Talk:Hong Kong

HK's Gini

Is over 50. 1/5 of the population are living in poverty. HKers are too proud to accept the fact? http://www.indexmundi.com/hong_kong/distribution_of_family_income_gini_index.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-29/hong-kong-poverty-line-shows-wealth-gap-with-one-in-five-poor.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html http://www.smh.com.au/photogallery/world/cramped-living-in-hong-kong-20131015-2vk46.html (with pics) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.142.97.158 (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

"A pedestrian stops to give money to a homeless man in Hong Kong. Hong Kong’s Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, rose to 0.537 in 2011 from 0.525 in 2001, the government said last June." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.142.97.158 (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

5 Big Clans

In this article it states the 4 big clans. This is wrong and it is written in history there are 5 big clans. Which are: Tang, HAU, Liu, Man and Pang. This is mistake needs to be rectified. Poorly written History section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.65.17 (talk • contribs) 2010-06-27T21:56:16

Border

The border had several minor changes bcos of the course of the two rivers. The maritime boundaries had also some changes as a result of negotiations in the 1990s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desvoeuxrdwest (talk • contribs) 09:48, 23 October 2010

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Hong Kong/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This orange-tagged article clearly fails criteria 2b. There are many paragraphs lacking citations. I brought this issue up at the talk page a while ago, but there doesn't seem to be much interest.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep All paragraphs now properly cited, found deadlinks had been replaced or removed. ThisAvatar (discuss–?) 06:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Nice job. The article looks good now, but I'll keep this GAR open for a week in case others want to comment.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep There were many unwanted contents but I can see most of them have been removed and I believe all of the paragraphs are now properly cited. Further work needs to be done but it should now be allowed to retain its status as a good article. Knight of Gloucestershire (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Result: Keep
The issues that led to this GAR have been resolved.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Request to move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Forbidden User (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

---

According to the Basic Law, particularly in Articles 116, 125, 149, 151, 152 and Instrument 8, this region is to be referred to as Hong Kong, China in international contexts. In the British colonial era, Hong Kong was not required to prefix or suffix its name with British. Therefore, this page should be moved to Hong Kong, China and British Hong Kong should be moved to Hong Kong.

Name	Remarks	Recommendations
Hong Kong, China	Required by the Basic Law	To be the new placeholder of the current content of Hong Kong
British Hong Kong	Not canonical, and historically non-existent	Contents to be moved to Hong Kong and page to be deleted
Hong Kong	The name used in the British colonial era without hesitation nor requirements or whatsoever. The Basic Law requires Hong Kong to be suffixed with China.	To be the new placeholder of the current content of British Hong Kong

- Joshua.yathin.yu (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Edited minor by Joshua.yathin.yu (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC) for a typo.

Refer to WP:COMMONNAME. United Kingdom is not titled United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Ottawa is not titled Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, etc. Citobun (talk) 08:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep it where it is per WP:COMMONNAME. British Hong Kong is a valid historical topic.  Philg88 ^♦talk 08:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand the concept of common names. I would also refer to Precision. Hong Kong alone may be a common reference to both Hong Kong, China and Hong Kong in the colonial era. Also, in Where there is an official name that is not the article title, it is required to use the official name in both the leading paragraph and a redirect. Hong Kong is an official name good enough to refer to Hong Kong in the colonial era, while Hong Kong, China is the one and only allowable short form of the official name.

