Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Articles on early colonial HK/peer review

Hi all—I've been working on articles on early colonial Hong Kong (so far I've created William Thomas Bridges, William Tarrant, The Friend of China, and Esing Bakery incident, and I've started drafting an article for the Caldwell affair). Comments/edits on any of these and suggestions for related topics are very welcome. I've listed Esing Bakery incident for peer review so feedback there would be especially appreciated. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 23:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hong Kong politics and Wikipedia

Hello My name is Omer Benjakob and I am a journalist covering Wikipedia I am working on a story for a prestigious magazine about how political tensions regarding Hong Kong have played out on Wikipedia - in both English and Chinese - in wake of the recent protests.

I would love to exchange emails, WhatsApp or WeChat with anyone who is willing to talk (either off or on the record), but I also invite everyone involved in the Hong Kong project to respond to any one of these questions:

1. What are the main articles in which the protests have played out on Chinese Wikipedia? How about Wikipedia in Cantonese?

2. Would you say that the protests have spilled over into Chinese Wikipedia? If so, how? If not, why?

3. Have there been other ramifications on Wikipedia? specific acts of censorship or page locking for example?

4. Are there other articles that have seen this debate spill over into them? For example, historical articles or articles that seem unrelated but have some indirect connection to the protests or the bill or any other underlying political aspect

5. Are there big political differences in terms of content and editors between Wikipedia in Chinese and the Cantonese version?

6. Are there many active Chinese Wikipedia editors in Hong Kong? Do they often clash with Chinese editors or do internet restrictions block all forms of interaction on Wikipedia?

7. Generally, how does the difference in internet access effect the Chinese Wikipedia? Does it mean that those contributing to it and are "behind the firewall" have to follow the state line? Or does it mean that there are more diverse voices from those "outside the firewall"

8. How has the final definitive Wikipedia ban effected Chinese Wikipedia?

9. What is the role of alternative online encylopdias in this story? Is there also an active debate going on in Baidu Baike or is strictly following the state line?

Omer Benjakob (talk) 10:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

WPHK is not an active wikiproject. You may sent invite via Category:Wikipedians interested in Hong Kong or Category:WikiProject Hong Kong participants to individual wiki editors instead. Matthew hk (talk) 10:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Also due to sensitive nature of exposing mobile phone number, it may be better via telegram, discord or even Skype, but not WeChat and Whatsapp. Matthew hk (talk) 10:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Bridgefy

Hi all

I just started an article for Bridgefy which has been widely used in the protests in Hong Kong to avoid surveillance. I would appreciate some help expanding the article.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Article in need of attention: 1994 in Hong Kong

Hello WP:HK,

I have found an article called 1994 in Hong Kong, through the Un-class section of the Assessment department.

I was wondering whether anyone would like to improve this article, and save it from possible deletion.

I am also not sure whether this is relevant/important enough for the talk page of WP:HK, as this is my first time posting in this talk page.

Thanks,

Trinitrobrick | Free Hong Kong!, 12:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on RfC: What disambiguation should post-1997 Hong Kong TV series article use?

You are invited to join the discussion at this Request For Comment on RfC: What disambiguation should post-1997 Hong Kong TV series article use?. Gonnym (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on reliability of Hong Kong Free Press

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of Hong Kong Free Press, especially with regard to its reporting on the 2019 Hong Kong protests. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Is the Hong Kong Free Press a reliable source?. — Newslinger talk 11:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on reliability of RTHK

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of RTHK's reporting of November 2019 Hong Kong protests. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RTHK for List of November 2019 Hong Kong protests. — Newslinger talk 11:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Category deletion discussion

Please come participate in the discussion here. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

New bot to remove completed infobox requests

Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Hong Kong since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!

