User talk:Instantnood/Archive 4
|
Hello. Enjoy the discussion.
/Archive 1 (January to March 2005, 58kb)
/Archive 2 (April to June 2005, 82kb)
/Archive 3 (July to September 2005, 73kb)
After you
[edit]Just to tell you that Flcelloguy put me up to the RfA right after you declined so. Click the "support me" button at the end of my signature and help! Deryck C. RfA 01:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Template for MTR Stations
[edit]I do think the idea for a MTR station template feasible. Certain information like working hours (which is shown on a small bulletin board), platforms, the year that the station began its service, etc.. What say you? If it's ok by you in any sense, I hope you can create one right away with your sophisticated wikicode knowledge! :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
ice cream
[edit]hello, i have renamed the royal ice cream to mister softee, but then a delete template appears, could u help me fix the problem? many thanks --K.C. Tang 16:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- um...as a procedure idiot, i dun really follow u. anyway, what can i do to rename the article with its history? could u do that for me?--K.C. Tang 16:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, i've got what u mean. i just wait for the deletion and move the article with its history to the deleted one. million thanks. --K.C. Tang 17:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
add chinese, s'il-vous plait?
[edit]Shen Dzu, an alternative romanization is shenzhu. Would you do that thing you do where you add the chinese characters in the various differences of Chinese? gracias, SchmuckyTheCat 21:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
help
[edit]Hey, could think of some words and phrases Hong Kongers usually use when they speak?[1] --K.C. Tang 08:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Sanitary Board
[edit]In HK government documents it is usually called '潔淨局'. You can google it and see the results.--218.103.176.124 11:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Hong-Kong-actor-stub
[edit]It's generally recommended to wait 7 days from first proposal for comments. For instance, the Hong Kong related categories now all use Hong-Kong rather than HK as the prefix, tho they also include the HK prefix version as a redirect. However, this one is straightforward enough, that waiting just a few days should be acceptible to most, since the need for the category, and once one compares it with other Hong Kong stubs, so is the name. Caerwine 15:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Re: Panoramic view
[edit]Well, I've got a normal digital camera but has a panoramic mode built into it, which allows me to take the whole view section by section. Then I would use ACDSee Photosticher that was bundled along with the camera to mend them together. I also tried Hugin, but that's much harder to use. --Carlsmith 02:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
List of companies in the PRC
[edit]I haven't got time now to check all the links you gave me, but if they are breaking the 3RR report them for it. Regardless of that I encourage you to take it to RfC, if there is a conensus about which version should be displayed then start RfCs about their refusal to accept it. If there hasn't been much involvement or there isn't an absolutely clear consensus, start an RfC on the article first. Alternatively, consider seeing if they will accept mediation - I think one of the various forms claimed to be up and running again (see this week's Wikipedia:Signpost). Thryduulf 16:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and reply here. First, it looks like your idea of page protection is off. Protection is harmful and against the idea of wiki. We do not protect to support any (non-vandalism) version. Ever. It just stops the edit war wherever it is. I believe you are acting in good faith, but I'd like to ask you to do something. Stop and talk. It's been more than a month since there was a post on Talk:List of companies in the People's Republic of China. It takes two to edit war, and frankly I'm of the opinion that by now no revert or major change is justified without consensus on the talk page. And I'm not taking sides here. I mean it when I say it takes two, so I'm copying most of this message to Huaiwei as well. It looks like you two (and Schmucky?) may want some kind of a mediator, especially since it seems like this is a larger dispute (?). I'll do what I can if you'd like me to, but please let's stop the warring. :) The Wikilove has been really strained lately and I think we've got to spread some. Dmcdevit·t 21:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- (Tell me if you have a preference on how/where I respond.) I'm not sure what you mean by the original intent of articles. I may simply be misunderstanding you, but I don't think that matters. The original author has no more say in the content than everyone else. Since it's a wiki we have to throw out the idea of article ownership (see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles). Now, I realize that you have been talking (like even on my talk page) but my point was that I think it is healthier to do so on the article's own talk page. The reason, besides the transparency it offers to future people who look there, is that it makes things much more likely to be on topic (ie, this particular article) and, one would hope, prone to be less personal that a less public user page comment might be. It's just natural that you have a different tone on an article talk page, especially if there are others there. Anyway, I wonder if you could tell me what the general dispute is. I want to know what it's about and where people stand, but not really about people's actions that you disagree with. Dmcdevit·t 21:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- I've looked over the diffs and I have some idea that the dispute seems to be mostly about definition. Just to be clear, you're not currently asking for protection, right? But I'm curious whether you are seeing this {{twoversions}} thing as a final solution or a temporary solution while disagreements are worked out. I don't think it should be permanent. If we stopped the back and forth on all of these articles right now, do you have any ideas in what you think an amicable solution would look like? Dmcdevit·t 22:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- Also, I noticed that you recently performed another revert involved in this overall dispute. I want to see if we can get all the parties to agree to stop the reverts for the time being if we're really serious about this. I really don't see how we could carry on a dialogue on one page and continue the war on the rest. My idea is that we all just voluntarily stop and leave the article frozen in whatever state they are in. Edit wars aren't getting anyone anywhere, especially since every revert is, exasperatingly, reverted. Also, I always like to remind everyone that 3RR is not an entitlement, and more than one revert in a day is often harmful and not justified. So will you agree to this mutual ceasefire? Additionally, Huaiwei just left the requested summary of the dispute on my talk page. I'd appreciate if you could look over it and see what you'd like to add/disagree. Thanks, and lets try to make this work! Dmcdevit·t 03:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know where you are, but I was just checking my watchlist before bed. I'll surely look at your last comment more fully and get to it first thing tomorrow, but while you're online, one thing. You didn't answer my request to voluntarily stop reverting. It will only work if everyone agrees (I guess I shall have to ask Schmucky too, tomorrow though). So will you agree? I think it would be a show of good faith and good intentions. Dmcdevit·t 09:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- I thak you for your agreement. Huaiwei also suggested disciplinary action for breaking our little ceasefire. Since I'm an admin, I could do that with blocks, but only if you agree as well (and all parties would be bound then). Anyway, I'd like to actually get to the meat of this thing now. I think it was Schmucky that said somewhere that you had been changing categories and stub tags to reflect Hong Kong as not part of the PRC categories but separate Hong Kong ones that make HK look like a separate country (that may not be worded best, but you know what I mean?). I mention this first because it seems like the easiest solution. Categories, to me, are nothing more than a navigational tool. As such, if it could be misconstrued either way, than there is no harm in including, say, both PRC and Hong Kong categories/tags. Agree? The same goes for putting things like Category:Healthcare in Hong Kong in the country category where they may be nominally useful that way, though that one is more debatable. Another thing that I'm wondering about is that you've used the term "original intent" of articles, like the companies list. I mentioned earlier that this sounded like article ownership, or something like it. I may be misunderstanding your point, so I'd like it if you could explain what you mean. If not, I want to remind you that, this being a wiki, anyone could start an article for any POV (hypotheticall, not accusing) and then have it de-POV'ed and fixed against their original intent. I don't think the original author gets anymore decision-making power just because they are the original author. Dmcdevit·t 23:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
- I appreciate your concerns. I had expected one (or both :) of the parties to feel like they were getting the short end of the stick. And really, you may as well be right. But I just hope that after this many months of conflict, you would be willing to bear it. Make an honorable sacrifice for the hope of a resolution and to foster good will between the parties, you know? Tell me what you think. Dmcdevit·t 18:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I see your concerns. My point though, which I should have stressed above was that I only want this temporary agreement during the course of mediation. Then, if and when there is consensus, we will repair all of the POV (in either whichever direction). So I want to emphasize that this is not any change, it just means we are stopping temporarily wherever we are right now until this gets fixed. I really don't see any other way, since if you're suggesting that we revert back some of the articles until we get to some kind of equlibrium, surely you can see the impossibility in that? There won't be any agreement about what equilibrium is (and then more edit wars!). Guess I'll go prod STC too, but please, let's give it a shot. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 23:58, October 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I am sure it is just as reasonable for you to ask them to revert back as it is for me to ask you to cease doing so, both as acts of good will towards the other. But, think about it. I can't imagine a possible way where it would work. Let's say they agree, would you have them revert all their edits that you think are POV (and remember they think just as strongly that it is not)? Surely not? When would it stop? Who would decide? I think that would just lead to more acrimony. I think the best couse of action is just to all agree to halt, only temporarily until there is a resolution. I don't see how this can work otherwise, as I see edit warring as the root of the problem here. Dmcdevit·t 08:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- One of STC's contentions has been that you just "filibuster" until everyone else is so exasperated they move on. If that is all you can say, then it can't you see why it feels like that is what's going on? Reread my comments above; I have repeatedly, painfully explained why your demand is unreasonable. Now I'm telling you directly, as an uninvolved, disinterested editor trying to help this encyclopedia, that what you are proposing would hamper mediation. The most reasonable proposal is for everyone to go along with a ceasefire. Huaiwei has been willing to do so almost immediately and even proposed broadening the terms. Now I'm going to be blunt here: either agree to the easefire, or propose some workable alternative, or tell me that you are rejecting mediation and I've wasted all this time. Dmcdevit·t 17:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, you've made more contentious edits recently (like adding "country" a Hong Kong category [2] and adding "mainland" before China here[3]) and I'm concerned that these could just lead to more revert wars. You haven't responded to my last question. Basically: are you still interested in mediation? And are you personally willing to take responsibility and actually modify your behavior based on some resolution (ie, point of mediation = give and take)? And (if yes) will you agree to temporary armistice? Dmcdevit·t 00:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- One of STC's contentions has been that you just "filibuster" until everyone else is so exasperated they move on. If that is all you can say, then it can't you see why it feels like that is what's going on? Reread my comments above; I have repeatedly, painfully explained why your demand is unreasonable. Now I'm telling you directly, as an uninvolved, disinterested editor trying to help this encyclopedia, that what you are proposing would hamper mediation. The most reasonable proposal is for everyone to go along with a ceasefire. Huaiwei has been willing to do so almost immediately and even proposed broadening the terms. Now I'm going to be blunt here: either agree to the easefire, or propose some workable alternative, or tell me that you are rejecting mediation and I've wasted all this time. Dmcdevit·t 17:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- I am sure it is just as reasonable for you to ask them to revert back as it is for me to ask you to cease doing so, both as acts of good will towards the other. But, think about it. I can't imagine a possible way where it would work. Let's say they agree, would you have them revert all their edits that you think are POV (and remember they think just as strongly that it is not)? Surely not? When would it stop? Who would decide? I think that would just lead to more acrimony. I think the best couse of action is just to all agree to halt, only temporarily until there is a resolution. I don't see how this can work otherwise, as I see edit warring as the root of the problem here. Dmcdevit·t 08:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I see your concerns. My point though, which I should have stressed above was that I only want this temporary agreement during the course of mediation. Then, if and when there is consensus, we will repair all of the POV (in either whichever direction). So I want to emphasize that this is not any change, it just means we are stopping temporarily wherever we are right now until this gets fixed. I really don't see any other way, since if you're suggesting that we revert back some of the articles until we get to some kind of equlibrium, surely you can see the impossibility in that? There won't be any agreement about what equilibrium is (and then more edit wars!). Guess I'll go prod STC too, but please, let's give it a shot. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 23:58, October 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I appreciate your concerns. I had expected one (or both :) of the parties to feel like they were getting the short end of the stick. And really, you may as well be right. But I just hope that after this many months of conflict, you would be willing to bear it. Make an honorable sacrifice for the hope of a resolution and to foster good will between the parties, you know? Tell me what you think. Dmcdevit·t 18:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- I thak you for your agreement. Huaiwei also suggested disciplinary action for breaking our little ceasefire. Since I'm an admin, I could do that with blocks, but only if you agree as well (and all parties would be bound then). Anyway, I'd like to actually get to the meat of this thing now. I think it was Schmucky that said somewhere that you had been changing categories and stub tags to reflect Hong Kong as not part of the PRC categories but separate Hong Kong ones that make HK look like a separate country (that may not be worded best, but you know what I mean?). I mention this first because it seems like the easiest solution. Categories, to me, are nothing more than a navigational tool. As such, if it could be misconstrued either way, than there is no harm in including, say, both PRC and Hong Kong categories/tags. Agree? The same goes for putting things like Category:Healthcare in Hong Kong in the country category where they may be nominally useful that way, though that one is more debatable. Another thing that I'm wondering about is that you've used the term "original intent" of articles, like the companies list. I mentioned earlier that this sounded like article ownership, or something like it. I may be misunderstanding your point, so I'd like it if you could explain what you mean. If not, I want to remind you that, this being a wiki, anyone could start an article for any POV (hypotheticall, not accusing) and then have it de-POV'ed and fixed against their original intent. I don't think the original author gets anymore decision-making power just because they are the original author. Dmcdevit·t 23:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know where you are, but I was just checking my watchlist before bed. I'll surely look at your last comment more fully and get to it first thing tomorrow, but while you're online, one thing. You didn't answer my request to voluntarily stop reverting. It will only work if everyone agrees (I guess I shall have to ask Schmucky too, tomorrow though). So will you agree? I think it would be a show of good faith and good intentions. Dmcdevit·t 09:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- Also, I noticed that you recently performed another revert involved in this overall dispute. I want to see if we can get all the parties to agree to stop the reverts for the time being if we're really serious about this. I really don't see how we could carry on a dialogue on one page and continue the war on the rest. My idea is that we all just voluntarily stop and leave the article frozen in whatever state they are in. Edit wars aren't getting anyone anywhere, especially since every revert is, exasperatingly, reverted. Also, I always like to remind everyone that 3RR is not an entitlement, and more than one revert in a day is often harmful and not justified. So will you agree to this mutual ceasefire? Additionally, Huaiwei just left the requested summary of the dispute on my talk page. I'd appreciate if you could look over it and see what you'd like to add/disagree. Thanks, and lets try to make this work! Dmcdevit·t 03:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- I've looked over the diffs and I have some idea that the dispute seems to be mostly about definition. Just to be clear, you're not currently asking for protection, right? But I'm curious whether you are seeing this {{twoversions}} thing as a final solution or a temporary solution while disagreements are worked out. I don't think it should be permanent. If we stopped the back and forth on all of these articles right now, do you have any ideas in what you think an amicable solution would look like? Dmcdevit·t 22:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- (moving back to left finally) Thank you for your encouraging response. I hadn't meant to say that either of those were contentious, but that since they looked like some of the wordings that were disputed, I was worried, but not sure if I should be. Forget about it if the "mainland" was an undisputed usage. And I think your commenting out in the category was in using good judgment. Please see a new section I've started, User_talk:Dmcdevit/Mediation#Disputes, where there is now a structure in place to begin discussion on the lists. Please fill in the requested info so we can get started. (Feel free to copy and paste parts from previous statements if this is getting redundant.) Thanks again! Dmcdevit·t 08:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hey, let's get this party started, User_talk:Dmcdevit/Mediation#Disputes
Macao/Macau
[edit]I spell it both ways and have no preference, but I possibly lean towards the u. Apparently it's own government goes both ways too. I saw one talk page discussion where you mentioned just leaving either spelling as we would American vs Queen's spelling of words. That would be a healthy compromise. And if it gets changed one way or the other, is it really that important to edit war over? SchmuckyTheCat 18:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
cat talk page
[edit]Hey, you created Category talk:Airports in the People's Republic of China, so now I can't move Category talk:Airports in the People's Republic in China there unless I delete it. Since you are the only contributor, if you dont' mind I can delete the page. ∞Who?¿? 19:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hey again. I made a note not to rename the Category:Chinese golf clubs and courses on this CFD discussion. I was wondering if you had a link to the discussion for this, seeings the Airport's got renamed, I don't see this being a problem. Let me know if you still think it is an issue and I will keep the note posted for its renaming. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 22:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- replied
Typhoons
[edit]I noticed you made some typhoon edits. If you're interested, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. Also note that Category:Pacific typhoons is different from Category:Pacific hurricanes. Jdorje 02:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Appreciation
[edit]r all the templates for the list of MTR stations created by u? woo...it will be a Featured List if there is any. it is informative as well as eye-catching. :P --K.C. Tang 03:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- by the way, do u think it's good to have a hk wikipedian's message board, beside a notice board? --K.C. Tang 04:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Request for help expanding an article
[edit]I am looking for information on the last Portuguese governor of Macau, and unfortunately, I can find only limited information in English. If you have time, could I humbly ask your help in updating the page mentioned? Thanks for your time, and apologies for the direct request. Indiana Fats 14:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
About Vasco Joaquim Rocha Vieira
[edit]Actually, I don't know him very much but I know that his reputation is not good. See this. - HeiChon~XiJun 16:41, October 8, 2005
Motorola Dragonball
[edit]There is no citation. It was originally from a computer literacy TV programme of RTHK with 林敏驄 as the host. The first issue talked about CPHK (the now City University of Hong Kong, with the first half of the programme interviewed Minnet Fukuda (夏敏), with shoots of her teaching with Compu. Engg. students. Another half of the programmed talked about that DragonBall CPU. -- Tomchiukc 05:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- If I remembered, I had told you already. ;-) It is a programme at around 1990. -- Tomchiukc 07:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- And it was because of my searching of the information and found that Mrs Fukuda (my placement supervisor) has left CityU some years ago. -- Tomchiukc 07:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Yucca
[edit]um...i've tried to rewrite it, see see. :P --K.C. Tang 15:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- but r u sure we need so many transliterations for that? It may be good for an entry like Cha Chaan Teng, which is a Cantonese term, to have so many transliterations listed, but not for this one, I guess. --K.C. Tang 05:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Putonghua and Chinese
[edit]I'm not challenging the assertion that Chinese and Putonghua are taught as different subjects in some places today, as you stated on the talk page, but I merely wanted to ask: do students/teachers ever write anything down during Putonghua class?
If so, would the language they wrote down during Putonghua class truly be, in your estimation, a completely separate language from what was being studied in Chinese class? --Dpr 18:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Lantau/o
[edit]I never knew it was called Lantao Bus, which was a surprise to me. They do call it "Lantau" Island though...both ways I guess. YCCHAN 15:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Map idea
[edit]That's a very cool idea. I'll probably make it one of these days... =D Though don't expect it within one week, I gotta get school out of the way first... -- ran (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
- What kind of map are you making? -- ran (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- ok, send it to something underscore something at somewhere dot ca. -- ran (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry.... try it again. -- ran (talk) 05:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- ok, send it to something underscore something at somewhere dot ca. -- ran (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Manchukuo is a former country
[edit]Hey man, please stop sabotaging my work on Manchukuo. Y'all got to learn how to respect other's work. No matter you like it or not, Manchukuo existed as a nation. It is the fact and Wiki is to list fact not opinions. Got it?--Manchurian Tiger 21:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yes sir. To answer your question, I'd like to list the following facts that support Manchukuo as a legitimate nation: the country had an emperor, effective central and local governments and armed forces; the country established diplomatic ties with 23 countries and far more countries for trade and transportation including China; You may not like the fact that the Japan had a huge influence on the country but it did not change the fact Manchukuo was a country. I'm not arguing whether it is a puppet or a cow because that does not serve the purpose of Wiki and because that's just a matter of different views by different people. One can also argue China was not an independent country but a puppet state in the 50s because of the Soviet heavy hand there.--Manchurian Tiger 13:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
copyright problem again
[edit]Hello, what about the images of stamps? PD? --K.C. Tang 04:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
MTR Island Line station template
[edit]How do you like it when the descriptions for platforms within an MTR station is written down? I have experimented it with the Island Line stations. See if you like them. (68.33.194.218 01:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC))
.png){kind=link}
Hi Instandnood,
some time ago, you asked me whether I could modify the maps to replace "China" by "Peoples' Republic of China" in the locator maps for prefrectures and districts. First, sorry for the long delay, second, the idea to place "China" and not "PRC" or anything else was that "China" is relatively language independent and understood by almost the whole world, while this is not the case for "PRC". However, you are right with your NPOV objection. Therefore, I think the best solution is to simply remove the "China" and rely on people to recognise that the little map with a piece highlighted is China (I think 99% of the readers of articles about Chinese places can manage, the leftover 1% being people like Sarcelles). If you have a better idea, please let me know, I value your opinion. -- Herr Klugbeisser 09:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hi again,
- Honestly, in my understanding, China (PRC) is also not so much less NPOV than only China. First, PRC is, as I said, not comprehensible for all those who are not firm in English (I am from a non-English edition of Wikipedia, so I am more aware of this kind of problem). Second, I think we are talking about a map where "China" is used for the sake of simplicity and not as a political statement, and the maps are all used in a context that should be not very politically sensitive (just cities). If that is interpreted NPOV, then also "China (PRC)" can be interpreted NPOV. Also User:SchmuckyTheCat says that "just plain China is acceptable on a map". So, I think that leaving just "China" is the best solution, the alternative still being removing this text. -- Herr Klugbeisser 08:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- I would suggest using "Mainland China". It is very jarring for me to see a map labelled "China" without Taiwan on it, and that's because I'm accustomed to the mainland POV. Imagine how it would be for someone who is not just accustomed but also passionate about that POV. "Mainland China", on the other hand, is NPOV and problem-free. 中国大陆 (Mainland China) is used extensively on Chinese Wikipedia for NPOV reasons as well. -- ran (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Further discussion
[edit]- I would disagree. If "Mainland China" is indeed as NPOV as claimed, we wont have a major dispute over its use which has remained unresolved to this day. If wordings are such an issue, we may as well remove all text and just describe it in the text message. Afterall, I remember reading somewhere in the wikihelp that maps and other illustrations should avoid text as far as possible so that the same image can be used in any language site.--Huaiwei 09:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yah. The name of the place is China or PRC. Mainland China, in the case of these maps, is nebulous - it includes Hong Kong & Macau. Call it China, because that's exactly what it is. I don't think leaving it blank is all that useful either. (And Instantnoods contention that calling the PRC "China" is an offensive POV is just plain posh.) SchmuckyTheCat 14:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- If you want to call it China, then include Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh in a lighter shade. I can't believe you would look at a map of Mainland China without Taiwan and say, "call it China, because that's exactly what it is." What kind of blatant POV pushing is that? Doesn't the fact that the Chinese Wikipedia has overwhelmingly adopted "Mainland China" as an NPOV term say something to you? That the people who are most involved in the dispute (i.e. the Chinese Wikipedia community) know which term is troublesome and which term is safe? -- ran (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, the only folks who are pushing for the use of "Mainland China" either do it because they claim it is more "accurate" (in articles which talk about the PRC minus the two SARs), or because they dont like to be called Chinese. I hardly see anyone insisting to use "Mainland China" over the "PRC" just because it is "more nuetral" so to speak.--Huaiwei 16:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Then why has the Chinese Wikipedia adopted it? Does everyone on Chinese Wikipedia fall within those two categories? Which of these categories do I fall under?
- After months and months of wrangling over this, I still fail to see the rationale behind not adopting "Mainland China" in all cases where it applies, like here. My only conclusion is that most people on the English Wikipedia are too accustomed to the China/Taiwan dichotomy presented by the Western media to understand the situation fully. But if you insist on using "China", then Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh should be included in a lighter shading. -- ran (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oh is it? I just went to take a look at [4]. Why do you have "China" appearing in the "Asian countries" category? Should I probe further around the Chinese wikipedia?
