Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong/Archive 12

Request for Comment at the Reliable sources noticeboard about the reliability of Apple Daily

Discussion is here. I don't think many contributors at the noticeboard are likely to familiar with the reliability of the source, so I am inviting contributors of the project to share their views. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

All hands on deck!

Can we have some eyes please at Death of Chow Tsz-lok‎? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 20:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Is there a list of reliable Hong Kong sources anywhere? Because I can't seem to find one and it would be useful if there was. Since I assume not all sources in HK are. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 10:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

China-HK-Taiwan General Sanctions

A discussion regarding enacting general sanctions in the China-HK-Taiwan topic area is ongoing at WP:ANI. Comments appreciated here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been archived, but can be viewed here. Citobun (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Luo Changqing

There's an ongoing discussion about the page title of the Luo Changqing case and a related move dispute at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Move dispute on Death of Luo Changqing / Killing of Luo Changqing. Your comments will be most appreciated. Deryck C. 17:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC on the Reliability of Wen Wei Po

See: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Wen_Wei_Po, your participation would be appreciated, kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Make sure the result is recorded by Wikipedia:Perennial sources WhisperToMe (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

RSN RFC on South China Morning Post

I started an RFC on the South China Morning Post on the RSN at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#South_China_Morning_Post_(and_Lin_Nguyen,_a_fabricated_writer). At the very minimum Wikipedia:Perennial sources should tell people not to use articles by "Lin Nguyen" as it's a fabricated persona. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

This was not originally a proper RfC, it has now been upgraded to one. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Timeline of the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests (November 2019) § Split request for "2019 November Shooting Incident in Sai Wai Ho"

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Timeline of the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests (November 2019) § Split request for "2019 November Shooting Incident in Sai Wai Ho". 2pou (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Help

Hi all, Greetings...we need help from Chinese editors for Wikipedia's one of the worst aticles Lung Kim Sang. This article is need to rewrite. I would appreciate if you could provide your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lung Kim Sang. Thanks VocalIndia (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi the article was deleted at AfD in October 2020 and I undertook to move it to my sandbox and rewrite it. I’ve moved it back into mainspace now at Loong Kim Sang. I’ve cut out a lot of the digressions and passing from the earlier version but I’ve relied in Google translate and honestly I think some of the sourcing for the article is a bit flaky. It would be helpful if some members of WikiProject Hong Kong could review and possibly improve the refs. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin article

Hi, the article Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin could use help. The references are mostly in Chinese and not translated into English. Some help could be used from somebody very familiar with proper usage of our cite templates who is also a native speaker to make sure the cite template parameters are being used correctly. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Challenge invitation

Hello WikiProject Hong Kong. You have been invited to join WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the Asia-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in, or edits relating to or within the scope of the project. If you would like to join or just help out a bit, please visit the project page, and add your name to the participants. If you know someone who might be interested, please invite them by: {{subst:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge Invite (1)|~~~~}} Thanks, SWP13 (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hong Kong names

Hi there! As you all know, Hong Kong names are specially structured and follow the order of (English personal name) + (Family name) + (Maiden name, optional) + (Chinese given name), yet many HKers are usually referred with their Western-style names, e.g. Carrie Lam, omitting the string of alternative names that follows. @Citobun: and I had a discussion on whether hatnotes should be added in such HKers' articles to specify the family name and the meaning of the string of names that follows (e.g. "Cheng Yuet-ngor" in the case of "Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor" & "Yun-hung" in the case of Kevin Yeung Yun-hung). Citobun believes that it is unnecessary, while I support doing so. What are your thoughts? - FG2495 (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

An example of the hatnote that I propose using:

In this Hong Kong name, the surname is Yeung. In accordance with Hong Kong custom, the Western-style name is Kevin Yeung and the Chinese-style name is Yeung Yun-hung.

