Jump to content

Talk:Central and Western District

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sai Wan

[edit]

Could anyone tell me the difference among Sai Wan, Sai Ying Pun and West Point? --Jerry Crimson Mann 05:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In Chinese, Sai Wan, as one of the four wans and nine yeuks, covers a larger area than Sai Ying Pun. Not too sure for English. Strictly speaking I would have thought West Point is referring to a point or a cape, say, perhaps, the Belcher's Point. But from what I observed, for instance minibus destination signs, West Point in English is being used synonmously with Sai Wan or Kennedy Town. — Instantnood 09:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, West Point, Sai Wan and Kennedy Town are used synonmouly and refers to the part of Hong Kong Island that begins from the junction of Belcher Street Queens's Road West and ends with the Road.

Karolus


The first sentence

[edit]

I know some of you are going to say I'm biased, but really, what is there to be biased about? Simply because it's far more logical, I would say that we should not fragment the link Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The reason is as follows:

  • Next in the sentence, we link to People's Republic of China, which is the full title of the entity commonly known as China.
  • So why shouldn't we link the entire full title of Hong Kong? Logical?

If we were to split Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, then we should then link People's Republic of China, which is ridiculous.

An alternative is the following:

The Central and Western District (...) is one of the 18 districts of Hong Kong, a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.

That should be acceptable to everyone. Here a split is necessitated by the desire to avoid repetition. enochlau (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(By the way, I'm very tempted to nominate this for WP:LAME. enochlau (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Oh you really really should. My AUD0.02 idea/suggestion was mentioned in the (rather rediculously long) edit summary somewhere -- we should use common short name in these cases unless there is a compelling reason not to. I.e. '... one of the 18 disctincts of Hong Kong.' If they want to find out about China and SARs they can follow the link to the HK article. No need to stuff down the throats of everyone that HK is a SAR and yes it is part of China. novacatz 09:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned elsewhere, I would prefer "[[Hong Kong|Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China]]" or simply "[[Hong Kong]]", to "[[Hong Kong]] [[Special Adminsitrative Region]] of the [[People's Republic of China]]".

"[[Hong Kong]], a [[special administrative region]] of the [[People's Republic of China]]" is perhaps the best way (when its status is necessary to be mentioned, e.g. like this article that talks about an administrative division). — Instantnood 09:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal of removing the whole "Politics" section

[edit]

The information in this section is completely out-dated, when still mention the 2003 election. I suggest to remove it or somebody update the information. Addaick (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"City-state"?

[edit]

Just to show how far this user Da Vynci (talk · contribs) is willing to go to declare independence for Hong Kong from China on Wikipedia. Colipon+(Talk) 16:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Central and Western District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Central and Western District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Central and Western District Council.svg

[edit]

File:Central and Western District Council.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Central_and_Western_District&oldid=1200734251"