- If after so many months, and the only conclusion you can have is that people here are too accustomed to thinking the China=PRC, than it is no wonder it has never been resolved. You have not addresed the issue of treating "Mainland China" as a country, and whether it is a viable alternative for "China" in all relevant cases even when it is technically more accurate. You have not addessed the tendency of "political agents" who promote the use of the word "Mainland China" in order to make space for the SARs and treating them on the same level as Mainland China itself to the detriment of the PRC's political integrity. NPOV? By utilising it to ease POV problems over Taiwan, it opens up an entire arena of POV problems in another aspect. I have yet to see you acknowledging or even commenting on this fact, however.--Huaiwei 17:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- That's because Mainland China isn't a country! Why would it be found in a Category reserved for countries?? Hong Kong isn't found in that category either!! And feel free to dig deeper into the Chinese Wikipedia to see many examples of the use of 中国大陆 (Mainland China) there. It would be unacceptable there to use 中国 (China) to substitute for Mainland China or PRC on zh:, unlike the English Wikipedia, where this is rampant. And this proposal by Schmucky to use "China" is not helping matters. -- ran (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Precisely. So mind explaining why "Mainland China" is a good substitute here when some folks insist on adding it to country lists, table, and even categories in the English wikipedia? That was precisely the main reason to oppose overusing it, yet some folks conveniently ignore it and insist on its use everywhere for the sake of NPOV. Try listing "Mainland China", "HK" and "Macau" in a list of countries and tell me if that is supposed to be NPOV? Next, that beloved category in the Chinese wikipedia has "China", the "PRC" and the "ROC" appearing as articles. At the same time, it has "China", "ROC" and "Taiwan" as its subcategories. Are you sure the Chinesepedia is a good template we can adopt over here? And since you mention HK isnt in that category because it is for countries, then are you saying that HK should be removed from country categories in Englishpedia? Someone is going to jump and smash right through the roof if this is so.--Huaiwei 05:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- As far as I can see, the only folks who are pushing for the use of "Mainland China" either do it because they claim it is more "accurate" (in articles which talk about the PRC minus the two SARs), or because they dont like to be called Chinese. I hardly see anyone insisting to use "Mainland China" over the "PRC" just because it is "more nuetral" so to speak.--Huaiwei 16:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- If you want to call it China, then include Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh in a lighter shade. I can't believe you would look at a map of Mainland China without Taiwan and say, "call it China, because that's exactly what it is." What kind of blatant POV pushing is that? Doesn't the fact that the Chinese Wikipedia has overwhelmingly adopted "Mainland China" as an NPOV term say something to you? That the people who are most involved in the dispute (i.e. the Chinese Wikipedia community) know which term is troublesome and which term is safe? -- ran (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yah. The name of the place is China or PRC. Mainland China, in the case of these maps, is nebulous - it includes Hong Kong & Macau. Call it China, because that's exactly what it is. I don't think leaving it blank is all that useful either. (And Instantnoods contention that calling the PRC "China" is an offensive POV is just plain posh.) SchmuckyTheCat 14:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- I would disagree. If "Mainland China" is indeed as NPOV as claimed, we wont have a major dispute over its use which has remained unresolved to this day. If wordings are such an issue, we may as well remove all text and just describe it in the text message. Afterall, I remember reading somewhere in the wikihelp that maps and other illustrations should avoid text as far as possible so that the same image can be used in any language site.--Huaiwei 09:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
0101 army
[edit]Who the heck are these 0101 armies?! I don't like the grammar and style and make-believe contents they implemented in the articles. I'm fed up with their ever-lasting edits! -- Jerry Crimson Mann 14:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
St. Stephen's Girls' College
[edit]Hi Instantnood. I've performed the move that you wanted with regards to St. Stephen's Girls' College. Would you be able to go through the What links here for that article and correct the links to it. Cheers, --Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Danish "dependencies"
[edit]Hi Instantnood. Regarding Template:Europe. I have read the page on Dependencies and, well, that list was definitely made by somebody who had not read the Danish constitution. Just for the record; as far as the constitution of the Kingdom of Denmark is concerned; both Greenland and the Faroe Islands are integral parts of Denmark proper. The fact that we've granted both communities extensive home rule (the Faroe Islands in 1948, Greenland in 1979) does not change that, and the home rule arrangements are not mentioned in the Constitution. The only exception is that the Constitution states that Danish laws are not binding for Greenland and the Faroe Islands, unless stated by the Danish Parliament. The legal links uniting the three parts of Rigsfællesskabet (the Community of the Realm) are at least as strong as those between Hong Kong and Mainland China.
Before 1948, the Faroe Islands were considered to be a standard Danish county known as Færø Amt and thus a completely integrated part of the Kingdom. In 1948, home rule was granted to the islands a number of internal affairs. The list of policy areas has gradually been expanded. Greenland was a series of colonies until 1953, when the colonies were abolished and the island annexed to Denmark proper. §1 in the Constitution of 1953 states that Denne grundlov gælder for alle dele af Danmarks Rige. "This constitution is valid in all parts of the Danish Realm". (The former constitution was not in use in the West Indian and Greenlandic colonies.) So from a legal point-of-view, Denmark "proper" extends (almost) to the North Pole. The same is the case regarding Norway; Jan Mayen and Svalbard are, legally speaking, not dependencies either. On the other hand, both Bouvet Island and Peter I Island (both located on the southern hemisphere) are Norwegian dependencies. Finland's Åland Islands, seem like a dependency but they, too, just have a measure of authonomy - most importantly that the official language is Swedish, not Finnish. On the other hand, the demilitarization of Åland is regulated by international treaties, so in that respect they resemble dependencies. I'm no expert on the Netherlands, but for what I can see, the relations between Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles on the one hand and the Kingdom of the Netherlands on the other, are very close to the Danish arrangement. These two territories are categorized as "overseas countries/territories". Alas, I'm pretty convinced that few foreigners realize (or care) about these distinctions. --Valentinian 23:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hi again, please forgive the late reply. I've read your reply regarding the status of Greenland and the Faroe Islands. I respect your views, but I have to disagree. If you visit the Web page of the Home Rule Administration of Greenland www.nanoq.gl and do a search for "dependency" you'll end up with a big round 0 (the page is trilingual in Greenlandic, Danish, and English.) I can't find a good official Faroese page, but the Faroese Wikipedia has a page on the Faroe Islands, [5]. If you look under "Fullveldi" (Independence), well, I'm pretty sure that "onki" means No / none. The note (1) simply means "home rule since 1948". You might also find this page interesting [6]. It is part of an official Danish portal.
- In fact, the Danish language doesn't even have a proper word for "dependency", so it couldn't have been used in the Statutes that created the current legal arrangements. The only word we have is "bi-land" once used regarding the former Norwegian possessions of Greenland, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands. The word is never used nowadays, since the word carries a strong connotation of "somewhere unimporant that we don't have effective control over and don't give a damn about" (my interpretation). If I lived in either Greenland or the Faroe Islands, and anyone used that phrase, I'd be greatly offended. Many people on both the Faroes and in Greenland wish to stress that they are "on the same level" as Danes. We have one "Realm" (the Kingdom of Denmark) but "three nations" (in the meaning "cultural entities").
- If you see the talk page on Faroe Islands, they too reach the conclusion that the islands are not a "dependency". I once added a long message there describing the historic relations between the three (originally four) parts of the Realm.
- I've removed the word "dependency" in both articles, which I consider to be POV, and replaced it with a neutral description of the legal status. I've not changed Template:Europe yet, but I'm very tempted. I'm quite aware that you probably didn't mean to cause offence, but the word "dependency" strongly reminds me just too much about the time when East Germany officially referred to Greenland as a "colony" in order to question Danish sovereignty over the island. And I know how much that word would offend some of my fellow countrymen. The Danish political system has gone to great lenghts to demonstrate to the peoples of the Faroes and Greenland that we (Danes) respect them and their cultures too.
- You might also be interested in a message from User:Huaiwei on my talk page [7]. Regarding Norway, hmm, I'm no expert but knowing that Norwegian law is based on Danish legal tradition (we ruled Norway from 1380-1814), and reading the Norwegian pages on Jan Mayen and Svalbard; Jan Mayen is listed simply as an island annexed in 1929, and administred by the Province (Fylke) of Nordland. In my view: no dependency. The article on Svalbard presents no arguments to qualify for that label either. As one source says, four territories are regulated by international treaties: Svalbard (Norway), Åland (Finland), Hong Kong, and Macau (both China). Since I've never seen the latter three described as dependencies, which I know would be positively incorrect regarding Åland, I see no reason to give Svalbard that label either. Norway doesn't "govern" the area. Sovereignty was awarded to Norway in 1920 by the International Court in the Hague following a diplomatic dispute.
- Regading the Netherlands, you might be interested in the article on Netherlands Antilles. It seems like they will be split up and three islands will be placed directly under the Dutch crown. That will without question make the Netherlands a country with territories "outside of Europe". Like Denmark and Norway. Best regards. --Valentinian 15:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message. If our area of difference can be narrowed down to finding a neutral word, then I'm optimistic. All these territories have in common that "the territory in question has a special relationship to another territory". Sticking to that definition, I'll suggest either "autonomous provinces", "autonomous territories" or "territories with extensive home rule". If islands like Jan Mayen are to be included, then "provinces" is not an option. In that case it'd have to be "autonomous territories" ("Territories" in the geographical sense of the word, not the political.)
- I believe that either of these terms will be both an accurate description and NPOV. Calling the Åland islands for a "dependency" is clearly off the mark. Any Finn or Swede can tell you that. The major difference between Åland and mainland Finland is that the islands are not militarized and that the official language is Swedish. But that's also the case in several municipalities on the Finnish mainland. Finnish law states that a municipality becomes legally unilingual if one language is spoken by more than 94% of the local population (if I remember the figure correctly). In Åland, this applies to all municipalities since virtually no Finns live there. Consequently, it also applies to the district level. It works the other way around as well, most municipalities only has Finnish as the official language, while some - most notably the capital Helsinki (Finnish) / Helsingfors (Swedish) - are legally bilingual. Åland and Sweden's Finnish provinces were conquered for strategic purposes by Russia in 1808. When Imperial Russia collapsed in 1917, the Grand Duchy of Finland declared its independence. Shortly after this 96.2% of the people of Åland signed a petition calling for reunification with Sweden. This request was rejected by Finland and turned down by the League of Nations. The islands were granted home rule as compensation. The main point regarding the autonomy is the right for the islands to decide who's allowed to settle there. That was merely a guarantee against a future Finnish colonization of the province.
- More seriously, I'm writing this because insistance on using the word "dependency" insults a great many people. You might not find it particularly insulting, but it certainly insults me, particularly regarding some of the examples you use. I admit, I'm not a native English speaker, but I did study the language at university level. In the Danish example, the word is a massive insult to all three nationalities in the Danish Realm. 1) it makes it sound as if Denmark (proper) was still a colonial power - a slander often used against us by the Soviet Union and East Germany during the Cold War. 2) Regarding Greenland and the Faroes, the word has - in English too - a connotation that the area is in someway in an inferior position towards the "motherland". This is not the case, and both Greenlanders and Faroese are extremely proud of their own culture and history. Bot are very insistant on being respected as the equals of the Danish people. Besides, they are legally integrated in the "motherland" so how can they be in any position towards it? They can be in a position towards the Danish people, yes, but not towards the Kingdom of Denmark. I know this is getting long-haired, but it took us a long time to find a formula that would satisfy the different nationalities.
- 3) If the word "dependency" is applied in a case like Hong Kong (to which I must insist, if your definition is to be followed regarding Greenland, the Faroes, Svalbard, Jan Mayen, and Åland) the use of that has serious political overtones. I don't think you deliberately intended to insult other nationalities but if you use the word "dependency" regarding the Faroes and Greenland you offend an awful lot of people there. That is not NPOV. I'm pretty sure many Chinese would find a reference to Hong Kong as a dependency both an offence and a support of separatism, which is also not NPOV. Åland officially has autonomy but is effectively an integrated part of Finland. Speaking of China, I believe that a large number of provinces officially have home rule. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never heard neither Xinjiang nor Tibet referred to as Chinese dependencies? I've not heard that word used regarding Macau or Hong Kong either.
