Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong/Archive 14

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

Request for comment for Hong Kong or Hong Kong, China?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
In this RfC editors debate whether a person who was born in Hong Kong should have their infobox list their place of birth as "Hong Kong" or "Hong Kong, China". There was also a second debate about whether a person born prior to the handover should have their place of birth listed as "British Hong Kong".

For both of these questions, there is no consensus.

During the debate editors on both sides rarely referred to policy and guidelines, instead presenting reasoned arguments for their position and against their opponents. As such, the arguments on each side are considered to be of approximately the same weight and so consensus is determined by which side best convinced the community.

Here, 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, and the status quo prevails with it being left up to editorial discretion and local consensuses to determine what is best at any given article.


Recently, I edited some articles relating to the “place of birth” column in the info box which should type whether “Hong Kong” or “Hong Kong, China” for people born in Hong Kong after 1997. This RfC is to desire whether should add “China” or not.—Billytanghh (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

For people info box, it is suggested that the country be a sovereign state and its name unlinked. Senorangel (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, like it or not Hong Kong is almost universally accepted as part of China now.--Ortizesp (talk) 03:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Choose the relevant sovereign state for those born from 1841 to 1997 use British Hong Kong; for those born after 1997, use Hong Kong. Are there any notable people born prior to 1841 with articles? Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Actually I preferred Hong Kong only, as Mainland China and Hong Kong are two different jurisdictions, something which are the same as British Overseas Territory (like what Hong Kong did before 1997) or a nation under the Kingdom of the Netherlands (such as Aruba or Curaçao). you would not add the UK or the Netherlands after them.—Billytanghh (talk) 10:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I have already explained it to you on your talk page the difference between BOTs/Aruba and Hong Kong. [1] You have ignored it [2] and continued so I am once again explaining to you that British Overseas Territories are not part of the UK.
Hong Kong was a crown colony, after 1981 British Dependent Territory, not a BOT.
I have provided you with plenty of WP:RS that call Hong Kong a Chinese city or Chinese territory. As seen here [3]
It is universally recognised to be a part of China, Hong Kong doesn't claim otherwise nor does any other country.
Chapter 1 Article 1 of the Hong Kong Basic Law constitutionally defines HK as an “inalienable part of the PRC”.[4]
Trying to forcefully remove the country from every infobox birthplace of people born *after* the 1997 handover to China just screams WP:IDONTLIKEIT Andro611 (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
  • (invited by the bot) Just say "Hong Kong" People know what that is. No need for the complexities of trying to add anything. Including to serve other objectives/preferences such as wanting to emphasize or de-emphasize that it is a part of China. North8000 (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I’d say that if China is included, use “Hong Kong SAR, China” (or the full form Special Administrative Region) because of the separate jurisdiction stuff like what Billytanghh said. If in the end it is “Hong Kong” only, don’t add the SAR since it might feel out of place. SBS6577P (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Support relevant sovereign state Per my reply and Laurel Lodged's arguments. Pre-1997 use British Hong Kong, post-1997 use Hong Kong, China. This is common sense.
Andro611 (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
The infobox requires that the country field should contain a sovereign state (generally), not the sovereign state. As I note below, the Colony of Hong Kong was not in any country. Docentation (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: This RfC would benefit from broader community participation as it will affect numerous articles of everyone born in Hong Kong after the Handover of Hong Kong on 1 July 1997. I made notification posts at Template:Centralized discussion, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China, and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). If there other good places to advertise this discussion, I would appreciate if editors would do so.

    The current RfC applies only to biographies but it may make sense to formulate a broader guideline for non-biographies too (either by broadening the scope of this RfC or as part of a new RfC after this RfC is closed). I've seen disagreement across a broad set of articles (including here for a biography, here for a city, and here for a television channel) about what wording to use.

    Once a consensus is reached, the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles can be updated with what wording to use.

