Talk:List of IMAX venues

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on August 7, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Contents

[edit] IMAX in Tokyo

  • Mercian IMAX® Theatre in Shinagawa closed on the 31st of March, 2007.
    • Their other theatre, a Shinkansen ride away in Karuizawa, appears to still be open.
  • Chiba Museum of Science and Industry IMAX® Dome Theatre closed on the 31st of March, 2004.
  • Yokohama Science Center IMAX® Dome closed on the 4th of April, 2003.
  • IMAX® Dome @ nifty closed on the 4th of October, 2002.
  • Tokyo IMAX® Theatre closed on the 1st of February, 2002.
  • Adachi Children Museum IMAX® Dome closed in November, 2000.

Is [Tama Rokuto Science Center Dome Theater] the last large screen cinema in the Tokyo area? It uses the GOTO system, rather than the IMAX system, and its listing on [Big Movie Zone] describes it showing 3D Documentary films. Are there no IMAX cinemas in and around Tokyo?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.47.214.193 (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Alaska IMAX

Anchorage alaska has an imax theatre called "Alaska Experience Imax Theater", just fyi i cannot confirm online but it exists, so add it if you want

[edit] Is Soarin' Really IMAX

They don't show IMAX films, and I don't beleive they're using an IMAX projector. They do project a 70MM film onto a dome, but that's about it.

[edit] Maps

80.58.1.107 added a link to Google Maps for the Madrid IMAX... I reverted - cannot see the need for every entry to have a map link (plus it'll quickly get cumbersome), or what's special about Madrid that only it needs one. -Wangi 18:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I wanted to put the coordinates of every IMAX theatre in the world. As I'm from Madrid and know where it is I started with that one. I'm interested in knowing the location of every IMAX theatre but maybe as you said it's cumbersome. What about using a small text for the link? -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.58.1.107 (talk • contribs) .
Help me out here - why would you want to see that, what's the interest or usefulness? If each individual cinema had it's own page (and I'm sure a few of the centres they are part of do) then I'd say that is suitable (maybe!) information for there, but here?! -Wangi 22:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I think you are right. Adding this info to wikipedia is not useful, Nobody needs to have that info in wikipedia. There's no need to see quickly the coordinates, map and satellite photo of every venue. I just thought this info was OK for wikipedia, but maybe wikipedia it's not meant for that. -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.58.1.107 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Cleaning up, wikifying

Here's a suggestion how the article could be formatted to make it more readable:

  • Write external URL without description (like this [1]) to remove clutter.
  • Since all the people interested in going to this venue need to contact it and find it can use the URL, I suggest we remove coordinates and phone numbers. Yes it's been a lot of work, but it's also a lot of clutter.
  • The entries consist of Name, Place, URL and sometimes a special description. I suggest we remove everything else.
  • Write entries in one of the following formats, depending whether there is a description:
Toronto: Cinesphere IMAX Theatre [2]
Toronto: Cinesphere IMAX Theatre - The first permanent IMAX theatre in the world. [3]
    • Make the Name a wikipedia link if an appropriate page exists. Linking is only appropriate if there is a special wikipedia page for this venue or place, but not if there is wikipedia page for the cinema chain.
    • Make the Name exactly one link from start to finish. Linking "Coca-Cola" inside "Coca-Cola IMAX Theatre" doesn't cut it.
  • Sort the entries by city, which makes it the most accessible.

So, what does everybody think? Comments are welcome! Peter S. 22:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I've made edits to the Australian cinemas along these lines, just so we can compare. A lot cleaner than the rest! Also, it makes sense to have the development the cinema is part of after the cinema name and before the locality. Wangi 13:45:31, 2005-09-04 (UTC)
Thanks. Do you think starting with the city name would be better or worse? Peter S. 21:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I think starting with the city names is much better. Please see my alterations to the Canada section. I took out a lot of links too. Maybe even more could be removed. It is a start... What do you think? --RobbyPrather 06:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok, what if we used something like 'prettytable' to make it more readable? For instance:
Prettytable example
City Name Venue Telephone Ext. Link
Brampton, ON Famous Players IMAX Theatre Silvercity +1 905 789 6797 [4]
Calgary, AB Famous Players IMAX Theatre Chinook Centre +1 403 212 8098 [5]
Edmonton, AB IMAX Theatre Odyssium +1 780 452 9100 [6]
Edmonton, AB Famous Players IMAX Theatre Silver City +1 780 444 2400 [7]
Halifax, NS Empire IMAX Theatre Empire 12 Cinemas +1 902 876 4848 [8]

What do you think? See a full example of Canada section using prettytable at List of IMAX venues/prettytableex --RobbyPrather 06:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Delete?

