Talk:Hong Kong/Archive 8

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

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Need map

We very much need a map showing the location of Hong Kong in relation to the Guangdong Province--a map similar to that seen at Shenzhen or Zhuhai. This was pointed out more than 1 year ago and still we have only maps showing close-ups of Hong Kong, leaving the reader clueless for where it is in relation to other nearby cities. Let's get this done. Badagnani 21:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. It seems to me that Hong_Kong_Location.png already has what you are asking for. — Kelw (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That map is very unclear, showing only a tiny portion of coastal Guangdong, and leaving the reader very unclear about where this place is. Please compare with the map at Shenzhen and you will see what I mean. Badagnani 02:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't find it unclear at all. It shows that Hong Kong is located south of Guangdong and faces the South China Sea and its position relative to Macau. That seems fine to me. Keep in mind that Hong Kong is not part of Guangdong province, whereas Shenzhen and Zhuhai are part of Guangdong. Let's see if other editors feel differently. — Kelw (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's very unclear, and we do need a map comparable to the other maps of nearby cities, showing more than a small coastal strip. Of course Hong Kong is not part of Guangdong. Badagnani 03:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps administratively Hong Kong is not part of Guangdong, but geographically it most definitely is. Administratively speaking, both Shenzhen and Zhuhai are not exactly part of Guangdong either, they both have provincial-level privileges. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

None of this matters. A map should make it clear exactly where this place is in relation to its region. No map in the article does this, except showing a very small coastal strip which does not provide context for those unfamiliar with the region. Badagnani 04:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, I think a map similar to the one at Shenzhen would be great. Except I don't necessarily want such a map to replace the current maps. The current maps show more clearly where Hong Kong is in the context of the continent of Asia. A map like the one at Shenzhen only shows where the city is in relations to the rest of Guangdong and China. But granted, there is a matter of consistency with other Chinese cities articles to consider. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean for it to replace any other map. If a similar map is to be made, User:Croquant is the editor who has the skills to do it. Badagnani 04:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking again at the map up top, it can't even be determined where Shenzhen or Guangzhou are in relation to Hong Kong. This is basic information that even I have wanted to know for over a year, yet cannot figure out from this article. I'd also like a map showing the Pearl River and where it is in relation to Hong Kong. Badagnani 04:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The map in the Shenzhen article doesn't even show Hong Kong, so it's not really different from the map in Hong Kong's article. I think the current map is best for the infobox. I won't mind another map showing the Pearl River Delta region, but that should go in the Geography of Hong Kong article. Shenzhen and Guangzhou are not relevent in the infobox here. — Kelw (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely certain if we've reached consensus on keeping the current maps in the top infobox. But there is a Gallery of HK maps in Commons, and I've added a link to it in the article[1]. Looking at the Category of HK maps in Commons, however, it looks like more images could be added to the Gallery. I'll do this later (have to go offline in a few minutes). Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's Croquant's new map:

. The location of Hong Kong in relation to its surroundings is lacking in the article and this article fills that gap. I finally understand where Hong Kong is, something I didn't get from the maps that are currently in the article. Badagnani 20:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort that went into making the map, but I prefer the current map in the infobox. This new map is very confusing because it strongly implies Hong Kong is part of Guangdong (despite what the caption says). I honestly don't understand why the entire province of Guangdong is displayed when Hong Kong is not part of Guangdong. There is enough context provided in the current map which clearly shows Hong Kong and its surrounding area. So my vote is to stick with the current map. — Kelw (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added more maps to the Commons gallery and moved the Commons link in the article up to the Geography section (not sure if this is a MoS problem though). Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the Manual of Style Wikipedia:Guide to layout, interwiki links should be under the appendices sections of the article. I've moved the link back down and repositioned some images to hopefully reduce the clutter. — Kelw (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Kelw on this, who seems to have some kind of ingrained political POV for not wishing to show the entire geographical context of where Hong Kong is located. It's really very simple: before Croquant made this map, I could not determine where exactly Hong Kong was located from this article. Now I can, quite easily. It's very important that we provide a contextual visual understanding of where Hong Kong is located in relation to its surroundings, and the blue-and-gray map showing only a tiny coastal strip is quite inadequate for this purpose. I don't believe the map implies that Hong Kong is part of the Guangdong province, and if you see the caption (did you even look at it?), it states clearly that Hong Kong is not part of the Guangdong province. Let us put the map in, of course taking comments for how to improve the map from all the regular editors here. Badagnani 19:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think if I remember correctly, earlier you said you didn't want to replace the current maps in the Infobox. If so, where would you like to insert the new map? Also, it may be useful if you left a comment at WikiProject Hong Kong. The three of us seem to be the only editors commenting so far, and it may be helpful to get some other opinions. I think qualitatively speaking, all three maps (the 2 currently in the Infobox and the newly created one here) have something to offer that the others do not. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Insert it anywhere, but down at the bottom where nobody will see it isn't a good place. Badagnani 19:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we will have to replace one of the current images if we are to insert it into the article, because I really think we've reached a "critical mass" in terms of images on the article. Can you make a suggestion and we can see if anybody objects? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If it helps convince people that this Special Region is not part of Guangdong, Croquant could probably add the other nearby provinces like Guangxi and Fujian into the map as well. Badagnani 20:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't care that much about showing that HK is not administratively part of Guangdong. But I guess others feel strongly about it? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