    Cunard (talk) 05:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Question Is seems standard to include a state (or wider polity of some kind) in these infoboxes. Margaret Murray has "Calcutta, British India" and Mark Rutte has "The Hague, Netherlands". Where has the dispute over Hong Kong emerged, and why should it be treated differently? CMD (talk) 06:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
    Regarding your question about where this dispute emerged it appears that Billytanghh's disagreement with me started this.
    Me on Billytanghh's talk page: [5] (in response to edits on a geographic part of Hong Kong the day before)
    Here is my edit [6] for Anson Lo who was born during British rule there, no one seems to be opposing that. The case Billytanghh is making is based on a false equivalence between BOTs such as Gibraltar (which are constitutionally not part of the UK, so we aren't adding “UK” to the infoboxes of Gibraltarians) and present-day Hong Kong (which is constitutionally part of the PRC).
    Hope that helps. Andro611 (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
    • Include the larger polity. There has been nothing persuasive here to explain why we should treat Hong Kong the same way we treat virtually every other city on earth. The supposed similar examples of global cities, like Paris, include the larger polity. The concerns of potential politicisation are misguided, treating Hong Kong the same as everywhere else would be the neutral default. CMD (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Can be added, but may not be necessary as Hong Kong is so well known that specifying the country is less needed. It is not worth going through all biographies to make changes, but it can be preferred for GA or FA quality articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose I believe Hong Kong is still autonomous enough to stand on its own. If this passes, we would also need to review Macau. SportingFlyer T·C 20:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
    The infobox documentation says that the pattern is (city, administrative region, country). The HKSAR presumably isn’t autonomous to amount to a country (cf Taiwan), so it’s a (putatively quite autonomous) administrative region/city, so there’s no problem in pointing out that the country is China. Docentation (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Just Hong Kong. There are maybe 20-some-odd cities where it's unnecessary to add the polity, and it's just annoying clutter. I believe we say just "Paris" and not "Paris, France". If the reader doesn't know where Paris is, she probably doesn't know where or what France is, and many other things such that it'll be hard for her to get much out of the encyclopedia generally. New York City, London, same... and Hong Kong. Hong Kong is an A+ global city (there are nine) and is one of the very most famous cities in the world. There are a lot of cities on the margins where it could be argued either way. Hong Kong is notI one. Avoid the clutter and the political arguing. Herostratus (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    I'm not sure if there is an explicit convention these contravene, but Jacques Chirac and Nicolas Sarkozy say "Paris, France". CMD (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    Always? Why? Other people don't do that. Kamela Harris doesn't say "I've just returned from Los Angeles, United States" or "Los Angeles, America". Well, I can't account for idiosyncratic French politicians. I doubt there's a rule about this (might be an essay) because there's a continuum and not a sharp line. How do you handle Milan, Barcelona, Shenzhen, Lagos? I don't know. But I do know how to handle Hong Kong. Herostratus (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    I meant the infoboxes on those articles have that formulation. Sadiq Khan's article has "Tooting, London, England", and Al Gore's article has "Washington, D.C., U.S." CMD (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    Note however that Sadiq Khan's article does not say, "Tootling, London, England, United Kingdom", which is the name of the relevant sovereign state. We say (for example) that Bruce Lee died in Kowloon, British Hong Kong and that Ellen Joyce Loo died in Happy Valley, Hong Kong. Likewise I don't see a reason to simply say "Hong Kong, China" more broadly; Hong Kong (like England, or also more aptly like Wales; see: Ernest Zobole) is sufficiently recognizable and concrete that we need not mandate that all articles go further. Just like the U.K. example, I think it would be better to not WP:CREEP into this by mandating one style. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    The U.K. example is the product of decades of on-wiki drama. This is not a strong case, and equating Hong Kong to England when London is literally next to England in the example seems to be a very deep stretch. CMD (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Do what reliable sources do - And I don't believe they say, generally speaking, "Hong Kong, China". FOARP (talk) 09:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per FOARP and Herostratus. The specification is not required as Hong Kong is a recognizable enough entity without needing to elaborate on the current political situation. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    I would just point to Template:Infobox person where it's asked to include country or sovereign state in the person infobox. In this case it is China, as multiple WP:RS indicate. Stating this is not “elaboration on the current political situation”, it's what is commonly done for all cities including those with considerable autonomy. Best regards, Andro611 (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    We do follow sources for material, but not for style. Of a preponderance of our sources say "October 3rd, 1823" we don't follow that because we don't do dates that way. If most infoboxen are like "New York City, United States" people should stop doing that, it probably distracts and annoys more readers than it helps. "Stuttgart, Germany", yes. "Berlin, Germany", no. I mean we don't have "Rochelle, France, Europe" or whatever. Where's the cutoff? For Paris its "Paris". For Hong Kong its "Hong Kong". Herostratus (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
    This is a wikipedia template for wikipedia style. And for the record we do write ”New York, US” as seen here.
    Read the template. Europe is not mentioned with La Rochelle because Europe is not the sovereign state. France is. Andro611 (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my comment above. At best, this is instruction creep, and it's inconsistent with how we handle place names for places like Wales and Northern Ireland that have special administrative statuses within a larger sovereign unitary state. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    Why are Wales and Northern Ireland more analogous than pre-abrogation Jammu and Kashmir, or Catalonia? Docentation (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Just Hong Kong people know what Hong Kong is. As a general practice, we don't say that certain places are in certain countries, because it is such common knowledge. Specifying something like "Texas, United States" would be insulting to our readers, unless the context was unclear, because it is general knowledge that Texas is in the United States. On the off chance readers don't know that, they can of course follow the link to Hong Kong and read up on it. But to specify it is in China is simply unnecessary. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    As a general practice, we do say this. Greg Abbott was born in "Wichita Falls, Texas, U.S.". CMD (talk) 02:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
    Well let's not. It looks silly and is annoying. Herostratus (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
    I don't know why this reply is here, but perhaps it's worth raising that the place to change the general format of these infoboxes is probably not at this Wikiproject. CMD (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
    I suppose. But if general practice is to annoy the reader, the best place to start is for people to make that not be general practice. We don't really need permission for that. So we could start here I guess. Herostratus (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Hong Kong only It is well understood that Hong Kong is a Chinese SAR, the "China" does not help disambiguate between Hong Kong and Hong Kong, China since they refer to the same entity. Per WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME, I see no grounds for a change. --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  • British Hong Kong sounds very wrong. And an unnecessary disambiguation, given the context is clear from the year, and there's been no territorial changes (unlike British India). There's lots of other places this could apply to. Like British British Columbia, or perhaps more comparably British British Columbia. Nfitz (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
    Yeah, also agree on that. There is a very strong tendency in some areas of Wikipedia to simply invent new names for things and then those names become somehow "official" on here. "British Hong Kong" just isn't a thing, nor was it pre-1997. It was always just Hong Kong. Yes I know our article is called that, but that was an editor-created title. FOARP (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Red-tailed hawk. Regardless of the Hong Kong national security law reducing the territory's autonomy, it clearly maintains more autonomy than mainland Chinese cities or US states. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 21:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Just Hong Kong. People know where it is. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Hong Kong, China, unless consensus emerges that particularly notable cities need not be disambiguated by country; the present position is that we should list city, administrative region, country. Docentation (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
  • We should ALWAYS include the sovereign state in these situations