This article has been up for deletion before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of IMAX venues and I'm thinking about putting it again, but thought it useful to have a discussion here before doing so.

I think the article is unmaintainable and no-one has shown the interest in taking it on. It is a mass of red wikilinks too. Too much information is given (see Talk:List of IMAX venues#Cleaning up, wikifying above). I think a much better approach would be if notable IMAX cinemas had their own page and were part of an IMAX category.

What does everyone else think? Thanks/Wangi 10:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we should clean it up like I suggested in the previous paragraph. It would make for a way more readable list, and remove all that ballast it currently has, while still preserving the info and enhancing the value of the list. What do you think about that suggestion? Peter S. 13:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Peter S.. I especially like his ideas for cleaning it up. I have adjusted the Canada section (but left the phone numbers in). What do you think? --RobbyPrather 05:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I think it looks much nicer, but I still don't think we need the phone numbers, this isn't a phone directory, after all. How about if we drop the phone numbers if we have a URL (because in this case, you can contact the venue pretty easily through the link)?. I also like the "prettytable" above, but we might like to add some explanations to some entries ("biggest screen in the world" etc), which will be difficult with such a fixed layout. Keep up the great work! Cheers :-) Peter S. 12:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you that this is not a phone directory. Basically anyone can type in "IMAX Vancouver, BC" into google and find the phone number pretty fast. Does anyone else out there have any opionions? I agree that the "prettytable" could be nice, but with notes or explanations can be cumbersome. Too bad. I'll work on this later tonight when I get home from work. :-) --RobbyPrather 17:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I prefer the list, but if you're going to do the grunt work and convert the entries as they stand then go with what you like. But, yeah, dump the phone numbers, regardless if we have a web page. Also the locations are over-wikified as they are (as Peter S says somewhere above)... wangi 17:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
They are very over-wikified. I'll see what I can do about that too. There are actually guidelines on how many links are generally acceptable... I think its something like no more that 10% of the words and no more links than lines. I'll leave it as a list for right now. I may experiment with tables, but I won't do it on the main page. Oh, and goodbye phone numbers! --RobbyPrather 18:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Regardless of the status of this article, I believe that it would be beneficial to have a category titled IMAX venues. I'm completely with Wangi on this point. --Gurubrahma 18:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Robby, it's fantastic that somebody finally takes this reformatting job and goes for it. Thank you very much! Peter S. 00:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up Progress

So, I've reformatted Australia through United Kingdom. What do you guys think? I'm hesitant to move on to the United States before gaining feedback from someone. Any thoughts? --RobbyPrather 15:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

A lot better, good work. wangi 16:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Good job! Peter S. 00:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I believe I am close to being finished with the reformat. I added a "See also" section to the bottom of the article. See if you like it or don't or think that some of the things on the list should be removed or added. I like the Table of Contents for United States. I added links to "See also" on both TOCs. What do ya think? --RobbyPrather 03:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Also, I re-ordered the states under United States. They were out of alphabetical order. Would anyone mind double-checking this article to make sure the countries and states are at least in alphabetical order? Also, I did create the Category:IMAX venues and placed some articles in it. Check it out. Tell me what you think, etc. Thanks!  :-) --RobbyPrather 16:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Great work. Do you mind if I go through the "See also" section and remove many items, as most of them don't seem to be directly connected with IMAX or IMAX venues? Peter S. 22:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Peter S. I don't mind at all if you add or remove things from the "See also" section. I basically just put a lot of the links that were not IMAX venues but were linked in theater names (like Cinemark, Regal, etc.). I'm not really attached to any of them. --RobbyPrather (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I removed elements that had nothing to do with IMAX ("Pepsi"), theatre chains (not connected enough), 3) everything that has already a link in the main section. This left exactly 1 link (list of museums). Peter S. 11:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I think the page looks very good now, so I've removed the cleanup and wikify disclaimers. Is this okay by everybody? Peter S. 11:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Geography cleanup

