Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong/Archive 8

Revival efforts for this project?

I feel like the activities in this project is slowly dying off... looking at the old numbers and new numbers, we haven't make any notable increase on articles rated B or above since late 2009.

Any chance we might revive some collaboration efforts? Maybe push toward a WP:GT direction? Or focus on a selected article as a group? T@vatar (discuss–?) 18:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• • See if some people on the Chinese HK project want to join the English HK project. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Photo request

Hi! Would anyone mind photographing the Dragonair head office? It is at:

• Dragonair House, 11 Tung Fai Road, Hong Kong International Airport, Lantau, Hong Kong.
• 香港大嶼山香港國際機場東輝路11號 港龍大厦

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

We already have that photo. See File:Dragonair House at Chek Lap Kok, Hong Kong.JPG OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Ohana! Now I will post the photo in the appropriate Wikipedia articles WhisperToMe (talk) 09:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Nanyue and Nam Viet

Nanyue has been requested to be renamed again, see Talk:Nanyue. 65.95.14.96 (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Editors interested in the above topic might also want to check Talk:Western Han Nanyue King Museum. olivier (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Pending clean up of unsourced items, POV, and OR: Hong Kong English

Hi WikiProject Hong Kong/Archive 8! An article in the remit of your project may need the expertise of your members. It has been tagged for a very long time as being in need of attention. To avoid possible deletion of unsourced sections according to Wikipedia policies, if you have a moment, please see talk:Hong Kong English and address these issues if you can help in any way. --Kudpung (talk) 04:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Revival of the debate between using Sea of Japan and East Sea

See WT:Naming_conventions_(Korean)/Disputed_names#Change_to_the_naming_convention; someone has requested a new discussion on the use of East Sea versus Sea of Japan.

As the East China Sea is also referred to as the East Sea, I thought you'd like to know.

65.93.12.101 (talk) 06:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_April_5#File:Goddessofdemocracy-400x600.jpg

All opinions welcome. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 21:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Reached-base Policy

This policy is referred to in the English language media (e.g. South China Morning Post) as the Touch Base Policy, so I suggest the article's Title be changed (I've already done the body of the article) 203.218.191.73 (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Amina Bokhary

Amina Bokhary has been speedied for being an attack page. The article has been userfied by the deleting admin for rework, and is now in my userspace. I would appreciate any ideas/help for cleaning it up. One idea I have is to transform the article into one about the incident causing the 2010 controversy. Of course, it would need more work to avoid the previous problems which led to the speedy deletion. Does anyone have any views? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest the article to be split into two: one on A.M.Bokhary (with less on her criminal history) and one on the 2010 incident. STSC (talk) 03:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The new article on the incident is User:Ohconfucius/Amina Bokhary controversy Amina Bokhary controversyLink edited by Deryck C. 09:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC). Please take a look at it when you have time. Comments welcome. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see a brief mention on her racial background in the lead section. STSC (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Border crossing category / template renaming discussion

In connection to some recent renamings, please see the discussion Template talk:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings. -- Vmenkov (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Futian Port Control Point

Futian Port Control Point has been requested to be renamed. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 04:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Huanggang Port Control Point

Huanggang Port Control Point has been requested to be renamed. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 04:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Category "Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings"

Category:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings has been proposed to be changed to Category:China – Hong Kong border crossings.

184.144.163.181 (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon

Which actor is Qian Zhijun (Xiao Pang)? I know he's in the film Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon. Does he have a nom de plume? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Wonderland Villas

Wonderland Villas has been proposed for deletion. olivier (talk) 09:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace & Charm

I've relisted this deletion discussion, partly because it concerns two Kelly Chen albums but neither Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hong Kong nor WikiProject Hong Kong has been notified. Please participate in the discussion and provide your input. --Deryck C. 20:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

About listing Hong Kong as a 'country'

The word 'country' does not only refer to sovereign states. It can also refer to non-soverign political entities, e.g. British overseas territories. Although the Basic Law of Hong Kong states that Hong Kong is a provincial-level administrative division of China, Hong Kong has its own laws, its own political system and its own border control; these make Hong Kong a political entity under Chinese sovereignty and thus, a non-sovereign political entity. So I think it is not inappropriate to list Hong Kong as a 'country'. In fact, it has always been a customary practice to list non-sovereign political entities as countries.

An overseas territory of a country is a non-sovereign political entity which, technically, is also regarded as an administrative division of a country. Yet, we do not add ', [Sovereign state]' after the name of the territory.

I do not think that people can be misled to think that Hong Kong is an independent country just because it appears in the field 'country'. There is always a link to the article for Hong Kong and people can read more about it and have the idea that Hong Kong is a Chinese special administrative region. If people want to make the idea of Hong Kong being under Chinese sovereignty clearer, they can always use phrases like 'the Chinese special administrative region of Hong Kong'.

If people do not like 'Hong Kong', 'Hong Kong SAR' can be an alternative.

By the way, 'Hong Kong, China' is only a name used by the Hong Kong team or the Hong Kong delegation when participainge in international sports events or conferences.

