Talk:The Bus Uncle

Featured article?

This article may be an exelent example of how writing articles... but it contains nothing! This isn't an encyclopedia article, because:

• The theme of the article isn't severe.
• There's no science that studies the theme of this article.
• There's no permission from the people casting in the "bus uncle" to redirect in their video in youtube! This is a type of advertisement and maybe it humiliates them.
• It's not a part of human knowledge.
• There's no bibliography, nor an extended work concerning this article from an expert scientist, never in human history.
• It doesn't serve the purpose of Wikipedia "access knowledge from everyone and everywhere", rather it's an obstucle to it.
• The article can be transported in uncyclopedia without changes.

The article should be decharacterised from all wikiprojects and featured articles.--Περίεργος (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Take it to AfD then, Amber Lamps. Lugnuts (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Good work!

Did you know that this article is longer than the one on Monet. It really shows that you have your priorities straight when we have more to say about some fad video than Monet. Wikipedia even had an overlong article about Slashdot trolling phenomena. Adamv88 22:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if you're aware of this, but anyone may edit Wikipedia. Feel free to expand the Monet article as you see fit. MaxVeers 03:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That Monet article IS pretty pathetic, at least in terms of length and depth of coverage. Ichormosquito 05:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'm really shocked, that such crap is here on Wikipedia. Should I start to insert a description of all the videos of incidents alike from Germany? Get sober, guys —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.33.3 (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

TRANSCRIPT VS CAPTION

IN TRANSCRIPT IT SAY 'IT ISNT SETTLED' BUT IN CAPTION IT SAY 'IT NOT RESOLVED'. FUCK THEY SAYING DIRECTLY TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH? SETTLED OR RESOLVED? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.195.132.253 (talk) 10:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

First, turn off your caps. Then let me tell you that basicly the two means the same, so either settled or resolved would work.70.176.207.164 00:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal from WikiProject Biography

I have removed the WPBiography banner, because this is not a biography. Since useful comments were made at the Biography project peer review, here's the link to that page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/The Bus Uncle. Errabee 22:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of names of names of private individuals

In accordance with the Biographies of living persons policy, and personal dignity, I have removed the most egregious breeches of personal privacy from this appalling bit of muck. The names of the individuals involved, and irrelevant details of their private lives, have been removed. With immediate effect, I am removing this rubbish from the list of featured articles. --Tony Sidaway 03:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

These individuals have given interviews and interacted with the media non-trivially. They are not victims of some prank or meme. From the article, it should be clear what their own views on their personal dignity are; we don't need to protect them so much as to forsake verifiable facts relevant to the topic. The article covers the event, not the people, but understanding the people is important in providing context for understanding the event, especially for people not familiar with Hong Kong culture. The only thing that troubles me is the list on potential criminal offences. If there are any particular unsourced claims, then remove those, but rejecting the whole thing is going too far. –Pomte 04:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Reading the parts of the article that I removed, it was clear that there were some severe problems with neutral point of view, particularly undue weight. I don't mind if they can be restored, without the pictures (which are non-free and were being used in a way that is incompatible with our Wikipedia:Non-free content guideline) in a way that doesn't refer to irrelevant stuff and does not name the individuals involved. And no, the fact that they may have eventually agreed to be interviewed does not mean that we must name them or refer to their private lives, background or indeed anything that would be intrusive. This isn't a newspaper or a magazine, it's an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 04:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please point out the "undue weight" situation. Also please see the following 2 sections from WP:NPOV: 1. "It is a point of view that is neutral; that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject." 2. "Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves. By 'fact' we mean 'a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.' " There is no obvious evidence that there is sympathetic or opposition to the subject in the paragraphs in question, nor is there assertion of opinions in the paragraphs themselves, or dispute of fact on the subject. The other 2 requirements of WP:BLP are Verifiability and No Original Research. The section is well referenced and there shouldn't be any problem on these two requirements. Furthermore, from WP:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Therefore, it should be noted that what we should stick to is the assertion of pure facts and verifiability. A word on Tony's comment: broadly speaking, almost everything that has notability does not require us to mention them. However, that doesn't mean that we must not mention them. Also from WP:BLP, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." That only covers unsourced or poorly sourced material, but not sufficiently sourced material. Removing sufficiently sourced material about living persons still requires disscussion, and not by sudden removal when there is a dispute on what is "is" or what is "not". --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 10:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't change the articlehistory as it results in an error; if the article is removed, we'll have to figure out how to deal with the articlehistory and archives correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

From your latest edit, I take it that I inadvertently removed one of the references. My apologies for that. --Tony Sidaway 04:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I've left notes for Gimmetrow and Raul so we can botify the articlehistory correctly if Raul concurs with removal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted Tony's edits per Pomte's comment and what is written in the article. To wit, they've both given interviews about it - they've willingly put their names into the public discourse. Given this, it is disingenuous to then claim we should not name them when they themselves appear to be trying to gain publicity. Raul654 05:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the account in the article. It's extremely slanted (which alone should set alarm bells ringing) but clearly shows that he did not come forward until names, and even then resisted. And of course in a very unwikipedian style of writing, typical of a particularly nasty kind of yellow journalism, the article says: "After [Bus Uncle's] identity was revealed, many journalists tried to interview him, but he demanded remuneration for press interviews". Faced with that kind of writing, I would happily pop a speedy deletion tag on this article and go to bed feeling that I'd done a very good job. This is disgusting rubbish. Every single person involved in any stage of editing this shit, or in assessing it, should be bloody well ashamed of himself. What possessed you to suggest that this crap is in any way worthy of remaining on Wikipedia, let along being described as the best Wikipedia can offer? It's dreck. Valueless. --Tony Sidaway 05:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have made a post to the BLP noticeboard. Hopefully some outside input will be along shortly. Personally I think the concerns are valid. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 06:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• • at the very least the photos should be removed. I don't want to proceed unilaterally, but I will support anyone who removes them. , In view of the coverage and the discussion of the social implications there is no point in removing the article. Whether the names should be removed is not a clear cut decision. DGG 07:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I have removed the images, as they are copyrighted images of living people that appear in public (and so they could be replaced). Kusma (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the article complies with the BLP, with respect to their private lives. Let's talk about their one by one, shall we?