To Badagnani, I don't like being accused of having political motivations. I have already given very clear reasons why I don't support this map and it has nothing to do with politics. It just makes absolutely no sense to show Guangdong because Hong Kong is not part of Guangdong. It's simple as that. Should we also have a rule saying any map of New Jersey also needs to show the entire states of New York and Pennsylvania? Look around Wikipedia and you will see that the convention is to show a territory in the context of its parent level jurisdiction. That's why we have a map showing New Jersey in context of the United States, and that's why we have a map of Hong Kong in context of the PRC (not just Guangdong). Guangdong itself has nothing more to do with Hong Kong than New York has to do with New Jersey. It's a matter of common sense.

With all due respect, Badagnani, I just honestly don't see anything confusing about the current map. You say you can't figure out where Hong Kong is in the current map, but it clearly shows Hong Kong and Guangdong coast on the South China Sea. This map has been used in the article for years now and everything was fine. I think you need to make a better argument for replacing the map than "I can't figure it out". I am curious to see if any editors besides Badagnani find it confusing, because I have no trouble with it at all. — Kelw (talk) 02:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

New York City does have such a map, which shows clearly where it is located in the state. Showing only a small coastal strip doesn't assist the reader in knowing where this place is located in context. If we add the other nearby provinces, and add the names of other nearby cities such as Guangzhou, Macau, and Shenzhen, I think the map would be even better, and assuage the political problems you have with showing Hong Kong in its geographic context--at least more than a tiny coastal strip. Yes, the article has existed for two years or so, and during that entire time, it had no map clearly showing our users where Hong Kong is in relation to its surroundings. The reason this was not changed was due to the efforts of editors such as yourself, who know intimately where Hong Kong is in relation to its surroundings, but who maintain that other users should somehow also have this knowledge without a map showing the city's actual context. Thus, the contextual map is needed. Of course, I have always been willing to compromise regarding the labeling and captioning of the map, and Croquant is skilled in altering it per consensus. Badagnani 03:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, New York City is part of the state of New York, therefore the map shows New York City in the context of New York state. However, Hong Kong is not part of Guangdong, therefore we do not show Hong Kong in context of Guangdong. Instead we show Hong Kong in the context of the entire PRC, which is its parent jurisdiction. Take a look at the New Jersey article and notice how it shows the state in context of the United States. If you pay attention to the currrent map, there is already an insert which shows exactly the portion of China's southern coast that is displayed in the main map, so readers know exactly where Hong Kong is located with respect to the PRC.

