Talk:Hong Kong

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archived discussions

Formatting and language conventions

For articles about Hong Kong, please use the 12-hour clock to show times, e.g. 9AM-noon and 6PM-midnight.

Please show prices in this format: $100, and not not HKD 100, 100 dollars or 100圓.

Please use British spelling.


Some issues with this article[edit]

Orientation: Hong Kong Island, last sentence—“ Nearby, the Legislative Council (LegCo) continues to make the laws that organise the territory.” This suggests the article hasn’t been updated since the executive and legislative branches moved to Tamar.

History, last sentence—“ Look carefully and you'll see evidence of the PRC's sovereignty at the top of flagpoles, and in the inconspicuous but huge PLA barracks situated in the midst of the city's business district.” There is no military barracks in ‘the midst of the city’s business district,’ just a near-empty building formerly known as the Prince of Wales Building. Most of the troops are either in the New Territories or (for senior officers) on the South Side of Hong Kong Island.

Get [sic] around, By taxi, paragraph 8— “All taxis are radio equipped and can be reserved and requested via an operator for a token fee of $5, payable to the driver.” Not all. Independent drivers may not have radios, but instead rely on mobile phones.

My first visit here, so I won't edit. DOR (HK) —The preceding comment was added by 210.176.69.125 (talkcontribs)

Hello and welcome! Your reticence to edit right away is understandable but misplaced. Since you see the problems, you have the knowledge to plunge forward and edit them. So please do. Thanks! Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Currency Decimal Place[edit]

Question: Should prices in Wikivoyage for Hong Kong have 1 or 2 decimal places?

(This was started by a discussion in the HK Airport Article: Talk:Hong_Kong_International_Airport#Currency_decimal_place )

In Hong Kong, there is no coin smaller than 10 cent, and therefore most prices in the territory are represented by one decimal place (i.e. HKD $98.7, HKD $3.4 )

For example: when you take the MTR (HK subway), proces are listed thus:

MTR Prices

When speaking to shop owners, they will give you prices in the format of "Eight Point Nine Dollar"

To prevent confusion, should we make all Hong Kong prices in the one decimal format? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, although to paraphrase my current proposal for our Wikivoyage:Currency page at User:W. Frank/$2, However, don't knock yourself out "correcting" $27 to HKD27.0 - there is more important work to be done in plunging forward and writing an up-to-date and accurate free Travel Guide!" --W. Franke-mailtalk 11:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, for the record $27 should not be changed to $27.0 since it is never written like that in Hong Kong. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

History question[edit]

The current text includes the sentence:

After the war, despite American assurances that Hong Kong would be restored to China, the British moved quickly to regain control of Hong Kong.

Did America actually give assurances on that?

I know they helped the Kuomintang grab Manchuria and Taiwan, which had not been under Chinese control before the war, and tried to mess up the French in Indochina, and some British writers were quite angry because thought their ally tried to betray them over Hong Kong. However, this is the first I have heard of any such promise. Pashley (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't write that text. Recently there has been a lot of discussion around the Japanese Senkaku islands, and how the United States may or may not have 'promised' them to China/Taiwan or Japan after WW2. I think the truth is that in the messy aftermath of WW2 there just wasn't a definitive truth on what has been agreed for any of these territories. I think we should remove this text, since the political discussions shouldn't really belong in WikiVoyage anyhow. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I rewrote some of the history in order to make it more clean and concise. I think the writing style has some issues since whoever wrote the history section really liked to use a lot of commas. Since I am British, perhaps someone can check my edits to make sure that I haven't been biased ^-^ --Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hong Kong Island in Get in[edit]

"Get in" has a section on Hong Kong Island which is about getting to the island from other parts of HK. Unless there's some obscure reason for this, I will move it to "Get around". Nurg (talk) 10:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Nurg (talk) 04:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Terminology[edit]

Someone just added some advice for exchanging money with 'street money exchange vendors'. I assume this is referring to the tiny booths found around Hong Kong that exchange money. Is this the right term for this service, or should it be something else? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to convert 'Outlying Islands' to region article[edit]

I have raised a proposal on the Outlying Islands Talk page. I am highlighting here since perhaps more people are monitoring the Hong Kong article.