• The information about the 3 people involved in the incident have been reported heavily in the press back in June 2006, and references (which are various newspapers, reliable sources) clearly marked. All the content is based on what is written by the media. Those people are notable for one event, and this article does cover that event instead of the person, and Roger Chan Yuet Tung redirects here.

• The Roger Chan section may sound farfetched, but it is referenced by inline sources, which are from multiple newspapers, which ensure that it won't be biased to any side. As for the renumeration section, it is reported. Although the article can't be linked, anyone who subscribed to Ming Pao's online service can read it by looking up its archives, given the date and the headline.

• Information regarding the other 2 people are strictly related to the incident, and did not delve into their personal lives that much, and again, are properl sourced with reliable newspapers. (SCMP is Hong Kong's top English language newspaper.)

• The Aftermath section again deals only with the Bus Uncle incident, and were reported by multiple newspapers as well. I agree that the detailed listing of the theoretical violations are unneutral, since it gives people the impression that the Bus Uncle is a bad person, and may negatively affect his life. (Although his hiring as a PR officer in a restaurant chain is directly related to the incident.) Hence it's just given a brief mention.

• The criticism and analysis were certainly related to the subject at hand, in fact, they came as a consequence of the Bus Uncle's confrontation of the bus. It is true that in spite of its effect on popular culture in Hong Kong, many people think that the press are being too nosey, and is "yellow journalism" like Tony said. The article did address this concern since there is a section detailing criticism of media ethics near the end, hence it really doesn't have undue weight regarding to the incidient itself.

If this article simply states what has happened, from various points of view of multiple journalists, I don't think it's biased in anyway, let alone violating WP:BLP.--Kylohk 08:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What are thinking? Did you ever read an encyclopedia? Wikipedia started as project to gather the knowledge of the world, not the anecdotes and trivia. At the very least, keep this mess concise. --Pjacobi 10:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to notability, this article does satisfy the criterion. It was nominated for deletion last year due to lack of notability at that time, but was kept due to the large amounts of coverage of the incident in the media. Writing concise introductions of the characters involved isn't unencyclopedic. The Aftermath section relates directly to the incident as well. You see a lot of widely reported current events appearing in Wikipedia, and those are kept. This incident is also one of them due to the broad coverage y the press at that time.--Kylohk 10:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talikinh notability, I'm talking knowledge. --Pjacobi 10:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion guidelines do not require something to be full of knowledge to be there. For instance, there are so many articles on Pokemon and Simpsons episodes. There are also many articles on pop singers and actors. For many people, they do not give them any academic knowledge, rather than to serve as a guide to the episode or that person. By your definitions, those things would not have existed in Wikipedia, but they do, since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Things that were cool and made in school one day may seem silly, but when their notability was established by the publishing of a magazine article about its phenomenon, it's suitable for Wikipedia. Therefore, that content should be kept, even though it doesn't appear to be knowledge.--Kylohk 10:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Appalling bit of muck? It's a featured article, or at least was until it got gutted over 'BLP' phantoms. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Night Gyr - Tony's extreme opinion is clearly in the minority here. I see nothing wrong with anything in this article, nor apparently does anyone else. Raul654 15:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's just the inevitable result of the slippery slope that comes about when we start trying to protect people from being offended by completely true facts. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I will just re-add all the content Pjacobi deleted. After all, the inclusion of content is based on notability, not whether it has "knowledge". As for the 3 images, I will try to explain why they are so difficult to replace. Sure those people appear in public, and hence can have free pictures taken of them. But the question is, in a city of 7 million people, what's the likelihood one meets him in the street at any given time? The chance is almost zero. Hence it is so difficult to replace it with a free photograph that it might as well be considered not replaceable.--Kylohk 15:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not the same as your usual replaceable fair use because the screenshots show the people in a specific scenario, not just what they look like. Evil Kinievel is still alive but we're not going to be taking any pictures of him jumping the snake river canyon again. So, in this case, the screenshots illustrate that they had news reports interviewing them, not just showing what they look like. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Let me describe the 3 images for you and the circumstances: The image Bus Uncle A.jpg is taken when he is recorded attempting to "apologize" to the young man, and he is standing outside his property office. Bus Uncle B.jpg is taken inside the young man's property office during that encounter. The third image, Bus Uncle C.jpg shows the cameraman as he is interviewed by the Hong Kong Cable TV news. Are those replaceable?--Kylohk 15:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

For those curious about the genesis of Tony's assessment of this article, it might be worth taking a look at a number of recent situations, including the badlydrawnjeff arbitration, the various Allison Stokke discussions, the deletion of the Shawn Hornbeck article and the following deletion review. There seems to have been some recent reinterpretation of the biographies of living persons policy, which has led to a sizable number of speedy deletions, etc. JavaTenor 16:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a very easy test which demonstrates what useless trash this articles is:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Talk:The_Bus_Uncle

(Essentially) nothing links here!

The article is not needed to explain any other subject in this One Million Article Encyclopedia.