Such kind of hatnote has been used in article Carrie Lam before. - FG2495 (talk) 09:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• I think I already resolved with template editor.... Template talk:Family name hatnote#Hong Kong name. Matthew hk (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Lists of lighthouses in Macau and in Hong Kong

Please refer to Talk:List of lighthouses in Macau#Lists of lighthouses in Macau and in Hong Kong. 124.217.189.46 19:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

WPHK is the right place to notify people. But my talk page is not (read WP:Canvassing).... Matthew hk (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

CFD which may be of interest to users participating in this WikiProject

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_5#Category:Hong_Kong_people_of_Lower_Yangtze_descent--Prisencolin (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Category:Hong Kong people of Lower Yangtze descent has been nominated for discussion

Category:Hong Kong people of Lower Yangtze descent has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisencolin (talk • contribs) 21:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Pro-ROC camp (Hong Kong)#Requested move 16 February 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pro-ROC camp (Hong Kong)#Requested move 16 February 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Seeking opinions on "Ping Shan" in Kowloon

I noticed that User:NKHP spun off content from Public housing estates in Ngau Tau Kok and Kowloon Bay into a separate article, Public housing estates in Ping Shan, a reference to a hill in Kowloon which is allegedly called Ping Shan.

Both NKHP and User:BWHKMT – the creators of Public housing estates in Ping Shan and Ping Shan, respectively – appear to be single-purpose accounts. They are not active on Chinese Wikipedia. The similar all-caps usernames and common editing interest would suggest they are the same person.

I have not heard of the name "Ping Shan" applied to the neighbourhood nor that hill, nor does it appear in my copy of "Hong Kong Guide 2016 – Gazetteer of Street and Place Names" published by the Lands Department. But I wanted to collect some other opinions before taking any action:

1. Is this hill called "Ping Shan"? Can Ping Shan, Kowloon be improved with some references to support this?
2. Is the neighbourhood next to the hill actually called Ping Shan? Government sources seem to regard buildings in this area as being located in Ngau Tau Kok (example).

Lastly, I want to note that various IP addresses have focused on promoting certain Hong Kong place names which may or may not be antiquated, which has led to some controversy recently, e.g. at Talk:Holy Trinity Cathedral, Hong Kong. I am not sure if this Ping Shan thing is related but I felt it was worth mentioning. Thanks, Citobun (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Never heard of "Ping Shan, Kowloon". Revert per hoax or WP:OR. Matthew hk (talk) 09:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Featured article review MTR

I have nominated MTR for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Is anyone else interested in trying to fix this up? There used to be a large transport community working on articles like this, just not sure if they are still active especially in the current climate. I don't think I can rework on this myself, but if there is a team effort then this is still salvageable. (The first thing that comes to my mind is this article needs a lot of pruning.) - Mailer Diablo 08:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles, including Hong Kong related articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. --John B123 (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Greetings!

Does anybody know Chinese here? Peter Ormond 💬 01:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes. How can we help? Cobblet (talk) 02:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cobblet: Please explain the meaning of this: 事頭婆. I have been getting so many different translations for this online. Peter Ormond 💬 04:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

It's Cantonese slang, and what Hong Kongers used to call Elizabeth II. "Boss lady" reasonably captures the cheekiness of the term. Cobblet (talk) 04:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cobblet: Thanks for the reply! And does it always refer to The Queen? Peter Ormond 💬 04:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

No. In general it's the slang term for a woman in charge of a shop, or the wife of the shop owner.[1] It's more informal and less polite than 老闆娘, and also implies an older woman. Cobblet (talk) 05:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cobblet: Thank you so much! And is this site https://words.hk/ considered reliable for citing in Wikipedia? Peter Ormond 💬 05:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't edit Cantonese-related articles much, so others would be in a better position to give an opinion. But it looks reliable enough to me. I actually suggested "boss lady" to you before looking up the term on that site, so at least I'm satisfied. Cobblet (talk) 05:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Received request to merge British National (Overseas) passport into British National (Overseas) and British passport on 28 July 2021. Reason: The BN(O) passport article has significant overlap with the other two. Background information for the status itself is covered in great detail in the main BN(O) article. Information like endorsements, physical appearance, and issuance are all dealt with in the British passport article. Given that almost the entire BN(O) passport article duplicates information already detailed in the other two articles, I feel that it should be considered for merging. Additionally, the article contains entire sections that are uncited or very poorly cited and contains non-free images (all UK passport images continue to be covered under Crown copyright). Discuss it >>>Here<<<. GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2021 Hong Kong electoral reform#Requested move 13 July 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2021 Hong Kong electoral reform#Requested move 13 July 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Romanization of Hong Kong name