Talk:Hong_Kong/Outlying_Islands

--Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

sub-regions of districts[edit]

Little structure admin question. I see that there are now separate articles for Peng Chau and Cheung Chau. What is the best way to position these articles? Should they be districts of Hong Kong or should Honk Kong and Hong Kong/Outlying Islands be made regions or should the information be merged back into Outlying island article? --Traveler100 (talk) 07:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I was asking this on the Talk:Hong_Kong/Outlying_Islands page. Basically I had a problem with different islands being in the same one article. For example two 'eat' listings for both Cheung Chau and Lamma on the same article is confusing since the traveler will (likely) only visit one island in a day, not both. Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The Metro map is in Chinese[edit]

The MTR (Metro) map is completely in traditional Chinese! Does anyone have a good English version to hand? Otherwise I will try and change it later. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Where to put school children selling charity badges?[edit]

I removed the following sentence from 'Learn'

"Visitors to Hong Kong will soon notice that school children wear 'British-style' uniforms that have been adapted to the sub-tropical climate. It's a tradition for school students to sell 'flags' (badges) and collect money for charity on a Saturday morning twice a month."

I'm not sure where is the appropriate section to place this? Maybe it should be here at all? Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Demonstrations?[edit]

I am seeing much news about "Occupy Central", pro-democracy demonstrations, thousands in the streets, blocked traffic, tear gas, ...

What warnings or other comments do we need? Pashley (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

As of now a warning box in the Stay safe section should be enough? If things get really bad it can be moved to the top of the page and expanded. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Probably a brief warning at the top of the page. The main reason is that HK is pretty small and the demonstrations are happening right in the central area where pretty much all travellers will visit. (I'm a HK resident) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I've now composed a warning and put it at the top of the page as suggested. If something there's incorrect etc. feel free to fix it. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Just perhaps the wording around military intervention? Deployment of the PLA against Hong Kong residents would be an extremely serious and hopefully unthinkable development for the time being. That said, it is an unprecedented situation for the territory. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Yesterday night they said it in the news, on the other hand reporters always like to over-dramatize stuff. You and others who actually are in Hong Kong probably have more accurate information of what's actually going on. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I only visit HK every few months and am not there right now. I think from a traveler perspective the demonstrations are more a big inconvenience than a travel risk. I would suggest anyone visiting HK over the next week should try and avoid Hong Kong island and maybe spend more time in Kowloon / New Territories or go visit Macau.
On the other hand it is completely safe to go see the demonstrations (apparently the most polite in the world).
It is also worth noting that this coincides with Chinese National holiday, and there will be (literally) millions of mainland Chinese visiting at the same time. All things considered I'm glad I'm not there right now :) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
A couple of days ago, CBS radio here in the US reported that democracy demonstrations have spread to Macau, too, so anyone planning a trip to the area might want to check on that. BBC World Service reported yesterday or today that China has pledged not to send the PLA into the streets of Hong Kong, but how this will unfold really is anyone's guess, and I wish the people well. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Alternative banner for this article?[edit]

Banner currently used in this article
Suggested new alternative banner

I created a new alternative banner for this article (I initially created it first and foremost so that it would be used at the top of the parallel article in the Hebrew edition of Wikivoyage, yet I later decided to also suggest that the English Wikivoyage community would consider using it here as well). So, which banner do you prefer having at the top of this article? 04:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I think they're both good, but the new one is a bit more pleasant for me to look at, so I slightly favor it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Proposed new banner is only 2100 pixels wide, which doesn't adapt as well to high definition screens. Against until a higher resolution version can be created. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
As far as I know we don't have any higher reqirements for resolution than 1800 pix. Did I miss anything? I like the new one better, the current one though having a more original composition, is reather too dark. Danapit (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I thought the language in the exhibition was that 1800 pixel was the minimum, but 2100 was the recommended minimum, but looking again it doesn't seem to be clear. I believe the new suggested Banner template will start scaling higher resolution images for different screens so I'll look at that as soon as I have some time. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Does that mean 2100 pix will not be enough in the future? Danapit (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
2100 pix banners will still work fine, but the existing banner template already downloads a higher resolution banner (if available) if the device uses a high definition screen (including my phone). A 4200 pix banner will look better on my Retina screen than a 2100 pix one, and I would assume the high definition screen will become ubiquitous on both desktop and mobile over the next few years. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Isn't there currently a policy against dark banners? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
As in a night picture? I certainly hope not, and I say that despite preferring the new banner. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually there is no policy on banners at all. I created an experimental one (non-binding) here: Wikivoyage:Banners Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Both are great but current is more breathtaking Syced (talk) 08:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Since there was a slight majority (3:2) to use the new banner, I went ahead and fixed my major sticking point which was the low resolution. The new banner now has a higher resolution (7000x1000) here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hong_Kong_Banner.jpg --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

New banner suggestion[edit]

I'm not quite satisfied with the current banner, since all it shows is the harbour at night, and the lighting effect just doesn't quite work for me.