Pjacobi 16:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that not many things link to this talk page. However, rather more things link to the actual article. JavaTenor 16:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and it is noted that notability is what governs the inclusion of content in Wikipedia, since it's not paper. There aren't any limits to the number of articles Wikipedia has, only that it satisfies the inclusion criteria.--Kylohk 16:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Arghhh. I actually gave the wrong linksto-link. Lets have a look at the right one:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Talk:The_Bus_Uncle

We see: Zillions of redirects relating to the story itself (WTF is Not resolved a redirect?).

This leaves Kowloon Motor Bus, List of Internet phenomena and YouTube. My point stands.

And sure I know, that a sizable portion of contributors no longer aims at writing an encyclopedia.

Pjacobi 17:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This article would serve as a good example for Culture of Hong Kong and related articles. Those need to be improved first though to provide enough context for the reader to understand why the Bus Uncle illustrates their concepts such as maybe face. –Pomte 18:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

By your logic, Pavorotti should be deleted: [1]

I'm wondering when this stupid WP:BLP dispute is going to be over, and when are the editors and admins involved going to actually discuss things first, instead of making unilateral edits and speedy deleting articles and then discussing afterwards. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, it's not in people's interest to refrain from unilateral editing, and especially not inappropriate speedy deletion, since that act changes the burden of change from "consensus to remove" to "consensus to retain". Where there is no consensus, or in hotly disputed areas, a unilateral action can win the day. This is why I keep an eye on administrators' abuse of power. Js farrar 23:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if this BLP dispute isn't going on, the editors and admins involved would act differently. But this is getting ridiculous. We have an administrator come in, unilaterally "demoted" this FA article without a FAR, and then literally called the article a piece of shit. I was not aware that WP:BLP allows for admins to act like trolls and vandals. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway isn't an administrator anymore, and this sort of behavior is a significant part of why. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

More more thing, I've readded the 3 images to the article. The reasons are that they do not offend their privacy, due to them being taken during press interviews. Apart from this, their are not replaceable, since you can't just go and take a free photograph of any press interviews anymore, since there is likely to be no "voluntary free" reporter Wikipedian.--Kylohk 07:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Featured article review

As the pretty little {{FAR}} tag at the top of this page indicates, I've initiated a featured article review on this article, due to the comments made here as well as elsewhere. The subpage for the review can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Bus Uncle. Comments regarding the quality of the article and its suitability as a featured article are welcome. -- Jonel | Speak 20:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The recent general application of Wikipedia: Biographies_of_living_persons to maybe twenty articles is under Wikipedia:Arbitration at the inadequately titled Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. Specifically, I put these events at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence#Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons_meets_Wikipedia:Featured_articles.2C_with_a_loud_crash but suspect much of the rest of the case is also relevant. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

In search for more sources

While there is a clear copyright violation in this revision last year and it should be deleted from the history, is there any valuable information from these articles those can be cited? –Pomte 16:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Was this really a Good Article?

I was looking at this ages history and saw that the article was "promoted" to GA status by an anon. Proof. Does that have any effect of what's going on right now? (The Placebo Effect not logged in ) 66.82.9.108 03:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The anon changed the talk page only (he did not close the GA nomination by himself). The GA nom can only be closed by an admin, but after it has been closed anyone can change the status at the talk page as long as the new status corresponds to the result of the nom. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 04:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Err... I'm pretty sure any editor can "close" a GA nom, meaning to promote it or fail it officially. I've done it myself and I'm not an admin. Maybe I wasn't supposed to and nobody caught me? I don't see anything on Wikipedia:Good article candidates that says that you need to be an admin to promote or fail a nomination. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Good articles are supposed to be award through an open process. Any user that has not contributed significantly to the article can promote it when it's nominated.--Kylohk 09:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Quotes in Chinese/Cantonese

Shouldn't the quotations from the clip include the original, untranslated words as well (in brackets at least)? —Pengo 00:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

阿叔金句摘录

我有压力，你有压力，你做乜挑衅我呀？

Ngo yaw ngadlek, ney yaw ngadlek, ney jowmat tiuyant ngo a?

(我有压力,你有压力,你干甚么挑衅我？)

唔渣手即系未掂啦？未掂即系要搞到掂啦！系咪啊？

M ja saw jek'hay mey gaudim la? Mey gaudim jek'hay yiu gau dow dim la! Hay m'hay a? (不握手便是还没妥当，没妥当便要弄妥当啦。)

未解决！未解决！！未解决！！！

Mey gaikeud! Mey gaikeud!! Mey gaikeud!!!

你好好打咩你！屌***！

Ney how howda me ney! Diu ney lowmow!

(你打架很强的吗？***的！)

老母唔屌屌边个啊？

Lowmow m diu diu bingo a?

(娘亲不操操谁?)

我屌***我条野系咪系***果度丫？

Ngo diu ney lowmow ngo tiu ye haym'hay ney lowmow godow a?

(我***的，我那东西是否在你妈那里吗？)

搬人出黎就搬人出黎，你钟意小就小. 我钟意小就小，小人呢就唔系，冇害既，小丫小丫打你两鎚咩？

Bun yant cotlay jaw bun yant cotlay, ney jonkyi siu jaw siu. Ngo jonkyi siu jaw siu, siu yant jaw m hay, mow hoi ge, siu a siu a da ney leong coy me?

(搬人家出来就搬出来，你喜欢操就操，我喜欢操就操，操人家这不是，没害的，操啊操啊打你两拳吗？）

你警告我做咩？你警告我我唔捻惊拿人家出来。

Ney genkgow ngo jow mat'ye? Ney genkgow ngo ngo m lant geng na yantga cotlay.