Second, I still don't know why you insist the map doesn't give context. It clearly shows that Hong Kong is on the South China Sea in the southern part of China and is next to Macau. That's plenty of context. On the other hand, very few people know where Guangdong actually is, so it the average reader would have no idea where Hong Kong is located by looking at your map. Maybe you like your map better because you are familiar with Guangdong, but it doesn't give any context as to where in the world Hong Kong is located. That's why it's better with the current map, which shows Hong Kong in the context of China as a whole. I'm not sure if there really is a problem because I honestly haven't heard any user beside you complain about the current map. — Kelw (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, your comment doesn't make any sense. There is no map in the article clearly showing the position of Hong Kong in relation to its geographic context other than one showing a narrow, small coastal strip. The article is thus deficient and in need of a map showing a wider geographic area, in a clear manner. The map Croquant has designed can of course be altered to suit your political preferences. It has been stated, and re-stated, that the map's caption clearly states that Hong Kong is not a part of the Guangdong province. Badagnani 03:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Having a caption doesn't make up for shortcomings of a confusing map, I think that's obvious. I've already tried my best to explain it to you; I'm sorry if you still can't understand. Do you know what I mean by parent level jurisdiction? That's the main reason why your map should not be used. It has nothing to do with politics and has everything to do with logic and consistency. — Kelw (talk) 04:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm neutral as to whether or not we should insert the map, but I think instead of New York State, the better comparison here would be Beijing and Shanghai. Both are Chinese cities with provincial-level administration. Can we agree to a map that looks like the maps on those two cities? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see more input from other editors beside us three. I don't see the need to change everything if only one user has trouble reading the map. This map has been in place for years and things seemed fine until now. — Kelw (talk) 04:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Unlike Shenzhen and Zhuhai, Hong Kong is a separate entity from Guangdong. There is no need to showing the location of Hong Kong from Guangdong prospective. (There are no maps for Beijing and Tianjin in Hebei, Shanghai in Jiangsu, Chongqin in Sichuan, too.) The current 4 maps are clearly indicating the location of Hong Kong. — HenryLi (Talk) 05:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Having seen the maps on the infoboxes in Beijing and Shanghai - I want to state for the record that if we are to include a new map, I would prefer a map that is similar to the maps in those two articles, rather than the newly-created map that was linked above here in the Talk page. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to have a map showing Hong Kong and its surrounding region. The "issue" of giving the impression that HK is or is not a part of Guangdong can be avoided simply by extending the map to include a slightly wider area ie parts of Guangxi, Fujian etc, with HK in one colour and the rest of China in another. Also what I presume are county boundaries are not needed, instead the main cities should be indicted. LDHan 09:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

New images ready

The two new images showing the context of HK's location within the area of coastal southeastern China have been completed by the intrepid User:Croquant, incorporating all the suggestions and corrections submitted to him/her (and replacing the black-and-white map above, which only included Guangdong province, which led one editor to comment that that map was unsuitable because it implied that Hong Kong is part of the Guangdong Province). These images will enhance our users' knowledge of Hong Kong as they clearly show the location of Hong Kong in relation to the surrounding regions of China.

Badagnani 07:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You can be WP:BOLD and put it in the article. Chris! _ct 22:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. While the new maps are better than the black-and-white map you proposed earlier, it doesn't automatically mean they are better than the ones we have now. It's very nice that User:Croquant made these maps for you, but he did so because you requested them, not because he feels there is anything wrong with the maps here. I just don't find any convincing reasons why these maps should replace the good ones in the infobox, which have been in place for years without trouble until Badagnani began to insist that they be replaced. I am going to put up my reasons against the replacement shortly. — Kelw (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have placed the current and proposed maps side-by-side above and labelled them so they can be compared. A1 and A2 are the current maps in the infobox; B1 and B2 are the replacements proposed by User:Badagnani. Here are just some problems I found:

The reason User:Badagnani wanted to replace the current maps is because he believes the current maps only show "small coastal strip" of Guangdong. Now compare the current A1 with the proposed B1—the two maps show exactly the same coastal area! Now compare A2 with B2 and it's clear the proposed B2 shows much less coastal area than A2. Badagnani has said the current maps are "very confusing", but I honestly don't understand what's wrong with them or why he believes the prposed maps are that much better.
The proposed maps are themselves very confusing for any reader unfamiliar with East Asia. The proposed B1 and B2 provide absolutely no suggestion to the region of the world that is being displayed or the area that is covered. An average reader looking at these maps would have no idea where Hong Kong is located. In contrast, the current maps A1 and A2 have inserts that explain exactly the areas that are displayed; A1 shows the exact location of Hong Kong within the PRC and A2 shows its exact location in the world. This is consistent with Wikipedia practice. The proposed maps are understandable by someone from mainland China, but without proper context they are meaningless to the general reader.
The map B2 contains an enlargement of Hong kong but does not explain which area on the main map is being enlarged. The maps also fail to show the water boundaries of Hong Kong SAR.
The labels on both maps are very small and likely not readeable in the infobox. And since this is English Wikipedia, why is Chinese text used for the labels? Why do some labels contain Chinese while other do not? The proposed maps are also much taller than the current maps A1 and A2, making them unsuitable for the infobox.