Someone want to take the task to organize China's Imax venues the way the US and UK do? Hong Kong is out there as it's own entity because that's the way it shows up on some website. SchmuckyTheCat 22:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Any particular reason why it's presented as such in many other sources? — Instantnood 05:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Hey, Instantnood. I reverted back your edit because it basically wiped out hours of work. What did you mean by 'keep the link'? If there are links that I took out, we can work on that. Please don't just revert the page. Also, if you disagree with the current status of the article, let's talk about it here. Thanks. --RobbyPrather 05:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok, Instantnood. I think I figured out what you meant to do. So, see if Hong Kong looks good to ya now.  :-) --RobbyPrather 06:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks so much Robby. I made a technical mistake when partially undoing SchmuckyTheCat's edit. :-) — Instantnood 06:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Your welcome. No big deal on the mistake... I've made my share too. I agree with your take on the Hong Kong entry. Do you live in Hong Kong? --RobbyPrather 06:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything wrong to list Hong Kong with its own section, but users like SchmuckyTheCat prefer presenting it as a subsection. The disagreements have taken place across many other similar lists, and I suppose the temporary solution is to keep them as they were. What's your opinion? — Instantnood 16:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I have no problem with Hong Kong having its own section. Especially considering that it is referenced within the China section. By definition (if I understand correctly) Hong Kong and China are 2 countries ruled by one system (although that system is the People's Republic of China). Let's leave Hong Kong and China separate. Sound good? --RobbyPrather 15:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
No, that's exactly backwards. One country, two systems not "2 countries ruled by one system". And this kind of editing, separating Hong Kong from China, is exactly what his arbcom case is about [9].

SchmuckyTheCat 19:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not separating Hong Kong from China. Hong Kong was presented with its own section prior to my edits, and I was keeping the then status quo. It is not my ArbCom case. It's about aggressive and inappropriate enforcement of one's POV by modifying existing articles, lists and categories en masse, which was what SchmuckyTheCat had been doing. [10] [11] — Instantnood 20:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Trying to shift responsiblity is what instantnood is most expert at. So what if others are "at fault" too? Does that means he is innocent? Just about everyone agrees, that it is instantnood's "aggressive and inappropriate enforcement of one's POV by modifying existing articles, lists and categories en masse" which sparked tonnes of revert wars and other undesirable behavior in wikipedia. Saying he is "keeping to the status quo" is just a typical excuse. We have yet to see him ever trying to revert an article to a version he didnt like based on the "status quo" theory. Does this mean he is "not separating HK from China"? Hardly, considering he has declared that Hong Kong is a country to the amazement of those who know better.--Huaiwei 16:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
For everyone's information, as a matter of fact I did revert articles to version that contradict with my personal preference. On the other hand, Huaiwei's very own understanding of the English word country has been contested and disapproved by members of the Wikipedian community [12]. — Instantnood 21:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
And for everyone's information too, he did so only when pressured to do so, and when admins were told to observe his behavior. The so-called "wikipedian community" who supposedly "disapproves" in that instance was over the monumental task of changing every reference to the word country. My assertion that the word "country" is abused to advance political agendas remain uncontested irregardless, and continues to the core rationale behind undoing or removing the agenda instantnood continously tries to introduce into wikipedia.--Huaiwei 16:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
The whole trouble was a result of Huaiwei's very own understanding of the English word "country". He has been equating this terminology with "sovereign state", and accusing people who're calling non-sovereign territories countries to be putting forward an agenda, spreading propaganda, for independence. — Instantnood 17:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Thats a very nice way of putting your POV across. I dont think this is the first time I have to say, that your continued failure in accepting the fact that the term "country" is popularly used to refer to sovereign states, and thereby taking it as an excuse to continue labelling sub-national entities like "Hong Kong" as countries immediately raises eyebrows amongst those who know better. It is not an "acusation" per say. Your behavior speaks for itself, and your political stance confirmed by your own words. Did I ever need to "accuse" you for what you admit?--Huaiwei 18:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Fine. Any reason why you don't agree non-sovereign territories should have their own sections as sovereign states do? Why are you applying this standard only to Hong Kong and Macau, but not other territories that are having their own sections on other similar lists sorted by country? — Instantnood 18:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Applying this only to HK and Macau? Actually I tried removing all other instances, but apparantly you tried to gather popular support from wikipedians interested in other territories, and tried to use them as an excuse for your politiking. Conversely, I asked you before over your obvious hypocrisy and double-standards: if you want to accept the academic meaning of the word "country" whole-heartedly, then Guangdong is also a country. So is Scotland. So is London. So is "the territory or land of a nation; usually an independent state, or a region once independent and still distinct in race, language, institutions, or historical memories, as England, Scotland, and Ireland, in the United Kingdom, etc." So is "a tract or district having more or less definite limits in relation to human occupation. e.g. owned by the same lord or proprietor, or inhabited by people of the same race, dialect, occupation, etc" So is "an indefinite usually extended expanse of land". So is "the land of a person's birth, residence, or citizenship or a political state or nation or its territory." So is "the people of a state or district."
Why arent you applying these definition to every entity which so qualifies? Why do you oppose the inclusion of the UK's constituent countries as "countries", even when they were specifically mentioned in supposedly "authoritative references"? Why do you reject the inclusion of Tibet? Double standards? Now you explain to me your actions as well.
I think my reasons for disagreeing that independent and non-independent entities should not be treated in such a lax manner has already been repeated again and again and to which you simply ignore or feign ignorance towards. Do I still need to repeat myself?--Huaiwei 03:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
What should be included, and what should be excluded, is already a consensus among Wikipedians. After failing getting any approval on other territories, Huaiwei has kept on targetting on Hong Kong and Macau, and created inconsistence. — Instantnood 06:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Instantnood, you've just reverted SchmuckyTheCat's edit which moved Hong Kong into the Chinese section now that the Chinese section is subdivided by area. I'd consider that edit the best solution to the discussion above and the one that makes the most sense. Everyother section is a country, Hong Kong should be listed under China. To be honest I'm not interested in the edit history/arbitration going on - this makes the most sense for this article. Thanks/wangi 16:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