Sent on behalf of Trialpears (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for the creation of Hong Kong name template

Considering that most Asian countries/regions have their own name template, shouldn't Hong Kong have its own as well? Gandalfett (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gandalfett: Basically most Hong Kong name are Chinese name, except ethnic Westerners or from other Asian cultural group. It just so weird that people also have English name which may be officially or unofficially on their legal document AND listing the given names of the Chinese and English cultures at the same time. For example, Carrie Lam-Cheng Yuet-ngor (Ms. Lam née Cheng), Matthew Cheung Kin-chung (Mr. Cheung). I saw scholar treated their Chinese given name as middle-name-like and abb. them on their papers sometimes, or don't list the English name at all. Or some other example, Sam Hui, Andy Lau and Richard Li, their common name were English language/culture given name + Chinese language/culture surname, and the Chinese language/culture given name are rarely used by themselves in English conversation and on English media (Certainly they all refer to their Chinese name in Chinese language media of HK). However, for media, both Matthew Cheung or Cheung Kin-chung were used. So, for the scope of your template, what do you want to do? Matthew hk (talk) 09:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Study the Ottoman name template used in Talaat Pasha. One can put in given name, title, and family name, and the template specifies if the person has no family name (Turks at the time did not). One can similarly put in ((Western given name)) ((Family name)) ((Chinese given name)) and the template can say "XX" is the family name", "YY" is the Chinese given name, and "ZZ" is the Western given name. The same template can be used for Singapore and Malaysia too. Also some Chinese in the Republican era had Western given names (think Wellington Koo). WhisperToMe (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@WhisperToMe: To add more confusion, Way Kuo, Chip Tsao, Yue-Kong Pao use Western name order. Some scientist had weird name in the papers despite now standardized as "Surname, Given name" for some journal. I don't mind to create such template, but if covers Singapore and Malaysia with Chinese cultural background, which name should be used for such template? Some off-topic, Japanese announced to revert to Surname Given name order for their Latin script translation of their name. Certainly create more problem on guessing the surname from the name that appears in media. Matthew hk (talk) 10:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Not sure how this would work given the arguments listed above. Hong Kong is very multicultural and has influences from all over the place. I think it would create more confusion than it would solve to have a naming template given that names of popular figures in Hong Kong render their names in all manner if different ways. Kdm852 (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Rfc: setting up a MoS for populated place of Hong Kong.

Thus, for the sake of Rfc, which more easily to handle multiple choice question. Should geo articles of Hong Kong have a "main" article (i.e. put all Education topic to Tai Po District, instead of copy the content partially to each concentric circles, i.e., if the school is located in the New Town in Tai Po Market, wrote the same content again and again at articles Tai Po Market and Tai Po New Town and Tai Po or not? Multiple hatnote on Tai Po District to ask people to navigate to the sections that spread in several neighbourhoods article?)? -- Matthew hk (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Unfortunate this wikiproject is dead which did not have active discussion for ages . And further i digged into improving articles, i faced a problem that articles for neighbourhoods as well as District and Town (New Town) are messes, which needs consensus on how to improve it. The latter two have statuary boundaries (as least urban planning plan is something we can dig out to define a border to avoid WP:OR the landmark is inside or outside the town and district or not, despite it is unfamiliar to the general public). But for neighbourhoods, usually there is fork definition only. Using some example, there are Tai Po District, Tai Po, Tai Po New Town articles, which the District is no doubt much larger than the Town. But Tai Po and Tai Po New Town are somehow synonym, despite Tai Po as a settlement predates the New Town project (thus i changed the Tai Po New Town to cover the development history only). It also have Tai Po Market article which cover the neighbourhood within Tai Po New Town (synonym to Tai Po) neighbourhood, which its history also predate the New Town project. It seem it is the matter of geo articles that covers area with different radius (sound likes 1, 3, 5, 7 units) but also as concentric circles. There is another example, Yuen Long, Yuen Long Town (by urban planning, it covers Yuen Long Kau Hui and Yuen Long San Hui, thus i really don't know the scope of the layers of tessellation that overlaps), Yuen Long District, Yuen Long Plain and related topic Yuen Long Centre (constituency). Or Tuen Mun District, Tuen Mun New Town, Tuen Mun, Tuen Mun Town Centre (which i don't know fork definition includes Tuen Mun San Hui in the town centre or not; the Town Centre article is under Afd).