(你警告我干啥？你警告我我不他妈的害怕搬人家出来。) 事实证明香港D阿叔级人士系几咁大压力 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Penkyamp (talk • contribs) 02:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Seriously...

This article, a featured article appearing on the mainpage? This has to be a joke. As one of the initial contributors of this article, I feel bad denouncing it such, but, honestly, this article is NO way near featured status. In my opinion, not even a good article. Yes, I know it is common in Wikipedia for an article to be judged more on format and writing than content, but that does not mean any single article which somehow fulfils the "criteria" in one way or another deserves to be featured. Some articles simply do not have the basis, nor the importance, to become a featured article. Take a look at the history - when the article was first created it was considered for deletion and remained that way for a period of few hundred edits, mostly by the same user who has basically not contributed to anything else in Wikipedia. Does that tell you something? The article is simply void. Almost 70% of the article focuses on the "social impact" of the event - and yes, I admit it's important, but not that much - and still the article is terribly short for a featured article (there isn't a rule, but there is a generally agreed norm for the length of a featured article.) How is any reader supposed to be interested in one paragraph of the actual event preceding five paragraphs of background plus fifteen more paragraphs of "impact"? How does this set an example to how other articles should be written, when the article itself is so outrageously disproportional? For me, the featured articles and DYKs of Wikipedia haven't been much better than Uncyclopedia ever since some of the most experienced contributors left (though there are still some very well-written articles occasionally), but featuring an article like this? Wikipedia won't much last longer as a credible encyclopedia if this goes on. Seriously, start considering a complete overhaul of the featured article nomination system. Aran|heru|nar 06:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's where I say, "it is what it is". If you ever spend time at FACs, you'll know that most FACs are passed or failed based on the votes of only a few editors. The more popular subjects might get a whole lot of votes, but most FACs don't. And there are also a handful of editors who regularly patrol FACs, so the system is a lot more skewed than you think. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

FAC isn't a vote, so far as I know. Passing an article depends on whether most, if not all concerns of the objectors are addressed. So, when someone states "Oppose" and has a good reason, I always take action to make corrections as requested. Most of the time, Raul promotes a few days after most concerns are addressed. For instance, look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jackie Chan.--Alasdair 08:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, if you look at the aftermath section, there is a paragraph that is commented out with the following content: On June 7, 2006, Chan, who had been hired by a restaurant as a Public Relations officer in the Steak Expert restaurant chain, was physically assaulted on the job in front of horrified diners by three unidentified masked men who then fled the scene. He sustained severe injuries to his eyes and face and was admitted to the emergency department for treatment. The restaurant owner, Mr. Lee, then faced pressure from his wife and daughter to fire Chan due to magazine coverage of Chan's exploits in a Shenzhen karaoke hostess bar. Lee's initial refusal led to his wife's suicide attempt through drug overdose on June 11 in order to force the issue. Having learnt of the incident, Chan resigned, saying he did not want Lee's family to be unhappy.

I can uncomment it, if you don't think it is against WP:BLP. (The two sources are Channel NewsAsia and Wen Wei Po, to clarify. So technically, they are reliable sources)--Alasdair 07:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Featured articles are always reviewed on quality of the article, not on the importance of the subject. And there is no rule at all on the length of a featured article provided it is comprehensive and can't be merged with something else. Indeed there have been complaints previously when editors have rejected FAs simply because they are too short. Hurricane FAs in particular are often fairly short. If you want to change the featured article criteria to require that the subject meet some sort of importance criteria this would be a very substanial change and this is not the place to discuss such a proposal. Also, I don't think you've quite understand the article. The very fact that this had such a wide social impact in Hong Kong is part of the reason for the importance and from the readers POV what is most important about this event is not the event it self but the impact it had. The fact that it is 'unbalanced' as you claim is therefore not a bad thing. This is not uncommon with many things in this world. For example, re: Celebrity Big Brother racism controversy what's noteable about this and the reason it was once ITN is because it was at a very substanial impact in Britain and in India at the time not because the actual racism itself was extraordinary or extremely noteable. In terms of this being TFA, that is completely seperate from it being an FA. If you feel that Raul should not put 'unimportant' FAs as TFA then you should discuss that with him. Nil Einne 08:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria and Wikipedia:Featured articles if you are still confused about what a FA is and isn't. For that matter, take a look at Wikipedia:Good articles and Wikipedia:What is a good article? since I think you're also confused about GAs. To put it bluntly, when we review the article for quality, we review only quality. The importance of the subject is irrelevant. Nil Einne 08:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It's one thing to make this a featured article - and I really think FA criteria should be amended to include some form of relevance assessment (there is also a FA about an Australian netball player who creates little over 1,000 hits on Google) - but it is entirely beyond me why this article was chosen as today's featured article, considering there is a higher FA output than available main page spots. EnemyOfTheState 08:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that I was suprised to find such a topic as the main page FA, but FAs are selected based on quality of article more than relevency of the subject I believe. You are only limited by the amount of information you can gleam on the topic from reliable sources. The idea that the best articles should be relevant core topics kind of betrays the idea of avoiding cultural bias... SGGH ^speak! 11:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe you misconceived, Nil Einne. I am not stating that the quality of the article is inferior - which is a subjective matter. I am merely commenting that I do not believe the article is the best Wikipedia could offer.