In short, I think there are just too many problems with the proposed maps for them to replace the current maps (which are perfectly fine, in my opinion). The new maps are just much more confusing and will create more problems while trying to fix something that is not broken. — Kelw (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am mostly neutral at this point as far as map replacements are concerned, but my complaint about the two proposed maps is that they don't show at all where HK is in relation to China as a whole, and where HK actually is in the world. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the tiny blue map shows only the coastal strip was only one of many problems with that map, most prominent of which is that it does not show any context for other nearby cities. The new map does that. If you'd like the map to be improved (which I'd already asked about, and you did not volunteer any suggestions), Croquant can easily do that. I disagree that the tiny blue map contains the same information as the new map, which contains many more place names and shows a wider area in a much clearer way. Regarding bilingual English/Chinese text, I believe it is a beneficial thing to have for our bilingual users. Regarding the second map, it indisputably shows Hong Kong in context, actually naming the regions of southern China that surround it. Not to include any map showing where Hong Kong is in relation to these areas is doing an extreme disservice to our users and presuming that everyone who uses this article is probably already from Hong Kong and knows where Hong Kong is in relation to the surrounding areas of southern China. That, however, is not the case, and these maps help to remedy this. Of course, these are only two maps and even more maps would provide more context such as the location of Hong Kong vis-a-vis all of China. But that is shown in one of the maps we already have, and that was not the situation I was attempting to remedy with the new maps, since that is already shown in the pre-existing map. Regarding legibility of the text, the map can be clicked upon to see that text in a clearer way. Badagnani 06:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Imho if readers want to know where HK is (in relation to nearby cities) they would look it up in an atlas or something similiar, like an actual detailed map. And I feel that this is not the job for the infobox map at the very top of this article. Pojanji 08:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you insist people won't know where Hong kong is unless mainland Chinese cities are shown. Your position is very much from the POV of a mainland Chinese person, and will not be meaningful at all to the general reader. The general, international reader does not need to see Guangzhou or Shenzhen to understand the map; those cities mean nothing to them. According to you logic, people won't know where New York City is unless we show New Haven and Trenton on the map. The point is the current maps already show exactly where Hong Kong is located in relation to the PRC and the world, while your maps do not accomplish that at all. Plus, what you are advocating seems inconsistent with other Wikipedia infoboxes.

Croquant seems to be a great map editor and I appreciate his work here. But like I said before he was only nice enough to create these maps because you asked for them, not because there is anything wrong with the current ones. I am not asking you to go back and forth repeatedly requesting him to change the maps. My point is that there was never any need for new maps to begin with and you are the one who keeps asking him to make them. — Kelw (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If you take A2 and B1 that give you the global view + the nearby view. Benjwong 14:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The same can be said if you take A1 and A2. I wouldn't mind a new map of the Pearl River Delta region in the Pearl River Delta article, but it won't belong here in this article anyway. — Kelw (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - No, it clearly doesn't, and thus your comment really doesn't make sense. Map B1, as you call it, gives a huge amount of context more than the tiny blue map. Yes, a map showing Hong Kong in relation to its surroundings is absolutely necessary and valuable for our users in this article, not some other article. Please list the factors that you believe provide more information and context regarding Hong Kong in the tiny blue map more than the map just created for this article. Badagnani 00:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