Lastly, in term of tessellation. OZP (urban plans) cannot covers whole HK as some rural area are not planned. District and its constituency can tessellated whole HK, but the latter did not have a stable border. Either is is gerrymandering or other reason, the boundaries is unpopular among general public and media. Non-administrative neighbourhoods of HK are popular terms and topics among media and general public, but they can't act as a tessellation unit as it often overlap due to fork definition differ. (People had argue East Point as a place name still used popularly for example, but most often people just refer those place as Causeway Bay (the land area obviously named after the bay). Another example of overlap would be Sham Shui Po (literally deep water port) and Cheung Sha Wan (long sandy bay), both areas are named after the water body or port that disappeared due to land reclamation. Some landmark in Sham Shui Po area were named after Cheung Sha Wan (e.g. the government office) and vice versa (e.g. Sham Shui Po Sport Ground).

Ping people created and edited HK geo articles recently (incomplete name list): @Citobun, Kdm852, and Underwaterbuffalo: -- Matthew hk (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  • I think the only viable answer is that new towns and political districts have clearly demarcated boundaries, so they can be outlined in the article. More colloquial references to areas, villages, etc don't have clear borders, so the articles are just going to have to be as accurate as possible while bearing in mind that the borders are fuzzy. No other way around it that I can see. Kdm852 (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Actually villages has statuary boundary as the rights to built village houses is a big business. But neighbourhood did not have an accurate boundaries. Matthew hk (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
And here is the boundary of the villages in term of village representative election. https://www.had.gov.hk/rre/eng/village_map/index.html And yet for building village houses there is another definition. Matthew hk (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
@Matthew hk: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 3,700 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Swapped. Not sure Rfc is the right tool to handle such load. 8 million HK people and a dead wikiproject with 500 or may be 1,000 piles of geo articles that mostly without sourced and without a plan to write them, with quite a lot of overlap. Matthew hk (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

It is an enigma how any geographic articles are titled in Hong Kong, we still haven't figured if we should use commas or parentheses. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 13:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

To add on, I think most geo articles that are beneath the subsets of district and city are probably excessive, and they should be merged to the city articles and so forth. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 14:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nova Crystallis: Should use (Hong Kong) as how {{PAGENAMEBASE}} works. Matthew hk (talk) 10:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Online Conference call for Wikimedia Community User Group Hong Kong in 2020

Dear WikiProject Hong Kong,

Hi. This is 1233, a board member of Wikimedia Community User Group Hong Kong.

We will soon hold our first online conference call of year 2020 in the coming days. As a major part of preparation work [1] will be held in our Telegram group, we wish you to join us in Telegram and are also looking forward to your opinion.

Shall there be any inconvenience or requesting access [2] to access Telegram group, please feel free to contact me via email (i.e. william@wchan.hk) [3] or leave your Telegram ID on my talk page (Note: This will disclose your Telegram ID to the public).

Note: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings from Wikimedia Community User Group Hong Kong, please remove yourself from the mailing list. If you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

[1] Preparation work include finalizing the date and time
[2] You may also contact WhisperToMe for Telegram access
[3] Or other means if you can find me

Kind regards,
1233 on 09:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

This message is sent through the mass message extension by 1233.

RFC on whether Simplified and Traditional Chinese characters count as the same name

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/China_and_Chinese-related_articles#Request_for_comment:_Do_the_traditional_and_simplified_forms_of_Chinese_count_as_the_same_name_or_different_names_in_regards_to_eligibility_of_displaying_characters? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Tsim Sha Tsui East part of Tsim Sha Tsui?