User:Citobun recently moved some biographies of Hong Kong Olympians from a non-hyphenated name to a hyphenated name, saying that it is the "standard HK romanised form". There is a RM discussion on Talk:Chow Hang Tung if a hyphenated title should be used. The naming convention guideline does not say there is a convention to name people from specific region to have a hyphenated name or not. The RM discussion on Chow Hang Tung seems to be taking WP:COMMONNAME as the rationale which makes sense. As for the athletes from Hong Kong, quite many of them use the non-hyphenated name when having competition, which is the most notable thing for most of them. Is there a proof for "standard HK romanised form" being the hyphenated one? I know that SCMP and Hong Kong Standard uses the form but they should not be representing HK entirely. Per Hong Kong name, both forms are used, neither of them can be considered "standard" for me. Sun8908 _Talk 12:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

SCMP and Hong Kong Standard are the only English newspaper in HK. The hyphen solve part of the problem of mistook the given name as given name + middle name. Matthew hk (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

They are one of the newspapers in Hong Kong, one of the most reliable sources, but not the only reliable Hong Kong sources. There is no conventions now. Would there be a written convention onwiki to avoid future disputes? Sun8908 _Talk 10:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Macau

This user invites you to join
WikiProject Macau.

Hello there! I invite you all to please help revive WikiProject Macau. I just recently created six articles related to government-administered awards and many recipients have pages on other language editions of Wikipedia which do not yet have pages in English. There is a considerable amount of articles that need to be created and improved on Macau. I also see much potential for collaboration with the Portuguese, Chinese, and even Cantonese editions, which at times are more thoroughly written in comparison to their English counterparts. Please help out your poor little brother Macau. Yinglong999 (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Tai Tam Country Park (Quarry Bay Extension)#undefined

[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]]-- There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tai Tam Country Park (Quarry Bay Extension)#undefined that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Photographers

Does anyone know of a project to recruit a great many people throughout Hong Kong and have them all upload hundreds of photos to Commons?

Because that's what's been happening for at least the past several months, and if there's someone in charge of this project I'd like to give them some recommendations regarding mistakes. DS (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

This project is dead for ages. You can send request to zh-wiki BTW. Matthew hk (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

IP changing Hong Kong place names to highly obscure ones

Hi all. There is a long-term IP-hopping anonymous editor persistently changing common Hong Kong place names to more obscure ones. Examples:

• Changing "Tuen Mun" to "Butterfly Beach" when referring to the area of southern Tuen Mun (rather than the beach of that name)
• Changing the common name "Wong Chuk Hang" to the obscure "Staunton Creek"
• Changing "Kowloon" to "New Kowloon"
• Changing the address of CityU from "83 Tat Chee Avenue" to the obscure "New Kowloon Inland Lot No. 5953 (RP)"
• Adding link to obscure place name "Tai Wo Ping" that simply redirects to the common Shek Kip Mei

As some of the above edits have escalated to editing disputes I feel it is more appropriate to discuss the issue here. My position is that using these obscure place names renders the encyclopedia inscrutable to the average reader. Also, some of these obscure place names appear to be WP:OR – names of geographic and hydrographic features are being applied to the surrounding human settlements, but without any evidence that the names are actually commonly used in this way.

This appears to be a long-term issue on Hong Kong articles, i.e. someone is digging up long-lost, unused names, or utilising names of unknown origin. Another example can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public housing estates in Ping Shan. I have no idea if the same individual is responsible.