I found another image that shows a view over the city from somewhere on Victoria peak that makes me think it is much more in the spirit of the city.

Banner currently used in this article
Suggested view of Hong Kong at Sunset from Victoria peak

Would this be a good change? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Gut reaction: No, because the person on the near right is a strange sight in that panorama and distracting. I think I also like the composition of the current banner better. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Independence[edit]

There are a very small minority of people in Hong Kong who desire independence from China. It is really inaccurate to suggest that independence is desired by the people of Hong Kong.

This is a travel guide. There are fringe political beliefs in any country, but that doesn't mean we need to list every single one. It is misleading to suggest that you will encounter a desire for Hong Kong independence, although it is more helpful and accurate to explain that you will find people who want more autonomy and less interference from mainland China. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, there was a independence demonstration on August 5th. The size was pretty small compared to the umbrella protests last year, but potentially this could grow. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
It could grow, it could dwindle, it could disappear. Best to take things as they are. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, as stated my preference is for the current text. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Cycling[edit]

The "By Bicycle" section says:

> See Cycling in Hong Kong

That's a link to https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Hong_Kong#By_Bicycle

I think that link is broken. It just takes me to the top of the page. Where should it point to?

Currency symbol is confusing[edit]

Hello everyone! In some sections of the article (for example in "Obtaining a visa to Mainland China") prices are mentioned sometimes as HKD and sometimes as $. Now, as a european foreigner, I tend to think that $ means American Dollar and HKD Hong Kong Dollar. Since the two symbols are not consistent through the article I have no idea whether mentioned prices are correct or (as I suspect) the symbol $ has been applied to HKD as well. [-unsigned comment by unregistered editor]

Thank you for bringing this up. The $ sign is used to express about three dozen different currencies around the world, usually called "dollars" or "pesos". Our convention in Wikivoyage (see WV:$) is generally to use the symbol that travellers will see on the country they are visiting, so in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and so on, "$" means the Canadian, Australian or NZ dollar respectively. In cases like Mexico, where hotels and tour companies will often show prices in US dollars, we insist on disambiguating the currency symbol, i.e., using M$ or US$ as the case may be, even though the Mexican pesos is usually denoted just by "$" in the country.
When I was in Hong Kong ten years ago, I don't remember seeing prices in US dollars, so "$" always meant HK dollars. But maybe things have changed.
The Hong Kong#Buy section does advise readers that "You can safely assume that the '$' sign used in this travel guide and in the territory refers to HKD unless it includes other initials (e.g. US$ to stand for US dollar)." We could be clearer by adding a line into the Buy sections of each of the district articles to remind readers of this. Regards, Ground Zero (talk) 06:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

MTR issues[edit]

Swept in from the pub

With the earlier discussion of the Hong Kong MTR in Kowloon, I thought we should look at the lack of lines displaying properly with the mapshapes template for it. Only 3 lines of the MTR are displayed, which is probably the worst I have ever seen. MSG17 (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

3 out of 15 is my guess; most may not be mapped out in OSM or if they are; link not provided in OSM to Wikidata item and/or vice versa? Not that familiar with template interaction with OSM, but this should be a definite concern not only for MTR, but others as well... == Matroc (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, missing OSM data is a concern in general. However, sometimes I notice strange behavior where the OSM data exists and is linked, but doesnt show up. Other times the lines show up even without OSM data, like something else influences what lines show up in general. One thing with MTR I am looking at is taking away the link with the Airport Express wikidata and the *superrelation* on OSM, only leaving it on the actual lines. But that will take time to update, since the OSM-Wikidata link is notoriously slow. Of course, the wikidata page will still use the OSM superrelation. MSG17 (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Mainland Chinese visa[edit]

I was wondering if we should keep the section about getting a mainland Chinese visa under the "Get In" section. My take is that since this article is about Hong Kong, the "Get In" section should be focussed on getting into Hong Kong, so I don't think that section is appropriate. We can mention about the " China Travel Services" office in the "Hong Kong International Airport" section, as that would be convenient for travellers who need to get a mainland Chinese visa for onward travel to know, but I think it has absolutely nothing to do with Hong Kong Immigration, and therefore does not belong in that section. The dog2 (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Train station article template[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I figured that West Kowloon station has a lot of info that would make it too big and maybe too specific for the main article, such as customs processes, some ticketing quirks and tons of retail space (people may have specific recommendations for food, drink and shopping in the station, for example, and one can't exactly exit the station to get food outside and get back inside quickly due to customs). Since it is meant as a transport hub in Kowloon, it also has a lot of options, with many public transit and footbridges stops and connections. So I made this in userspace, using the airport article template to make the groundwork. This is pretty unorthodox, so I want to ask the community about it.