Douglas the Comeback Kid (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear what you are suggesting: if you think an article needs to be changed then you might be better off raising it at the article talk page in question. But no, Hong Kong is not a country and never has been. It may be informally referred to as such in travel ("what countries have you been to?") or in trade, but it definitely is not one. As for what it's called "Hong Kong" is by far the commonest appellation but "Hong Kong, SAR", "Hong Kong, China" and other variants are used. It's not something that worries people much I think as there's not the chance of confusion as there is with "Taiwan" say (does it refer to the island or the political unit, and is the political unit part of China or not?).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Country ≠ sovereign state. And it's only until the recent four or five decades that most countries are sovereign states. For centuries before the WWII, most countries were colonies (or protectorates or whatever) controlled by other countries that were sovereign states. 218.250.143.16 (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, if you (whether you are the same editor as Douglas the Comeback Kid or not) want to change something in e.g. an article say what and raise it at the article's talk page. This is not the place for general discussions on whether HK is a country, or on any other matter.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

JohnBlackburne, I initially suggested to Douglas that he took the issue to Wikipedia talk:NC-ZH or Wikipedia talk:CHINA, since he was intending on making changes to a whole plethora (60+) of separate articles, and many of them (e.g. XYZ Radio Station) would have little or no people watching the talkpage. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

What I was suggesting is that we should bring the treatment of Hong Kong in line with other non-sovereign political entities such as Gibraltar or Réunion: we do not say 'Gibraltar, UK' or 'Réunion, France', but simply 'Gibraltar' or 'Réunion'. It seems to me that it is a double-standard. Douglas the Comeback Kid (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

So ? None of them are countries, no, and neither is Hong Kong. Hong Kong is at Hong Kong, Gibraltar is at Gibraltar and Réunion is at Réunion, so they have consistent names. They also have redirects from plausible other ways of writing their names as territories of their sovereign, such as Hong Kong, China, Réunion (FR) and British Gibraltar British GIbraltar (sic). But I don't see what this has to do with whether they are countries or not.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but what I am trying to say is that putting down territories like 'Réunion' and 'Gibraltar' in the field of 'country' of info boxes seems to be acceptable by most Wikipedia editors but not 'Hong Kong'. Some insists on putting down 'China' as the 'country' in info boxes when Hong Kong is concerned; it just seems to me that it is an inconsistent treatment. I raise this issue here because I think there is a need for consistency - either allowing 'Hong Kong' to appear in the field of 'country' like 'Gibraltar' or bringing other non-sovereign territories' treatment in line with Hong Kong's (e.g. putting down 'UK' as 'country' for Gibraltar and 'France' for Réunion, and so on). Douglas the Comeback Kid (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Douglas: we need examples to work on. Deryck C. 11:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of a Hong Kong-related example but can only think of a Macao-related example. I think the idea's the same. I was trying to put down Macao or Macao SAR in the field 'country' in the infobox for Teledifusão de Macau and an editor insisted that I must put down 'China'. I swear people wouldn't insist on putting 'UK' in the field 'country' if Gibraltar is concerned.

Douglas the Comeback Kid (talk) 12:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

An article for deletion

You are invited for your input on Articles for deletion/Daoud Bokhary. Thank you. STSC (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hong Kong meetup

For those of you who didn't see the geotargeted notice, there is a Hong Kong meetup on 22 July 2011 which you're all invited to attend. Deryck C. 17:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hong Kong Cinema

Is there any such task force called Hong Kong Cinema in this project? Sfxprefects (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There's Chinese cinema task force. STSC (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

New RfD's=

Caribbean Coast, The Palazzo (Hong Kong), Ocean Shores (Hong Kong) and Vineyard (Hong Kong) have been proposed for deletion. olivier (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Vacancy rates

I found an article talking about how Hong Kong's business districts recovered faster than London's from an economic depression. It mentions some vacancy rates:

• Chen, Bonnie. "London falling?." The Standard. Thursday July 28, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Move request which you may be interested in

There is an open move request at Talk:China which affects the articles China and People's Republic of China which many of you may be interested in participating in. Please make yourself aware of the discussions on the talk page and the current contents of both of the articles affected before voicing your position at talk:China#Requested move August 2011. Please do not respond here. LK (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Category discussion:Alumni by secondary school in Hong Kong

Category:Alumni by secondary school in Hong Kong and its various sub-categories have been nominated for renaming to a consistent form. The discussion is here. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

New article idea

Does anybody fancy starting a new article on the Hong Kong cross-harbour swim? [1][2][3]--Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

New Afd

Smithfield, Hong Kong. olivier (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

HK housing estates articles

That's apparently this time of the year again, when we see users willing to address the "big issue" of real estate developments that they perceive as non notable and want their articles deleted. For information, we had this discussion about public housing estates back in 2009. The consensus had been to keep a few articles for historically or otherwise notable estates, and to group all others within articles covering areas. The result had been a range of articles like Public housing estates in Tin Shui Wai. A similar discussion is due for the private housing estates. What happened in the last weeks is that articles have been individually nominated for deletion, thus generating several unconnected discussions with a very low participation and no clear consensus. In other cases, articles have been proposed for deletion, which is a process where the article is automatically deleted, without discussion, unless someone objects and removes the notice.

I have just removed the PROD notice from the following articles: Public housing estates in Diamond Hill, Allway Gardens, The Arch (Hong Kong), Bel-Air Residence, Belair Gardens, Belvedere Garden, Beverly Hill (Hong Kong), The Beverly Hills, The Cairnhill, Castello, Hong Kong, Chelsea Court, City Garden, City One, The Cliveden, Discovery Park (Hong Kong), The Dynasty, East Point City, Florient Rise, Grand Waterfront, The Grandiose, Hampton Place. These articles would have been deleted after 7 days without anyone removing the label.