As a native "Hongkonger" myself and one of the first who contributed to this article, I assure you I very much understand the importance and details of this article. I am also proud, to a certain extent, as the local subject accends to featured status in Wikipedia. However, I still remain doubtful over whether a subject with such little actual content and connectivity with any other subject were to be read by millions. Though its impact is undoubted, it is, at best, a single isolated event. Nor have I stated there is a rule for the article's size - what I said was that there should be, at least, a general image in the contributors' mind of what a featured article should be; otherwise, what stops an article as short as a paragraph to become featured eventually, if this trend goes on? I am not suggesting a direct change to the FA system, however; as is shown by the fact that I am writing here, and not to one responsible for the FA process, I am trying to grab the attention of our regular contributors, not our adminstrations, and to engage them in this question: Have we gone too far in blindly following the written rules and lost our own criteria? Aran|heru|nar 11:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't "Some say"/"Others hold" a near perfect demonstration of weasel words in action? A very poor choice for FA, irrespective of the subject matter. VonBlade 11:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

All those sentences have been sourced, so they can be used. According to WP:WEASEL, you are to avoid using those terms if they are unsourced.--Alasdair 12:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand your complaint. What you seem to be saying is that this article isn't the best wikipedia has to offer because it the subject is unimportant. But this is a contradiction of terms. If a subject is noteable enough for an article then the importance of the subject is irrelevant in deciding the quality of the article. The quality of the article is defined solely in how well it's written and covers the subject. The importance of the subject is irrelevant. What stops an article being a paragraph is that such a short article almost definitely either isn't comprehensive or should be merged with an another article. This article is long enough that it's clear a merger isn't warranted and from what I can tell it's comprehensive. Also again you don't IMHO understand that the importance of anything is usually more defined by it's impact then the event itself. I've already pointed out the Shilpa Shetty racism thing. But even say the September 11th terrorist attacks in the U.S. is basically just 4 events. Yet from these 4 events we have a god knows how many articles because these 4 events have had such a great impact. N.B. I would argue you could even write a feature article about something non-noteable. What stops it being a featured article is that it will be deleted as being non-noteable. Nil Einne 13:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Also did you read the pages I suggested? Specifically from WP:FA:

Featured articles are considered to be the best articles in Wikipedia, as determined by Wikipedia's editors. Before being listed here, articles are reviewed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates for accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style according to our featured article criteria.

It seems to me fairly clear that what makes an FA is the quality of the article. As far as I'm aware this has always been the case. If you believe that there was an intention that FAs be on important topics the IMHO you have perhaps read too much into the 'best article in Wikipedia' part. The way I see it, nearly all articles can be an FA. I admit there is a small grey area where it's questionable if an article can be more comprehensive or merged but the subject appears to be noteable enough for an article. Examples include most TV series episodes, minor movies & games, some biographies. But this is only a small area, the vast majority of articles can be long enough that they are clearly of FA status even if they are shorter then normal. Ideally I would much rather editors work on 'more important' stuff but if editors do work on more minor stuff I don't feel we should stop their contributions being FA just because we don't think the subject is important enough. Personally I feel this is more important then whatever that Simpsons episode was we had or a fair number of the Pokeomon articles... Nil Einne 14:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, you misinterpret me. I have not stated that FAs should be "important topics", and I have not been advocating change of the FA criteria. You stated that "Ideally I would much rather editors work on 'more important stuff..." Which I believe is an incorrect use of the word "important". By logic, naturally, if a subject is "important", then more people would work on it, because people is what define a subject as "important". And I state again, I do believe this subject is "important", to a certain extent. Of course, there are certain other definitions of "important", and some may choose to value the importance of a subject in a rather "objective" point of view.

You mentioned "more important than...a fair number of the Pokemon articles." Exactly what I wanted to say. The reason, I believe, "a fair number of the Pokemon articles" shouldn't be featured is because they barely make an article of their own. That is not to say they are not important. Pikachus may have been the best-selling rats in the world, but they are part of the Pokemon world. Without the rest of the Pokemon, they would have been next to nothing. What makes the "Bus Uncle" an independent article of its own, instead of being in an article about social problems in Hong Kong, which is why "Bus Uncle" has become famous internationally, after all? Personally, I believe the event is notable, but it is, after all, an isolated incident, and therefore I disagree with you when you state that a merger is clearly not warranted. I do not believe it needs to be merged, of course, but I think this article, like Pikachu, barely crossed that threshold, and would not really make a featured article, despite how well-written it may be. Aran|heru|nar 06:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I still don't get it. Can you clearly explain how this article is NOT the best wikipedia has to offer based on the criteria I mentioned above? You seem the be saying that I don't understand you but whenever you try and explain you just seem to say the same thing which to me is that this article can't be the best wikipedia has to offer because the event is not really that important in the grand scheme of things so there isn't much to write about but then you say you're not talking about importance. As I say again though, surely the best wikipedia has to offer and based on the criteria as clear spelled out is an article covering the subject, whatever the subject may be that is well written and comprehensive enough for the average reader to understand without going into an unnecessary amount of detail. Also in response to what makes Bus Uncle and independent article of its own is that it generated a massive amount of attention from the Hong Kong media & people and later to some extent the world media. This incident so affected the Hong Kong culture at the time that it was used in a world cup ad, phrases from it are used by HK teens and some schools even banned the use of the phrases evidentally etc. As a HK resident I guess I don't have to explain more. The reaction to this single incident may be slightly insane. Some would argue the same with the Shilpa Shetty incident. But whether or not the reaction was insane is somewhat irrelevant as that massive reaction did occur which is what makes the event noteable. BTW, the same discussion occured on the main page and the most people there appear to agree with me. Finally in terms of the pokemon articles the vast majority of pokemon articles can be FA. It's true we for some of the more minor characters a seperate article will never be a FA but in that case very likely a seperate article is not warranted and they should be covered in something like a List of minor Pikachus. P.S. Perhaps it will help if we think of a hypothetical example. I keep mentioning the Shilpa Shetty incident because on the grand scale of things it seems rather minor except when we consider that it resulted in top level people in the Indian government and British government commenting on the incident. If both governments had been somewhat insane, perhaps they would have gone to war over the incident. Had this happened the incident would surely be something that people in the future would be studying as part of history in school (assuming there were still people after the war). It's still a single isolated incident but the reaction to the incident would have made the incident exceptionally noteable Nil Einne 07:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Enemyofthestate: As I've said, there are 2 issues here. One is should this be a FA? This can be discussed here since it concerns the quality of this article (although ultimately it should be taken to FAR if your concerns are not adequetly addressed). The other issue is should this article be TFA. This can't be discussed here as it's the nothing whatsoever to do with this article but is all to do with the TFA process (which basically boils down to what Raul decides). If you feel Raul shouldn't let an article like this be TFA because it is 'unimportant' then you probably should discuss that in the TFA talk page Nil Einne 13:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