Is Tsim Sha Tsui East part of Tsim Sha Tsui? The latter's Wikipedia article suggests not, but Category:Tsim Sha Tsui East is a subcategory of Category:Tsim Sha Tsui, and I wonder if this is incorrect. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

They are "neighbourhood" without legal definition of border. But "East Tsim Sha Tsui" is considered as a separate "neighbourhood" than a subset of TST. However, since it is a fork definition, you often find conflicted answer from newspaper Matthew hk (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Matthew hk, Thanks. Do you recommend removing Category:Tsim Sha Tsui East as a subcategory of Category:Tsim Sha Tsui? The current structure suggests Tsim Sha Tsui East is part of Tsim Sha Tsui. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
You can tag the cat to ask people to diffuse topic to ETST cat for now, but keeping the cat tree. Also it is cancer to define the boundary of TST and ETST. For example, the Science Museum is listed itself in ETST and no source indicate it otherwise. Or ETST seashore no doubt is belongs to ETST by its name. However, while ETST station is next to TST station and quite a lot of source to indicate some exit of ETST station are located in TST proper. Matthew hk (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Matthew hk, Hm, ok, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by diffusing the topic but keeping the category tree. Perhaps I will just wait and see if other editors weigh in here. Thanks again for your feedback. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Since there is no separate article for ETST, it should not remove ETST from TST's cat tree. But tagging the parent cat as {{Category diffuse}}, at least somewhat indicate the relation of TST and ETST. Matthew hk (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Matthew hk, Thoughts on a separate Wikipedia article for Tsim Sha Tsui East? The area seems large enough to justify a standalone article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
For maintenance it would be nightmare. I started a Rfc for the issue of HK geo-article, to solve some box-in-box-in-box issue, e.g. San Hui of Tuen Mun which has the same modern meaning as Tuen Mun New Town that located in Tuen Mun plain in Tuen Mun District. Thanks to Afd Tuen Mun Town Centre got redirected, but the Rfc did not attract much discussion.
I need to search how many external source are there to worth to craft a draft draft:East Tsim Sha Tsui or just expand the section in Tsim Sha Tsui for now. At least need to dig out the source of the fork-defined boundary of ETST. (and how it is differ from Hung Hom) Matthew hk (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Matthew hk, Sounds good. I'd prefer to see a separate Wikipedia article for Tsim Sha Tsui East if this area is not actually part of Tsim Sha Tsui. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I think both TST and ETST were part of the defunct administrative division Tsim Sha Tsui District, so technically ETST is part of Tsim Sha Tsui District. The District was merged with Mong Kok District as Yau Tsim Mong District. But i forgot when. Current state of HK geo-article is high degree of overlap, such as Tai Po, Tai Po New Town and Tai Po District, are areas with boundaries in concentric-circles-like with the same center.

For TST and ETST, it really need external source to define the boundary to avoid overlap of article content and WP:OR on which building belongs to which. Matthew hk (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer, We might have a non-diffusing subcategory situation here. Deryck C. 16:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Deryck Chan, Meaning, no action needed? Thoughts on a separate page for Tsim Sha Tsui East? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Another Believer, I don't mind. In a sense there are three co-existing positions:
  1. ETST is a subset of TST with a sharp border around what is ETST
  2. ETST is a subset of TST with a blurry border around what is ETST
  3. ETST and TST are two neighbouring localities with a sharp border
  4. ETST and TST are two neighbouring localities with a blurry border
My opinion is that we're beating ourselves up too hard about the TST vs ETST distinction, and would prefer some combination of 2/4 when it comes to categorizing things. I'm happy for you and Matthew to go ahead with any of these proposals as long as we don't require absolute conformity on where we put the boundaries of TST vs ETST. Deryck C. 16:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
If it helps, Chatham Road South is generally understood as a clear border between TST and ETST, so that would help with e.g. categorization. I would be happy with working on a separate East Tsim Sha Tsui article or improving the ETST section on our Tsim Sha Tsui article. feminist (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comment on recent additions to MTR station articles

The consensus is that nearly all of the additions to the MTR station articles about the vandalism inflicted by pro-democratic protesters are undue weight and should be removed.