Side note, I believe this IP is the same disruptive user responsible for Harbour Crossing Tunnel and related pages, as there is subject overlap in the editing history of some of the IP addresses (e.g. 203.218.155.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). This person is presently talking to themselves (jumping from IP to IP) over at Talk:MTR. Citobun (talk) 04:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

For Tuen Mun South, for instance, the map cited indeed shows that the name Butterfly Beach refers to a much broader area than what remains the present-day beach. As for Tai Wo Ping that's an area to the north of what the locals would associate with the toponym Shek Kip Mei. The same is true for Chung Mei, which is how that area is named according to the people in the neighbourhood (perhaps less so for Staunton Creek; but that's a significant name in the territory's history). The general, lay audience of an encyclopedia would reasonably expect there would be matters unbeknown to them so there's no point to worry that such information could have gone so far to "render the encyclopedia inscrutable". The very existence of encyclopedias was meant to salvage bits and bits of human knowledge from getting drowned and buried. Stay cool, and be open to different ideas and the wisdom of the locals. 116.92.226.241 (talk) 13:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

For Tuen Mun, no, the annotation on the map relates to the beach. But the beach was longer at that time. The other names are obscure – why use them in place of the common neighbourhood name? Why would you change the street address of CityU to an incredibly obscure lot number??? Please stop unless you have a good reason to make these changes. Citobun (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Me? 116.92.226.246 (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

A further Google search has brought me the names of facilities like Butterfly Beach Sports Centre, Butterfly Beach Indoor Recreation Centre. They probably share the same building, and neither of them is close to what remains the present-day beach after land reclamation decades ago subsumed the (north)eastern half of the beach to the east of Pak Kok. 116.92.226.229 (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

For Staunton Creek, see Talk:South Island line (West)#Staunton Creek. Tai Wo Ping certainly isn't "(highly) obscure". At least it isn't to the ears of those who have lived some years beneath the southern side of the Lion Rock (just as names like Ma Tau Chung, Ngau Chi Wan, San Po Kong or So Uk, which have been "abandoned" by the MTRCL or the Mass Transit Railway Corporation).