So, Aranherunar, If say, Spideman 2 made it to TFA, would you be so mad? I think notability is hard enough to define for the deletion process, no need to add a layer at FAC. One more thing: only one article in one thousand two hundred and sixty articles is an FA in wikipedia. And you would like to reduce that? If it was to be included in the core topics, I'd be outraged too. And I admit more energy should be put by the community as a whole to push core topics to FA quality. But changing the rules won't make that happen. I think this is a great article, very informative on a notable contemporary event.--SidiLemine 12:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that this should not be a Featured Article. I cannot help but feel that this articles's inclusion on WP:UA may have assisted in its choice, since this article, while a good article, does not go very in-depth into the subject-matter compared to other featured articles. It seems like a case of WP:VOTE-ness to me. I defy you to give a complete and logical explanation of why this is deep enough to be more than a YouTube Cruft-Meme. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 14:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

One reason is the amount of analysis it gets by professionals and experts after its exposure to the public. In fact, in its Featured Article Review (see article history), it was requested that the social impacts section should have much more content, and that's what makes it more than the average meme.--Alasdair 14:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't generally ansfer to challenges, but I do defy you to give a complete and logical list of in depth subjects not approached in this article.--SidiLemine 17:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

References

Good stuff, why the noise?

I don't know if anyone will listen to me or if I'll just be flamed for this comment... but I'm here to say I support this article and think the people who are attacking it are either xenophobic or nuts. Not to call names, but come on people, information is information. This is a well put together article. Nesnad 13:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not anything to do with xenophobia or being "nuts" (see WP:AGF). There are legitimate concerns with regard to WP:NOTE - especially the bit about notability not being temporary (although it might be possible to stuff this one on the technicality of the independence of sources too). This article may be a very funny local news story, but IMHO it really belongs on someone's blog rather than in an encyclopaedia. 82.36.26.70 14:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the event is covered by sources not just from Hong Kong, but from other foreign countries. Also, the Bus Uncle was the runner up "Person of the Year" in a Radio Television Hong Kong event (that is held at the end of the year), while the incident occured in April. Apart from this, the experts' opinion and implications of the incident on the lifestyle of Hong Kong people, which remains static for long periods of time. Hence the notability definitely continues along time.--Alasdair 14:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There's really no question of notability - this story is definitely notable, and notability was not limited to just Hong Kong. The article makes a point that the clip was the most viewed video in May 2006. Though I'd like to see it mentioned how much coverage the clip received in Overseas Chinese newspapers around the world. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Not to call any names... but you're a nutcase and a xenophobe!"Jay42 23:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Nesnad, I have to admire your courage in saying you're not calling names while at the same time calling people "xenophobic or nuts." I don't know much about the others, but I, who started this discussion after all, am a Chinese myself, as I have said above.

Yes, it is definitely notable, 82.36.26.70, and my concern was never about it being not important enough to become featured. To be rough, I am saying that it simply isn't much of a thing to write about, albeit notable. Other users have also expressed concern on its quality - one problem might be that it is a local event and Hongkong contributors, though not less enthusiastic, are less skilled in writing articles in English than their western counterparts - but let's not stray from the purpose and harmony of the discussion. Aran|heru|nar 06:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Names used

It's very confusing when the same person is referred to by different names throughout the article. For example, the Bus Uncle is called Roger in some places and Chan in others. The same name should be used everywhere in the article. Mkeranat 15:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Very poorly constructed article in my opinion. I am amazed this got to FA status. I'm a regular watcher of the Pearl Jam page and have been watching that article go through some INTENSE scrutiny. It has already failed FAC status once, and was at that time a much better put together article than this one(IMO). It seems like the system failed allowing this article to get this far. Not saying that there isn't some significance to this article at least within Hong Kong culture, but the quality of the editing and importance neither seem to be there to qualify this as an FA. --MattWatt 16:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Except that whatever problem you're referring to only appears to have been after the article was TFA. For reference, here is the article before it was TFA [2]. In it, he was only referred to as either Roger Chan or Chan from searching. The current version is also the same. Also as I keep saying, importance is irrelevant when deciding whether an article is FA Nil Einne 07:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

