Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong

Shortcut

Template:Use Hong Kong English

At Template:Use Hong Kong English I recommend finding dictionaries and evidence of key features on government websites and/or newspapers of record on how Hong Kong English (for formal, written purposes) is different from British English. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Outstanding Teens Election

This appears to be the least notable article I've seen after 120,000 plus edits. Please fix all the issues tagged. Bearian (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: I took a quick look and I agree. I seriously doubt the notability of this award, especially since all the sources cited are primary sources or parroting primary sources. Yue🌙 (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Bearian (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should we add sovereign states to Hong Kong in templates?

This RfC is intended to discuss whether the sovereign state should be included when Hong Kong is mentioned in templates. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 00:57, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There was a previous RfC in 2023 addressing the same issue: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong/Archive 14# Request for comment for Hong Kong or Hong Kong, China?. That discussion arose from an editing dispute between User:Billytanghh and User:SigillumVert (under the username User:Andro611 at the time), when SigillumVert changed "Hong Kong" to "Hong Kong, China" in the infoboxes of several articles created or contributed to by Billy, and the dispute could not be resolved on their talk page. That RfC was ultimately closed as no consensus, with the closer remarking that "there was plurality for just "Hong Kong", but due to a minority preferring no strict rule we find that the community is undecided on this issue". (I believe "no strict rule" means WP:NOBURO.) Since the RfC explicitly discussed whether should add "China" or not, per WP:NOCONSENSUS, "proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal", which in this case means the RfC's outcome did not favor the addition of the sovereign state.

However, after the RfC closed, SigillumVert continued to push their editing pattern over the years. For instance, they have added "China" again to Gigi Yim, one of the disputed articles involving them and Billy that led to the RfC, as well as numerous cases of either adding "China" to articles about Hong Kong subjects (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5), reverting the removal of "China" from infoboxes (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), or other editors reverting their addtion of "China" to infoboxes (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), including having an edit war with User:Treat3034231. Multiple editors have already discussed this with SigillumVert, where most recently, User:Northern Moonlight brought this up on their talk page, where SigillumVert argued that, due to the no consensus outcome of the 2023 RfC, they are not refrained from continuing to add sovereign states. Moonlight and I then explained that NOCONSENSUS does not serve as an allowance for editors to do whatever they want, but rather indicates that the proposal raised in the RfC should be dropped and retain the status quo of WP. But they again continued pushing the same kind of edits to include China in infoboxes, with this time they argued that articles should be written on a first-come first-served basis as editors should "retain the version of the article" when disputed, meaning that either "Hong Kong" or "Hong Kong, China" would be used depending on which term was added first.

The reason I wrote the paragraph above is not to point fingers at any particular editor, but to emphasize that persistent disputes and back-and-forth editing across different parts of Wikipedia have continued for several years, and they stem from the ambiguity and ineffectiveness of the previous RfC, which did not resolve the core problem at all and instead caused even more confusion among editors. Therefore, I would like to suggest that we should avoid worrying about NOBURO or CREEP, and instead we should aim for a clearer consensus this time, as this is not just about ensuring consistency across articles, it could also put an end to the tedious and often unproductive arguments that currently exist on WP. I hope everyone can work towards reaching such a consensus and choose one of the options below (or propose other better suggestions) as the "strict rule" for how we edit articles in the future, and save time and effort for all editors from meaningless arguments and allowing us to focus on more important issues.

I also propose that, although most disputes revolve around infoboxes, this RfC should extend to all templates. For example, I noticed SigillumVert had reverted back-and-forth with User:Stvbastian over a medals table for Vivian Kong in 2022. If we only focus on infoboxes and do not reach a firm consensus regarding other templates, there is a foreseeable risk that the conclusion of this RfC will be interpreted as only applicable to the few infobox templates and be used as a pretext to justify edits across other templates. Therefore, I hope this discussion can extend its scope to all templates, broadly construed.

The options for how we should list Hong Kong in templates include:

  1. Just "Hong Kong" for both pre-1997 and post-1997
  2. Use "Hong Kong, U.K." or "British Hong Kong" for pre-1997 and "Hong Kong, China" for post-1997
  3. Just "Hong Kong" for pre-1997 and "Hong Kong, China" for post-1997

—👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 00:58, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Option 1, just "Hong Kong" per MOS:IBP: Hong Kong has always been the common name of the city, with the majority of sources referring to it simply as Hong Kong rather than "Hong Kong, China", "Hong Kong, United Kingdom", or "British Hong Kong", so people can recognize this place without mentioning its sovereign state. IBP emphasizes listing only key facts for readers to grasp at a glance and that the less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, using only the common name "Hong Kong", regardless of whether it was during the British colonial or the Chinese SAR era, seems like the ideal choice to honor this spirit. And although IBP is intended for infoboxes only, our other templates like lists and tables, serve a similar purpose of easier information capture and should also prioritize readability, so I see no harm in extending this approach to other templates. Quoting Deryck C. from a previous discussion, "blind adherence to sovereign state boundaries is unhelpful". Many other places, like Scotland, Puerto Rico, or the Faroe Islands, are also presented without mentioning their sovereign states (we do not write "Scotland, U.K.", "Puerto Rico, U.S.", or "Faroe Islands, Denmark"), which shows that including sovereign states in templates is never mandatory and we are not setting any precedent to omit their mention. Also, I have never seen any mention of pre-1997 Hong Kong including its sovereign state, it is always just Hong Kong, so I see no reason why there was no ambiguity, confusion, or whatsoever before 1997 that would require emphasizing the sovereign state, but after 1997, it suddenly becomes necessary. I believe simply using "Hong Kong" for both pre- and post-1997 makes the most sense and would be the easiest to maintain consistency across our articles among the three options. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 01:00, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 per Prince of Erebor. I see no need to differentiate. Carolina2k22 • (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all This RfC is just poorly worded and what's even more flawed is the attempt to universally apply to all templates (not just infoboxes). Again, NOBURO and CREEP apply and we shouldn't try to fit a one size all solution, and you know it's too much when even I say it. My main gripe was with the interpretation of MOS:IBP in which we seem to differ.
Secondly, this is presented as a false dichotomy ignoring the fact that the common and official name of Hong Kong under colonial rule was just "[Crown colony of] Hong Kong". And also the Faroe islands are not part of Denmark, they are a constituent of the Danish Realm — along with Denmark and Greenland. Prince of Erebor simply does not understand (or refuses to understand) how these polities work and yet he insists on legislating a one size fits all solution.
Let me remind the readers here that it was his position that because of STYLEVAR when there is no policy based argument for a change the article reverts back to its original state. He used that multiple times and I conceded. Now when I called out that he himself was doing the very thing he was so vehemently against here diff (with a misleading edit summary, WP:RADAR?) he again reverted and started this. He even said immediately after that pages should revert to their original status quo here. Which is exactly what I did.
Attempting to legislate the removal of country signifier in every context from Hong Kong is just an egregious case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If we can agree on Shanghai, China then there is nothing wrong with HK, China in certain contexts. Now when and where can be discussed, but a blanket ban is contrary to the spirit of wikipedia, that is to freely inform people. It is self-evident to be irrational and overreach. SigillumVert (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator has successfully made the case that this is a frequent area of edit warring, which means an RfC is a good venue to prevent future disruptions. It is perhaps not wise to accuse a sincere attempt of settle a dispute with WP:IDLI coming from someone who has edit warred in this area in the past. I don't see any problem with Option 1 as long as reasonable exceptions (e.g. verbatim quote, proper noun of companies) apply. (I'd also like to remind the editor that Danish Realm is sometimes simply [known as] Denmark). Northern Moonlight 01:26, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all, per WP:CREEP. Handle it as best fits the purpose of a particular template. CMD (talk) 07:39, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 - reasons have been well enumerated by nominator. I will add that no editors have presented any specific examples of when a country signifier is needed in a template, so their arguments collapse to "we will find an exception eventually, so this rule shouldn't be instated." Hm. (Also, editors are just using CREEP as justification, when really they should be discussing specific reasons why any of these rules will be harmful and/or confusing.) I like octopusestalk to me, talk to me 17:23, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    A "country signifier" is a standard part of MOS:INFONAT. (The RfC confusing infoboxes with the usual use of template for template spaces does not help in creating a clear result). CMD (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1, no need differentiate. Personally, just happy to see a stop to the back-and-forth editing that don't contribute to the articles. Labratscientist (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 - HK has been a separate territory ever since it was more than a fishing village. Territories typically do not have the name of the country that currently owns it added as a suffix. When it was owned by Britain, it never had UK or GB tacked on the end. Even today, it is still run as a though it was a separate territory to mainland China and not as a province (and HK'ers still refer to mainland China as a completely separate entity and not just a bigger entity that they are a part of). Given that HK also changed ownership, any other scheme is just adding complication where it isn't useful to the reader.  Stepho  talk  08:50, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

COI edit request relevant to this project: Vistra (services company)

Just notifying members of this project that there is a Conflict of Interest edit request relevant to this WikiProject at the Vistra (services company) article. DrThneed (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hong_Kong