Talk:HSBC (Hong Kong)/Archive 1

Untitled

This page does not give any information that is not included in the HSBC wiki. Why was the redirect removed??? novacatz 10:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of the HSBC Holdings PLC. It was actually requested (sorry I cannot recall when and where) to have a main article specifically on this founding member of the group. — Instantnood 15:33, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I think this page is going to be a stub forever really. I can't see what would be added to this page that wouldn't be added to the main HSBC grp page. novacatz 03:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

This will be the main article for The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, whereas HSBC is for HSBC Holdings PLC. Its subsidiaries and operations in different regions and countries would be written in summary style. — Instantnood 09:11, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

See also [1] and [2] (page 321). — Instantnood 13:09, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Here's the latest one [3] (page 365). — Instantnood 13:18, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I think this page should be under this title

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hong_Kong_and_Shanghai_Banking_Corporation&redirect=no

but I do not know how to do the move. Can someone help me with it? novacatz 04:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It's spelt as "Hongkong" in its name. :-) — Instantnood 13:05, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

The English on this page is terrible. Fixing. 203.218.37.8 04:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Wayfoong / Honkers and Shankers?!

I note that the "Honkers and Shankers" name is documented (does anybody still call it that?) but not "Wayfoong" which has been in use by the Chinese community since the earliest dayys of the bank, being the articulation of the chinese characters meaning "Abundant Remittances" (according to the history of the same name by Maurice Collis published in 1965). The characters first appeared on the bank's notes in 1881. Kirrages 12:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Totally irrelevant, but just realised that the Chinese name is pronounced very similarly in Cantonese and Shanghainese, but totally different to Mandarin. Was that deliberate or just a coincidence? --Sumple (Talk) 13:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess the bank's main branches pre-war were in Hong Kong and Shanghai whilst not a lot of Mandarin was spoken in HK before the handover. Maybe they had a different name in Beijing. Kirrages 22:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Page move

I'm pretty sure this page shouldn't have been moved from Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name). Unless someone can come up with a good reason to ignore that guideline I'm going to move it back. --DeLarge 15:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I imagine it has been moved because the it is a formal corporate name and includes the definite article. So whilst the parent company is HSBC (with no definite article) it is incorrect to refer to this company as Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation. Look at the way "Hague" redirects to "The Hague" because the definite article is part of the name. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 16:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There're some example: The National Commercial Bank and The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ LG4761 17:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

And here's some alternative examples: Royal Bank of Scotland, Bank of Japan, Federal Reserve, etc etc. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

As per the WP:NCD I linked to above, the guideline says "[i]f a word without a definite article would have a general meaning, while the same word has a specific and identifiable meaning, understood by all, if adding the article, and if there is justification to have separate articles for both meanings, the specific meaning can be explained on a separate page, with a page title including the article. Example: "crown" means the headgear worn by a monarch, other high dignitaries, divinities etcetera; while "The Crown" is a term used to indicate the government authority and the property of that government in a monarchy." Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation is not a generic term, so there is no need to disambiguate using the definite article.

The Hague is an explicitly listed exception. White House, Netherlands, Roman Catholic Church et al follow the guideline. There are plenty of examples of external sources dropping "the" as well, which supports dropping the definite article as per WP:COMMONNAME as well as WP:NCD: [4][5][6][7] (that's four of the first five hits on Google News). And where the definite article is used, it's often not capitalized, which is the prime supporter for inclusion in the WP:NCD.[8][9][10][11] And scanning some of the most high profile reliable sources, Bloomberg[12], Forbes[13] and NY Times[14] all use either a lower case article or none at all more/most of the time.

See also WP:Naming Conventions. I'm seeing a preponderance of WP guidelines which don't support the page move, and so far only "look at this other article" has been argued in its favour. --DeLarge 17:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as a question of policy. The definite article is part of the company's registered name and appears in all official references. As far as HSBC is concerned the 'The' is not optional (just look at the HSBC annual report - they never miss the "The"!). I can understand why we should try to avoid page names starting with 'The' but I don't think it's a reason to change a formal name. The Hudson's Bay Company should have no 'The' because it was chartered as "Hudson's Bay Company", not the case with The Hongkong & Shanghai (hence always the capitalised 'T' in 'The'). Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 18:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, you can ask admin move back the page (without "The"). LG4761 08:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If that is what is decided upon may we keep the page with the "The" in the title and redirect it to the page with no "The"? Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 11:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Just looking at some of the examples above and what the official style of the entities are in their formal documents I see that it's The National Commercial Bank, the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, The Royal Bank of Scotland, the Bank of Japan, The Federal Reserve Board (although is not the formal title the Board of Governers of the Federal Reserve System?), the Bank of England, the White House, (who knows what the official name of the R-C church is?!!). Where the 'The' starts with a capital then it is part of the formal title of the entity and vice versa. In my opinion, where it is part of the title, there should be pages with and without the definite article in the title with one containing the main core article and the other re-directing to it. The core article should be in the page with the definite article if it is part of the formal title.....I've just decided it's not worth spending any more time on this, so do what you will whilst I go back to the important business of editing spelling errors, watching TV etc!! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 16:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hong Kong is not a country

in the section about the bank notes express Hong Kong is a country, Hong Kong is not a country, it is a special administrative region of china —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.125.132.35 (talk) 01:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Hong Kong HSBC 20 dollar.jpg

The image File:Hong Kong HSBC 20 dollar.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The Section for China is Wrong

The following statement is not correct:

HSBC established its Shanghai branch office on 3 March 1865 and has had a continuous presence in the city[12] since then, except during the Japanese Occupation. Until the economic reforms of the late 1970s, its activities were mainly in inward remittances and export bills, however its activities now span a wider range.

The Shanghai branch was not opened on 3 March 1865. Actually the Hongkong branch was opened on that day. The Shanghai branch was opened on 3 April 1865 instead. And the remaining part of this statement is completely wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.128 (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130131202233/http://www.hsbc.com/about-hsbc/history/hsbc-s-history to https://www.hsbc.com/about-hsbc/history/hsbc-s-history

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)