wah "is the greatest historical importance in post-1997 era politics" or that "Twin[s] is of greatest historical importance in entertainment." It is quite clear that it is not readily apparent. Supporters of Tung Chee Wah or fans of Twins are inherently going think they are the most important figures in the field while those that aren't fans are vice versa.

I invite everyone from the WPHK community to give feedback on any process that they believe will improve our efforts. Luke! 04:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Tung Chee Hwa is admittedly less subjective, because it was a matter of fact that he held the highest government position in HK. But it certainly would be subjective when it comes to celebrities. Then we're going to run into problems where editors are comparing one person with another. Posters of Twins is literally plastered all over HK, and they star in numerous movies. So how does that compare to Tung Chee Hwa? How does that compare to Donald Tsang? How about Leung Kwok Hung? And you're right, population-based criteria is not really useful for HK, as a lot of areas in the New Territories is more residential than commercial. Many of these areas will have higher population than places like Central or Wanchai, and sometimes simply because those areas are geographically bigger. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Under current scheme, it is no difference from combining categorised articles. You cannot tell how important an article for Hong Kong. Assessment is never an easy task. It requires good judgement. What is the point formulating some criteria without accessing importance on the topics of areas, structures, actors, politicians, business, institutions, films, transportation, historical sites and many others for Hong Kong? Avoiding judgement makes the importance scale useless to the project. We cannot prioritise the improvement of articles. In your example above, you have already made an judgement on importance implicitly. Tung Chee Hwa > Donald Tsang > Leung Kwok Hung. Although there are many places and areas in the New Territories, some are densely populated and some sparsely. Densely populated would have higher importance than those of sparsely. Urban areas are smaller but usually have higher population than the rural areas. Moreover, urban areas usually have richer historical resources than other in rural. Population is not the sole criterion on areas. Central and Wanchai are more important in the history and economy of Hong Kong. This is an assessment. I modified the scheme from France as following for reference. — HenryLi (Talk) 07:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I would think that it would make the grading scheme pointless if editors are to rely on their own personal judgement to assess articles. The criteria for biographies is going to let editors put a lot of biographies in the Top field. And there's still a problem of relying too much on international notability. HK is still just a city. Anything that effects something outside of HK is technically internationally. This basically puts most celebrities in High importance, because most HK celebrities are well-known in mainland China and other parts of Asia. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably best to count by the # of links from the main page Hong Kong. If it is immediately accessible on the main page, then it should be high importance automatically. Judging is in many ways harder than fixing. Benjwong 01:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with HongQiGong, your proposal does not make the best effective use out of the assessment function. By placing limits on how many articles can be in each class hinders development. For example, someone could theoretically choose to assess an article Top class but chooses not to in the end because there are already ~100 articles in that class already. There is also a problem with the High class. I did a quick search via Encyclopedia Britannica using keywords: Tung Chee Hwa, Donald Tsang, Peninsula Hotels, Hong Kong International Airport. Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't even hint that each of these subjects about Hong Kong have their own article in their print or online version. Most just yield inline references within articles about Hong Kong. If nearly every Hong Kong subject has an inline reference in Encyclopedia Britannica, does that mean they should all be High class? If we were to use inclusion within a print encyclopedia as a basis for assessing articles, then we would clearly be doing a disservice to the assessment scheme and its intended use. Not only would an editor have to check with a print encyclopedia before assessing, but just determining which print encyclopedia to base it on or what is reasonably expected is difficult enough. And with the Mid class, where one editor would expect to find the bulk of Hong Kong articles, the criteria is very much vague and subjective. It primarily addresses districts but nothing else. Your proposed assessment scheme relies to heavily on editor subjectiveness for it to be effective. Perhaps you can provide some examples as to what kind of articles are meant to fit into each class? Luke! 19:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The question is "What is the purpose to rate the article importance for Hong Kong?". In my opinion, it is to priority articles from Hong Kong's prospective, like railway project in railway's prospective, Scouting project in Scouting prospective. Under current scheme, it does not reflect what is important to Hong Kong. Low importance should leave to trivial matters. It is something we can leave it out in the project. Under current criteria, Tsuen Wan and Tung Chung falls into that low importance. Would it be a miss if WikiProject Hong Kong exclude Tsuen Wan, Yuen Long and Tung Chung? Could you notice the deficiency here?

Not all HK celebrities well-known to outside Hong Kong. Most of them falls into Mid or Low. High importance should give to those with great impact or great success. Say if there is no Jacky Chan, Lesley Cheung, Faye Wong, Stephen Chow what would the Hong Kong entertainment industry look like. Some in the mid would like Or if there is no "I love u boyz", "Shine", Ha Kam Shing, Purple Lee, will the industry differ much? Some people falls into Mid would be like Sandra Ng and Karena Lam. They have some success in their career with some impact on the industry in Hong Kong. There might be some disagreement in the assessment, but at least it really reflects the importance. It could be resolved by consensus.

Criteria can be refined more clearly on each major topic. It is a "proposal" to address to the deficiency of current scale and hope to improve it to be a more useful one. We can discuss the criteria how on each topic is weighed. Of course if we do not admit that there is a major deficiency in current scale for improvement. There would not be any consensus and it remains intact.