It's all about how non-sovereign territories (e.g. overseas territories, colonies, external territories, special territories.. whatever way they are called) should be dealt with on Wikipedia. — Instantnood 16:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand that. However the edit you reverted was, in my opinion, the best solution for this article. Rather than stick on the issue, do nothing constructive about it and constantly revert edits can we instead build consensus here on what format we prefer to use for this article?
Quoting the original source as the "de facto" and sticking to that isn't a real solution - the original source had quite a few geographic mistakes (one I remember is Belfast listed under Ireland!), so I wouldn't trust it! Thanks/wangi
Listing non-sovereign territories with their own sections is not a mistake like listing Belfast under the section for the Republic of Ireland as you've suggested. Subsections are for ordinary subnational entities, such as provinces and states. — Instantnood 17:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
You've missed my point - simply because it was that way in the original document is not a reliable reason to have it that way for ever more in this article. We should come to a consensus here, among ourself, what we want to do in this article. We shouldn't revert back and forward for ever. wangi 17:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
When no agreement has ever reached the only thing we could do is to keep things according to what they were. I suppose nobody would contest moving Belfast from the section for the Republic of Ireland to the subsection for Northern Ireland under the UK section, which is not the case for Hong Kong. — Instantnood 17:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't have an agreement policy. NPOV, verifiability, consensus. Listing Hong Kong as independent is POV. You won't find any source that says Hong Kong is an independent country. You don't have consensus. SchmuckyTheCat 02:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
No one is saying Hong Kong is an independent sovereign state. Limiting sections solely to sovereign states is not NPOV either. There's never ever any consensus to limit sections to sovereign states. — Instantnood 07:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
There is never any concensus to treat non-independent entities and independent states as equals in all instances either. Hong Kong looks perfectly fine where it is now, as it should be for all cases.--Huaiwei 12:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
There's never any consensus to list non-sovereign territories under their corresponding sovereign states. — Instantnood 12:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
There's never any consensus not to list non-sovereign territories under their corresponding sovereign states either.--Huaiwei 16:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Since there's no consensus, neither way can be considered incorrect. Nobody shall change the another way to her/his preference. — Instantnood 16:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
So does that include adding new information based on perfered presentation styles btw? Are you in the position to make that declaration, when you arent adhering to it yourself?--Huaiwei 16:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Are you trying to say your way is the only correct way and shall prevail? — Instantnood 17:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Is that what I am trying to say? I dont know. Could you explain to us why that is so?--Huaiwei 18:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
If that's not what you tried to say, please kindly refrain from changing to the another way that you prefer. — Instantnood 18:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Huh? Now you tell me how you interpret my words before making yet another assumption over what I didnt even say. I have noticed you love to jump to conclusions, so I am now giving you a chance to explain how you do it. That you even take my inquiry as a conclusion in itself is amusing! :D--Huaiwei 03:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Please~ I asked "[a]re you trying to say..?".. would a conclusion come in the form of an enquiry? You neither admitted nor denied it, and I'd wonder what can be backing your insistance to enforce your point of view. — Instantnood 06:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Guys, I can see you three have went through this discussion a fair few times in the past... Might I suggest that this isn't the place for it and lets just leave the article as it currently stands WRT Hong Kong. Thanks/wangi 16:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Wangi. — Instantnood 21:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Sure, Wangi. But I suppose this kind of nonsense will only stop if everyone quit trying to spread his propaganda all over wikipedia not only in content edits but also in talkpages. Fanning one viewpoint simply invites a response. This page is no different.--Huaiwei 16:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
It's never a good sign to show your willingness to reach any consensus by labelling something anything as nonsense and propaganda. — Instantnood 17:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC) (modified 18:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC))
What did I label as nonsense? What is considered propaganda? Mind enlightening us on this, since I dont think I made that specific at all in the first place? ;)--Huaiwei 18:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Revert warring over the appearance of China