Don't worry about the dynmap for mainland trains, although when more connections open up it could probably become too complex to maintain it is simple to just remake that section to talk about some major cities served from Hong Kong.

If it doesn't seem to be good for an article, then I will simply make sure that the revelant info goes on the right pages.

Thank you for your input.

MSG17 (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

So far, we've never made a separate article for a railway station. Even London's St Pancras station, which has immigration checks for those headed for France or Belgium, doesn't have one. But if there's enough information to warrant a separate article, I don't see why not, in the same way that we have separate airport articles. The dog2 (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
What if we had a railway station article type similar to the airport article template? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea. How about we take that discussion to the pub and see what people say? The dog2 (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, certainly. If there are train stations with places to eat, sleep, etc., it would make sense to give them a separate article with a particular kind of template. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, although I'm not sure how many train stations, even major ones, would fit this bill. Especially with hotels - most don't have any in them, and West Kowloon is probably one of very few that might have a direct connection to some. But yes, we should go to the pub and see how everyone feels. Besides, security can lead to some restrictive access to outside facilities, and some stations (maybe more in East Asia due to commuter lunches and bigger retail complexes) do have tons of food and drink options that a traveller would have to know about. MSG17 (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I will now move this discussion to the pub. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────So now it's in the pub, here's the basic question, should we create separate articles for train stations like we do for airports? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

What makes these stations too complicated for them to just be listings in city articles? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Airports are generally speaking in the middle of nowhere and most people who are there either leave as fast as they can or cannot leave. None of that is really true for train stations where the whole joke is that they are close in. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Although I'm sort of ambivalent about this, if you are travelling from London St Pancras, you'll clear both British outbound and French inbound immigration checks at the station if you are boarding the trains to France or Belgium, so you'll definitely need extra time compared to if you are boarding a domestic train. Of course, Hong Kong West Kowloon is different in that it does not have domestic trains, and all trains are bound for mainland China, so everyone needs to go through both Hong Kong and mainland China customs and immigration. The dog2 (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
What's the difficulty in simply mentioning that in the listing for the train station? I guess my feeling is that if so much content is required that it starts to overwhelm the article, we could possibly consider a separate article, but I don't see why it can't just be a section in an existing destination article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Ikan Kekek. Show us a city article that has way too much information on a specific railway station, and then we can create a dedicated station article template. I note that the specific example of West Kowloon has only one short paragraph's worth of content on the HK article, which has apparently been sufficient for some time.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
To be fair, West Kowloon has only opened about a week ago. However, the consesus is correct - most stations really don't have enough info that they require their own article. The main rationale for me was that West Kowloon has extensive security checks for all passengers, so passengers would be stuck there for a while like in an airport and thus might have to buy there. It also helps that it has links to all sorts of public transport and some sights of its own. Since most railway stations, even major ones, are nothign like that (and train food doesn't exactly have the best reputation)(nevermind, see below), there isn't much info to add, as you noted. So yeah, it is probably best to look into migrating the content to fit the Hong Kong article. MSG17 (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
"train food" doesn't have the best reputation? Where did you get that from? Just the other day we had perfectly delightful Mexican food at Munich main station... And unlike airplane food, food in trains is actually unaffected by the fact that you're in a metal tube.Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
With regards to train food, you should try the ekiben next time your visit Japan. Some of them are actually pretty decent. And I've also had pretty decent tea eggs on the trains in China before they even built the first high speed line. The dog2 (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Political Protests[edit]

BBC item - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-48615161, looks like this could be prolonged. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The authorities are it seems likely to pesue a more aggressive response - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-49540751 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Attacks on passengers[edit]

If police and protestors have targeted passengers, isn't it important to state that? Right now, after a supposedly "fair" edit, only "mobs" are identified as having attacked passengers. That seems neither fair nor sufficiently informative. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