On a side note, Citobun does not appear to be adequately familiar with some Hong Kong topics, as this question in the edit summary may suggest.[2][3][4] See Talk:City University of Hong Kong#The Hongkong Standard. Having a registered account on Wikipedia may not necessarily mean a person is wiser or that their edits are more correct. 203.145.95.32 (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• I would say neighbourhood has no legal boundaries and it would be lame to argue its boundaries (e.g. is part of Kings Park or Ho Man Tin for some building? Or it is Tai Wai or Sha Tin neighbourhood ? To stop any argument, list the address in WP:RS or Primary source).Just use bigger "neighbourhood " or "geo entity" such as Tai Po [New] Town. While New Kowloon, technically it is right that CityU is part of New Kowloon, but just no one use New Kowloon in day to day life. (Thanks god the ip is not arguing CityU is in Kowloon Tong or Yau Yat Tsuen or else, as the area technically part of Sham Shui Po District but next to Kowloon Tong station, which " Kowloon Tong" was a pond 100 years ago and in somewhere next to boundary street not further north) Matthew hk (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Citobun:. Definitely someone (registered or ip) has argued the boundaries of place name before , such as Ma Tau Wai, Ma Tau Chung that end up posting non-RS source gwulo.com (which basically a community source that cut part of the map into pieces that have no map legend or quotable actual map creator). For Ping Shan, Kowlooon definitively not acceptable as hoax level. For Ma Tau Wai v Ma Tau Chung, i would say it is lame as no book has published the actual boundaries of the neighbourhoods. While New Kowloon, it is technically (legally) correct but no one use it in day to day life. (Even more obscured than the fact that Sai Kung North is part of Tai Po District). Matthew hk (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@203.145.95.32: Don't worry. I has friend that live in Tai Po New Town as first generation New Town resident, and have no idea of the actual history or Tai Po Market vs. Tai Po Old Market. Some people even thought they are the same place. It is very common that Hong Kong people is not familiar with the place name history and boundaries due to high frequency of urban redevelopment and in fact most of the Hong Kong people are postwar immigrants and descentants. So that in wikipedia, better cite WP:RS (just as i said elsewhere , using books by Sino United Publishing is a necessary evil if there is no other WP:RS to use, but you can also assume they are highly political and has agenda behind. ) And Yet again, since in this thread there are people using ip and the vandal is also using ip. Please create an account to distant yourself with ip that do not-constructive edit. Matthew hk (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: Thanks. I agree with your proposed approach, e.g. to use the common neighbourhood name with a link to RS/address if something is contentious. The effect of the IP user pushing all these obscure place names is to render pages more confusing and stir up pointless editing disputes. I do recall the Ma Tau Chung thing although I didn't participate in the discussion. May be the same anonymous person starting these needless disputes for many years. Citobun (talk) 05:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Kowloon Tong/Kowloon Tsai/大坑東 and Causeway Bay / East Point/ Tin Hau are classic examples that neighbourhoods have boundaries that change from time to time so that even WP:RS refer the same places as different neighbourhoods. Historically Kowloon Tong is a pond near 大坑東/ now Police club and i think people/WP:RS generally agree the north bound boundaries are around the KCR/MTR station (the hill side? but the Beacon Hill actually another neighbourhood). But how about east and west bound? Yau Yat Tsuen is part of Kowloon Tong or another neighbourhood? Just way too controversial to try to sort it out in wikipedia with limited RS and the policy of no original research. Matthew hk (talk) 07:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure whether it's even possible to draw WP:RS boundaries for the majority of Neighborhoods in HK without ending up with a shit tone of OS, since place names seem to be determined by the closest MTR station and you'll inevitably end up with a bunch of edge cases that don't make sense. For example, if you use district boundaries you'll end up with Hung Hom station being outside of Hung Hom (based on the Kowloon City District border) which obviously doesn't work. Good luck defining where Mong Kok ends. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 02:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The problem is the ip does not provide any RS and use place name that obsolete for many years. HK place name by itself are nightmare that 何文田 Ho Man Tin is borrowed to refer to 何文田山, Ho Man Tin Estate, etc. that outside the Qing era Ho Man Tin. Dig out RS to point out the common name of that area is a good thing, but using obsolete place name is a bad thing. E.g. , "refers City University is located in an area historically known as Chu Koo Chai", is acceptable, but the area never currently known commonly as Chu Koo Chai. Matthew hk (talk) 09:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Padgriffin: From what I read, the way Citobun and Matthew hk put it would unavoidably be promoting systemic bias towards the view of the much wider audience in the expense of the local people, rather than working towards a right balance. This is something despised on Wikipedia. There are simply too many place names in Hong Kong which are not common enough to people living slightly bit far away, or to those who are younger, often just because these toponyms are not chosen or are simply disregarded by the MTRC and other transport operators, or because of their considerable distance from an MTR station. This includes, e.g., Glenealy (Tit Kong), So Kon Po, Ngo Keng (Bowrington), A Kung Ngam, Braemer Hill, Tai Fat Hau, Tai Hang, Shousan Hill, Sandy Bay (Tai Hau Wan), Ngau Chi Wan, Ma Tau Kok, King's Park, Ferry Point, Lai Wan (Lai Chi Kok Bay), Pat Heung, Yau Yue Wan, Lok Wo Sha, and so on and so forth. These lesser known place names are still actively in use, but they do not commonly appear in the mainstream press for a territory-wide audience (community newspapers and newsletters are another story), and people are accustomed to something like code-switching when they are talking with people from other parts of the territory or those who are much younger. For instance Braemer Hill often appears in TV programmes and property pages in newspapers as "North Point Mid-levels". People may also say Tin Hau for Tai Hang, Choi Hung for Ngau Chi Wan, Wan Chai for Tai Fat Hau, Causeway Bay for So Kon Po or Ngo Keng, or even "Olympics" for Tai Kok Tsui, in conversations depending on who they are talking with. What should be achieved on Wikipedia is to present an encompassing and balanced view to the audience, and to counter systemic bias. After all Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia and not a directory. Information got to be encyclopedic. What may appear to be irrelevant to your own everyday life (or as Citobun put it, "highly obscure") may be important information to people looking into administrative arrangements or statutory issues, or digging into the cultural/historical heritage of specific neighbourhoods. 116.92.226.246 (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@116.92.226.247: wikipedia is based on WP:V, not personal experience. Also, original research is not allowed (unless you are some lecturer and published the article in some peer reviewed journal, then the problem would be COI only when you add the article to wikipedia yourself) Matthew hk (talk) 12:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Did I ever argue against WP:V? It's Citobun (and you, Matthew) who rely on personal experience and disregard RSs. I don't understand how you read but this certainly isn't the first time you got trouble to comprehend what was said. I hate to put this straight and I know this may not be WP:Civil but this is indeed what has kept happening. 116.92.226.233 (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Clearly you guy the unregistered user cult keep on adding content that fails WP:V, and ignoring the request to show real WP:RS. Please learn the fact that wikipedia is positioned as tertiary source, which content are based on citing secondary source, so massive interpretation of map as OR is also not allowed. Matthew hk (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Matthew I'm getting lost of what you are trying to express. Would you clarify and elaborate? It'd definitely help if you seek assistance. 116.92.226.243 (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The crux of the matter is that WP:OFFICIAL and WP:COMMON also extends to place names. Things like the Territory Lot numbers would fall under "never used outside of official documents" and most of the place names you used as examples aren't even the most common name of the area. Those policies also dictate that the names need to recognizable to a wider audience, which most of these names are unarguably not. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 08:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