FA status

It's pointless to complain about the FAC system in general unless you're actually an active participant in the system. How much do any one of us contribute to reviewing articles under FAC or peer review? Most FAC articles don't nearly get as much reviewing as they need. If you think the FAC system is lacking, go check out the FAC page, see what articles haven't been commented on very much, and review and comment on the articles. Contribute to the system if you think bad articles are being passed. There's no point in complaining about articles being passed when you don't contribute to the system to begin with. In the past few months, this article went through a Peer Review, an FAC, and then a FAR. That's three peer-assisted processes that helped improve this article. For those editors that complain about this article not deserving of FA status - did any of you participate in those processes? If you think the FAC system is lacking, then go contribute to make it better. Peer review some articles, comment and vote on FACs and FARs. Experienced editors should know by now that there are a lot of areas in which WP needs improvement, and all that improvement is up to us editors because this beast runs entirely on a volunteer basis. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It is unrealistic to ask people to spend hours checking every dud article. A simpler technique would be to give front page articles an additional screen, to check that they are FA status and to check that they are important enough to represent wikipedia. A quick, simple policy change is much better than telling off people who don't have the spare time to do what you ask. Sad mouse 03:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That solves the problem, but not the origin of the problem. It would mean that the rest of the FA articles would be left unchecked and perhaps inferior compared to those that have appeared on the main page - which is not an ideal solution to the problem. Hong's comment is understandable (the successful nomination for this article had but one suggestion of improvement for the written content), but, as Sad mouse has stated, those of us who have some understandings of the problem probably do not have the time to work on the entire FA. The major obstacle, I believe, is that few actually know about the peer reviews or FAC system, and fewer actually wants to contribute to it. Perhaps the best solution would be for Wikipedia to start an awareness campaign on the things appearing in the front page, especially the FA and the DYKs. Aran|heru|nar 06:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not saying that things are perfect as they stand, I personally don't really see any major problems at the moment. The reality is although we get some complaints when people don't like the subject as far as I'm aware there have been few TFAs which have either succeeded FAR a short time after being TFA or have had very major problems which have only been worked on after the article has been TFA. To me this suggests the problem is that people either don't really understand or don't agree with the FA criteria rather then the FA system not working. Nil Einne 07:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

And the thing is, if the article had only gone through a quick FAC, I can definitely sympathise with some of the complaints. But no, the article had gone through a peer review (with nobody at all commenting) and then a FAR also. As someone who has worked on improving articles on FAC and FAR, I can attest how frustrating those processes can be. And I know for a fact that there are other editors here have also done the same. I really can't identify with complaints about an article's FA status only shortly after an article has gone through a range of peer-assisted processes. Many many articles on the peer review, FAC, and FAR queues are dying for more reviews. If you have a complaint about the FAC system, those places are the best places to initiate change. Why complain about it on one particular article that's only recently survived a FAR? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I also consider this article is not well enough to be a Featured Article. So it just makes you wonder how the process works. To say that you don't have a right to complain if you didn't contribute is not the point. There should be no difference between a 'quick' or 'slow' FAC review, although admittedly an article can be quick-failed. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no point complaining here. If you who wish to de-list this article from FA status, participle in the next FAR. All users are welcome to contribute. Tavatar (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't just complain. I rewrote the article. It also seems that a number of significant changes were made to the article since the laset FA review, which would account for it being a mess. Common with many articles on popular culture, there is a tendency for editors to add all sorts of stuff which is simply unencyclopaedic. For example, the transcript was never there in the reviewed versions, and was one of the elements I removed. You might like to review my changes. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

What actually happened?

This article doesn't really explain what the argument was about. It mentions that Chan was stressed and Ho didn't respond much, but what exactly did Chan say? What were his "catch-phrases?" I'm not asking for a word-for-word transcript, but surely some kind of summary..? Brutannica 23:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article does not explain WHY the argument occured. This is a Featured article and should give this explanation. RB26DETT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.15.137.77 (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The argument occured because the person at the bak (Ho) tapped Chan's shoulder while he was on the phone. Now that it may seem crazy, but it's true. Some people actually go in a rage after such small provocations.--Alasdair 00:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, never mind, it turned out the section was removed by some vandal when I first looked at the page. Brutannica 05:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

English Translation

• Ngo yaw ngadlek, ney yaw ngadlek, ney jowmat tiuyant ngo a?
• I have pressures, you have pressures, why are you provoking me?
• M ja saw jek'hay mey gaudim la? Mey gaudim jek'hay yiu gau dow dim la! Hay m'hay a?
• No handshakes? Does it mean it's not finished yet? Does it mean we need to get it finished? Right?
• Mey gaikeud! Mey gaikeud!! Mey gaikeud!!!
• Not finished yet! Not finished yet!! Not finished yet!!!
• Ney how howda me ney! Diu ney lowmow!
• So you are tough huh! Fuck your mother!
• Lowmow m diu diu bingo a?
• Who do I fuck if not your mother?
• Ngo diu ney lowmow ngo tiu ye haym'hay ney lowmow godow a?
• If I fuck your mother, doesn't it mean my dwing is in your mother?
• Bun yant cotlay jaw bun yant cotlay, ney jonkyi diu jaw diu. Ngo jonkyi diu jaw diu, diu yant jaw m hay, mow hoi ge, diu a diu a da ney leong coy me?
• OK fine! Call for your help. Fuck me over anyway you want. I'll fuck you anyway I want. Fucking isn't totally harmless let you know. One more fuck I'll punch you in the face!
• Ney genkgow ngo jow mat'ye? Ney genkgow ngo ngo m lant geng na yantga cotlay.
• You are warning me? I don't fucking care if you warn me. You better show me your gang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Penkyamp (talk • contribs) 23:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Origin of Name

This section relies on a user forum for establishment. Unless a reliable source has said this is where the name came from, this theory can't be put forward. Random user comments and posts in a forum are not considered reliable sources.--Crossmr 15:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, feel free to take off the first sentence in that paragraph. But either way, many of the sources below talk about "The Bus Uncle" when referring to the title.--Alasdair 08:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an instance where we can just use common sense, since it is Hong Kong and Chinese tradition to address an older man "uncle" (叔叔 or 阿叔). 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 02:08, 19 November 2007 (GMT)

Possibly for the naming of the article, but not for the line which states the origin of the name. Unless one of those news article has said that is where the name originated, we can't put forth that theory from a self-published source.--Crossmr (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Lacking that kind of "Impressiveness"

I was just thinking, looking at the top paragraph. It dosen't give out the sense of how huge this was. Amazingly, lots of it was written by people who don't live in Hong Kong and weren't there to experience it, and still it was a very good article.But still, as I remember, commercials everywhere were using the phrases of Bus Uncle. The phrases were on Tshirts, mugs...etc you name it. I was studying Primary Six at the time and everyone was talking about it in class or at recess, even teachers were laughing about it, younger students acted it out with their friends...etc.