As long as it's true, it should be included. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Looks like it, so go ahead. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, but let's try to keep this a focused warning for travellers, rather than a reporting on the protests. Long warnings are less effective than concise ones. Ground Zero (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Long warnings — you mean long in content, not long in length displayed? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Also, keeping it short is a good way of keeping away from taking sides.
But on that point, the Wikipedia article says that it was "white shirt" thugs linked to Triads who were attacking protesters on the subway, not the anti-government protesters attacking people. Ground Zero (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
The foxnews story linked above is about "white shirts". I saw a TV news clip at the weekend which appeared to show excessive police force on the MTR, but it is hard to conclude anything from a 30 second clip, see this South China Morning Post article for a police response on this. I have seen suggestions elsewhere that travellers should avoid wearing black or white shirts so that they are not mistaken for those involved - should we add something similar? I think that we should suggest caution in travelling on the MTR, either because of the possibility of attack, or because stations may close with no warning (this is a change from the early days of the protests when the MTR were criticised for transporting protesters). AlasdairW (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Chinese police or Hong Kong police? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Hong Kong police. I don't think that the Chinese have become directly involved. There have been "manoeuvres" just over the border, and the Chinese garrison recently made more of a show of an annual changeover. AlasdairW (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
As long as we're fair and clearly show who has been endangering visitors or other bystanders, we shouldn't worry too much about someone thinking we're thereby "taking sides". Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
My main concern is that we should avoid implicitly endorsing either the protesters or the Chinese government. Our policy has been not to take sides in political disputes, and that should apply to the Hong Kong situation too. As for violence, while I don't deny the violence committed against the public by some police officers, there were also cases of protesters attacking passengers trying to get to their flights at the airport, and two mainland Chinese journalists were beaten up by the protesters, so it is by no means only the police that have been violent. That said, I do think we can include a warning about violence and severe disruption on the MTR since that is something that will impact travellers. For that matter, even if you don't take the MTR, roads are often blocked by the protesters, so other forms of transport are disrupted too. The dog2 (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I really think you're missing the point. Serving the traveler means identifying and describing the source of danger, whoever and wherever it is. Being less informative out of a misplaced fear of offending one side or the other means ill serving the traveler. And your assumption that being more informative requires seeming to support one side is different from what I've been arguing but seems like a pretty eloquent statement in itself. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The problem I had with the original was that it had a focus on police violence while completely ignoring protester violence. As I said, there were also cases of civilians being attacked by protesters, so if we only mention the police violence, it will seem that we are taking the side of the protesters. If you want to mention that the police, protesters and counter-protesters have all targeted bystanders, I'll be fine with that. The dog2 (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

There seem to be multiple groups of people who could annoying and/or dangerous to a traveller. I think they all need to be mentioned as long as it is kept short overall. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess the problem is how to keep it concise. And one thing I forgot to point out is that Western, and especially American media does have a bit of a pro-Western anti-Chinese bias, whether it's Fox News, MSNBC, CNN or whatever, so that may give you the impression that the police are the only ones who have been violent, and the protesters were all innocent victims. I suggest having a look in the Singapore media for a more nuanced take on the situation. The dog2 (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
IMO this is the kind of in-the-weeds discussion that we don't need to have. Let's focus concretely on the risks to travelers and guidance for how to avoid them, without getting into contentious and disputed issues like who exactly attacked who and who's to blame for it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Speaking of which, should we make a specific warning for mainland Chinese visitors? I think it's fair to say that the risk of being attacked by the protesters goes up if you are mainland Chinese due to the strong anti-China sentiments among the protesters. In fact, two mainland Chinese journalists were attacked by the protesters and had to be hospitalised. The dog2 (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

But can we agree that making it any longer than it is now will make it worse? If we absolutely have to add any more, can we delete something else do that it doesn't turn into a long treatise on the conflict that readers might just skip over? Ground Zero (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

No, unless we direct readers to an updated stay safe section. I think that it could be up to double the present length. It may be worth saying that demonstrations are mainly at the weekend, and that travel checks at the border going to China may be extensive than usual. AlasdairW (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Here's my take on this. We should try to be as concise as we can, while still including all the information that is necessary for travellers to know. As I said, we should try to avoid taking sides in the political conflict where possible, while still aiming to be fair in assessing the risk faced by potential travellers. The fact remains that no tourists have been victims of police violence yet. All attacks against bystanders have been carried out by either the protesters or pro-China counter-protesters, not the police. To my knowledge, all the police violence has been targeted against the protesters, so realistically, the only way a traveller would be impacted by police violence is by being caught in the crossfire. The dog2 (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Adding new material and details to the Stay Safe section is a great suggestion. Filling the reader's first view of the article with a big warning box — not so much. Ground Zero (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Mandarin pronunciation[edit]