— HenryLi (Talk) 06:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, hardly any part of HK entertainment is only contained in HK. Most get exported to mainland China and Southeast Asia. Not everyone would agree with the ratings you gave above for those celebrities. What in particular makes Leslie Cheung more "important" than Sandra Ng? The ratings are specifically for how "important" they are to HK the city itself, not how much impact they had in HK entertainment (which may not be a bad idea for a child WikiProject). And I can understand there is some measurable importance scale when it comes to government officials, but even then, I wouldn't agree with having any biographies in the Top importance level. I think Top importance should be reserved for articles that are about one area of HK overall. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

HenryLi, 13 days have passed since the last contribution to this discussion was made and we are nearing the end of March. Though productive in some ways, it hasn't yielded any new consensus in changing the current assessment scheme. It has merely been a discussion by three WPHK editors. When we first introduced the current assessment scheme, we waited five days for input with no replies. We have waited 13 days here, almost three times the previous wait time, for a reply and there are no replies. I'm sure you can now appreciate the dilemma that HongQiGong and myself faced when we introduced the current assessment scheme. The lack of WPHK participation by identified editors makes it hard for this project to be successful. However, I will be trying to send out a mass message via Tawkerbot in the near future to encourage active participation. Looking forward to continually working with you in improving WPHK and Hong Kong-related articles. Luke! 09:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HK Coat of Arms image

I don't know if I am only noticing this now, and I don't know if other editors are seeing the same thing that I am, but the HK Coat of Arms image that is used for many articles does not have a transparent background. I'm going to place the image inside a div tag with a brown background. You can see that the corners of the Coat of Arms is white.

The image is linked from commons, but if you look at it from within commons, you can see that it looks like the background is transparent - commons:Image:Hong Kong coa.png.

The Coat of Arms is used in the WPHK tagging template, and basically it's looking kind of ugly right now with the white corners. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Err... It looks like it's fixed now... nevermind then. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Think I hopped on too late. I don't see anything wrong. Benjwong 01:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ratings

I just fixed up Economy of Hong Kong a great deal. I don't think it is start-class anymore. Can someone just move the ratings up. Or is this something I can just do myself without asking anyone? Benjwong 03:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You can change it yourself. But I've changed it for you. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced Category Won't go Away

So the Education in Hong Kong article was flagged for having unsourced statements and a number of other problems. I did a massive cleanup, but if you scroll down. The category section still list "Articles with unsourced statements since March 2007". What must I do to get rid of it?? Benjwong 19:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The article gets removed from the category when all {{fact|date=March 2007}} tags get replaced with sources. Most of them are in the future section of the article. Luke! 20:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Tasks" section in the main project page

Should we remove the "Tasks" section in the main project page, and if any articles were listed with a request for editing, list it at the Editing Request subpage? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good if you want to combine "Tasks" and "Edit and Image request". 1 big list is better than 2 small lists. Benjwong 01:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposing Merge

I am proposing Fisheries in Hong Kong page be merged into Agriculture in Hong Kong. Both are combined to less than 1% of the economy. It makes more sense to group them together. Feel free to discuss it here. If there are no major objections, I am ready to move it anytime.

Benjwong 01:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar of Hong Kong

Because of the late introduction of Barnstar of Hong kong version 3.0, I would like every participant in WPHK to vote on the barnstars below:

The WikiProject Hong Kong Award (Version 2.0)

The WikiProject Hong Kong Award (Version 3.0)

Comments

Is it possible to clean up the edges of the star? If you go to the original image file, the edges look a little rugged. Anyway, nice work! Herenthere (Talk) 21:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hong Kong Chief Executive election, 2007

The election is over, and Donald Tsang won (as was widely expected). The Hong Kong Chief Executive election, 2007 could use some editorial work. I switched all the embedded citations to inline citations, but some of the sources originally provided is no longer available, so we need citations and referencing. Also, some of the prose is not very well written. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HSBC Hong Kong headquarters building

Hi, I'm involved in a "content dispute" (to use an euphemism) with various anonymous users (who I believe is one user using proxies) over an image I've added into the HSBC building article. I'd like some input from outside parties if that's possible, thanks. _dk 08:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WPHK COTM

Does anyone have any feedback to the current process of the WPHK Collaboration of the Month (COTM0)? Trying to keep this as broad as possible to better help refine it. Luke! 23:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

My feedback is that we don't have enough active participants to keep one running every month. I was the only one that actually tried to improve the last article selected for it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for deletion

Could I propose the deletion of Hong Kong Government Cantonese Romanisation? The article describes something that really exists, but there are no sources for it and it seems unlikely to have any (at least I was unable to find any). It has to be classified as "original research". Could we accept articles like this? Are there any similar cases?--K.C. Tang 03:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

For the most part, it can be construed as original research. I haven't looked myself, however, there may have been some studies on this. A quick look at the article, the section about pronunciation in English is extremely subjective. The absence of any sources makes it totally original research. I think its worthwhile nominating this article for an AfD to garner input from other community editors. Luke! 13:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems unlikely that this amount of specific information was original research. This might be a case of lacking referencing instead of original research. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary: there is a great deal of specific info exactly because it's original research. Our editors have diligently drawn examples from real life. I mean I like this article (indeed I contributed a bit to it), but I'm not sure whether this kind of article can be accepted in Wikipedia. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 01:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Not disputing that good work has been put towards the article. But verifiable reliable sources are needed for any article to substantiate its claims. Luke! 02:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I just noticed the Chinese version of the article is completely without references and external links. So from what I'm understanding, the government hasn't actually declared an official romanisation method, but the article was built up from evidence of how the government romanises? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)