- I am not saying this to offend either you, Hong Kong, China or anybody else, but a founding principle of Wikipedia is NPOV which, by my definition, includes respecting other nationalities and their feelings, cultures, and beliefs. The word "dependency" is not only inaccurate in the Danish and Finnish cases, but can be seen as an insult. As you have no doubt seen, the word has been debated on a number of talk pages, and - at least in Scandinavia / the Nordic Countries - the word is not considered to be neutral. Moreover, it is not a correct description of the situation, most people here would define a dependency as e.g. Jersey or Ascencion Island. To sum it up, a neutral compromise would be "autonomous territories", "territories with autonomy", or "territories with/enjoying extensive home rule". Again, I've excluded possibilities involving the word "province" since that clearly does not apply in the Norwegian and Dutch examples. I hope that one of these options will be acceptable to you. I'd personally prefer "autonomous territories". Regarding Template:Europe the word "Dependencies" can simply be replaced by "Dependencies & autonomous territories". I believe that this change could solve the problem. My regards. --Valentinian 18:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't mind the word in all instances, but in the Scandinavian examples it is misplaced. You have already heard a few of my suggestions, I'm very willing to hear any suggestion you might have. In fact, here in Scandinavia we'd usually just use a phrase like "hjemmestyreområder" (home rule territories) or "områder med hjemmestyre" (areas with home rule). Neither of which are considered to be newspeak, at least not in Scandinavia :-) But if you have any suggestions, I'm all ears. --Valentinian 21:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
New stub types
[edit]Roads in Hong-Kong-geo-stub reach a critical mass enough for a stub its own. It's time to populate it using Hong-Kong-road-stub. HenryLi 16:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- ^^ Aiya. I have not seen any warning when creating it. - HenryLi 16:21, October 22, 2005 (UTC)
road-rail bridges
[edit]I added more Chinese bridges. [8] SchmuckyTheCat 23:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thx
[edit][9] thanks for the correction. The only reference I saw for it ( I didn't look very hard) said Qinhai-Tibet plateau. SchmuckyTheCat 05:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Re:Scotland-related stubs
[edit]Thanks for the heads-up. Grutness...wha? 23:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Notification
[edit]See [10]. I'd like everyone to be more stringent in listing possible contentious edits, no I made a new section specifically for that. Use it generously. :) Dmcdevit·t 05:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
plz respond
[edit][11] Our mediator did ask for no more comments until that was answered. It is unfortunate that hasn't been followed but can you reply to it so we can move on? SchmuckyTheCat 20:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Image sorting
[edit]I noticed you image sorting and several are on ifd. Give me a headsup for non-sourced HK/Macao images, I will try and find an existing one or go take one. SchmuckyTheCat 21:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Pic
[edit]thanks Instantnood, I've labeled the picture. Fuzheado | Talk 23:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Irish British category
[edit]Hi, I created this category for people or for people whose ancestor moved from the island of Ireland to the island of Great Britain. Renaming it Britons of Irish descent would include a huge number of people in Northern Ireland which really goes against the reason I created this category. Could you possibly consider changing your vote Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Irish_British_people_to_Category:Irish-British_people__Category:Britons_of_Irish_descent_Category:Irish_diaspora_in_Great_Britain to rename it Category:Irish diaspora in Great Britain as this would solve this problem and allow inclusion of Irish born people who have spent most of their life in Britain like Peter O'Toole and Terry Wogan which was my original intention. Thanks Arniep 14:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hi thanks for your message. I'm not sure it would be necessary to create a UK super category as there would be no real need for it, we just put Category:Irish diaspora in Great Britain as a sub cat of Category:Irish people and Category:British people (the yet to be renamed category Category:Irish British people is in these two cats). I'm not sure it would be make sense creating a category Category:Irish diaspora in Northern Ireland as more than half the population see themselves as Irish. Arniep 20:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hi I think creating a category for Irish people in Northern Ireland is problematic due to the fact that many people who live in the area known as Northern Ireland do not accept that Northern Ireland is separate to the Republic of Ireland and do not accept a link to Great Britain. Also you may be accused of sectarianism if you split people who live in NI into those who identify as Irish, British or Ulster Scots Arniep 12:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Re: the diaspora question, no you couldn't call people in NI who identify as Irish as a diaspora as they are still living on the island of Ireland. Arniep 12:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hi, if you were going to create these categories it would be quite hard to chose appropriate names i.e. something like People in Northern Ireland who identify as Irish , People in Northern Ireland who identify as British, People in Northern Ireland who identify as Ulster Scots etc. Although I am really only interested in people in Great Britain, I originally started my category for Irish people who spent most of their life in Britain in the 19th century like Richard Brinsley Sheridan, Oscar Wilde, Tyrone_Power_(1795-1841) and it grew from there. I see your comment on the cfd page, "the upper layer for Britons of Irish descent, and the second for the Irish diaspora in Great Britain (i.e. England + Scotland + Wales)". The main problem is 'all people in Northern Ireland are in theory British and probably 70% of Northern Irish people including protestants have native irish ancestry so the category would be almost pointless. Therefore it we had to split the categories one should be Category:People of Irish descent in Great Britain, and the other Category:Irish people in Great Britain for people who live in Great Britain who call(ed) themselves Irish. I think we got it! Arniep 13:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hi I've asked the person who originally nominated the category for renaming to change the header on the cfd page to replace Category:Irish diaspora in Great Britain with the new proposed names Category:People of Irish descent in Great Britain, and Category:Irish people in Great Britain, or is there problem with that as you can only rename it to one category? There are not many people who were born or grew up in Ireland/Northern Ireland in the list so maybe I should remove these and we can then easily rename the whole category to Category:People of Irish descent in Great Britain. Arniep 14:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- OK, I will create Category:Irish people in Great Britain and start moving and adding to this category. Arniep 14:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hi nood sorry to bother you again, on your comment in the cfd page you mentioned the irish diaspora category, however I do not want to use this name so could you support my proposal to rename the category Category:People of Irish descent in Great Britain, people born or brought up on the island of Ireland (such as Tom Paulin, Michael Gambon, Dion Boucicault, Eamonn Holmes) will be moved to Category:Irish people in Great Britain. Thanks Arniep 18:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- OK, I will create Category:Irish people in Great Britain and start moving and adding to this category. Arniep 14:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hi I've asked the person who originally nominated the category for renaming to change the header on the cfd page to replace Category:Irish diaspora in Great Britain with the new proposed names Category:People of Irish descent in Great Britain, and Category:Irish people in Great Britain, or is there problem with that as you can only rename it to one category? There are not many people who were born or grew up in Ireland/Northern Ireland in the list so maybe I should remove these and we can then easily rename the whole category to Category:People of Irish descent in Great Britain. Arniep 14:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hi, if you were going to create these categories it would be quite hard to chose appropriate names i.e. something like People in Northern Ireland who identify as Irish , People in Northern Ireland who identify as British, People in Northern Ireland who identify as Ulster Scots etc. Although I am really only interested in people in Great Britain, I originally started my category for Irish people who spent most of their life in Britain in the 19th century like Richard Brinsley Sheridan, Oscar Wilde, Tyrone_Power_(1795-1841) and it grew from there. I see your comment on the cfd page, "the upper layer for Britons of Irish descent, and the second for the Irish diaspora in Great Britain (i.e. England + Scotland + Wales)". The main problem is 'all people in Northern Ireland are in theory British and probably 70% of Northern Irish people including protestants have native irish ancestry so the category would be almost pointless. Therefore it we had to split the categories one should be Category:People of Irish descent in Great Britain, and the other Category:Irish people in Great Britain for people who live in Great Britain who call(ed) themselves Irish. I think we got it! Arniep 13:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
喊驚
[edit]Hi,
喊驚 is the "chinese magic" that people do to clam people who have been suprised / shocked, e.g. a car crashes into the wall in front of him, etc. I think it is some kind of cantonese chant, with some kind of action, to clam the guy and to summon the guy's 三魂七魄 back, which are scared away by the suprise.
From http://www.chinafoshan.net/history/3i/200204220056.html:
佛山的招魂与喊惊
...........
此外，还有一种病人，日久未愈，且神志不清，如失去魂魄一般。家人则在家门口焚烧香烛，用手拍打病人穿过的衣服，且拍且喊病人的名字，以招神魂归来。这种活动，名为“喊惊”，已相沿日久，今较少见了。
But in HK, I think it's more commonly known for claming the people after some kind of shock.
I am not sure whether this is a proper way to reply a message, so pls kindly acknowledge. Thanks.
-Eric 30/10/2005
current events in Hong Kong and Macau
[edit]Oct 29, 2005 Macau East Asian Games started, please help me add that event.--HeiChon~XiJun 17:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Phonetics template for Chinese
[edit]Alanmak starts using the template abovementioned robotically...I wonder if it is suitable. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 05:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, it's reverted... -- Jerry Crimson Mann 08:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Re: Sai chaan
[edit]I don't think it is acceptable to have the entire article with lots of romanized Cantonese term every where. Those Korean words like "Kimchi" and Japanese words like "Sushi" are widely used by English-speaking communities. But "Sai chaan" is definitely not a well-known English term. Wikipedia is not a place for creating new terms. Please try your best to translate as literally as possible. In a lot of circumstances, it is even unnecessary to tell readers the Chinese terms. We may just describe the detail of the Chinese terms. Those who know Chinese can go to the Chinese Wikipedia to know more about those Chinese terms. Those who don't know Chinese at all don't care about what "Sai chaan" and "tsing cha" are, especially when a lot of romanized Cantonese terms just suddenly appear in the articles without any clue or any explanation. Of course, in a small number of cases, romanized Cantonese terms are acceptable, but those who don't know Chinese would not be interested in an "English" article written entirely in romanized Cantonese terms.
For the Chinese template, it was you who said that "I think I will make a template like the one used in Korea-related article later." So, please don't blame me for using such a template. But it seems that there is an editing dispute now. Yesterday, when I talked to Jerry, we agreed to stop adding or deleting any more templates until we come up with a better solution. Jerry suggested using an image-based template. We may discuss about that some time.
-Alanmak 17:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Sun Yat-sen
[edit]I've nomintated Sun Yat-sen for FACR. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Sun Yat-sen (since you originally supported the nomination). --Jiang 09:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
On CfD for Indian cheeses that you want the category to be kept and populated. Well, I just wanted to tell you that ther are no other Indian cheeses (I should know-after all I'm an Indian).--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Naxi (sic) Porn
[edit]No, the fact that Hong Kong has Nazi porn in and of itself is not important, but it is very important that Hong Kong culture is adopting a gruesome, strong admiration for Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler. This is certainly worth noting in the article on Hong Kong. - MSTCrow 04:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your vote, and HDI discussion underway ...
[edit]Hello! I hope you're well. I'd like to thank you for participating in the vote earlier to include the HDI in the country infobox/template. Yay!
After a lengthy gestation, a discussion piece has been prepared to help give form to the vote. If you've a preference for how and where this information should appear in the infobox, I'd appreciate it if you head on over there and comment. :)
After a decision is arrived at, if at all, I'm also hopeful to prevail upon you to add the values (if you're willing and comfortable) for a handful of countries; the more people doing it, the less time it will take to implement the vote and realise the fruits of our collective labour.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks again for your co-operation! E Pluribus Anthony 04:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Minority languages in China
[edit]The thing about these languages is that I don't think any language in China is strictly "official". For that matter, Mandarin isn't strictly "official" either, it's just that a national law on language use has defined it as being the "common language" nationwide. As for minority languages, all of them have some sort of "common language" status "somewhere" in China. These "status"es are scattered over an infinite number of local guidelines, promulgations, legislations etc. which may or may not be on the Internet. -- ran (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Yi: In Liangshan Autonomous Prefecture, the "common languages" are Yi and Chinese. [12] I have no idea what's happening in the other two autonomous prefectures (Chuxiong, Honghe). Honghe has legislation that says [13] that Yi is one of the common languages, but I haven't found legislation that actually *defines* it that way (in the same way Liangshan does). As for Chuxiong, I might look for it later, but I haven't found any yet.
Hmong: I'm still looking. Of the six autonomous prefectures (Enshi, Xiangxi, Qiandongnan, Qiannan, Qianxinan, Wenshan), I haven't found a single one that puts its language policy legislation on the Internet.
So, as you can see, this stuff is very hard to research without access to some sort of library with local legislation across all of China.
-- ran (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Macao-stub
[edit]Why did you create this at this spelling, against a clear consensus in favour of "Macau-stub" (if any stub at all)? And why are you now reverting my attempts to fix this? Alai 20:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- So far as I'm concerned, this was sorted out on WSS/P. You just didn't appear to take any account of the outcome, which was clearly "Macau-stub, if anything at all". Alai 21:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- ... none of which addresses the question I put to you, here. Alai 07:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- See actual question. Alai 01:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- ... none of which addresses the question I put to you, here. Alai 07:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Ah, i'm re-reading the article, could u help make its layout look better? by the way, do u have account in Chinese wiki? i've joined the Chinese wiki recently, so i can ask for ur help for editing problems if u have one. :P --K.C. Tang 01:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's better, and i've reorganized the whole article (u see how food-obsessed I am!). Beside writing a bit on Chinese wiki, i've been dreaming of starting an anti-the-use-of-1911 Encyclopædia Britannica-on-Wiki campaign. But how can i persuade others that the old encyclopaedia is outdated both in style and content? really, i am in despair. :-C --K.C. Tang 02:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, u'd forgive my bias if u knew how frustrated i have been! But anyway, I'd like to learn more about arranging the layout of a wiki page, where can i learn the relevant wiki codes? (or u just teach me!) :o --K.C. Tang 01:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Jewish American actors
[edit]Hi nood, I noticed your vote on this. I just wondered whether you realised that this category contains many people in it have only one parent (or even grandparent in some cases) who was jewish, do not identify themselves as Jewish American and are in other (ethnicity)-American categories. I think it needs to be deleted because it doesn't make sense that a person who does not identify as wholly jewish could be described as a jewish american actor such as Carrie Fisher, Patricia Arquette, Robert Downey Jr., Michael Douglas. Arniep 00:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Gregory Charles Rivers
[edit]Hi. I notice you switched a stub tag on the Gregory Charles Rivers article from {{Australia-actor-stub}} back to the more general {{Australia-bio-stub}} as most of his acting career is in Hong Kong. As the article suggests that his time in Australia was up to part-way through a medical degree, I doubt any Australian editors outside of the actor field are likely to know anything more about him to add to the article. Should we drop the Australian stub tag completely from the article? He's famous because he's an actor, not because he studied medicine. --Scott Davis Talk 14:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Sheung Shui minibus
[edit]The red minibus in Hong Kong has no official route numbers. The "number 18" is a de facto route number but does not have official status. --Hello World! 08:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Your edit about Sheung Shui sounds good!