List of political parties in Hong Kong

Although the table should include both LegCo and DistCo parties, several users have removed pro-democratic camp parties from the table in the past few months and now it only includes pro-Beijing camp parties. Some parties (e.g. Democratic Party (Hong Kong)) that are not in LegCo still have seats in the DistCo according to 6th District Council of Hong Kong, but they were not included on the list at all. Can someone look into this matter as I'm not that familiar with the topic? 222.166.18.177 (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Just send warning to them. (For registered user, WP:TW is a good tool). May be you can assume good faith to told them, normally these wiki list contain parties that still running and parties that closed down (ie. past and present). And wikimedia foundation does not give a shit with HK national security law, and probably CCP does not care if wikipedia has a record of disbanded political parties of HK. Matthew hk (talk) 06:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Pillar of Shame in Hong Kong destroyed

Project members may be interested in the destruction of Pillar of Shame in HK. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

New Kowloon

It has been observed that while references to New Kowloon were charged as "obscure" and the legal provisions were flouted on one hand, the same users have disregarded the long established consensus among editors and proceeded to remove such references in these articles, e.g., so as to create ex post facto justifications to what they claim. This apparently is counterproductive to their own clause unless they were wishing unrealistically that no one would have spotted what they've been doing. 210.177.180.110 (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Mass housing estates articles blanking/ redirecting

User:Onel5969 has recently brought 2 housing estate articles to AfD, for which a quick merge/redirect consensus was reached. I voted merge/redirect in these two discussions. The articles, which have since been redirected are Easeful Court (discussion) and Cascades, Hong Kong (discussion). These are small and recent estates and further research conducted during the AfD confirmed that they were not meeting WP:GNG. After the redirect was applied, I imported material from the redirected articles into the target articles, since a simple redirect and not a merger had been performed. In these two cases, I believe that the information about these estates is more conveniently presented in a list format, and several participants in this project have certainly been through similar discussions through the years.
Based on the merge/redirect AfD precedent for 2 minor estates, User:Onel5969 has turned 21 further housing estate articles into redirect without discussion, and without merging any data from the redirected article into the redirect target. I have reverted 11 of them with the edit summary "Redirect not obvious. Please nominate for AfD if you really believe that the article should be blanked. Thanks". Next, User:Onel5969 has reverted several of my article restorations, with the following comment "Redirect very obvious (points directly to target), again, recent AfD's show this consensus". This user has also initiated AfDs for some of these articles, following my suggestion. I do not want to engage in an edit war but I believe that proper discussion should be applied to decide the fate of these articles, especially considering that the initially redirected articles included important estates like Model Housing Estate (the oldest existing public housing estate in Hong Kong, with blocks built in 1954 still in use) and Cho Yiu Chuen (which received a Certificate of Merit at the 1981 Hong Kong Institute of Architects Annual Awards, and its tallest building was the tallest public housing building in the world at that time of completion), which clearly not in the same league as Easeful Court and Cascades, and hints at a limited WP:BEFORE. The 21 articles are:

• Ching Ho Estate
• Cho Yiu Chuen
• Fu Tip Estate
• Hibiscus Park
• High Prosperity Terrace
• Highland Park (Hong Kong)
• Kwai Shing East Estate
• Lai Yiu Estate
• Nga Ning Court
• Kwai Hong Court
• Kwai Tsui Estate
• Model Housing Estate
• Sheung Lok Estate
• Sheung Man Court
• Shun On Estate
• Tai Po Plaza
• Tin Chak Estate
• Tin Heng Estate
• Tin Ching Estate
• Tsui Lai Garden
• Wan Hon Estate

Thanks for reading. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm completely opposed to such quick redirecting and find it even more frustrating that Onel has reverted your revert, going against WP:BLAR. I support restoration of these articles and if someone wants to take them to AfD then that's their choice. They should be discussed on a case-by-case basis. NemesisAT (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Given the age of some of these estates I reckon there would also be non-English offline sources available and thus if one wants to delete these articles they should first be sent to AfD to allow interested editors to search for sources. NemesisAT (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Underwaterbuffalo - I went through about 40 or so articles which had been created over the past year, and redirected the ones which have the same issues as the two which were redirected in the AfD's. I have no objection to recreation if the article meets GNG, as imho Model Housing Estate does now with the effort you put in. Don't see the bother of bringing all these to AfD and wasting editors' time. But I also don't see that if an article is not ready for mainspace, leaving it in mainspace. This is supposedly an encyclopedia. And I see my stalker has returned. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Please don't make personal attacks. I follow Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Architecture where I found out about one of these discussions. NemesisAT (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, since this discussion is not mentioned at that link. Hmmm. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Highland Park (Hong Kong) is, right at the top. I checked the history of that article (I regularly check article histories) and saw that Underwaterbuffalo reverted the redirect. I was curious as I don't think we had crossed paths before so I checked their contributions, and that's where I came across this discusison. Now please stop the name calling NemesisAT (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

And all of that happened in the 8 minutes between the posting of this discussion and your chiming in? Hmmm. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Onel5969 for your reply. Despite your praising my alleged recent efforts put into the Model Housing Estate article, which would have made you reevaluate your assessment of the importance of the article, I would like to clarify that I didn't put any effort into this article recently, apart from reverting your turning it into a redirect. My only two minor contributions to this article date back to 2009. So the article has been in mainspace since quite a while, and hasn't changed a bit since you turned it into a redirect. This being said, there is probably enough data available out there about this estate to turn the article into an FA, if anyone wishes to. Regarding the other articles, I don't believe that having a discussion about their relevance would be a waste of time for the community, especially those which I had reverted. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

My apologies Underwaterbuffalo, I meant to link to Cho Yiu Chuen. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Onel5969: After reverting this article, I have moved one paragraph, added one header and the 3 words "It is located", that's it. Glad that this modest contribution made you appreciate the value of the article and its subject though. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I found this discussion through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highland Park (Hong Kong).

Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Redirection says:

A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate. If the change is disputed via a reversion, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before blank-and-redirecting again. Suitable venues for doing so include the article's talk page and Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion.

Onel5969 (talk · contribs), per the deletion policy, please self-revert all of your edits where you did a second blank-and-redirect after Underwaterbuffalo (talk · contribs) reverted your first blank-and-redirect. Some of the topics may be notable. Some may not be notable. Once a blank-and-redirect is contested, the proper place to discuss this is the talk page or AfD. At AfD, after a case-by-case evaluation of how much coverage each topic has received, I will either support retention as a standalone article, redirection, or deletion.

Cunard (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I've made a request to self-revert at User talk:Onel5969. Cunard (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: 4 articles were blanked-and-redirected => restored => re-blanked-and-redirected. They are: Tin Heng Estate, Tin Ching Estate, Shun On Estate and Lai Yiu Estate (I have added content + ref and re-restored this one). Also note the current AfD of Yu Nga Court, which went through blank-and-redirect => restoration in January 2022. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I have asked Onel5969 (talk · contribs) to self-revert, which I hope they will do. If they do not, I plan to restore the rest of the articles within the next week. I have mentioned this discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit warring, canvassing, filibustering, and personal attacks from Onel5969. Cunard (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Octopus card

I have nominated Octopus card for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 03:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

RM discussion

You may want to be informed of the discussion at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China#Requested move 3 April 2022. 1.64.46.233 (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)