I believe that Public housing estates in Diamond Hill should be kept for the reason mentioned above, as a consequence of the discussions we had two years ago. Or there should at least be a fresh debate before deleting it. Anyone who knows Hong Kong would probably agree that City One and its "52 blocks of residential buildings" should be kept. For most of the other articles, I believe that they should be merged into articles by area. Having them deleted just removes any information about them from Wikipedia. Some articles by area already exist and could be expanded. See for instance Private housing estates in Sha Tin District.

To give the full picture, the PROD of the above articles was based on what it called the "precedent" of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Palazzo (Hong Kong). I believe that this debate had generated too few opinions to be used as a precedent to delete dozens of other articles, and that the merger suggestion that I had made was viable. Another option not raised would have been a redirect to the article of an area, where the building is mentioned.

For information, Caribbean Coast and Vineyard (Hong Kong) have been deleted without discussion. The Palazzo (Hong Kong), as I mentioned, was deleted after receiving minor attention. Ocean Shores (Hong Kong) is currently being discussed. Previously deleted article, also without discussion, include: Bayview Garden, Parc Oasis, Uptown Plaza (Hong Kong) and Wonderland Villas.

I hope that we can have a centralized discussion here -or elsewhere- on this topic, rather than dozens of them generating limited informed decisions. Thank you for reading. olivier (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Public housing in Hong Kong which survived AfD some time ago (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Public_housing_in_Hong_Kong) has significant textual content on the concept of Public housing in Hong Kong, it's history, types and politics. The articles I PROD'd didn't have significant textual content, claims to notability or references. A mention of a development on a bus map; a for-sale ad on a real estate site; or a simple database entry do not count as significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. They (to my eye) fail WP:GNG which remains the standard for notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There was a discussion about the fate of the individual articles for public housing estates and the conclusion was to merge most of them and keep a few of them. The article Public housing in Hong Kong is obviously different as its purpose is to give context. My suggestion is to merge articles for private housing estates. olivier (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Note also that Public housing in Hong Kong did not "survive AfD" because there was no AfD regarding this article. The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Public_housing_in_Hong_Kong was in fact moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shek Yam East Estate. olivier (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

(a) Wikipedia discussions don't have conclusions they have consensuses (with no implication of finality or universality). (b) I see neither conclusion nor consensus to keep individual articles for public housing estates. (c) I have no objection to keeping a few of them, there were several in the category with real content and references which I passed over as I worked through in alhpabetical order. (d) You are welcome to merge and re-direct, PROD give you seven days. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Finding a consensus is what I am looking for by starting this discussion. Re: Merging: I hope that we can reach a consensus to have these articles merged. I have not enough time to do the merge myself within 7 days. So your conclusion is that the articles must go because of my time constraints? Power to the deletionists? olivier (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• In discussions of American housing subdivisions, typically those articles are deleted for lack of notability. A private housing estate certainly could be considered notable under prevailing norms if there's enough coverage of it out there (see, e.g., Stuyvesant Town—Peter Cooper Village for an unusual example). But I suspect most get deleted when challenged.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: As an example of an article I think is notable (and did not PROD), see 39 Conduit Road. It's a great article. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Talking in very general terms, I don't in principle object to the articles prodded. Most individual housing estates are not of the level of notability to satisfy WP:GNG despite Hong Kong people's obsession with property and despite humongous property sections in many Chinese newspapers. This is the case for public as well as private housing. That is why a number of 'umbrella' articles covering a number of housing estates were created, which have encyclopaedic value although they may not have sources about them per se, and ought not to be deleted (viz Public housing estates in Diamond Hill). Of the above, I believe City Gardens probably ought to exist, as it is clearly one of the single larges private housing estates on Hong Kong Island; Grand Waterfront recruited Jennifer Hawkins in extremely high-profile advertising and may deserve to be kept for that reason, but is still a question mark whether an encyclopaedic article (not a stub) can be created is another matter. The rest of the above are fairly new developments that have been heavily advertised (as usual, in this city owned by the major developers) but have nothing particularly notable except for their existence, and in my view are likely to remain stubs forever – make of that what you will. An article such as The Arch ought probably to be merged into Union Square (Hong Kong); most of the others probably wouldn't be missed if they were simply deleted without merger. Otherwise, they are more likely to turn into spam like Caribbean Coast did. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect/Merge: The deleted private housing estates articles were PROD/AfD because they are non-notable per WP:N and their resulting consensus to delete is testament to it. The de-PRODed articles mentioned above are also probably not notable and ought to be deleted. I don't think there is much of an argument that these article are notable as standalones but I also appreciate editor's effort in trying to preserve what little content there are or the namespace of these articles. Hence, I have no objection to Redirect/mergeing them into the private housing estates article but with only the basic info eg locations, year, no. of blocks etc and any other notable and verified info.--Michaela den (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• FYI Union Square (Hong Kong) is now a merger work in progress. All the constituent articles have now been copied there but are at present hidden by comment tags. Next step will be to rationalise these and 'uncomment' them when ready, followed by putting redirects into place. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! BTW you may consider using the Template:Merge to / Template:Merge from templates for this kind of thing. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Instead of deleting they should be merged into a regional article like Public housing estates in Diamond Hill. Or something like "Housing in Kowloon city" and include all public and private housing. Info getting lost in the deletion is bad. Benjwong (talk) 07:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• FYI: I have started tables in private housing estates to summarizing some of the content. Since the AfD suggestions have been to redirect to area rather than list, eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Palazzo (Hong Kong), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocean Shores (Hong Kong) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nam Fung Sun Chuen (2nd nomination); I have merged/redirect a couple of them to the article on the area the estate is located eg Heng Fa Chuen to Chai Wan and Allway Gardens to Tsuen Wan. I hope I have preserved enough content for them to make sense.--Michaela den (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you Michaela. As an example, I have worked on Fo Tan and Private housing estates in Sha Tin District, where I have included some content from the deleted The Palazzo (Hong Kong) article (I have created a redirect). I tend to prefer grouping the private housing estates within lists like Private housing estates in Sha Tin District (although this one admittedly doesn't look great), since it parallels what has been done for the public housing estates. My concern is that placing the estates in the areas' articles will create an imbalance in these articles. Maybe we can just start by placing the material within the areas' articles, as you suggest, and move them out as a group if there are too many. For example, the Chai Wan article looks fine after the inclusion of Heng Fa Chuen. To address Benjwong's point, if we create lists, I would rather keep the private and the public estates in separate lists, rather than in "housing in XX" lists. They are of quite different nature, and the public estates form a fine set under the Public housing in Hong Kong umbrella. olivier (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Just don't delete anything. Most of the time housing info are not publicised other than pricing. The history of these real estate is one of the hardest area to research on. They are running a campaign in HK now where free newspapers are distributed by the real estate tycoons to hide bad real estate news. Benjwong (talk) 05:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