I added the Mandarin pronunciation of Hong Kong and it was reverted on the grounds that Mandarin is not widely spoken in Hong Kong. Be that as it may, Mandarin is the official language of China, and all government offices in Hong Kong will be able to serve you in Mandarin, so it certainly has some official status. So I think having the Mandarin pronunciation is certainly not useless. The dog2 (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I have no objection to putting in the article that you could be easily served in govt departments in Mandarin. My objection was putting the transliteration of HK in the first sentence of the article since this implies it is in some way official, or widely used. The Basic Law only stipulates "Chinese", and not the specific Chinese language which is to be considered official. As was stated by another editor, Mandarin is enshrined in law as the official language in the PRC, but these laws do not apply to the SARs. A tourist, walking the streets of Hong Kong, would be unlikely to hear Mandarin spoken by locals, which is not the case for Cantonese, and in most of the areas tourists are likely to go, not for English either. I don't think the Pinyin is useful to tourists who would be using the English-language page, and it gives a misleading impression, by my reckoning. Kdm852 (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's misleading. We cover all the stuff you mention under "Talk". And to your point on official status, Mandarin is compulsory in all Hong Kong government schools, and both Carrie Lam and C.Y. Leung gave their inauguration speeches in Mandarin, so there's certainly some degree of official recognition in Hong Kong. Besides, if you want to buy train tickets from the mainland to Hong Kong, you will need to know the Mandarin pronunciation at the mainland Chinese ticket office. The dog2 (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I see your point, but this is not Wikipedia, it's a resource for tourists and it's still the case that Hong Kong is not a Mandarin speaking place. The bit about the train tickets is true, but it's also true of cities in Russia, Mongolia, and Central Asian countries, but the Mandarin pronunciation isn't given on those articles. Not is the Cantonese name given for cities accessible by train from HK, even though travelers may benefit from having that information if traveling from HK. Also, if we are to give the transliterations for all Chinese languages which are used in HK, then we would also need to give the name in Hakka and Hokkien as well. This is especially true since other Chinese languages are the first language of 4.5% of the population, as opposed to less than 1% for Mandarin (according to the 2016 census). I think my point still stands that it should be mentioned in the Talk section (and perhaps mentioned in the part about getting in by train from the Mainland) that Mandarin is widely spoken, but it should not be in the first sentence since it is not relevant for tourists (who are unlikely to be watching the CE's inaugural address). Kdm852 (talk) 02:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
We put the Tamil name in the Singapore article even though Tamil is only spoken by the ethnic Indian minority, so I don't agree with the notion that we should put the name in a particular language only if it is the first language of the majority. I have been to Hong Kong several times, so I am aware that most locals are not fluent in Mandarin, and that you won't hear locals speaking to each other in Mandarin in the streets. The difference between Mandarin and other Chinese dialects like Teochew and Hakka is that the latter two have no official recognition in Hong Kong at all, while Mandarin is used to varying degrees by the Hong Kong government for official purposes. That's why I think having the Mandarin pronunciation is appropriate, but not the Teochew or Hakka pronunciations. If you go to a Hong Kong government office, you can expect to be be served in either Cantonese, Mandarin or English, but good luck trying to get service in Teochew or Hakka. The dog2 (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Point of clarification: I didn't say we should omit Mandarin because it is not spoken by the majority, I said I do not think it should be included in the leading sentence since it gives an impression to travelers that Mandarin is widely used in Hong Kong, which it is not. As I have already said, all the information about it being possible to access govt services using Mandarin, buying train tickets, and the like can (and should) be placed where this information is relevant, and mention of the occasional official use (almost exclusively when issues directly involve the Beijing Government) should be put in the Talk section. And, if we're taking examples from other pages, the different regions/cities in India, Canada, Switzerland, etc don't give the rendering in all official languages, just the ones which would be useful to travellers, which I think is a better policy for Wikivoyage; leave listing all official renditions to the Wikipedia page. Kdm852 (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with including this information. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Obvious?[edit]

Regarding this in the warning box:

"The protests have spread to the airport and led to flights being cancelled, meaning that transit passengers are also affected."