- FYI, there is a "Route 17" which serves between Yuen Long and Sheung Shui using Castle Peak Road, and "Route 18" which has the same terminals but using Kam Tin Road and Fan Kam Road. These two route numbers came from the route numbers of two KMB routes which were re-numbered as 76 (now as 76K) and 77 (now as 77K) in 16 July 1973. --Hello World! 11:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Some red minibuses routes in Hong Kong have their own route numbers too.
- Route 16 and 45 between Sau Mau Ping and Kwun Tong ("45" was the block 45 of Sau Mau Ping Estate. "16" may be another block, but I'm not sure.)
- Route 71 between Mong Kok and Whampoa Estate. --Hello World! 11:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Macao/Macau stub
[edit]Hello, Instantnood (cool name, by the way). Thanks for your message on my talk page. I have added a comment with my opinion in the discussion about the stub category. --AngelRiesgo 14:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Re: Jewish American actors
[edit]Hi, thanks for your reply. I've realised that aside from the problem of labelling people xxx-American even if they don't identify as that, there is a major problem with any categories of ethnicity-nationality-profession because, as valiantis says this just messes up the category structure. For example, a person who is an actor and a director who has grandparents of four different ethnicities could be placed in 4 different xxx American actor and 4 different xxx American director categories which personally I think would be ridiculous and make Wikipedia look ridiculous. Arniep 15:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with that statement and it can get ridiculous, even though it is somewhat accurate. That's why ultimately I don't feel strongly about the Actors category getting kept. But the whole "identify/not identify" thing is just silly and not encyclopedic, since most people don't even "identify" with something over the other and there is pretty much no way of knowing what the heck people think of themselves. DeNiro thinking himself Italian is pretty much just a matter of audience perception because he plays non-stop Italian-American characters. And DeNiro is world famous - what about, to use some random examples - Robert Downey Jr.? He used to say "my father is Jewish but I'm not", now he calls himself a "nice half Jewish boy" and he was married to a Jewish woman in a Jewish ceremony. But the catch is - he is only 1/4 Jewish - do we ignore his other ancestry (equal parts Irish, German and Scottish)? It still exists even if he doesn't primarily identify with it - and obviously his identification changed over time. What about all of the Phoenix siblings? Harrison Ford? Kirsten Dunst? Does she think of herself as German or Swedish or what? Identification IS important when dealing with someone's religion, but not ethnicity. It's just pushing it too far. We should record ethnicity like the U.S. Census does, otherwise we could get into hundreds of long, boring, pointless debates about a large number of actors and how the heck they identify or don't identify, cross-comparing quotes and articles. It is going to create a very pointless and large bundle of work, and is probably just going to end up being confusing. Ethnicity can be and should be measured, if we want to vote on whether to use my 1/4 (one full grandparent of one ethnicity in order to be included) rule then let's vote. Otherwise, dividing this into identification is just going to be a mess that even I don't think I could clean up.Vulturell 18:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- It is not accurate because xxx-American is a label and WP:POV, we can solve all the problems by changing the categories to Americans with xxx ancestry which is totally WP:NPOV and verifiable, and also to make sure we do not mix ethnicity with nationality and profession in categories. Arniep 20:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- If you want to change xxx-American to People of xxx descent - I got no problem with that, aside from the fact it becomes wordier. But as I explained over at my talk page, and a few others, two separate labels - xxx-American and People of xxx - are absolutely horrendous, POV ideas that are not verifiable. If you like one name over the other, appeal to use it. But making both types of categories is a bad call.Vulturell 20:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- It is not accurate because xxx-American is a label and WP:POV, we can solve all the problems by changing the categories to Americans with xxx ancestry which is totally WP:NPOV and verifiable, and also to make sure we do not mix ethnicity with nationality and profession in categories. Arniep 20:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with that statement and it can get ridiculous, even though it is somewhat accurate. That's why ultimately I don't feel strongly about the Actors category getting kept. But the whole "identify/not identify" thing is just silly and not encyclopedic, since most people don't even "identify" with something over the other and there is pretty much no way of knowing what the heck people think of themselves. DeNiro thinking himself Italian is pretty much just a matter of audience perception because he plays non-stop Italian-American characters. And DeNiro is world famous - what about, to use some random examples - Robert Downey Jr.? He used to say "my father is Jewish but I'm not", now he calls himself a "nice half Jewish boy" and he was married to a Jewish woman in a Jewish ceremony. But the catch is - he is only 1/4 Jewish - do we ignore his other ancestry (equal parts Irish, German and Scottish)? It still exists even if he doesn't primarily identify with it - and obviously his identification changed over time. What about all of the Phoenix siblings? Harrison Ford? Kirsten Dunst? Does she think of herself as German or Swedish or what? Identification IS important when dealing with someone's religion, but not ethnicity. It's just pushing it too far. We should record ethnicity like the U.S. Census does, otherwise we could get into hundreds of long, boring, pointless debates about a large number of actors and how the heck they identify or don't identify, cross-comparing quotes and articles. It is going to create a very pointless and large bundle of work, and is probably just going to end up being confusing. Ethnicity can be and should be measured, if we want to vote on whether to use my 1/4 (one full grandparent of one ethnicity in order to be included) rule then let's vote. Otherwise, dividing this into identification is just going to be a mess that even I don't think I could clean up.Vulturell 18:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Aomen
[edit]In swapping the stub template from o --> u there were a bunch of other spelling inconsistencies between defining articles and categories I glossed over. I'm going back to fix them. Some will go u --> o and some will go o --> u. You've already seen in the other edits [14] and page move [15] that I am not taking any personal spelling preference. Please take it on good faith and don't get your panties in a bunch if somethings change from whatever spelling you want. I have no interest in edit warring with you over a single character. I am only trying to reduce some split spellings and the changes should go both ways. SchmuckyTheCat 20:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Templates in mind
[edit]I'm planning to create two template in my Yuletide holiday: (1) MTR station template: includes name of the station, livery (possibly the background colour the the template box), date of operation, and, most importantly, all the entrances/exits of the station (this is of grave importance because the template applied would help arrange the text in a perfect condition. A problem though: the no. of the data varies from station to station.). (2) Cantonese pronunciatio template: try to minimise the size of the template by using images instead of text.
I hope you can try to create the first one, just like the HK-series templates. Cheers. :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 04:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Re:Pronounciation infoboxes
[edit]I don't like them. The upper right hand corner of the page is where images and other non-name infoboxes belong. This is just one more thing occupying that space. Plus I find it more convenient to look at the Chinese characters/romanized Chinese while im reading the article as opposed to having to stop reading, lose my place in the text, and look right to find the Chinese. I previously discussed this at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Korean)/Archive02#New_name_table. The Koreans seem to have arrived at consensus to use boxes. Chinese does not seem to use boxes unless it is for someone with a bunch of names like Sun Yat-sen or Chiang Kai-shek (or any Chinese emperor). --Jiang 10:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Irish-Scots
[edit]Hi I've proposed a rename to Category:Scottish people of Irish descent, please change vote if you support this Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_13#Category:Irish-Scots_to_Category:Scottish_people_of_Irish_descent. ThanksArniep 17:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Cheers
[edit]I'll stick my oar in... :-) JackyR 22:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Wushu vs Kung Fu
[edit]If you prefer the term "Kung Fu practitioners" over "wushu practitioners", please offer some feedback to the discussions at Talk:Wushu. Shawnc 09:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- OK thanks for the feedback. Shawnc 09:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- "Wushu" may be used more often in China due to the wushu tournaments. I do use "kung fu" but various articles have apparently tried to describe it as being inaccurate due to the similar word meaning "effort". There have been some discussions on why "kung fu" is acceptable too. There are some redundant info shared between kung fu and wushu, so if you have ideas on how to improve or merge these do try to suggest it in the discussions, thanks. Shawnc 10:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
HKD
[edit]Hi Instantnood, I see we are both editing HKD at the same time -- I notcied you reverted a few of my changes can we please discuss on my talk page.
To avoid any edit clashes -- I going to stop editing tonight -- finish whatever you want and I will continue later. novacatz 17:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
About politics of Macau
[edit]I think the topic should be improved but I'm afraid I can't do it well.--HeiChon~XiJun 14:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I've added a comment re your recent revert of the China/HK edit: Talk:List of IMAX venues/Archive 1#Geography cleanup. Thanks/wangi 16:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Cantonese
[edit]I just reveted your edit to Cantonese (linguistic). It is general practice with {{language}} to follow native names in non-Roman script with transliteration. Also, the ISO 639 codes at level 1 and 2 often cover a number of languages: the level 3 code is acknowledged as the more specific. It is not necessary to add a comment to the codes: the articles on the codes should speak for themselves. --Gareth Hughes 16:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi there Instantnood, I hope you don't mind my reverting of your edit again! Check out the discussion page. Peace out! 199.111.230.195 23:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
A methought inappropriate section called 'What's New' has been added to the article, could u take a look at that when u have time? --K.C. Tang 05:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- um...should the whole section be simply removed? i dun know how to label it other than commercial... --K.C. Tang 01:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
China map
[edit]Sorry for the late reply. Image:China administrative.png is still a POV as the borders show Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh in the same vein. If the borders can be improved, either by dotted/dashed strokes or a different colour, it can be considered an NPOV map. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
FA
[edit]I don't mind~ -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oh would you mind dominating it for me. I'm pretty busy with my essays for the time being. :-/ Thanks in advance. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 11:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
could u take a look at the first paragraph? the names confuse me. million thanks! --K.C. Tang 10:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- o, so that's just a typo, i c. by the way, is there any name for the transliteration method employed by the HK governemnt?--K.C. Tang 01:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- by the way, would u mind helping fix the lay-out of zh:細菌 on Chinese wiki? as usual, i dun know how to do that :-c ... million thanks! --K.C. Tang 07:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- the gem article: because of the existence of two templates, the layout looks strange now. Could u help to fix that with ur sleight of hand when u have time? thanks a lot!--K.C. Tang 10:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- by the way, would u mind helping fix the lay-out of zh:細菌 on Chinese wiki? as usual, i dun know how to do that :-c ... million thanks! --K.C. Tang 07:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks
[edit]Thanks for your messages. You probably realised I was making my contributions to Wikipedia as part of my journalism study. I am still learning the numerous rules and convention of the site. I am not sure how committed I will be in the future. But anyway, I'll come back every now and then to see what I can do. It's good to know there're standard-bearers like yourself in town. (Jepense 15:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC))
Hong Kong Disneyland RESORT
[edit]Please pay attention to the organization scheme used by all the Disney parks. The parks are part of the larger resort and everything about them hotels and rides, is organized into one category with the word resort at the end. You've created a seperate category for Hong Kong Disneyland separate from the resort which confuses this organizational scheme. SchmuckyTheCat 18:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Re: Cantonese IPA
[edit]‘What is IPA?” is perhaps a question raised by my criticism of Wikipedia.
First, one has to distinguish between phonemic transcriptions and phonetic transcriptions; IPA can do both. Our dictionaries use real IPA and transcribe phonemically; Wikipedia also uses real IPA and transcribes Cantonese phonetically.
According to Wikipedia's own guidelines, phonemic transcriptions should be used, but should be enclosed in square brackets (contrary to standard practice), unless phonetic transcriptions are also used in the same article, in which case we distinguish between the two by using square brackets for phonetic transcriptions and slashes for phonemic transcriptions.
For Cantonese, this above-mentioned set of guidelines is especially bad, because under Wikipedia conventions, Cantonese stops are written phonetically, and the resulting transcriptions for unaspirated stops are therefore [k], [p], and [t]. Unfortunately, these transcriptions will be interpreted phonemically by native English speakers (partially due to current Wikipedia guidelines), and as a result pronounced (phonetically) as [kʰ], [pʰ], and [tʰ]. In short, the current Wikipedia conventions for Cantonese IPA transcriptions are misleading. This is one of my criticisms of Wikipedia's current conventions.