For the hundredth time, map A1 already shows HK's surroundings. It shows HK and its two neighbors, Guangdong and Macau. If you insist that the "tiny blue map" doesn't show the surroundings, then maybe you should tell me what exactly "surroundings" mean to you. I have already told you before why mainland cities like Guangzhou and Shenzhen are not neccessary. Your proposed maps don't even accompish the most basic task of showing Hong Kong's location in the world. Honestly, I'm getting tired of repeating my answers over and over to you ... — Kelw (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The tiny blue map, showing only a tiny coastal strip and not providing place names of surrounding cities and regions, clearly doesn't provide proper context, and thus your maintaining that it provides superior context for Hong Kong is an untenable argument. I've already shown that the new map, which was created over a period of weeks, with community input and consensus, in order to fill in the lacunae left by the current maps, provides much greater context, listing many more toponyms, explaining where the Pearl River Delta is, etc. (with the exception that it does not show the marine boundaries of Hong Kong, something that User:Croquant can certainly correct easily. Thus, your comment again really doesn't make sense. Regarding the tiny white map, it does show, in a quite inadequate way, where Hong Kong is located in the world, without using any toponyms or showing nearby provinces, etc. This is why a map showing a more "zoomed in" and detailed view, listing all important toponyms, is still needed in the article. Not to provide this context in the article does do a great disservice to our users, and basically makes Hong Kong's actual geographical context rather a mystery for our users who are not from Hong Kong (as it was for me until I saw Croquant's new maps several weeks ago). Badagnani 03:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would most prefer a map similar to the ones at Beijing and Shanghai. It would give conformity with maps of other Chinese locations, and it would show where HK is in the context of China as a whole. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The current map A1 already accomplishes that, just as A2 shows HK's location in the world. Unlike Beijing and Shanghai, the HKSAR territory is not large enough to be displayed in the whole map of the PRC. There is no confusion as long as the map shows HK's exact location within the PRC, as map A1 does. It is also important to keep in mind that HK is not just another Chinese city. Its status as a self-governing territory is derived from and enforced by international treaty. Rather than Beijing or Shanghai, It is more appropriate to compare HK's map with those of other non-soveriegn territories like Greenland, Bermuda, and of course Macau. — Kelw (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The tiny white map provides no place names and very little context where Hong Kong actually is located in context, in relation to its surroundings. Using only this tiny white map, and not a map actually listing place names and showing other nearby cities and provinces, does an extreme disservice to our users, and your vehement protest against any map that actually lists place names is, thus, inexplicable. Badagnani 00:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with any kind of mainland Chinese person and take great offense at the characterization that this is the reason for my strong recommendation that Hong Kong be shown in context of where it actually is in relation to other parts of China. In fact, that comment sounds very much like what is called a WP:TROLL. Not showing Hong Kong in context of where it is actually situation, in relation to other nearby areas of mainland China, does an extreme disservice to our users. I am one of those users, and keeping only the tiny blue map provides inadequate context for our users. In fact, until Croquant created the two maps showing this context, I really had no idea what was near Hong Kong, or what Hong Kong was near, from the tiny blue map. Badagnani 00:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The so-called "tiny white map" you refer to is the most common map style used on Wikipedia: please check out the maps in Singapore, Canada, Brazil, and about a hundred others. All those pages use the same "tiny white maps". I have absolutely no idea how you can possibly feel "offended" from my point above, but saying you are "offended" is not going to prove your argument. All I said is that your proposal, in my opinion, is POV towards the mainland Chinese perspective, and I gave my reasons for that. You did not answer any of the points from that reply. It's stange that you can speak for millions of Wikipedia users. These "tiny white maps" have existed for years on hundreds of Wikipedia articles viewed by millions of people, and just because you don't like them doesn't make this an "extreme disservice to our users". Please don't speak for everyone and try to see this from the perspective of an international reader. — Kelw (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have never asked for nor advocated the blanking of the tiny white map. However, it provides little context for the actual surroundings of Hong Kong. That is, it shows Hong Kong in a very broad context. The tiny blue map shows Hong Kong in an extremely narrow context. Thus, a map such as the two new maps created specifically to fill this lacuna by User:Croquant fill this void, providing the context, giving the actual names of the nearby provinces and cities. Prior to seeing Croquant's maps I had little sense of where Hong Kong is located in context to its surroundings (although, from the tiny blue map, I knew that Macau was nearby. But that's all I knew. Users who are from Hong Kong or who know the geography of Hong Kong and its surroundings intimately may not require such a map as the new maps Croquant has created for this purpose, but all other users do require such maps, which provide the proper context for Hong Kong's location. I don't believe it is unreasonable to show where the nearby cities of Shenzhen and Guangzhou, as well as the special region of Macau are located vis-a-vis Hong Kong; in fact showing these cities and naming the other nearby regions does enrich the article and context for this special region immeasurably, as I have explained earlier, and apparently must explain again, due to the inaccurate comments by the one user who believes the tiny white map and tiny blue map to provide a comprehensive and complete context for Hong Kong's location in regard to its surroundings. They do so quite inadequately, thus the need for the addition of the two new maps, which provide greater context. If you wish the second of the new maps to also show Hong Kong's water boundaries, I am sure that Croquant can prepare this addition with no problem; I had asked if there were any additions other users had to suggest regarding these maps, in order to improve them and create consensus, and other users did give input; however, the user in question did not give any suggestions. Thus, the new maps were finalized. If there are more such suggestions, please provide them so that we may finalize the new maps *again*, satisfying everyone that they are the best maps possible to enhance our users' knowledge of exactly where Hong Kong is located in relation to its surroundings. Badagnani 03:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