RFC on treatment of Hong Kong and Macau in aviation-related lists

There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists about whether Hong Kong and Macau should be listed separately from mainland China on aviation-related lists. Please comment there. Deryck C. 16:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hong Kong Cinema

I would like to request that a task force is created called "Hong Kong Cinema" i already try and fix up many pages that relate to Hong Kong Cinema such as Mr. Vampire and many more but i have noticed the Bruce Lee movies such as the big boss lack reference. Thanks Sfxprefects (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Golden House

The article The Golden House has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This place is only mentioned in a blog entry. I did not find any other mention of it and cannot confirm that it does actually exist.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. olivier (talk) 12:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I have added some background information to the article. It was really a showroom for a jewelry company, branded as a "hotel". It was featured in the WSJ. Still not sure whether we should keep the article. olivier (talk) 08:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Big change at high importance template Template:Infobox Chinese

For all those interested, there's a rather big change applied to this infobox (see last section talkpage) with removing and unhiding fields. --Cold Season (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

SHUTTLE LAB

I have nominated the article for deletion. Besides, the article's creator has been acting rather disruptively until now. olivier (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Stone (Chinese mass)

Stone (Chinese mass) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, it has been suggested to be merged into Stone (imperial mass) to become Stone (unit), or to merge into Picul, or both. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Po Sum On

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 6#Po Sum On is reviewing the deletion discussion, and two sources are Chinese-text. I need your help to determine this topic's general notability. I hope someone here understands Chinese. --George Ho (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Cages

I found something about "cage" homes in Hong Kong:

• Yoon, Eunice. "Living in a cage in Hong Kong." CNN. October 28, 2009.

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

A film was made on the topic: Cageman. It received the 1993 Hong Kong Film Award for Best Film. olivier (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Streets

I've been going through the category of roads of Hong Kong, and it seems that there are quite a few articles that are a long way short of WP's notability standards; most are unsourced stubs. If any of you have ideas and material to improve these articles, please act on it. Also, please try not to deprod them without improving them or unless you can improve them in fairly short order. Thanks. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Please add sources to them and expand them. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 07:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be better to search the notability on the search engine before request for delete. In Wikipedia, improvement come first, then merge. Deletion is the last resort. Before you request for delete, please notify the editors. Please consider improve it. — HenryLi (Talk) 18:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Hong Kong will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in Hong Kong's history, society and culture. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Categorisation of Hong Kong and Macau

From what I observed, many Hong Kong (and Macau) categories are subcats of the corresponding by-country parent categories (by their status of dependencies), and are subcats of the corresponding China or PRC categories with a <spacebar>Hong Kong or <spacebar>Macau catsort (in some cases an asterisk is used instead in place of the <spacebar> tho). When I apply it to other categories, SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs) undid them en masse. Can anyone help look into the problem? Please response at WP talk:Categorisation. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 08:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Blocked as sock

List of tallest buildings in the world

Currently under an edit dispute of whether it is necessary to put "Hong Kong, China" instead of "Hong Kong" in the "country" column, please join the discussion on Talk:List of tallest buildings in the world. Deryck C. 21:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The category in the Tallest building in the world article specifically states "Country" and every other building is listed specifically under their parent country whether it's the United States or United Arab Emirates. Hong Kong as you all know already is just a Special Administrative Region of China and since the category specifically states country, we must list the buildings in Hong Kong either as just "China" or "Hong Kong, China" with the Hong Kong regional flag since it is still an autonomous region of China. Thanks! 114.229.251.187 (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

nationality of Hong Kong people

Please see on-going discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China#Nationality_of_Hong_Kong_people. Would love to hear input from our fellow Hong Kong wikipedians. Colipon+(Talk) 19:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment: Donald Tsang