--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Post-1997: Hong Kong SAR, China
Pre-1997: British Hong Kong
The controlling entity at the time of the person's birth has generally always been listed in the infobox. This is particularly relevant to countries that have a history of being occupied, such as Korea; cf. Kim Yong-Nam, Park Chung-hee. Hong Kong has never been independent and shows no serious indications of it being independent.
There has not been very convincing reasoning as to why Hong Kong should be treated any differently. Even if it was an independent city-state, any existing infoboxes should be disambiguated further such as was done in Princess Gabriella, Countess of Carladès. Hong Kong by itself should never be an acceptable entry in an infobox just as we don't put London by itself in the infobox. Both are controlled by a governing entity. Mfko (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
  • just Hong Kong. Unlike US states, or "countries" of Britain, being born in Hong Kong does not automatically give you Chinese citizenship, or (pre 1997) British. People born in Hong Kong are citizens of Hong Kong, independent of any right they may have to Chinese or British citizenship. Nothing changed in 1997 with respect to this. In particular HK citizens didn't suddenly lose British citizenship, or gain Chinese, as such additions would imply.--92.40.36.74 (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
    That is false. People born in Hong Kong are Chinese nationals per Chinese Nationality Law. See 1. & 2. here Andro611 (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
    Only a HK resident "of Chinese descent" or who "satisfies the criteria ... for having Chinese nationality". Which is how it's been for a while – China's nationality law accepts anyone of Chinese descent as Chinese, as long as they haven't become a citizen of another country (which means giving up Chinese citizenship, as China does not recognise dual nationality). At the same time a HK resident may have a right to British citizenship, from a prior relationship, or due to schemes extending visas and citizenship to HK residents before and after 1997. --92.40.36.74 (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Just Hong Kong. The only common usage for "Hong Kong, China" is in sports competition. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Allow both. If current policy says we need to include the country for cities like Paris or New York, I'd push back against it, because that's in my opinion a net negative. It's also not worth saying those cities have to not include the country – too much work for not really any gain, both styles can be acceptable. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Hong Kong SAR, China. most accurate and informative and consistent with how we treat other places of birth OckRaz talk 15:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Hong Kong, China - the infobox documentation says it should be city, administrative region, country and the country should generally be a sovereign state. As Hong Kong is its own administrative region, it should be Hong Kong, China. The documentation says unnecessary or redundant details, so the SAR (or other future legal statuses) should not be included (as appears to be the conversion with other cities). ~ El D. (talk to me) 17:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose/Just Hong Kong, as most sources and material use "Hong Kong". I have personally never heard anyone say they were from "Hong Kong, China", just "Hong Kong". Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 08:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I think "Hong Kong" by itself is fine - it's a region which is often treated separately from the rest of China and the average English-speaking reader will be familiar with it. It would be fine to list someone as being born in "Scotland" for the same reason, even though Scotland isn't a sovereign state. Hut 8.5 16:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Hong Kong, China Just follow the usage adopted by the United Nations. 203.46.37.2 (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
    Which Wikipedia policy or practice suggests that we should ‘[j]ust follow the usage adopted by the United Nations’? The UN uses Oxford spelling; alas, Wikipedia doesn’t impose it on e.g. articles about Texas. Docentation (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Hong Kong, China. First, despite some suggestions to the contrary above, I do not believe Hong Kong is different enough from other notable cities to merit special handling. The general practice of including the larger polity also seems fine to me. "Beijing, China" is likewise preferable to "Beijing" despite the vast majority knowing where Beijing is. It is not an inordinate amount of info and provides a small amount of extra context. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose RFC per Red-tailed hawk, this is unnecessary WP:CREEP and should be handled on a case-by-case basis with relevance to context. Especially as Hong Kong is both a city and its own mostly autonomous political entity (like Scotland, Greenland or Somaliland), so whether "Hong Kong, China" or "Hong Kong" should be used is dependent on the context on what is being referred to. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 11:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Hong Kong. The exact term "Hong Kong, China" (with the words and punctuation in that order) is a PRC propaganda term that they intend to replace the term "Hong Kong" by itself, just like "Taiwan, China". There's a reason the PRC specifically demanded that the Olympics and several airlines replace "Hong Kong" with "Hong Kong, China", while no such political demand has been made of "Puerto Rico" (neither the Olympics nor airlines). Zowayix001 (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Allow both/no official preference per Red-tailed hawk. There are occasions where adding "China" is necessary and those instances can be addressed when they are encountered. I would hate for someone to encounter an editing restriction over something like this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Hong Kong per the Puerto Rico precedent. For prose, we obviously don't say "London, England", or "Paris, France", but we do use those examples in infoboxes. However, Boriquas are simply listed as being born in "San Juan, Puerto Rico" without mention of the U.S., and I believe Hong Kong is in an analogous position with China. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment: British Hong Kong or Hong Kong?