Cunard (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Owennson has been adding sections to articles on MTR stations listing, in detail, the vandalism inflicted by pro-democratic protesters at each station, along with images or image galleries showing this vandalism (Examples: Wong Tai Sin station, Mong Kok East station, Fanling station). So far he/she has systematically added such sections for all stations on the East Rail and Kwun Tong lines, and is now on the Tsuen Wan line, suggesting an intention to add vandalism subsections to ALL MTR station articles.

I have two concerns, related to WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE respectively. Judging by the content of the user's talk page (a passage critical of the U.S. advocating democracy and human rights), I am concerned that the additions to the MTR pages are simply being made to push a political point, e.g. to make pro-democratic protesters look bad. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political advocacy. Secondly, the level of detail provided is beyond excessive. Nearly ALL MTR stations have been subject to vandalism during the protests. We don't need a dedicated subsection for every single MTR station page. The number of images added to illustrate vandalised ticket machines and other fixtures is excessive and needlessly stretches out the pages.

Owennson's counter-argument (on my talk page) is, in essence, that because the 2019 Yuen Long attack and 2019 Prince Edward station attack (e.g. attacks against people carried out by pro-government forces) are covered on Wikipedia, that it would be a double standard not to cover vandalism by pro-democratic protesters. I don't object to mentioning the vandalism within the articles where the vandalism is more serious. But the level of detail currently being given is seriously WP:UNDUE, and I object to these additions being made seemingly just for political purposes. Citobun (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