A request for comment has been filed regarding the use of "Sir" in Donald Tsang's biography. Please join the discussion here. --Jiang (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

template:Zh-hk icon

{{Zh-hk icon}} says it classifies "simplified" characters, but the template text itself seems to be written for "traditional" characters. Which is this template supposed to tag? 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Good call, I've undone the edit. Deryck C. 20:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Bishops article name help

Hullo HK-knowing folk. I need to borrow your knowledge. I keep an eye on the articles of Anglican bishops – for Hong Kong that means the bishops of Sheng Kung Hui. Particularly, I like to make sure that articles are in the correct place (i.e. the article name is right). However, I don't really know how names work in HK. What are the parts of these names, and where should their articles be?

• Peter Kwong Kong-kit
• Paul Kwong (does he have more names? Why not?)
• Louis Tsan Sang Tsui
• Yee-po Thomas Soo
• Andrew Chan Au-Ming

Many thanks DBD 16:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Usually the shorter the better, keep it simple, you may refer to WP:UCN and WP:NC-ZH. T@ναταΓ (discuss–?) 16:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Connie Mak

Can anyone help me, please? This has been relisted twice without sufficient consensus. Someone help can determin whether the article must be either "Connie Mak" or "Kitman Mak". Thanks! George Ho (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I closed it despite the recent relist. The discussion is just dragging on without getting anywhere; and since the current name is valid, I decided to just leave it there. Deryck C. 11:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Perth requested-move notification

A requested move survey was started at Talk:Perth_(disambiguation)#Requested_move, which proposes to move:

• Perth → Perth, Western Australia
• Perth, Scotland → Perth, Perthshire
• Perth (disambiguation) → Perth

Background: There was a previous requested-move survey which ran from late May to mid June. There was a great deal of controversy surrounding the closure and subsequent events, which involved a number of reverts and re-reverts which are the subject of an ongoing arbitration case. There was a move review process, which was closed with a finding that the original requested-move closure was endorsed; however, the move review process is relatively new and untried. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

北漏洞拉

Hi. Is there anyone here who knows about 北漏洞拉? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Tiangong and Category:Shenzhou programme

Category:Tiangong and Category:Shenzhou programme have been proposed to be renamed. There's also an issue on which English variant should be used. As HK has been part of China since 1997, would HK English be the preferred form of English? Would HK English use "program" or "programme" ? -- 70.24.247.242 (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Mainland China does not follow the English conventions of Hong Kong. Usually, American English (for example, spelling colour as 'color') is used. I've commented on the category discussion. --Wylve (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Shenzhou 9

Since the crew recently visited HK, it would be good if some photos can be provided for their various articles -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 10:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Cantonese braille

If anyone has RS's on this, please help! All we have is Omniglot, which copied a now defunct web page, which used unknown sources. The bit of braille at online HK orgs for the blind I've found support it as far as they go, but most of our braille articles have had at least a typo or two, and I want to be sure to get it right.

Thanks — kwami (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Big Problem

The Hong Kong articles about places..etc have bad grammars, or they type it in the Chinese way not the English way!-- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉^Talk_Contribs 03:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Are there any specific articles? Tsange ☯ Talk 20:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

One such article, is the Lion Rock.-- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉^Talk_Contribs 02:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Museum of Contemporary Art, Asia

Just discovered the Museum of Contemporary Art, Asia article. The "museum" seems to be in fact an art organization without a dedicated exhibition space. In any case not "one of the best contemporary art museums in the world" as stated in the article. This should be clarified as this might be a good candidate for deletion. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Please support

Hello WikiProject Hong Kong user!

Please show your support for the creation of a Hong Kong cinema taskforce of Wikiproject:Films! To help please show your support on the discussion page!

Hong Kong Taskforce discussion
Thank You!

Tsange ☯ Talk 20:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

A.S. Watson Group

Should A.S. Watson Group and Watson's (Your Personal Store) be merged? The Chinese Wikipedia uses one article about A.S. Watson Group and its retail divisions. There's also Watson's Personal Care Stores. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

But the group also carries other brands. It's sort of like Yum! Brands, which controls KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and others. I think they should be kept as different articles. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

2012 Chinese American infobox representatives open nomination period

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian_American#Chinese American infobox representative nominees. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal of Childhood Bilingualism Research Centre

Hello everyone. I've just proposed the merge of Childhood Bilingualism Research Centre into Chinese University of Hong Kong, and I would be very grateful if editors here could give their opinion. The discussion is at Talk:Chinese University of Hong Kong#Merge proposal. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 05:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

2012 Asian American representative approval period (Now until 18 December)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Representative approval. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Tofu skin

"Tofu skin" is rated as "mid-importance", is that correct according to the project? -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I've corrected it to "low-importance". Wylve (talk) 06:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Concern over edits