For the last time, the map does not have to show mainland Chinese cities to have so-called "context". Wikipedia is meant for a general international audience, not just for people who are familiar with mainland China. A general reader does not need to see Guangzhou or Shenzhen just to understand where Hong Kong is. Therefore, your proposed maps are only for mainland Chinese audiences and are unhelpful to any readers from outside mainland China. Also, it is not Wikipedia convention to display unrelated cities, neighbouring or otherwise, unless they are part of the subject's parent jurisdiction. As I've said before, take a look at other infoboxes. As far as I know there are no other infoboxes on Wikipedia that supports what you propose. You keep calling the current maps "inadequate" and "confusing", but those are purely subjective claims. The maps have not received complaints from anyone except you.

Again, no one is asking you to "finalize" your maps. There is no need for new maps and I am sure Croquant has other important things to do. I've already addressed your arguments in this and previous edits many times over, and I hope this discussion can stop going in circles unless some new points are raised. — Kelw (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The objection makes no sense. We have a duty to our users all over the world to show where Hong Kong is in geographical context. Contrary to your insistence that our users "should not be able to know" where Guangdong, Shenzheng, Guangzhou, etc. are located vis-a-vis Hong Kong really does not make any sense at all. Before Croquant created his maps, I had really no idea other than from two tiny maps that provided little context about where Hong Kong was located in regard to other nearby cities and provinces. Unless you provide a cogent reason to prevent our users from having this context, consensus shows that the maps are something that are needed, to fill the lacuna that continues in the article. If you do not wish to provide input regarding further improvement in these maps, as other interested editors have done, that is your choice. I understand that you are very familiar with Hong Kong and its geographical context and location, but please be aware that a great many of our users in other countries are not, and do need this context. Badagnani 03:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course a map showing HK and nearby cities in addition to the maps already in the infobox would be helpful to readers from outside mainland China. HK and nearby cities are not unrelated, they are all part of the PRC. The only objections to such a map are political and cultural, according to this view, HK should be presented as unrelated and separate from mainland China as possible. LDHan 14:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The use of Template:Chinese

I am neutral to the issue, but User:131.169.235.183 and User:Kelw have been reverting each other on the whether or not to use Template:Chinese in this article. Please let's give discussion a try here. What are the reasons to use the template and what are the counter-arguments? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This is basically a continuation of the traditional/simplified/romanisation debate above which had been discussed to death above and went no where. This template is not adding anything that is not already in the Pronunciation of Hong Kong article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary anyways, so it is not a place where we throw in every romanization imaginable. Pronunciation, if needed at all, should be done in IPA as explained in WP:PRON. Even the article itself explains that Hong Kong is the propper name, not Xiānggǎng or Hsiang1-kang3 or hoeng1 gong2 or others. Again, Wikipedia is not a dictionary; it just makes no sense to throw in every imaginable romanization in this article.

Please check out this anon user's history of engaging in edit wars. He is for some reason obsessed with Template:Chinese and is forcing its adoption in hundreds of articles without any discussion. When people reverts his forced insertions he just reverts back and somehow calls it the "standardized template" without explaining. He is clearly just wants to force everything through, and is not interested in discussion. As this is a featured article, I'm maintaining the status quo for now. I'm willing to discuss but I don't think the change should be made until a consensus is reached. — Kelw (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright the article has been protected. Hopefully this will force the IP editor to come and discuss the issue. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message at the IP editor's Talk page.[2] If s/he continues to revert without participating in discussion when the article comes out of protection, I'll also be reverting the edit. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If I may butt in, the HK$ note in my pocket has "Hong Kong" and complex (traditional) characters. There is no Pinyin and no simplified character. I presume to accept that as proof of the appropriate languages to use here. -- DOR (HK) Dec 14, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.176.69.125 (talk) 03:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (use of Chinese language): In order to accommodate all viewers, both sets should be used in all cases where a difference exists. The traditional form should go first in contexts involving territories where traditional characters are used; otherwise, simplified characters should go first. If you do not know or cannot input the other character version, then leave it out and someone will put it in for you. See also the section on Romanization and tones. Readin (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that's appropriate for most of China. Hong Kong has its own standards that are very different from the Mainland; no need to run roughshod over it. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am Kenneth, I am personally born in Hong Kong, raised in Hong Kong, not until 4 years ago was I moved here in the US. Up until this date, HK's offical spoken language is Cantonese & English. Writings are in Traditional Chinese & English, we DO NOT ever use simpl. chinese. I hope this is clear enough. I am so glad someone acutally made a wiki for HK....its my home...i loved it so much. Indeed it is a place where the west meets the east, even our chinese grammar is greatly influenced by english grammar, even it is wrong but we kept doing it LOL 138.23.2.34 (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