- Joshua.yathin.yu (talk) 08:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Hong Kong" is the common name for Hong Kong SAR of PRC. STSC (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Clearly, this new user hasn't read WP:COMMONNAME. We use the most understood name for page titles. Forbidden User (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Look at WP:COMMONNAME. What official names are used is irrelevant to Wikipeida's naming conventions. With regards to Joshua.yathin.yu comments on precision you clearly didn't read that page. 'Hong Kong' sufficiently precice where as 'Hong Kong, China' would be overly presice just as in the example in the guideline, "Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise". Read WP:Primary Topic. The article British Hong Kong is not the primary here and in fact, nor would be 'Hong Kong, China' either. The current article is about Hong Kong running from 39,000 years ago to the present. It covers Pre-colonial, colonial (both British and Japanese) and Hong Kong SAR. The article 'Hong Kong, China' could not be the current 'Hong Kong' article. Large parts of the current article would need to be cut such that only post 1997 events are included. Currently there is no article coving post 1997 Hong Kong exclusively. Rincewind42 (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Hong Kong" is the common name for Hong Kong SAR of PRC. The term "Hong Kong, China" (and variations) is used only in international organizations such as the ADB, the WTO and Interpol. It is specifically designed to allow Beijing to win acceptance for similar terms applying to Taiwan ("Taiwan, Province of China" is most common). Anyone who doesn't know that Hong Kong means that place in China probably needs to do a lot more reading before editing Wikipedia. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I suppose there's no talking through this if no one is responding to Hong Kong being a common name for British Hong Kong. Rincewind42 claimed that this particular article was meant for the geographic location from the beginning of history up until now. But the disambiguation suggests otherwise: This article is about the special administrative region of China. And the Infobox also begins with the current official name of the government, which doesn't back up the claim very much.

Perhaps, if I am to assume that the matter is to be stalled here, there's still something about the Infobox to work with. If the Infobox tells of the official name, perhaps should there be some mentioning in the beginning paragraph of the official names? That's what I'd probably write:

Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (Traditional Chinese: 中華人民共和國香港特別行政區, see Name section), alternatively Hong Kong, China or its initials H.K., formerly simply Hong Kong, is a former British Colony and is currently a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. Prescribed by law, it is to be called Hong Kong, China but allowed to be referred to as simply Hong Kong in the past under the British rule.

Perhaps I should state my intention as well: I am hoping to see that the article reflects the fact that Hong Kong is allowed to be called as be while under the British rule as they did not state in laws or whatsoever to prefix or suffix anything British to the name of Hong Kong. After the Chinese occupation, there are laws that require Hong Kong to be suffixed by China in all international contexts. If naming is not a solution, perhaps someone could suggest something else?

- Joshua.yathin.yu (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Joshua.yathin.yu look at Wikipedia:Broad concept articles. This article is not solely about a political entity. It discusses history, culture, government, sport, economics and climate along the same ilk as any other country/province/city article you care to look at. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Concur with Rincewind42. I'm from Hong Kong as well, and I know what you are talking about. It has been mentioned in the infobox and in context. Besides, it should be in the article about the HKSAR Basic Law. I will close this discussion as not moved for the fact that consensus is clearly against the move.Forbidden User (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-decision discussions

I could only accept the fate of the request. But I am sure, there will be alternative ways to achieve this:

I am hoping to see that the article reflects the fact that Hong Kong is allowed to be called as be while under the British rule as they did not state in laws or whatsoever to prefix or suffix anything British to the name of Hong Kong. After the Chinese occupation, there are laws that require Hong Kong to be suffixed by China in all international contexts.

- Joshua.yathin.yu (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The full name of Hong Kong under British rule is "British Crown Colony of Hong Kong". And stop saying "Chinese occupation", and please end your absolutely pointless argument while you still don't understand the concept of "common name" in Wikipedia. STSC (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to summarise this.

Official name	Common name
What you think
Hong Kong as a geographic location, from the beginning of history	Hong Kong
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China	Hong Kong, China
British Crown Colony of Hong Kong [1]	British Hong Kong
What I think (perhaps my compatriots as well)
British Crown Colony of Hong Kong	Hong Kong
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China	Hong Kong, China

^ I don't seem to be able to find this particular term in the article. It appears that simply Hong Kong was rather official.

- Joshua.yathin.yu (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You've had your say Joshua, and the Wikipedia community disagrees with you. There is no point in carrying on trying to persuade people. Please find another article to focus your attention on, there are plenty to choose from. Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 14:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)