Template talk:HKG
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Hong Kong, China
[edit]My reason for renaming this from "Hong Kong" to "Hong Kong, China", is because this template is most likely being used for international listings of countries and that for international organisations. More often then not, the "People's Republic of China" is also listed, which then presents a factual inaccuracy since HK is a part of the PRC. "Hong Kong, China" is the proper name approved by the Beijing government for which HK should take on when participating in international organisations, sporting events, and so on.--Huaiwei 07:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- The only problem is that it's highly inconsistent. There are templates for all other dependencies (sans those which I really considere to be pseudo-dependencies, like Svalbard & Jan Mayen or the islands surrounding Australia), and for instance {{TKL}} gives
Tokelau and not Tokelau, New Zealand, even though it's a part of New Zealand. Furthermore, the official name for Hong Kong in ISO-3166-1, which forms the basis for this template series, is "Hong Kong", not "Hong Kong, PRC" or "Hong Kong, China". I do understand, however, that it may at times be advisable to list Hong Kong as "Hong Kong, China" for clarification. Would it be a viable solution if we created non-ISO-standard templates for Hong Kong and Macao (for instance, {{HKG-PRC}} and {{MAC-PRC}}) which would follow your suggestion and list them as "Hong Kong, PRC/China" and "Macao, PRC/China" respectively? ナイトスタリオン…ㇳ–ㇰ 08:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- That's what I have in mind too. With the non-ISO-standard templates we'll be able to serve both needs. It is stated in the constitutions - the basic laws - that Hong Kong and Macao have to join international organisations or to participate in sport events under the names "Hong Kong, China" and "Macao, China" (and in fact the IOC template of Hong Kong has been modified as such [1]). Nevertheless, for ordinary lists of countries and territories it may not be necessary to specify Hong Kong and Macao as part of the PRC, but rather, it could be necessary to specify that information or figures of the PRC provided cover only mainland China (that is, the rest of PRC-administered territories of China). — Instantnood 09:21, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Your solution is plausible, Nightstallion. Unlike other non-soverign states, the situation of HK and Macau calls for greater sensitivity, particularly when the ISO specifications has not been changed dispite laws stating that both shall continue to be represented in international arena, but with the ", China" suffix attached. The ISO and other conventions obviously calls for the People's Republic of China to be named as such, or simply as "China", so by adding those suffixes to the two SARs, we can avoid the need for lenghty explainations and having to use non-official terminlogy like "Mainland China".--Huaiwei 10:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Without explanation whether Hong Kong and Macao are included in the information or figures of the PRC would be ambiguous. And clarification: "Mainland China" is an official terminology. — Instantnood 10:44, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- An explaination would only probably be neccesary if it was plain clear that confusions will arise, just like we dont need to have "Hong Kong, China" in all mentions of the words HK either. Mainland China, btw, is not official terminology.--Huaiwei 16:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- The lists of countries by population and by area, for instance, require explanation. I have shown some examples that the term "mainland China" and its variants are used for official matters. You keep asserting it is not with little, if not no, evidence. — Instantnood 17:43, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- They are there, because once upon a time, the lists entries didnt read "PRC" and "HK SAR (PRC)", but merely as "PRC" and "HK". You were actively involved in the editing tussles over there, so I would have expected you to know this perfectly well. If you think it neccesary to add disclaimers even when it is already writtern as "PRC" and "HK, China", then be my guest. I suppose on my part, I should then go round renaming all "HK"s as "HK, China"s? As for your claims that the term "Mainland China" is "official", I have repeatedly said that its usage in offcial speeches and names of existing entities does not make it an official terminology for a country, particularly in a list of countries and in any other similar usage in which proper, official country names are used for all other entities. Quite obviously, you have ignored this and pretended it dosent exist, claiming that I "present no evidence". Refusal to accept evidence does not equal no evidence, instantnood.--Huaiwei 18:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Mind telling where you presented such evidence that it is not an official term? I have never said "mainland China" is a terminology to refer to that territory as a country or as a sovereign State. Nevertheless the "country" under many circumstances should not be perceived by the strictest sense. Members of the WTO are very often, no matter formally or informally, said to be "countries", or more politically correct "countries and regions"/"countries and territories". Yet everyone knows well that members are customs territories, and nearly all of them correspond to countries with very few exceptions. — Instantnood 18:53, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- No dear, continuing to feign ignorance is not going to work here, or any more. I specifically even remember you making the exact same response above, which goes almost the same as "I have never said "mainland China" is a terminology to refer to that territory as a country or as a sovereign State". Yet I have repeatedly reminded, that its not about whether you have said anything. Your edits says it for you, and that is all that matters. Actions speaks louder then words. I believe I have said this line a million times by now, but which you simply ignore and continue to play the "ignorance" card. And meanwhile, you continue to assert that the word "countries" is flexible, just as you assert that "nations" "states" etc are so too. But a certain pattern is obvious in all of them. As a geographer, I can tell when someone is arguing their fluid nature based on academic evidence, and when someone is just saying it to advance a political agenda. And btw, what makes you think "everyone knows well that members are customs territories" in the WTO? In fact, we seem to have a rising mumber of people (not from Asia) questioning why HK is still being listed after 1997, so what does that says about your "everyone"?