New and IP editors adding things

Once again, we've got new editors and IP editors adding pictures and adding content without sources. Some of the stuff they add may be true, but they still need footnotes. Also, the article has been plagued with way too many pictures before. Please watch the article for these additions. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't seem to find any "edit" buttons these days . . . Updated stats, due to change in the way of calculating real economic growth (source: http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/showtableexcel2.jsp?tableID=032)

“The economy suffered a 6.0% (not 5.3 percent) decline during 1998, in the aftermath of the Asian financial crisis. A period of recovery followed, with growth rate reaching 8% (not 10 percent) in 2000, although deflation persisted.” DOR (HK) Dec 14, 2007

Too Long Article

WIkipedia seems to think that this article is too long (I agree). Why don't we split off the economy section, which seems to be the longest one that seems like it would split off right? We could leave in a little bit of it and then link to the rest of it, or we could just put a link to it. Seems like a good solution to me, the Economy in Hong Kong is a pretty big topic.Esk3 (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Right to work and live

Hi! For applying for at least some jobs in Hong Kong you have to get the right to work and live there. How can you get this? What are the requirements? Dagadt (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Check Right of abode issue, Hong Kong. The basic rule is that citizens of most countries can gain permanent residency (meaning you don't need a visa to stay there anymore) after a person has lived there for a continuous seven years. This usually means maintaining a work visa there for seven continuous years. There's a few exceptions to the rule, off the top of my head, I know that migrant workers from the mainland and foreign domestic workers cannot apply for permanent residency even after seven years. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No matter for how long you are living or staying in Hong Kong, you can't apply for or gain permanent residency unless you qualify in certain requirements from the HK Immigration Department. Work visa in itself doesn't mean that its duration will be counted as 7 years in consecutive period. Only in an exceptional case permanent residency may be given by the HK Immigration Department after 7 years of holding a temporary visa like a work visa. However, for those who wish to come to Hong Kong under the Quality Migrant Admission Scheme can legally stay in Hong Kong and later get the the status of permanent residency after 7 years. Unlike Australia, Canada and the US, immigration is NOT encouraged. Coloane (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The previous paragraph is incorrect. Permanent residency has been easily available since July 1997 (I know; my own application was approved in August 1997). Permanent residency allows one to vote and stand for office (in some cases, after 10 years residency), and prevents the person from being deported. The various migrant schemes are unrelated to the broader category of permanent residency.210.176.69.125 (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)DOR (HK) Jan 4, 2008.