If anyone finds the revert warring over the appearance of China (and Hong Kong) in this list inappropriate, please report it to WP:AN/I. He (and I) are under probation for such edits. I will refrain from reverting him on this list after this message. SchmuckyTheCat 15:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

In any case both SchmuckyTheCat and I should refrain from changing how they're presented. It should be decided by the rest of the community based on how they were presented like [13] before our edits ([14] [15]). — Instantnood 16:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Nice try. There is no status quo on a wiki, other editors have already expressed a preference for sub-nationals to be sub-headings of their country, AND, it would be POV to express Hong Kong as being an equal international division with the rest of China. SchmuckyTheCat 17:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Only two editors, other than you, Huaiwei and I, have expressed above their preferences. RobbyPrather prefers to have a separate section, while Wangi prefers a subsection. Given Hong Kong's status, it would also be a POV to present it as an ordinary subnational entity, since it's not. — Instantnood 17:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
There is no ordinary among the subnational entities around the world. If you feel disenfranchised, feel free to title the subsection Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. SchmuckyTheCat 18:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Please name an ordinary subnational entity which status is comparable to that of Hong Kong and Macao (if there's any). — Instantnood 19:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
You know why? Most folk couldn't care less.
Leave the page as it is now (HK within PRC) and if anyone other than you three comes along and edits things then it's time to discuss it. However as things stand you guys are just walking over a path you've already travelled many times on other articles. I don't think you guys even read each others comments anymore, it's one big circle :)
Thanks/wangi 19:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Wangi I'm interested to know why you think they should be presented in this way. — Instantnood 19:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
"one country, two systems" wangi 19:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The word country has several meanings. What does it mean in this policy? What does it mean in usual usage? Are they the same? — Instantnood 19:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm not going make myself dizzy in these circles! (and being Scottish I'm all too aware of the different meanings of country) Thanks/wangi 19:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Alright. Thanks. — Instantnood 20:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Wangi is pretty smart for managing to free himself from the clunches of instantnood. Anyway, thank you very much for that link, cat. I was kindof desperately wanting to know if there was even an avenue to air grievances when the arbcom's recommendations are clearly applicable. Instantnood, if you seem to display superior understanding of the arbcom's decisions, than can we assume you have been adhering to it all these while?--Huaiwei 12:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

We shall let other editors to decide based on how it was presented like in the list before our edits. It's pretty clear that there are two opposing views between two editors who have expressed their opinion. — Instantnood 16:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh nice suggestion, instantnood. Have you adhered to it yourself?--Huaiwei 03:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes. And Wangi has disregarded RobbyPrather's opinion and edited according to her/his preference. — Instantnood 09:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, please. I made an edit weeks ago that put HK within China. That edit was still in place until you changed it a few days back. I do not see anyone else jumping up and down about it. RobbyPather is free to discuss it if he wants, but it's worth pointing out his last comment on the matter was about one month ago... I think you guys have bored him to tears with your circular discussion! So, as I said above - lets leave it as it currently is and if anyone else comes along and thinks it's in the wrong place then that is the proper time to reconsider the matter. Thanks/wangi 13:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Instantnood, can you leave things be? I do not want this article to be subject to the reverts it was getting back in December over the positioning of Hong Kong. You three guys all have vested interests and seem to delight in playing the same game on many articles (i.e. also on the arline by code article too just now). Such nonsense does nothing to help in our aim here of writing an encyclopedia. Please can you consider if this is good use of peoples time, or is their energy better spent elsewhere? Thanks/wangi 20:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Wangi.. But the matter has never been settled, and you have not yet told us the reason why non-sovereign territories like Hong Kong have to be presented as subsections under the corresponding sovereign states. — Instantnood 21:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)