If flights are being cancelled, isn't it WV:obvious that transit passengers are also affected? Aren't transit passengers people who are taking flights (by definition)? Ground Zero (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but I'm assuming transit would be the bus and train, rather than aircraft. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I meant to write the protests are also affecting people who are just changing planes at HKG, and who don't intend to go to central Hong Kong where the main protests take place. Maybe this information doesn't need to be in the main Hong Kong article, though. Ypsilon (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
That was what I was thinking too. It's not that common that protests affect people changing flights at the airport without needed to clear customs and immigration. But if people think it's unnecessary, we can probably move it to the airport article. The dog2 (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Uhhhuh... people transiting by bus and train would not be affected by flight cancellations, which is what this sentence is about. People who are flying in would be affected by flight cancellations whether HK is their destination or they are transiting, and whether they clear customs and immigration or not. A cancelled flight is a cancelled flight.
When you're driving, which is the more effective warning? "Please bring your vehicle to a full and complete resting position in front of the white line painted on the road directly below this sign" or "STOP"? The former provides considerable detail, but the latter is more effective. That's why it is used everywhere. Another advantage to keeping things short and simple is to reduce the time we spend arguing over words. Ground Zero (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
As this is only about airplanes, the last part of the sentence should be removed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems like it's been removed already, but I would say that, while it might seem obvious, it may not be so to less seasoned travelers. Kdm852 (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. I think that someone who has a flight into Hong Kong and a flight out of Hong Kong will understand that a cancelled flight at Hong Kong airport could affect them. Let's not make our writing turgid by stating the obvious. WV:tone encourages us to keep our text lively. I'm in favour of clear writing, but we should not assume that our readers cannot understand simply written English sentences. To do so sounds like we are talking down to them. Ground Zero (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Fares[edit]

I'm in Hong Kong at the moment. I'm not going to log in for reasons. A couple of things - the fare for the 15 bus from the terminus to the peak has gone up to $10.30, and the protestors seem to have specifically targeted the Octopus Add Value machines. I have no idea why. It makes using an Octopus fractionally harder. Mong Kok station was recently disabled, and a couple of entrances are still cordoned off, although the station is now running. There's some kind of makeshift shrine outside Prince Edward station, I assume because it's right outside Mongkok police station, so you might want to walk past briskly. I'm an conspicuous and unpleasant-looking white English tourist - overweight, scowling, jowly - but not a single person has given me hassle, or even acknowledged me existence, in a week here. I'm almost disappointed. It's a far cry from e.g. Marrakech.-218.255.71.188 13:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

While I'm at it, the Airport Express service is intermittently visiting intermediate stops between the airport and Hong Kong MTR station. The MTR's website claims that it's Airport-Hong Kong only, and it would be sensible to plan for that, but over the last week the service has included Kowloon and the little island, etc -218.255.71.188 14:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

History section.[edit]

I want to bring attention to the sentence "Moves by Beijing to only allow effectively handpicked candidates for the Chief Executive position led to large scale demonstrations in 2014 known as the Umbrella Protest.". I think this is misleading because it suggests that the chief executive was previously democratically elected, and the Chinese government moved to abolish elections and appoint the chief executive instead. This is factually incorrect. The chief executive has always been an appointee of Beijing since 1997, and likewise, the governor was appointed by the British government in London prior to the handover. The leader of Hong Kong has never been democratically elected, be it under Chinese rule or British rule. What really happened in 2014 was that Beijing agreed to allow elections for the chief executive, albeit only allowing candidates who have been screened and approved by Beijing to run. The protesters rejected this on the grounds that it was not a true Western-style democracy, and the ammendment to the Basic Law was subsequently voted down by the pro-democracy legislators. Therefore, the original system of having Beijing appoint the chief executive is the one still in place.

I don't want to get into any political debates here, but I think that sentence needs to be corrected so as not to mislead readers on the facts. The question is, how do we do it without getting too much into the weeds that is unnecessary for a travel guide? The dog2 (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Just think about brevity. In 2014, the Umbrella Protest was held to demand free elections for Hong Kong's chief executive. The Chinese government counterproposed elections only from a list of candidates they would pick, an idea the demonstrators rejected, with the result that the executive is still appointed by the authorities in Beijing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
OK, that looks good. I will make some further tweaks, but it looks brief enough to suit our purposes. The dog2 (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Warning that Mandarin-speakers may be attacked[edit]