--Huaiwei 19:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think people using the words "country" and "national" would be always meaning sovereign State specifically... and that's something you've continued to ignore. I don't know who are the "rising mumber of people (not from Asia)", and I'd say such people are not very familiar with Hong Kong if they really make such comment. — Instantnood 18:01, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
- No dear, continuing to feign ignorance is not going to work here, or any more. I specifically even remember you making the exact same response above, which goes almost the same as "I have never said "mainland China" is a terminology to refer to that territory as a country or as a sovereign State". Yet I have repeatedly reminded, that its not about whether you have said anything. Your edits says it for you, and that is all that matters. Actions speaks louder then words. I believe I have said this line a million times by now, but which you simply ignore and continue to play the "ignorance" card. And meanwhile, you continue to assert that the word "countries" is flexible, just as you assert that "nations" "states" etc are so too. But a certain pattern is obvious in all of them. As a geographer, I can tell when someone is arguing their fluid nature based on academic evidence, and when someone is just saying it to advance a political agenda. And btw, what makes you think "everyone knows well that members are customs territories" in the WTO? In fact, we seem to have a rising mumber of people (not from Asia) questioning why HK is still being listed after 1997, so what does that says about your "everyone"?--Huaiwei 19:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Mind telling where you presented such evidence that it is not an official term? I have never said "mainland China" is a terminology to refer to that territory as a country or as a sovereign State. Nevertheless the "country" under many circumstances should not be perceived by the strictest sense. Members of the WTO are very often, no matter formally or informally, said to be "countries", or more politically correct "countries and regions"/"countries and territories". Yet everyone knows well that members are customs territories, and nearly all of them correspond to countries with very few exceptions. — Instantnood 18:53, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- They are there, because once upon a time, the lists entries didnt read "PRC" and "HK SAR (PRC)", but merely as "PRC" and "HK". You were actively involved in the editing tussles over there, so I would have expected you to know this perfectly well. If you think it neccesary to add disclaimers even when it is already writtern as "PRC" and "HK, China", then be my guest. I suppose on my part, I should then go round renaming all "HK"s as "HK, China"s? As for your claims that the term "Mainland China" is "official", I have repeatedly said that its usage in offcial speeches and names of existing entities does not make it an official terminology for a country, particularly in a list of countries and in any other similar usage in which proper, official country names are used for all other entities. Quite obviously, you have ignored this and pretended it dosent exist, claiming that I "present no evidence". Refusal to accept evidence does not equal no evidence, instantnood.--Huaiwei 18:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- The lists of countries by population and by area, for instance, require explanation. I have shown some examples that the term "mainland China" and its variants are used for official matters. You keep asserting it is not with little, if not no, evidence. — Instantnood 17:43, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- An explaination would only probably be neccesary if it was plain clear that confusions will arise, just like we dont need to have "Hong Kong, China" in all mentions of the words HK either. Mainland China, btw, is not official terminology.--Huaiwei 16:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- There you go. {{HKG-PRC}} and {{MAC-PRC}} at your service. Glad to have resolved this issue so quickly. ;) ナイトスタリオン…ㇳ–ㇰ 11:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Added to Wikipedia:country referencing templates :-) — Instantnood 11:26, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Ahh! Thank you very much! ;)--Huaiwei 16:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Without explanation whether Hong Kong and Macao are included in the information or figures of the PRC would be ambiguous. And clarification: "Mainland China" is an official terminology. — Instantnood 10:44, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Your solution is plausible, Nightstallion. Unlike other non-soverign states, the situation of HK and Macau calls for greater sensitivity, particularly when the ISO specifications has not been changed dispite laws stating that both shall continue to be represented in international arena, but with the ", China" suffix attached. The ISO and other conventions obviously calls for the People's Republic of China to be named as such, or simply as "China", so by adding those suffixes to the two SARs, we can avoid the need for lenghty explainations and having to use non-official terminlogy like "Mainland China".--Huaiwei 10:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Recent edits
[edit]Regarding the recent edits to this template, please refer to the discussion at user talk:Alanmak. Thank you. — Instantnood 18:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)