I am concerned about a significant number of this IP's contributions which appear to be systematically making small edits to denote Hong Kong as a country. (eg: MTR_Corporation, List of National Geoparks, Hong Kong Stock Exchange) The contributions page suggests very prolific editing - not all controversial - but on numerous occasions either an info box, list entry or category change is, I would guess, trying to establish a normality for Hong Kong to be treated by Wikipedia in these terms. Several have been reverted by a different IP and 218.250.159.142 re-edited to remove China refs again. Am I right to be concerned? It is not an area I am familiar with, so am reluctant to wade in and start changing them all back without knowing the consensus and issues. Another editor mentioned something similar on 218.250.159.142's talk page, getting a polite denial that it was problem, and no change in editing practice. The edits are un-sourced and un-summarised, so may look innocuous on watchlists. The sheer number of edits (and possibility of other IPs being involved) means a wider pool of editors will be needed if action is required. Thanks. RobinLeicester (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I've briefly gone through the cases that you presented here, Robin. Separation is what the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law were meant for and provide for. Hong Kong was intended to be and is maintained as a separate jurisdiction, from separate immigration control, currencies, legal systems, to the extent that a bilateral agreement had to be signed within the WTO framework (as two different member economies of the WTO) to liberalise trade across the border. If you read news publications, you'll probably find that Hong Kong appears (and continues to appear) on its own on lists, tables, graphs, and so on and so forth. People are suggested not to write China on envelopes for international air mail if they want to have their letters delivered to the recipients in HK without delay. 14.0.208.107 (talk) 07:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The edits of User:218.250.159.142 are OK to me, as long as he/she does not put "Hong Kong" in the field of "country" in infoboxes, because HK is not a country, but an SAR of China, as stated in the Basic Law and the Joint Declaration. I have reverted some of the IP's edits and I do see a tendency to replace HK as the country in various articles. The only thing we can do is to replace his/her edits with sourced, reasonable ones. --Wylve (talk) 08:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

218.250.159.142 was right for his or her observation of the "preexisting trend" on Wikipedia. That has long been the practice on Wikipedia to deal with Hong Kong and all dependent territories in general. Hong Kong is more or less like Guernsey, the Isle of Man, and Jersey are to the UK.14.0.208.48 (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

In contrast to what Wylve suggests, putting Hong Kong in the country field is actually the convention established by Hong Kong-based editors since the early days of Wikipedia. This is because a country is different from a sovereign state, and in many contexts "country" implies "jurisdiction" rather than "sovereign state", in which case it is important to note the differences between Hong Kong and PRC mainland and put Hong Kong into the country field. It is unfortunate that most editors from outside Hong Kong don't understand this subtlety and assume the Hong Kong editor is wrong in most of these cases. Deryck C. 11:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there an established official convention/manual of style/policy we can follow? If not, I suggest establishing one to prevent this problem from being a concern of some editors in the future. --Wylve (talk) 13:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Deryck. Hong Kong has long been considered a separate entity as it is under the current circumstances with no controversy (Unlike the Taiwan/ROC debate, God bless). Even on immigration cards you write Hong Kong in both the city and country section. Very technically it's Hong Kong (China) like in the Olympics or Hong Kong (SAR), which are both acceptable, but for simplicity's sake, Hong Kong should be just...well, Hong Kong. The issue here should therefore be whether the various articles have been categorised properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dengero (talk • contribs) 15:44, 26 December 2012‎

I'd concur with Deryck too. I don't think we need an actual rule or manual specifically for Wikipedia, since this has long been the practice, within Wikipedia, and outside Wikipedia in reputable and reliable sources. And I'm afraid, Deryck, most editors from outside Hong Kong actually understand the subtlety (as you called) well. This practice, as far as I know, has been in place since the earliestest days of Wikipedia, when Wikipedia itself was basically unheard among Hong Kong netizens. The Hong Kong article started as a country article, got a country infobox, and covered by the WikiProject Countries without any question. It had been peaceful until Chinese and Singaporean editors came around. 14.0.208.48 (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that really helpful and enlightening discussion, which has greatly re-assured me. I realise that seeing many edits by anonymous IPs was part of what concerned me, and I encourage any regular editor to get a logged in account if that is at all possible, as it gives so much more confidence to other editors, as well as a better opportunity for discussion. Similarly, spelling out in the summary what you are changing will also make it look less covert. But thanks for a good debate. If a convention on HK country-usage can be set out somewhere, and perhaps even a well-referenced paragraph on the Hong Kong page, that would definitely be a help. RobinLeicester (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with Deryck Chan here, and have disagreed with him before when he has asserted that there is some unwritten "convention" to treat China and Hong Kong as separate countries, as on "List of National Geoparks". This is a factual error. On his userpage, he cites "growing after life experience" as evidence of his open-mindedness or something, but those diffs also prove that there was conflict about this issue for a long time. There's inconsistent usage on Wikipedia only because of IP editors like this and their enablers like Mr. Chan, but our main Hong Kong article notes that Hong Kong is a SAR of China and not its own sovereign state. We're following reality and reliable sources by doing this, not "Chinese and Singaporean editors", as the disgusting insinuation by 14.0.208.48 suggests. This terminology game would not excuse separating "Scotland" and "United Kingdom", even though the former is sometimes referred to as a "country" (at least more than Hong Kong—in fact, the designation of Hong Kong as "a country" is the original research of Wikipedia editors, which is usually called a city). Shrigley (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