Second, I will claim that even if we accept the current guidelines, I stand by my statement that the IPA used by our real dictionaries are also real IPA. Let me say that I don't think I am wrong to say that Cantonese has a /g/ phoneme that is indistinguishable from the English /g/ phoneme (even by English speakers) but pronounced natively as [k]; I also don't think I am wrong to say that Cantonese has a /k/ phoneme that is indistinguishable from how a native English speaker perceives the English /k/ phoneme to typically sound like (which is to say, [kʰ]). Wikipedia's official policy says we should normally use phonemic transcriptions, and therefore I would say that our normal IPA transcriptions are actually more appropriate under current official Wikipedia guidelines. In short, current Wikipedia conventions for transcribing Cantonese in IPA are in violation of Wikipedia's own IPA guildelines whereas our real dictionaries actually follow Wikipedia guidelines. This inconsistency is another of my criticisms.
I believe my claim can be substantiated by noting that the "English accent" when Westerners (or "jook sing") pronounce Cantonese can be partially explained by my hypothesis that our real dictionaries are correct in writing the Cantonese stops as /k/, /p/, /t/, /g/, /b/, /d/: Even the Westerners cannot tell the difference between /k/ (our dictionaries) and [kʰ] (Wikipedia-style), or /g/ and [k]. (Or I should be more specific and say English speakers—certainly, French speakers in France, Finnish speakers, etc. will be able to tell the difference.) We say [k] and they hear /g/ and therefore pronounce it as a voiced, unaspirated stop; we say [p] and they hear /b/ and therefore pronounce it as another voiced, unaspirated stop; etc.and this superfluous voicing forms part of their "English accent".
Phonemic transcriptions are completely appropriate for native speakers, and I'd say this explains why all our real dictionaries use phonemic transcriptions. Phonetic transcriptions may be more useful for non-native speakers, but current Wikipedia guidelines say we should not use it (at least not in the general case).
For the tone contours, I will agree that you are right that they are more useful for non-Chinese and my criticism is entirely my POV. However, this does not make the IPA in our dictionaries less "real".In a certain sense, tone numbers vs contours is also a case of phonemic vs phonetic transcription, not whether the IPA is real or not.—Gniw (Wing) 19:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think Wikipedia-style IPA, in its current form, is useful for non-native speakers at all. Actually, I think the edit war we have been involved with lately illustrates my view very well.
- For the transcription [kʊŋ⁵⁵ kau³³ pou³³], we can observe the following:
- The transcription refers to the unaspirated stops [k] and [p]
- According to normal IPA practice, [ ] means phonetic transcription
- According to Wikipedia guidelines, [ ] by default means phonemic transcription
- All beginning consonants are unaspirated, so there is no [ʰ] to alert to the reader that this transcription is really phonetic, not phonemic
- Because there are no other phonemic transcriptions on the same page (with / /), the reader is further misled to believe (according to official Wikipedia guidelines) that this transcription is likely phonemic
- The reader will therefore likely to read an incorrect pronunciation, even though the transcription is phonetic (i.e., very accurate), because current Wikipedia guidelines make this transcription ambiguous
- In fact, there is no way to correctly and unambiguously transcribe this newspaper's title in IPA under current Wikipedia guidelines and conventions. However, using our normal phonemic transcription would not have this problem—the reader may at worst read a pronunciation with an "English accent", but nonetheless understandable by Cantonese speakers.
- I have also discovered that using phonemic transcriptions are also used in the Swedish language article. When I was dabbing around Tone name and attempted to use Wikipedia info to add Swedish tones, I found that the article writes [d] (phonemic) but the sound I hear in the ogg file is clearly [ð] (phonetic). Obviously they are transcribing phonemically and according to Swedish phonemes (not English phonemes), and the Swedish /d/ phoneme (written [d] due to current IPA guidelines) is natively pronounced [ð]; I can't see how this can be any better than what our dictionaries are doing, especially since [d] and [ð] are separate phonemes in English, unlike [t] and [tʰ], which are just allophones of the same phoneme /t/ in English.
- Anyway, as for helpfulness to non-native speakers, I think phonetic transcriptions are overrated. (And I have anecdotal evidence that most English speakers have no idea what an unaspirated [p], [t], or [k] is. Tell them Cantonese has a [p] and [pʰ] and most English speakers will be thoroughly confused—and English speakers will not be the only people who will be thoroughly confused.) There has to be a reason why the usual English-Chinese dictionary (even the ones that say "learner's dictionary") uses phonemic, not phonetic, transcriptions.
- Of course, switching to phonemic transcriptions now would also not solve the problem either: Cantonese users who have never used Wikipedia before will expect a phonemic transcription, but long-time Wikipedians (Cantonese or not) may already be conditioned to read phonetically, so either way the transcriptions will be inaccurate/misleading. The only way out would be to use a non-IPA transcription system, like jyutping. :-(
- I think Wikipedia's IPA guidelines are broken. At the very least, it should immediately deprecate the use of [ ] for phonemic transcriptions and mandate the use of / /. When all other articles have converted to phonemic transcriptions with / / (i.e., [ ] becomes no longer ambiguous), then the current Cantonese IPA conventions will be ok-useful. Until that happens, I have no other choice other than continuing to say that "jyutping is better than ambiguous Wikipedia-style IPA" even though, personally, I don't like jyutping at all.
- PS: The worst thing of all are Wikipedians who place the phonetic Cantonese transcriptions between / /, which means "phonemic transcription". This makes IPA almost completely useless for Cantonese in Wikipedia.—Gniw (Wing) 14:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
A friendly note from me
[edit]I wish you don't mind me being writing picky things like this.
For "non-Roman letter-based languages", if you are picky about typography or punctuation, both of the hyphens should be en-dashes. The reason is that we are (at least conceptually) modifying "Roman letter" to form "Roman letter–based" and then modifying that to finally form "non–Roman letter–based". Because "Roman letter" contains a space, adding a hyphen would make the resulting compound ambiguous (i.e., making it look like two compounds "non-Roman" and "letter-based", which would mean quite a different thing than "non–Roman letter–based"), so standard typographic practice is (supposed) to replace this hyphen with an en-dash, to alert the reader that part of the hyphenated word is itself hyphenated or contain blanks. I think using en-dashes this way do make the compounds clearer.
I know that not even art schools teach this sort of things nowadays. Sad.—Gniw (Wing) 03:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Replied
[edit]Your message on my user talk page has been replied.
By the way, I see that you have been paying attention to my "user contribution" page and " my user talk page" very often. You often help me to reply those messages left on my user talk page by other users - even faster than I do. This is not necessary. Please remeber that it is MY user talk page. If you want to have discussion with other users that leave messages in my talk page, go to their talk pages or your own one.
-Alanmak 04:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Their is currently a rename for this category so it may be worth refraining from creating [[: + Category:Government of the Republic of Ireland. Djegan 16:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Hey Instantnood! Thanks for correcting the links for the pronunciation part (e.g. linking "Traditional Chinese" to "Traditional Chinese Characters"). I would be more careful following the Manual of Style next time. Anyway I still made some edits to your version since as far as I know, it would suffice for "pinyin" and "Jyutping" to be used alone, and "pinyin" should be ahead of any other romanisation. Oh, and another less important thing is that both gun1 and gwun1 would do for 官. I saw it here. Have a nice day! 199.111.230.195 23:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I just noticed you've added back Voice-actor-stub for Gigi Leung. I should've mentioned in my edit summary (my bad) that I wouldn't say Gigi Leung qualifies as a voice actress.
First of all, if you ask any HongKonger what Gigi does, I would say virtually no one would mention voice acting - not even her fans would. It isn't even mentioned in the article.
Secondly, I understand she did voice act in a few occasions. But that doesn't make her a voice actress does it? My limited research tells me she notably voice acted for Spy Kids (2001), Quill (2004), Racing Stripes (2005). That truly isn't a lot of experience. It is indeed a common practice to invite celebrities to voice act for cartoons and stuff but that is mainly, if not merely, for the sake of the production's publicity using the celebrities' fame, not because the celebrities are professional or anything.
Thirdly, I went through some names in Category:Voice actors and all of those voice actors either have voice acting as their occupation or devote a significant amount of their time to voice acting.
Tell me what you think! 199.111.230.195 03:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Re:Please...
[edit]I have read your suggestions, but I would prefer using a template that has an "open" button. Originally, the pronunciation information is hidden. Whenever readers click on the "open" button, an info box /a line in the text showing the pronunciation would be shown. What do you think about this idea?
But anyway, I dislike the fact that you keep adding too many types of different phonetic symbols without having a consesus of other users. Gnig suggested that IPA is not suitable. Did you pay attention to his opinion? It seems that you aren't. You are only blindly adding Yale, IP, Jyutping and some more. I really think that such a way to provide information about pronunciation does flood the first line of the article. I suggested having a box template aside, but you opposed. So, before we come up with a decision, please don't add more than 2 types of Cantonese phonetic symbols. When I have time, I will keep on deleting them if you add them. (I know you don't care. You will just revert the article. That's okay, but I will revert it again.)
P.S. You find it a good idea to add three or more types of Cantonese phonetic symbols. Will you get mad if people add three or more types of Mandarin phonetic symbols? :-)
-Alanmak 23:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
HDI discussion concluded and next steps ... pitch in!
[edit]Hello again! The discussion to determine the appearance of the HDI in the country/infobox template has been concluded, with an outline for moving forward. Please consider entering some metadata; we will more quickly realise the fruits of our labour if more users do so. In any event, thanks again for your participation! E Pluribus Anthony 02:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hello again! Thanks for your reply. Thanks largely to user Nightstallion (ナイトスタリオン) – who single-handedly and unexpectedly acted before I awoke one day – the entry of HDI metadata is now concluded ... and the results apparent!
- As for other projects of note, user Ns has also solicited a call for assistance in tagging and updating those country articles (listed below call) that do not use the standard infobox. Let me know if you've any questions; thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 21:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Arbitration case closed
[edit]The Arbitration case involving you, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 2, has closed. The Committee's decision is as follows:
You, Huaiwei, and SchmuckyTheCat are all placed on Probation for topics relating to China for a year. This means that any sysop, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban you or them from any article which relates to China which you or they disrupt by inappropriate editing. In doing so, the sysop must notify the banned user on their talk page, and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. You and they may post suggestions on the talk page of any article from which you or they are banned from editing. This remedy is crafted to permit you and them to continue to edit articles in these areas which are not sources of controversy. In addition to this, you are restricted to proposing only one page move, poll of editors, or policy change relating to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) per week, and reminded to make useful edit summaries.
Yours,
James F. (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Re: Time to press on
[edit]Before we engage in any discussion that may further annoy certain members of the community, can you tell me what the changes that you want to make are? -- ran (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
No opinon about that...Sorry. I haven't got the time to look throught the entire history of events, so I'm in no position to comment. - Mailer Diablo 20:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Re:C&P Move
[edit]So I finally know what Mikkalai said last time. Thanks for your advice. :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 06:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Dialects of Mandarin
[edit]We don't *need* such templates, but there's no reason why we can't have any, either. =) -- ran (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well, the "dialects of Mandarin" is a huge category... wouldn't it be better to have separate boxes instead? -- ran (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Hong Kong Secondary Students Union
[edit]I think that the HKSSU deserves an article. I do not, however, see why many of its members persist in creating an article for every member, president and whatnot of the union. All of the info in those articles can be kept in the main HKSSU article. Also, the biographies on their own do not pass wikipedia policy, because those individuals are not that notable. Re your comments on the AfD pages, yes the bios should be moved to the main HKSSU pages, and I believe they should be deleted because, as has been stated several times, they do not meet the Criteria for inclusion of biographies.
- Also, the HKSSU page has to state WHY the HKSSU is notable/important. So expand on the pro-democracy work it has done, the aims and objectives of the union and such. So far, the article only states that it gathered about 1500 students in one protest (which is a small number considering that there are as big turnouts here in Brisbane and we have a much smaller population than Hong Kong) and that it participated in the anti-Japan protest. You mentioned on my userpage that the HKSSU and its members are involved in Honk Kong politics. Could you provide examples other than the protests? And state what effect these have had (to me, an active involvement implies that it has had success at changing key policies or such). Anyway, I think the article should stay and could become great and it would be better to focus your time on the HKSSU article rather than creating/editing a string of biography ones.