User:The dog2, please stop suggesting in the warning message that people will be attacked for speaking Mandarin. Provide sources that this is a genuine hazard. Otherwise, stop spreading patently ridiculous misinformation such as this. Citobun (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of videos of Mandarin speakers getting attacked, so I don't know how you can be so blind to things that are happening. I know you support the protesters and want to portray them in a positive light and China as the villain, but we can't take sides here and have a duty to be fair and cover all potential dangers accurately. But since you insist, here are some articles: [1][2]. The dog2 (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't have a horse in this race, but I'd just like to remind you both that each point and counterpoint in this debate should not be accompanied by a revert. You've had two each, which is already too many. Neither of you are allowed another one while this discussion is ongoing.
So let's please confine the debate to this talk page, and leave editing that part of the article until the discussion is over. I also trust that you will both ensure civility is maintained as well.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@The dog2: Thanks for casting aspersions on me with no basis whatsoever. I have never got into politics on Wikivoyage before. Meanwhile, I can see from your talk page that you have a history of making politically contentious edits. I am just a Hong Kong resident who knows that the idea anyone will get attacked simply for speaking Mandarin is utter BS; the deluded fantasies of the mainland Chinese propaganda machine that seeks to turn Chinese people against Hong Kongers. Yet sadly this stuff is lapped up, without critical thought, by many overseas Chinese. The guy in the article you posted wasn't attacked for speaking Mandarin. He was screaming things like "我們都是中國人" at a group of pro-democratic protesters. The second story provides no context and doesn't indicate this person was targeted simply for speaking Mandarin. Hell, there are Mandarin-speakers at many pro-democratic protests. My ferry yesterday was full of Mandarin speakers. This will not get you attacked. Stop posting such absurd disinformation. Citobun (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Show me the information then that there were Mandarin speakers at pro-democracy protests. And you are the one who has been targeting me with politically charged language from the onset. Frankly speaking, I don't give a s*** about whether Hong Kong becomes independent or not, but I care about the accuracy of the information we provide here. But as a compromise, how about we adjust it to asking people to avoid speaking Mandarin at protests.
And before you accuse me of being a Chinese government hack, please look at my edit history carefully, and you will see that I've also mentioned that pro-China counter-protesters have committed violent acts. And I insisted on mentioning the fact that protesters were shot by police on the grounds that it was a potential safety risk to travellers. How is that being a Chinese government hack? And the point about Hongkongers bearing hatred for mainland Chinese was told to me by someone who hates the Chinese government. The dog2 (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Please cool it with the inflammatory language, and remember we're all working together here, with the same goal of creating an accurate, useful travel guide. I'm going to refrain from calling out individual users' biases here.
I haven't been to Hong Kong in months, so I have no on-the-ground insight to contribute, but I'm inclined to give a lot of weight to a firsthand report from someone who's living in the city. The advice to avoid speaking Mandarin is already mentioned in 2–3 other places later in the article. I'm not sure it needs to be in the warning box too, especially since this is the English Wikivoyage and realistically, mainland Chinese are not going to come to us for advice on traveling to Hong Kong—they're just not a meaningful part of our audience for this particular article.
I'm inclined to think the advice to avoid expressing political opinions ought to stay. @Citobun: what do you think about that? —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@The dog2: I haven't "targeted [you] with politically charged language" nor accused you of being a Chinese government hack. I am merely saying that this narrative – that people are being attacked merely for speaking Mandarin – is disinformation being pushed by the Chinese propaganda machine. I'm not suggesting you are part of that machine.
Here is a video that contains an interview with a Mandarin-speaking protester in Hong Kong, filmed at a protest. Here is an article about mainlanders who have travelled to Hong Kong to join the protests.
@Mx. Granger: Yes, I think the advice about avoiding expressing political opinions is fine to stay. Citobun (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
OK, I guess just mentioning the part about not expressing political opinions is fine then. And at the end of the day, neither the Chinese not Western media is entirely trustworthy, and they most certainly have their own biases and agendas, so sometimes, it can be hard to separate the truths from the half truths. The dog2 (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Facemasks[edit]

I would say that one of user:廣九直通車's edits last night, specifically this one, introduces excess detail without changing the advice we're offering: don't wear facemasks if you don't want to get in trouble. The other stuff about court rulings and reactions from various parties is more suited to Wikipedia than Wikivoyage. The facts about what the law says and what effect flouting the law may have on travellers seem to remain the same. Therefore, I propose to reinstate the previous wording, or something close to it that is similarly punchy.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@ThunderingTyphoons!:Yes DoneThank you for your advice! I am still new (relatively) and stilllearning to get a grasp on facts related to Wikivoyage.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, 廣九直通車, much appreciated. There's plenty of time to learn.ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)