One sentence within the article, with two references and a few photos, is called undue and unbalanced? I am speechless. I already skipped the pro-democracy protestors blocking trains moving because there are just too many times. And those obviously were verifiable, such as this.--owennson（Meeting Room、Certificates) 13:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
One sentence? "Some protesters scolded the staff" and "the station reopened at 16:10" ... are these details really worthy of being recorded in an encyclopedia? Citobun (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I suggest you to look at the Chinese version and see just how extensive that can be. For the Kowloon Bay station, I will cut most of them later, as you wish.--owennson（Meeting Room、Certificates) 13:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I think it is suitable to keep these pieces of information, and I don't think that “the level of detail provided is beyond excessive”, at least not for what I see now. By the way, “[j]udging by the content of the user's talk page... I am concerned that the additions to the MTR pages are simply being made to push a political point” is kind of violating WP:AGF. And I am not sure why adding these pieces of information would “make pro-democratic protesters look bad”, as it is just presenting facts. Would you stop pro-democratic users from adding negative news about the Police - for which are verifiable, of course - because you think that the edits may “simply being made to push a political point”?--【wopingzisoeng】💬📝 15:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
And @Owennson: WP:Other stuff exists. Here is en-wiki . Also zh-wiki has a famous guide (zh:Wikipedia:是英文维基说的！) to say don't use the shit argument that other wiki has X so this wiki should have X. Matthew hk (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Matthew hk:, does that represents you support deleting the information in Yuen Long station and Prince Edward station as well?--owennson（Meeting Room、Certificates) 15:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Have problem on reading? If the event pass WP:GNG and have their own article, then once sentence is enough. Matthew hk (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. I'm going to delete the content in Prince Edward station and Yuen Long station according to your words. If anyone accuse me anything afterwards, it will be yours. Besides, I think enough media reporting on vandalism is already meeting GNG standards.--owennson（Meeting Room、Certificates) 15:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Matthew hk:, looks like User:OceanHok does not agree with you and reverted my edit. Please talk to him.--owennson（Meeting Room、Certificates) 05:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove or trim all. It is undue weight. I strongly object to Owennson's rationale for such detailed coverage of vandalism: comparing attacks on passengers at two particular stations with vandalism of station facilities across most stations is exactly the kind of false parallelism that WP:UNDUE tries to warn against. Deryck C. 16:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Deryck Chan:, how about Kwun Tong station, attempted murder on the police? Is that also "false parallelism"? How about the numerous lynching on the citizens disagree with the protestors? "false parallelism"? Stop being double standard.--owennson（Meeting Room、Certificates) 17:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Owennson, User:Citobun began this discussion explicitly confining the scope to "vandalism". Therefore attacks on people are out of this discussion's scope. Deryck C. 16:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove or trim all. Minor disruptions to train services should not be included in station articles, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:IINFO. If the disruption is major or has lasting implications, then yes it can be covered, such as with the cases of Yuen Long and Prince Edward. If the disruption is systemwide, include it in a more general article, e.g. in the context of the protests, though we already have significant coverage on that front. feminist (talk) 03:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
@Feminist:, as Matthew hk has said, even mentioning the two attacks, one sentence is enough. Ironically, the one who started this discussion, Citobun, is the one who did extensive coverage on Prince Edward station, which I cut till a seealso. If you accuse me for adding trivia, why not him first?--owennson（Meeting Room、Certificates) 04:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
My so-called "extensive coverage and trivia" – one paragraph with only the broad gist of 31 August and subsequent ramifications. It doesn't contain details or trivia. And it was written before the 2019 Prince Edward station attack article was created. Citobun (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove all: Trivial information. The vandalism committed by protesters is not in the same level as the Yuen Long attacks and Prince Edward incident which have wide-reaching repercussions on the society and are widely-discussed. OceanHok (talk) 05:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
@OceanHok:, undue on the two attacks. It is necessary to cut back to one sentence or less.--owennson（Meeting Room、Certificates) 05:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I can find hundreds of high-quality English reliable sources about YL attacks and PE incident and their reprecussions. Did the vandalism inside Tsim Sha Tsui station on October 20 reaches the same coverage? No. I would not oppose to adding the information about MTR stations being vandalized by protesters in the "history" section of MTR Corporation, but at the same time, context needs to be given. There is a long list of reasons why MTR is being targeted. OceanHok (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
@OceanHok:, Even if there are tons and tons of reliable resources about the two attacks, that should be put in a separate article, not the station article itself, just like the vandalizing. You are contradicting yourself.--owennson（Meeting Room、Certificates) 06:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
@OceanHok:, by the way, I found a Chinese article of zh:反對逃犯條例修訂草案運動中示威者對港鐵的破壞, in which English version lacks.--owennson（Meeting Room、Certificates) 06:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Someone already asked you to take a look at Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Chinese Wikipedia has a lot that would be considered undue detail on English Wikipedia. And please stop edit warring on Yuen Long station and Prince Edward station. The general consensus is that those two incidents are clearly not comparable to the vandalism of station fixtures. Citobun (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
You still need to summarize it. It is not like you can slap a link there and call it a day. Prince Edward station incident in particular focuses on the conduct of the corporation and how the incident affects its subsequent operations. Zhwiki's infamous WP:CONTENTFORK is not needed in enwiki. OceanHok (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
@Citobun:, does that mean you support deleting all the information in Chinese version as well, including the two attacks?--owennson（Meeting Room、Certificates) 06:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
They are different Wikipedias with different cultures. We are discussing English Wikipedia right now, the happenings on Chinese Wikipedia are not relevant. Citobun (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how this question is relevant to the English Wikipedia in any meaningful way. feminist (talk) 09:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
@OceanHok:, maybe I just use the words that Matthew hk and use it to you. "Have problem on reading? If the event pass WP:GNG and have their own article, then once sentence is enough." By the way, the media is extremely biased against the pro-establishment, despite being a significant minority.--owennson（Meeting Room、Certificates) 07:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Citobun and OceanHok:, alright then, I'll open a page in enwiki, similar to the zh:反對逃犯條例修訂草案運動中示威者對港鐵的破壞 in Chinese, and put all the station vandalism in it. In the same time, more seriously damaged stations, such as Tung Chung, Mong Kok, University, Kwun Tong stations, etc. being vandalized are still worth mentioning in the station article. --owennson（Meeting Room、Certificates) 06:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