- As I am sure you know, the article is nominated for deletion here. I have chosen not to vote on the issue as yet. I think that if you can satisfy the issues identified in the AfD (particularly in my comment) then I will be more than happy to vote to keep the article. If you cannot, then the article does not establish the notability of the union and why it should be included, and I will then vote for its deletion. By the way, thanks for your calm correspondence so far (many people would simply have lashed out or such).
- dr.alf 07:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Signpost
[edit]I referred to it in that way originally because it was brought against you, even though all three of you were similarly defendants. Nevertheless, I'll fix it now; thanks for bringing it up to me. Ral315 (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello, i dun understand why 唔該 is "m koi", could u explain to me? thx. --K.C. Tang 09:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- 唔 is in fact the only word pronounced as a syllabic [m] in Cantonese. Not many (if any) place names have 唔 in them :D —Gniw (Wing) 09:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- the phonological discussions between you two are certainly beyond me! :-C --K.C. Tang 01:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism
[edit]All Tung's pages are being vandalised by a suspectable member of HKSSU. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 13:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
User Bill of Rights
[edit]You may be interested in Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights. (SEWilco 06:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC))
I was refering to the discussion on the talkpage: Talk:List of IMAX venues/Archive 1#Geography cleanup (notice the bit where you're agreeing with me). Additionally it has settled down to being in the format, the last thing we need is further edit/reverts on this. I thought you guys were on probation for exactly this sort of thing? Thanks/wangi 08:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Re: Ending Consonant
[edit]From what I have read, Korean's final stops are pronounced like Cantonese's 入聲 (unreleased), though that's not a European language. That book (something I borrowed from the library) in fact claims that this is the reason why they often write -s instead of -t (because unreleased -t, -s, and -ch all sound the same).—Gniw (Wing) 16:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- You are right; I forgot about the linking problem. I don't know Basel German, unfortunately. If it is anything like normal German, its final stops would be released but unaspirated and unvoiced (i.e., [g] becomes unaspirated [k], etc., somewhat like Cantonese but not quite, as in the case of Cantonese the /k/ becomes also unreleased and glottalized). The devoicing occurs in many European languages, but I don't know if any of them becomes unreleased like Cantonese.—Gniw (Wing) 16:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- I have much anecdotal evidence to claim that most Westerners do not have a clue about the aspirated/unaspirated difference—not only English speakers but also speakers of other European languages—because in most European languages the aspirated and unaspirated stops are allophones, which means they sound the same to native speakers: They pronounce them differently but they don’t know they are pronouncing them differently and they don’t conciously hear a difference. Now this is the theory; in practice, lots of English speakers seem to confuse unaspirated stops with voiced stops, just like native Cantonese speakers.
- I am not very sure about Danish. But English also distinguishes between aspirated and unaspirated stops if you listen closely enough; some language-learning books know about this and describe [k] (unaspirated), for example, as “like k as in skip”. But of course the usefulness of describing unaspirated sounds like this depends on the reader being able to speak correct English.
- The only European language I know of that distinguishes between aspirated and unaspirated stops and reflects them in writing is Estonian, which, like our dictionaries (and hanyu pinyin), writes [p], [t], [k], [pʰ], [tʰ], [kʰ] as b, d, g, p, t, k.—Gniw (Wing) 17:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- I would be rather reluctant to use French as a reference example, because I live in Canada and know how they speak French here (even though I can't speak it). The French spoken in Canada is phonologically quite different than French French (i.e., what I tried to learn when I was in Hong Kong) in terms of aspiration; the unvoiced stops (k, p, t) are actually normally aspirated in Canadian French, just like in English. At first I thought that this is an English accent, but I think I have heard enough TV broadcasts to say that even in Quebec, k, p, t are normally aspirated.
- I would have said that in Finnish these stops are normally unaspirated: This would seem to be the case as every book I have read about Finnish would imply k, p, t to be pronounced normally unaspirated. However, after listening to YLE (Finland's public radio station) for a while, I found that they are only "normally" unaspirated and can actually sometimes be aspirated. So that wouldn't work either.—Gniw (Wing) 21:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- P.S.: I just read the French phonology article about the p, t, k stops, after writing the above. That article is wrong (in Canada).—Gniw (Wing) 21:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Plover Cove
[edit]You obviously haven't clicked on those links. They lead to no such thing. One of them shows a shabby old neighbourhood, definitely in Hong Kong, but nowhere near Plover Cove. Another leads to Google. Either find some real links and put them in the article, as I did, or accept that the ones you keep reinstating are utterly irrelevant to the article. Kelisi 16:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- I did check the links, and they lead to articles related to Plover Cove Reservoir on a geography website, pictures of the reservoir, and a satellite image.
- No they don't. They lead to Google searches. That's not the way to do it. Please find the exact pages that refer to Plover Cove or show pictures of it and link them, not the Google searches. Kelisi 17:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, they're complete and utter trash. Why are you vandalizing an article like this? Do you want an administrator to block you? The second link leads to an array of Google images showing everything but Plover Cove Reservoir, and the third link simply leads to a "Google local" search page with a cursor blinking in a search slot. What use is that? Either remove this rubbish and replace it with some real links, or I shall report you as a persistent vandal. Kelisi 17:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- I see you have replaced one link. I have managed to repair another. I have found an English-language set of Google images of Plover Cove Reservoir. At the same time, you reinstated the old one, and it still shows the same series of irrelevant pictures. It seems to me that it might be that most Western browsers based on alphabetical systems cannot handle Chinese-language searches. I would suggest therefore that they be avoided, especially in the cases such as the one that I just fixed, when an English-language version is available.
- There is one other thing. The map that you've tried to insert simply doesn't work. I tried looking up Plover Cove on Google maps, but it had never heard of the place. On the other hand, it has heard of Hong Kong, but this is the best map it can provide. As you can see, it shows shorelines as they were before Plover Cove was turned into a reservoir, before Chek Lap Kok was enlarged for the airport, before Stonecutter's Island was joined by landfill to mainland Kowloon, and before the manmade landbridge was built to join Verde and Taipa over in Macau. Not only that, but Hong Kong Island itself seems to have sunk. When did that happen? My point is that I don't know that Google maps are very reliable anyway; so why don't we just drop them? Kelisi 21:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- As an outsider of the discussion/argument, I wish to point out my observations:
- The Google search with the English key doesn't work; it has junk results
- The Google search with the Chinese key currently works for me, and returns one valid photo
- The Google map uses coordinates (not a place-name search) and therefore returns a valid map of the Plover Cove Reservoir
- However, judging from Kelisi's comments, I would say the Google stuff obviously isn't working for some people (perhaps due to different browser version, or different language or locale settings). Personally speaking I don't think the searches should stay, because they are too unpredictable and we don't know what will be in the result set. For Google maps, it might be ok (since it uses exact coordinates) but it is known to work differently on different browsers.—Gniw (Wing) 22:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- As an outsider of the discussion/argument, I wish to point out my observations:
to-do
[edit]at various times I've said I'd look up stuff or write articles based on our discussions (location of MO seaplane hangar, description of dragon processor, etc). Feel free to put those things here. SchmuckyTheCat 17:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Chinese New Year Greetings
[edit]Hi Instantnood, I know you are interested in things chinese/hk and I was wondering if you could help me build a page. I was thinking of having a page with a list of (and possible meanings of) all the phrases you hear around CNY in HK/Chinatowns. Things like 'kung hei fat choi' , 'sun tai geen hong' (and all the other stuff you say to get a red packet). Your chinese is a whole heck better than mine so I was wondering if you could start the ball rolling on such a page. novacatz 14:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
After turning into a disambiguation
[edit]Part of the links are not correct before the move. HenryLi 19:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
RE:Comment
[edit]Hi, I have a feeling for example the Dim Sum article like Lotus Leaf Wrap to Lo Mai Kai but others want Lotus Leaf Wrap. But I prefer Lo Mai Kai. I don't know what others actually. You like to name articles in your style, for most I do not mind, but for others I mind. Some things like articles, the style is somewhat different when you edit, and others are not happy. I can be quite unhappy at times, but most of the time I'm fine with any version. I always feel neutrality is better. :) --Terence Ong |Talk 07:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Who has moved my lo mai gai?
[edit]Alanmak did it again. :-/ -- Jerry Crimson Mann 17:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Btw, just can no longer bear the la-di-da stool-stirrer. I hate political struggles. I may leave here once I know how to type in Chinese. No hope. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 18:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
i'd like to update that more regularly, would u help archive the old entries first? million thanks :D --K.C. Tang 07:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- nice to see u back, where have u been these days? Protest? Just kidding, forgive my inquisitiveness :D --K.C. Tang 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- just do that when u feel like... ^_^ --K.C. Tang 00:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Your RFD nomination for Lotus leaf wrap
[edit]Just dropping you a note to inform you that I will not be deleting the Lotus leaf wrap → Lo mai kai redirect, as there is currently an ongoing dispute as to where the article should reside.
Personally, I happen to agree with your position that moving Lo mai kai to Lotus leaf wrap makes about as much sense as moving Sushi to Raw fish wrapped in a roll of rice and seaweed. But WP:RFD is not the place to resolve such disputes. And in this case, there seems to be enough usage of the phrase "Lotus leaf wrap" as an alternative for "Lo mai kai" that even if the content dispute were resolved in favor of leaving the page at "Lo mai kai," the redirect would still be useful and would not be deleted.
I will, however, leave my comments on the talk page expressing my views. But it will be as an editor, not an admin, so don't expect my words to be heeded any more than anybody else's.
All the best.
→ Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 11:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Hong Kong Film stubs
[edit]Given the interests on your User page, you might want to know that there is also a Hong Kong film stubs. --EncycloPetey 03:58, December 15, 2005 (UTC)
Article Wahhabist Islam
[edit]Is Wahhabist Islam the same as Wahhabism? The Wahhabist Islam article says that it is a "group in the Middle East". Is there an organization by this name? NatusRoma 21:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
[show]/[hide] buttons
[edit]I answered your question on Template talk:Afd. Jamie (talk/contribs) 06:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
In light of the abuses that Huaiwei has hurled at both novacatz and I, as well as the lack of consensus of the move to Chinese New Year, I will be starting a WP:RfC soon. Any comments before I do so? enochlau (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- My understanding of the dispute resolution process is that you must take it to something else before going to Arbitration. It's worth a try, although I suspect that we will need to take it to Arbitration in the end; I'm getting fed up with Huaiwei and his sidekicks trying to move/rename/merge every Chinese article he comes across. I've already done the first step, which is ask for a second opinion, and that suggested that the merge was unjustified. You mention that these users have done these sorts of things in the past? Could you point them to me? That might be useful. Thanks. enochlau (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Huaiwei if you desire. enochlau (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments on my talk page - I'll be sure to take a look at them. One thing, according to the RfC instructions it must be against one person, so we can't involve STC as well; I will let that pass really, I'm getting really sick of the entire thing. This is one way in which RfC differs from ArbCom. Happy editing! enochlau (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Transportation articles
[edit]Hi Instantnood, you seem to have an interest in transportation. Could you help out in keeping an eye on 163.28.64.50? This person seems to be confused about how the "ROC"/"Taiwan" issue is dealt with on Wikipedia. Here are some diffs to show you what's been happening: [16], [17], [18], [19]. Thanks for your help. Cheers, --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
While 4 of the 6 did agree with a merge, 5 of the 6 also agreed with delete, and this appeared to me to be the dominant sentiment in each of the delete votes. A vote to "delete or merge" leaves the question up to the closing admin. However, I'll undelete it if you'll agree to do the merge now, as there is a clear consensus that it not be kept as a separate article. BD2412 T 21:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- I've undeleted the article (Youth Conference (Hong Kong)), and tagged it for merging. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Re: Pinyin
[edit]First of all, please note that Putonghua is one of the official languages in the Hong Kong S.A.R., and also the national language. There is no problem for adding the Putonghua pronunciations for the Chinese names in Hong Kong-related articles. As an analogy, in the municipality of Shanghai, Shanghainese is very frequently used in everyday life. But the Wikipedians from Shanghai wouldn't delete the Putonghua pronunciations in Shanghai-related articles and replace them with Shanghainese.
Also, a lot of Chinese names used in Hong Kong, like 香港中央圖書館, are of Chinese-language origin, but not specifically Cantonese or Mandarin origin. You can't say that those terms can only be said in Cantonese, but not Mandarin.
Furthermore, Putonghua is very important in Hong Kong. Some may say "it is not popular in Hong Kong". But this is only because some sinophobics are not willing to learn. Even the conferences in the Legislative Council have real-time interpretations in Putonghua. I see no points for why the national language is not important at all, and why it cannot be included for Chinese names in the articles.