As with Shrigley, I would object to writing in HK under the "Country" field of infoboxes, but there should be no legitimate/substantial criticism with skipping that field (which should be filled by the PRC) and calling the first field "Region" or "SAR", which does happen to conserve space as well. The corresponding code would be : |subdivision_type = SAR |subdivision_name = Hong Kong GotR ^Talk 05:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This isn't OR of Wikipedia editors, Shrigley, but the general practice of reputable publications including many international news magazines. And this isn't just a practice for Hong Kong, but for all dependencies in general. In Hong Kong, at least until very recently, the cities are Victoria, Kowloon, Sha Tin, Tsuen Wan, as you can find in the Hansard. As a whole it's usually referred as "the colony", "the crown colony", or "the territory". GotR I'm not too sure if you speak any of the Chinese languages. But your interpretation of the word "country" isn't English. You might have perceived the meaning of this word in another language. Anyhow, in many infoboxes there is a field titled simply as "location". 14.0.208.40 (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I now notice that Hong Kong has an ISO 3166 Country Code [4], which gives it a much stronger case to be described as a country than Scotland, for example. However, it is also part of the sovereign state (and country) that is generally referred to as China.[5] (ie it can be seen as a constituent country). For infoboxes etc, which need to answer the question 'What country is it in?', the answer could therefore be 'Hong Kong, China'. On the other hand, where an international organisation publishes a list 'by country', (such as the Members of the Global Geoparks Network), it is a Wikipedia principle that the sources drive the content: ie the entries should use the same headings unless there are well-referenced usages, specific to that list, that use something different. Could that be the basis of a working practice? RobinLeicester (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with Robin in that the source drives the content. We aren't really looking at whether or not Hong Kong is a country (of course it's not), or how separate of an entity it is, but rather look at the source itself. GDP of China excludes Hong Kong, which is usually listed on it's own unlike Scotland, which is obviously lumped with the UK. If the Hong Kong Geoparks is lumped with China according to the source, then the article itself should relate more to China. Dengero (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Robin we usually "wikify" the articles. For example, some airline companies consider Turkey to be Asia, but we on Wikipedia usually list airports in this country under Europe. Official sources usually spell Burma, the Ivory Coast and Vietnam as Myanmar, Côte d'Ivoire and Viet Nam, and call South Korea simply as Korea, but we Wikipedia editors normally stick with the common names. Do you write Jersey, United Kingdom or Isle of Man, United Kingdom? If we only follow the sources why don't we simply create indexes of hyperlinks to the sources? Why we need to have wikified articles on Wikipedia?

Dangero your observation with GDP is very true. But that separation is in fact very common. Hong Kong figures are rarely lumped with Chinese figures. Such figures are simple summation of the Hong Kong and the Chinese figures. (Even if they are lumped together, they are collected separately, often with different methodologies, and reported separately as breakdowns.) 14.0.208.40 (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Jersey and Isle of Man are not part of the UK. I would certainly expect to see 'Wales, UK' - not because I would expect to see it, but because that is what people who write authoritatively on the subject say is the case, and what those who want to find out about a particular location may need to know. We Wikipedia editors are not here to decide usage but to reflect and distill it. I have cited two sources above (Davros and BBC) that write about Hong Kong as both a country and as part of a larger country. Are there authoritative sources (reliable secondary sources are encouraged and are not the same as 'official sources') that show usage for not including both of these? Does it help a reader's understanding to miss either out when, for example, saying which country a business is based in? RobinLeicester (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a matter of terminologies. In the UK, laws are not extended to the crown dependencies (namely the Isle of Man and the two bailiwicks, which, together with the UK itself, are defined to be "British Islands" or "United Kingdom and Islands" in some acts, such as the Immigration Act 1971), unless otherwise provided by that piece of legislation. In the People's Republic of China, laws are not extended to the two special administrative regions unless they are specifically listed in annex 3 of the basic law of either special administrative region. In that sense you may say in the UK there are two clearly defined different concepts with different terms, whereas in the case of the PRC the two different concepts are as well defined, but the terms aren't as clear. 14.0.208.111 (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It may depend upon what circumstance is involved in the particular list. In aviation-related lists (like airline destinations) Hong Kong should be listed separate from the Mainland because it has its own aviation policy and institutions for oversight, and on top of that, flights between China and Hong Kong are treated as international flights. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I should answer my own question by suggesting the following fairly random usages:-

• www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/hk.html - the CIA lists it as Hong Kong in its lists of countries, describes the 'One Country, two systems' formula, but never uses 'Hong Kong, China'.
• www.olympic.org/hong-kong-china - here and throughout the olympics the national team is uniformly called 'Hong Kong, China'
• www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/hong_kong_china_e.htm - World Trade Organisation uniformly calles it Hong Kong, China.
• www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploreeconomies/hong-kong-china uses 'Hong Kong SAR, China'
• www.lonelyplanet.com/china/hong-kong has it within it's 'China' section, and uses 'Hong Kong' throughout the page (as it would with any of its China destinations).