In my view that would be a WP:POVFORK and is not a valid means of circumventing the consensus developing here. Vandalism by protesters is already covered in articles such as Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests. And whether you put it here or there – most of what you have been adding remains WP:UNDUE detail. Citobun (talk) 07:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Tung Chung station, which I did not edit, is edited by you, mentioning a lot of vandalizing, which is WP:UNDUE trivia, in other words, you are contradicting yourself. What a good example of the pot calling the kettle black.--owennson（Meeting Room、Certificates) 07:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I already said I don't object to mentioning the vandalism if it was particularly serious. Secondly, I haven't systematically gone through tons of articles adding this info for political reasons. It seems like you are just trolling at this point. Citobun (talk) 07:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
The others have been calling to delete ALL of them. No matter how seriously the station is damaged, there should be zero content about it, that is the consensus above shows. Of course Tung Chung station included.--owennson（Meeting Room、Certificates) 07:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
When we say "remove all", we are referring to your extensive additions to station articles in cases where sources only mentioned the incidents in passing. That is of WP:UNDUE weight. Deliberately misinterpreting consensus just to prove a WP:POINT is disruptive. feminist (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
@Feminist: You agree to mention some seriously damaged station in the station article? That is not ALL. Besides, isn't Tung Chung station also falls into "in passing" category? Tell me what station is not "in passing" other than Yuen Long and Prince Edward.--owennson（Meeting Room、Certificates) 09:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
@Feminist:, no station is not "in passing"?--owennson（Meeting Room、Certificates) 10:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – User:Owennson has now gone through every MTR article indiscriminately deleting mention of any sort of "incident", including content predating his campaign, evidently to teach us a lesson (see edit summary). This is just puerile. A temporary ban for disruptive editing is in order. Citobun (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Everyone here asked me to remove ALL vandalized contents. So I did it. I am actively implementing the consensus above. Matthew hk: Delete ALL; Feminist: Remove or trim ALL; Deryck Chan: Remove or trim ALL; OceanHok: Remove ALL. Any objections? I repeat, they asked me to remove ALL vandalized contents. Unless you don't know what does "ALL" means.--owennson（Meeting Room、Certificates) 08:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Could anyone tell me whether the following sections are undue then, as someone said “if the event pass WP:GNG and have their own article, then once sentence is enough”?
--【wopingzisoeng】💬📝 09:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
No, they are not UNDUE. A one-paragraph summary of events that have been extensively documented and with lasting implications is adequate. WP:OSE arguments (which both you and Owennson have made repeatedly here) have little validity when the difference in coverage and effect between events is so great. feminist (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, that is different from what User:Matthew hk said.--【wopingzisoeng】💬📝 04:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

COI, Copyvio and possible paid editing

Editors likely to be linked to the subject matter started editing heavily the Liang Yi Museum article in early March (similar issues occured at the same article in 2015 and 2016), essentially copying material from the institution's website. Warning and tentative of discussion/ education have been of little effect thus far. Now, a similar issue is emerging at the Royal Asiatic Society Hong Kong Branch article. Note that both institutions have websites, from which the article content is copied, with similar formats. That may hint additionally at paid editing. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Oscar by the Sea

Help appreciated keeping POV at bay at Oscar by the Sea. Thank you. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC on scope of wet market article

Hi, there is a new RfC here on whether the scope of the article wet market should include those outside of Southeast/East Asia. Any participation is welcome! — MarkH21talk 05:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Including native scripts of author names in citation templates?

In Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Citing_native_scripts_of_the_author's_name_and/or_title_of_a_work_in_Citation_Style_1 I inquired about the ability to include native scripts of titles of works and of authors. It turns out the citation template does allow input of native scripts of titles, but it does not have this capability for authors yet. In Chinese studies it is useful to know the hanzi of an author for a Chinese language works, so I suggested allowing the ability for native scripts of authors too. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review discussion

You may want to take a look at the current discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 April 30#Rupert Dover. feminist #WearAMask😷 17:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hong_Kong/Archive_11&oldid=965732996"