I speak Cantonese as my first language, but I don't know any Cantonese phonetic symbols. That is why I have been contributing by providing Pinyin, which I am more familiar with, and leave the job of adding Cantonese phonetic symbols for other Wikipedians. I know you know the Cantonese phonetic symbols very well. Please consider adding by yourself. But don't stop me from adding Pinyin.
By the way, I see in your user page that you speak English as your first language. Are you of Chinese ethnicity? If you are not, please consider assimilating more into the Chinese community, so that you can better understand the use of Chinese language in Hong Kong. :-)
-Alanmak 05:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Huaiwei again
[edit]Huaiwei and Alanmak is trying to fragmentise Hong Kong Special Administrative Region into Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Would it be nice to break PRC into People's Republic of China in other sense?! -- Jerry Crimson Mann 13:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- See User_talk:Enochlau#Huaiwei_again. JCM seems to be learning the not-so-good stuff from his circle of associates, including the habit of dropping messages in the talkpages of folks who are likely to rally behind him. Is wikipedia some kind of popular-opinion poll or what? Cant wait for universal suffrage, and using wikipedia as an outlet for your frustrations? :D--Huaiwei 14:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- I do also pray for Singapore's universal suffrage, and their domestic helpers. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Lol you can lay your worries to less, for we already have it. And our domestic helpers are living quite a fine life here, least you think they live in torrid and cramped conditions like those in less-than-flat cities.--Huaiwei 15:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Fine life: low salaries, abuse, high rate of suicide, bad record of human rights? It's not find enough to live in a fridge. Read the report of GwokJieYanKuenJoJek lah. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- I have never heard of GwokJieYanKuenJoJek. Is that a case in HK? I arent too surprised, when HKers are known to abuse their maids, pay them little (when they are loaded full), send them flying off the tonnes of highrises (50 stories should give a splashing exit for most), and basically treating them like dirt.--Huaiwei 15:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Ya, we still missed nigh-300 self-destruction here annually. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Er..in English please? ;)--Huaiwei 15:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Huh? One maid agency in Singapore by the Manpower Ministry was forced to shut down due to abuse ie. making the maids sleep in the kitchen. We give equality and maid welfare. Our domestic helpers have been given air-conditioned rooms to sleep in, being pampered everyday, some even get HPs from their employers. I don't know much about HKs policy. I have heard that some places ban maids from going, which is quite common over there, its rare here for this policy. I'm not sure about this. --Terence Ong Talk 15:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry if I am a nuisance to you guys. :( --Terence Ong Talk 15:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- No. You're a good guy. Nigh means near in English, though, Edmund. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry if I am a nuisance to you guys. :( --Terence Ong Talk 15:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Huh? One maid agency in Singapore by the Manpower Ministry was forced to shut down due to abuse ie. making the maids sleep in the kitchen. We give equality and maid welfare. Our domestic helpers have been given air-conditioned rooms to sleep in, being pampered everyday, some even get HPs from their employers. I don't know much about HKs policy. I have heard that some places ban maids from going, which is quite common over there, its rare here for this policy. I'm not sure about this. --Terence Ong Talk 15:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Er..in English please? ;)--Huaiwei 15:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Ya, we still missed nigh-300 self-destruction here annually. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- I have never heard of GwokJieYanKuenJoJek. Is that a case in HK? I arent too surprised, when HKers are known to abuse their maids, pay them little (when they are loaded full), send them flying off the tonnes of highrises (50 stories should give a splashing exit for most), and basically treating them like dirt.--Huaiwei 15:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Fine life: low salaries, abuse, high rate of suicide, bad record of human rights? It's not find enough to live in a fridge. Read the report of GwokJieYanKuenJoJek lah. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Lol you can lay your worries to less, for we already have it. And our domestic helpers are living quite a fine life here, least you think they live in torrid and cramped conditions like those in less-than-flat cities.--Huaiwei 15:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- I do also pray for Singapore's universal suffrage, and their domestic helpers. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
3rd person's opinion
[edit]Anywhere I could get the opinion about the fragmentisation? I think we may need some 3rd person's opinion at length. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 05:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
VfD on Template:HKCrownCopyright
[edit]Shizhao, an admin on the Chinese Wikipedia, has proposed Template:HKCrownCopyright for deletion. Is there anything we could do about this? Carlsmith 11:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Re: Chinese New Year greetings
[edit]Hi instantnood, that is why I voted weak support for option 2. It isn't what I really believe in but if it will get consenus it is better than endless bickering over the page. Why don't you vote? novacatz 06:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
- That's true. But then, try to change the system or think of another way! novacatz 10:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Shopping malls
[edit]I have no particular ideological stance either way, but there seemed to be enough in Hong Kong to seperate it, and that seemed to fit with the existing articles and categories on Hong Kong. It seems easy enough to categorise the Hong Kong articles under China, but I'm not fussed. Also, can you archive your talk page? It's so long that I had a bit of trouble loading it. Ambi 10:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
RfC Huaiwei
[edit]I am not sure that the RfC is the best place for all of Huaiwei's excess. What do you think? novacatz 12:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
COTW
[edit]Hi Instantnood & HKWikipedians,
I know History of bus transport in Hong Kong, and getting things to pass FAC is getting more difficult these days, but don't give up! I've added loads of photos to the article btw. :)
- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 19:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
RfC
[edit]Hi there, would you be able to enlighten us as to what the problem is at Talk:Rail transport in Hong Kong please? You put this onto RfC without telling us why. Thanks. enochlau (talk) 08:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Likewise with Talk:Victoria Harbour [20]. I know you provided a diff on the RfC page, but there's not much we can do unless you set out the issues for other users to consider (for and against etc). enochlau (talk) 08:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- responded at talk:rail transport in Hong Kong and talk:Victoria Harbour
Re: Capitalisation
[edit]The examples you have provided are rather bad examples. Collectivité d'outre-mer is written all in lower case on the article page, and likewise with kingdom. Special Administrative Region is written with capitalised S, A and R. Kingdom is definitely not a proper noun; for collectivité d'outre-mer, the article suggests that it should be written in lower case. "Special Administrative Region" as a term in the Chinese geopolitical sense has special meaning, it is not merely a special administrative region, a region, that just happens to have some administrative use that is special. enochlau (talk) 08:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- I concede my previous points; I think you are right now. I guess the article has lead me astray. Looking at the Chinese Constitution, it uses lower case in Article 31. Do you want me to move Special Administrative Region to Special administrative region? enochlau (talk) 08:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- If this were any ordinary article, I would say that it's an uncontroversial move. However, given the climate over China-related articles recently, I would suggest that putting in a Requested Move would be the best idea. What do you say? If you want to create the RM, then use the link above as your backup, otherwise I can do it for you. (Your probation shouldn't affect this, you cannot argue this is editing disruptively.) enochlau (talk) 09:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- I am not thrilled about about this move -- you don't think that the Chinese constitution was originally written in English right? The fact that it is or is not capitalised therein, has not-that-special meaning. novacatz 09:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Novacatz, you do make a good point :) Of course it wasn't written in English. *bangs hand against head* However, I wonder why the many translations available online all write "special administrative region" in lowercase - it might just mean they're all the same translation though. Government info website suggests that it should in fact be capitalised. A number of other HK govt websites capitalise it, so perhaps it's meant to be written that way? So, I'll have to backtrack and take back my previous concession for the time being... enochlau (talk) 10:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- So I guess we should ensure that it says "Special Administrative Region" (with the capitalisation) everywhere? Articles are currently a little inconsistent >.< enochlau (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- "Many sources actually make it clear that it's only capitalised when used as part of a name"? Which sources? The HK govt link I posted above shows it always being capitalised regardless of whether it's used in a name or standalone. However, the Chinese Constitution translations differ, but I'm prepared to ignore those as bad translations. enochlau (talk) 04:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- "Official" they may be, but as Novacatz pointed out, we have the problem that the copies of the Constitution around have been translated from the Chinese. When translating, one may often translate literally, thus rendering it in lower case as just normal words. Have you tried looking at the original in Chinese? I can't read Chinese, but if you can, could you have a look at Article 31 in that please and see whether it's used like a proper noun? On the other hand, I would consider HK government websites to be fairly indicative of what is "correct". Btw, our friend Huaiwei mentions that we should be having this discussion on an article talk page so it's more in the public; I'm somewhat inclined to agree with him this time. I'll be away for the next week or so I won't be replying for a while... enochlau (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- "Many sources actually make it clear that it's only capitalised when used as part of a name"? Which sources? The HK govt link I posted above shows it always being capitalised regardless of whether it's used in a name or standalone. However, the Chinese Constitution translations differ, but I'm prepared to ignore those as bad translations. enochlau (talk) 04:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- So I guess we should ensure that it says "Special Administrative Region" (with the capitalisation) everywhere? Articles are currently a little inconsistent >.< enochlau (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Novacatz, you do make a good point :) Of course it wasn't written in English. *bangs hand against head* However, I wonder why the many translations available online all write "special administrative region" in lowercase - it might just mean they're all the same translation though. Government info website suggests that it should in fact be capitalised. A number of other HK govt websites capitalise it, so perhaps it's meant to be written that way? So, I'll have to backtrack and take back my previous concession for the time being... enochlau (talk) 10:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I hope I'm not saying irrelevant things here. But the normal English practice is to capitalize such things for every “important” word, but only when it is either part of a name or specifying a specific thing in a formal document or when it is part of a title (but apparently not so in Wikipedia). The normal practice in French, however, is to capitalize only the first letter even if the term is a proper name, thus “Collectivité d'outre-mer” and not “Collectivité D'outre-mer” (even if the word is a proper noun). The English and French capitalization rules are not the same.
Note: Government web sites may not be accurate for the capitalization rule for "special administrative region" (which should be lowercase per normal English rules) because of the above-mentioned, specifically that the government would be talking specifically of the Special Administrative Region of "Hong Kong". (I hope I am making sense, I know this is quite disorganized writing…)—Gniw (Wing) 03:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
He fen
[edit]Of course you're correct about he fen originating in a Cantonese speaking place. Thus, do you support moving the article to the Cantonese romanization? If so, which is the most common romanization and is it the same as the official romanization? Badagnani 23:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Re : WikiBreak
[edit]Hi Instantnood,
Thanks for your concern, that was greatly appreciated. My WikiStress greatly improved, especially after Raul654's decision to promote Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore). I'm not yet going back to active editing until after 2006 Chinese New Year, but I'll be settling a conduct issue aganist a trouble user in the meantime.
If you need me for anything urgent, let me know on my talkpage! :)
- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 10:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
You have been blocked for 24 hours for a violation of the three revert rule on Guangshen Railway. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Frankly, I don't know what you think you're doing - Schmucky did leave a message on the talk page which you ignored and instead reverted. Izehar 20:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- That still doesn't change the fact that you reverted more than three times within the same 24 hour period. Izehar 20:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
70k Nepali speakers in HK?
[edit]Hi Instantnood,
I reverted your unsupported addition of 70 000 Nepali speakers to HK in the language list, and similarly Indonesian. (There may be that many Indonesians in HK, but it doesn't follow that they're native Malay speakers.) Please restore if you can substantiate.
Thanks, kwami 21:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
About the typhoon shelter picture
[edit]I am not very familiar with the categories in the Commons. Could you give me some help on categorising my pictures there?
For the typhoon shelter picture, the typhoon shelter is somewhere near the Sai Kung Hoi Pong Square (西貢海傍廣場). But that typhoon shelter is not only for parking fishing boats when there is a typhoon. It is also used for parking yachts, which tourists usually hire for sightseeing. -Alanmak 04:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Robot
[edit]Hey instantnood, happy new year first, but do u know how to design a robot? where can i get the relevant information? tks tks --K.C. Tang 06:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Re:Mainland China
[edit]I really don't know the answers to your questions. I suppose the term is a bit ambiguous and did not always have the same definition at any one time, and if we are to make a case of inclusion/exclusion, we need to cite some contemporary usages instead of just assuming things. Just curious, is there evidence of the term being used pre-1949? There has to be an island for there to be a mainland, and with Taiwan being indefinitely ceded to Japan, I don't see how people would find use for the term. It's like (something I realized during my recent trip to the islands) in the United States where real mainlanders in "the Mainland" never refer to themselves as "mainlanders" or "residents of the U.S. Mainland", but Hawaii residents use the term "Mainland" all the time.--Jiang 09:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)