And the list could go on, with many more combinations, I am sure. What I couldn't discover from my mini-survey was how, if at all, the terminology has political/controversial overtones. Is it the case that where Hong Kong gets to choose its own name, it always uses 'Hong Kong, China'? How widely is that followed by others when giving the name of the country? It certainly gives strong backing to HK having its own entry in lists of countries - unless sources on a particular topic always include it within China. There is clearly a desire by 'the authorities' to link Hong Kong and China in the name. Can anyone shed light on whether there is a parallel desire/movement to not mention China, and whether it has well established usage. As I suggested above, it is not the place for Wikipedia to try and make such usage common, but it should not ignore it if that is what reliable, well-considered, sources are doing. A few sources that address the topic of Hong Kong's name would be very welcome. RobinLeicester (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

That's because Hong Kong is required by the Basic Law that the PRC imposed upon HK to use "Hong Kong, China" in international organisation memberships and international events. Apart from that, simply "Hong Kong" is fine enough, from everyday language to academic publications. That's the practice in English, Cantonese, Chinese, or any other language. ("Hong Kong, China" doesn't sound natural anyway.) The convention on Wikipedia is to follow the general practice, that is, simply "Hong Kong". (You wouldn't say "Montserrat, United Kingdom", would you?) 219.76.89.131 (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

How about this, I propose that we continue using what the Hong Kong basic law dictates. That is, where except in matters of foreign and military sense, all else denotes Hong Kong as a separate entity. Of course, if the source of the topic specifically denotes HK as part of/under China, then the country row should be China. Dengero (talk) 13:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Dengero's suggestion, if I understand it correctly, follows some of example sources I suggested. But 219.76.89.131 claims a different practice in not using 'Hong Kong, China'.(As this is en.wiki our primary concern here is what to call it in English). As it would appear not to be the international standard, please offer some citations to back up the claim that 'Hong Kong' would be the generally-expected answer to the question 'What Country is location x in?'. (nb This is specifically in relation to Infobox 'Country=' entries, and lists of countries. Within general text, less formality would, I am sure, be the norm, especially if the Country has been described elsewhere on the page.) The suggestion that it is 'imposed upon HK' is a specific claim that needs clear external references, as is the implication that it is objectionable to/rejected by non-PRC sources. I am in no way disbeleiving this claim, but it is not enough for Wikipedia to just claim an undefined general practice when it goes against official practice. Please try and give external sources to back up the claims, rather than just your opinion, which by definition offers no verifiability. Thanks, RobinLeicester (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you may want to understand a bit more about the background before we carry on our discussion. The Basic Law was passed only by the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China. It wasn't concurrently passed by the Legislative Council or the electorate of Hong Kong. Information about this are easily available on Wikipedia and from external sources. As for sources that reflect the general practice, you may want to refer to The Economist or publications of the EIU, e.g. 14.0.208.111 (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Such as [6], [7], [8], [9], or even [10], [11], [12], [13]. 14.0.208.111 (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Dengero please take a glance at WP:UCN and WP:ON. 14.0.208.111 (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hong Kong doesn't get to choose its name in the cases you referred to, Robin. And quite on the contrary, it isn't a parallel desire/movement not to mention China. Just that it isn't necessary.., nor does it sound natural. Wikipedia should reflect the actual usage, instead of what is officially dictated. (That's the reason why we have articles titled Burma, Ivory Coast, Vietnam, instead of Myanmar, Côte d'Ivoire, Viet Nam.) 14.0.208.111 (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Due to significant input by IP users, I would recommend you all to create an account, as I could no longer differentiate who is who and your views on the matter. Dengero (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Well that was a surprisingly long process, but there are finally some good quality sources to back the use 'Hong Kong' as the 'Country=' in appropriate infoboxes. Without a well-referenced discussion, it is impossible to demonstrate what the verifiable 'actual usage' is, in an area where there has been considerable editing activity. To sum up my position: the claim that Kong Kong is 'not a country' would appear to be ruled out. The term 'country' is frequently and definitively used to refer to it. Other than that, I am aware that there are still a variety of views, and sources to back them all up. Edit warring is clearly therefore futile and unwise. The primary guide must - as always - be any specific authoritative sources. In many topics the sources will not address the question of the country name, in which case there must be some discretion for editors, and a similar level of respect for, and willingness to engage with, other editors via talk pages. That is not an easy compromise, but may be the best on offer, unless someone feels the need to seek a more definitive ruling - in which case, good luck to them I say. Thank you for such a well-mannered and comparatively productive debate. RobinLeicester (talk) 03:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree. As you said in many topics the sources don't readily or explicitly address this question, and editors' discretions are very often indispensable from common sense and personal experiences. Nevertheless, you may have perhaps noticed that in some areas, such as list of APEC members, list of IOC members, list of WTO members, or list of countries by medals in the 2012 Summer Olympics, Hong Kong already appears as "Hong Kong, China" in those lists or tables, as long as it's about something post-1997. Other than that, we shall continue to follow the general usage in the English language. After all our top priority as Wikipedia editors is to present accurate information in a manner that readers can easily navigate and locate the information they need. 14.0.208.102 (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

On side note, it's interesting that three or four decades ago when there were many colonies or dependencies, there wasn't any ambiguity around the definition of the word "country". It's understood to cover both sovereign states and dependencies. Yet ever since most dependencies had gone independent, people started to question whether the remaining dependencies are countries or not. Is it because the remaining dependencies are much less noticeable on maps, especially small-scale ones, since they are geographically small; or is it because the English language is heavily influenced by other languages over the decades? (Many languages got no separate terms for sovereign state and country.) 14.0.208.102 (talk) 04:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)