The seven year rule does not apply if you gained residency at birth through parents from Hong Kong. The Right to Land is held for life.--Jiang (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You two helped me very much! Thank you, now I know, what I wanted. By the way happy X-mas and nice new year! Dagadt (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Right. And I believe you only need one parent to have permanent residency, though I'm not 100% sure on that and there may be exceptions because of the mainland mother issue. But anyway, the Hong Kong Immigration Department website is pretty informative. Here's a webpage about who is eligible for Right of Abode. This other page is also important information pertaining to the terminology that the immigration department uses, as it excludes certain people from the seven year rule (like Filipina maids). Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Coloane - immigration to HK is not encouraged basically for lower-income working class people. For foreigners making at least a middle-class income who have settled in HK, as far as I know, it's actually not that difficult to gain permanent residency after 7 years. In certain industries, the HK government basically wants more foreign talents because (in my opinion) they think that having westerners gives HK an international image. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There is actually nothing to do with international image by letting more Westerners/White living in Hong Kong according to what you said. Lang Lang along with Li Yundi is a good example. He got the HKID card from IMMD under QMAS in Hong Kong and, he is Chinese. What you are talking about above mentioned is mainly British that they have been living in Hong Kong since 1997 or even before. Without too much changes in regulations of immigration according to the Basic Laws of Hong Kong, they can stay in Hong Kong continously in order to reflect the special relationship between Hong Kong and the United Kingdom. However for foreigners from outside, their applications in IMMD will be considered in accordance with the same immigration policy applicable to other foreign nationals then prevailing.[3] I personally don't think that foreign people from a middle-class can settle in Hong Kong easily. In Sept 2003, IMMD introduced the Capital Investment Entrant Scheme. Criteria is pretty tough. Only 19 was approved from 150 applications by the end of 31 Dec 2003. The requirement of investing HK$6.5 million in permissible investment asset classes is required.[4] Again, HK Govt. welcomes tourists from western countries; on the other hands, closed-door policy is still adopted for immigration. Coloane (talk) 06:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The Capital Investment Entrant Scheme doesn't directly have anything to do with permanent residency. It's basically a type of visa that lasts for two years. If you manage to maintain that visa for seven continuous years, then you can apply for permanent residency. Third quarter statistics in 2007 show that about half of all applications have received formal approval so far (1,516 out of 3,107) [5]. To be honest, HK$6.5 million might be a lot of money to a younger professional, but for an older and experienced professional, it's very much an attainable number if you are committed to making an investment, especially for foreigners that are coming from countries with higher per-capita GDP. But anyway, the Capital Investment Entrant only applies to investors. For people who have had work visas, you basically just need to show that you are able to support you and your dependents without any welfare assistance from the government. Well, this is really not the place to have an argument about this, so I'll just say that I disagree with you and leave it at that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand actually what argument you are talking about. Without the gate of QMAS or CIES, how can one obtain permanent residency after 7 years in HK? for those who need to get the status of permanent residency are mainly from the category of family reunion besides of CIES. For those who have work visas and would like to apply for permanent residency in Hong Kong will need to satisfy certain requirements in IMMD as I above mentioned. Not many foreigners from outside can get this status, even this is what you mentioned. Coloane (talk) 08:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that it's not difficult for a foreigner, especially a professional from a western country, to maintain a work visa for 7 continuous years in Hong Kong, and then apply for and receive permanent residency. The basic requirement to obtain permanent residency after living in HK for 7 years is that you be able to support yourself and your family. It's outlined here - Chinese, English Again, this is just for working professionals, middle class people. Immigration to HK is definitely not encouraged for lower-class working people, and basically not allowed for migrant workers from the mainland or Filipina maids. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. You are not completely wrong. The basic requirement is "basic" or "minimum". To satisfy the basic requirement provides no guarantee that the applicant will be eventually accepted and permanent residency will be given. Top priority for immigration to Hong Kong is basically for family reunion from Mainland China. As for foreign people who are holding work visas should provide a very special reason for applying for PR that why he or she would like to stay in Hong Kong. He or she or his/her employers in HK should show certain evidence and satisfy officers from IMMD that why his or her job/post cannot be substituted by Hong Kong citizens, why permanent residency should be granted for that applicant, etc. Is it good for Hong Kong economy and job market? did he or she run/operate actually from his/her profession/business successfully? these are all basic factors that IMMD would like to consider and evaluate before permanent residency being granted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coloane (talk • contribs) 09:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all: Thank you very much for anwering me! I have a few more questions: If they say: Hong Kong resident is required, do they mean permanent or 7 year status resident? And if a Hong Kong based company employs you, will you get the permanent right to live and work? By the way I´m European. Dagadt (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless you have permanent residency, that means that the Hong Kong company has to sponsor you for a work visa. For citizens of most European countries, it should be no problem for the visa application to get approval. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Now I know everything I need from you two! Thank you very much! By the way: Happy X-mas and nice new year! Dagadt (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

excuse me, I think that you misunderstood. I am here to reflect my opinion based on the view made by Hong Qi Gong, not you. And also I am not interested in answering your question indeed. Coloane (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, this conversation has nothing to do with improving the article. Geoexpat.com has great forums for discussing immigration issues. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The one-parent rule is correct. I know of a child with residency rights who has a local father and a non-resident mother who are unmarried (to each other). Because the father acknowledges the child as his own, the child has residency rights. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)