I wasn't sure how to express that kind of "impressiveness", so...can anyone else attempt adding something to the first paragraph [or edit]. Brittanity (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the second paragraph does this. It doesn't really jump out, but can motivate readers to look at the "Social impacts" section. –Pomte 05:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Lost in translation...?

I'm sure in some of the quotes, some of the meaning in the catchphrases are lost due to the absence of an explanation. I am lucky to understand both Cantonese and English, so I think that someone (maybe I) can add an explanation beside the quotes If you agree with such actions, post it in my talk --Kelvin_HO^{Wiknerd(talk)} 13:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What sort of explanation do you have in mind? If the translation isn't self-explanatory in the first place, a further attempt may make it more confusing and may be seen as original research. –Pomte 14:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hong Kong, hmm? Andrew Sicos (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Andrew Sicos

Respect for elders (young vs. old)

I am a bit surprised that the "respect for elders" angle was not covered. The way I understand it, in China (and in collectivist societies as a whole) older people are deeply respected and not to be contradicted in a harsh manner, which could explain the young man's restraint. There are certain cultural norms pertaining to expected behaviour and hierarchies (frequently based on age) are always to be observed.Oleg Morgan (talk) 11:55 am, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

File:HK Newspapers.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:HK Newspapers.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:HK Newspapers.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on The Bus Uncle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20151130195518/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t45FODsT73o to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t45FODsT73o
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930030459/http://www.takungpao.com/news/06/05/30/XK-572557.htm to http://www.takungpao.com/news/06/05/30/XK-572557.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930030350/http://www.takungpao.com/news/06/06/01/GW-573686.htm to http://www.takungpao.com/news/06/06/01/GW-573686.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Bus Uncle. 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/20071013093319/http://thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=15&art_id=35365&sid=11578958&con_type=1&d_str=20070104&sear_year=2007 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=15&art_id=35365&sid=11578958&con_type=1&d_str=20070104&sear_year=2007

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) 20:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Bus Uncle. 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://archive.is/20150309024537/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/archive_news_detail.asp?pp_cat=13&art_id=19459&sid=8137616&con_type=1&archive_d_str=20060526 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/archive_news_detail.asp?pp_cat=13&art_id=19459&sid=8137616&con_type=1&archive_d_str=20060526
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060615194259/http://next.atnext.com/template/next/sec_main.cfm?iss_id=847&sec_id=1000853 to http://next.atnext.com/template/next/sec_main.cfm?iss_id=847&sec_id=1000853
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120525192117/http://www.singtao.com/special/unclebus/index.html to http://www.singtao.com/special/unclebus/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090315090859/http://www.wenweipo.com/news.phtml?news_id=HK0606120009&loc=LU&cat=583BS&no_combo=1 to http://www.wenweipo.com/news.phtml?news_id=HK0606120009&loc=LU&cat=583BS&no_combo=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013102510/http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2006%2F6%2F8%2Fapworld%2F20060608152634&sec=apworld to http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2006%2F6%2F8%2Fapworld%2F20060608152634&sec=apworld

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) 01:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Subheading: "Characters"?

"Characters" makes it sound like the video was fictional or staged... wouldn't "Subjects" or "Participants" be more appropriate for a real-life video? Muzilon (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

URFA/2020

Looking at this for the WP:URFA/2020 initiative to check old FAs for maintained quality. I note this article had significant quality concerns at the time of its 2007 promotion, and substantial debate occurred over whether its FA promotion was valid even by contemporary standards.

Personal notes:

• The lead is very spindly and struggles to explain the relevance or importance of the incident. (This was also brought up by contemporary reviewers.)
• The "Social impact" section hasn't been updated. I assume 2006 memes are less relevant in 2022? Would need further contextualization.
• The article broadly appears unmaintained. Text added since the promotion (e.g. regarding Chan's death) is well below FA standards. Work is needed to bring them back up to standard.

Some of the sources also don't look great on my source highlighter script, but this is mostly Youtube videos that are either valid use of primary sourcing, or Youtube clips of RS news shows. These should be converted to {{cite AV media}} without links. Not as big an issue as the aforementioned, though. (Pinging Padgriffin and Vampyricon for their personal expertise with HK culture to see if there's anything they can do for these problems, or any further they can bring up.) Vaticidalprophet 14:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet: I can attempt to do some copyediting and clean up the article using the sources. This is probably WP:OR, but I'm not sure if it had any real long-lasting social impact- I certainly wasn't aware of it prior to your ping. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 01:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, not surprising. The sense I got was that this was a pretty transient meme. The social impact sections would definitely need to be recontextualized for that -- as it stands, they're time capsules of the mid-late 2000s. Any help you can offer would be appreciated, whether great or small. Vaticidalprophet 03:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I've re-written the lead of the article- I'll probably rewrite the bulk of the synopsis later. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 05:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)