For people born in Hong Kong between 1841 and 1997, should the "place of birth" column say "British Hong Kong" or "Hong Kong"? If there is consensus for a particular approach in either or both of the pre-1997 and post-1997 cases, should the community create a bot request to modify all affected articles to comply with the new guidance? Cunard (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment: Here is background from Hong Kong:

    Hong Kong had been a colony of the British Empire since 1841, except for four years of Japanese occupation from 1941 to 1945. After the First Opium War, its territory was expanded on two occasions; in 1860 with the addition of Kowloon Peninsula and Stonecutters Island, and again in 1898, when Britain obtained a 99-year lease for the New Territories. The date of the handover in 1997 marked the end of this lease.

    Nfitz (talk · contribs) wrote above: "British Hong Kong sounds very wrong. And an unnecessary disambiguation, given the context is clear from the year, and there's been no territorial changes (unlike British India). There's lots of other places this could apply to. Like British British Columbia, or perhaps more comparably British British Columbia."

    And FOARP (talk · contribs) wrote in response, "Yeah, also agree on that. There is a very strong tendency in some areas of Wikipedia to simply invent new names for things and then those names become somehow "official" on here. "British Hong Kong" just isn't a thing, nor was it pre-1997. It was always just Hong Kong. Yes I know our article is called that, but that was an editor-created title."

    There is an emerging consensus in the above RfC that for people born in Hong Kong after 1997, the infobox should say "Hong Kong" instead of "Hong Kong, China". There are numerous articles of people born before 1997 who have infoboxes that say "British Hong Kong" instead of "Hong Kong". Of the four Chief Executives of Hong Kong not born in mainland China, John Lee Ka-chiu and Carrie Lam say British Hong Kong, while Leung Chun-ying and Donald Tsang say Hong Kong. I've created articles like Terence Lam, who was born in 1991, that say "British Hong Kong" in the infobox because I've seen other articles say that. The community should decide what to say in the pre-1997 case just like the post-1997 case at #Request for comment for Hong Kong or Hong Kong, China?.

    After this RfC is closed, I recommend updating Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles (maybe in a new "Hong Kong" section) with guidance about what to do in these two cases. If there is consensus for a particular approach, should the community create a bot request to modify all affected articles to comply with the new guidance?

    Cunard (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment: I made notification posts at Template:Centralized discussion, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles.

    For the post at Template:Centralized discussion, I made a sub-bullet point as I didn't know how to concisely combine the new RfC proposal (pre-1997 biographical articles and bot request to modify affected articles) with the existing RfC proposal (post-1997 biographical articles). Editors may feel that two bullet points on Template:Centralized discussion is too much. If another editor could combine the two without losing the gist of the proposals, I'd appreciate it. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 05:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Just Hong Kong for all dates; no opinion on bot request. Any editor is free to move this comment to wherever it belongs. I'm not really sure where to reply or where ReplyTool will put this. Folly Mox (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
    Oh, I suppose I should explain myself: 1. Hong Kong is unambiguous; 2. if a subject's citizenship status is important it can be mentioned in prose, and their nationality will probably be mentioned in the lead sentence anyway, so there's no need for it to go in the infobox as well. Folly Mox (talk) 05:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Well, do we use British Boston for Boston before March 17, 1776? If we do, then I suppose "British Hong Kong" makes sense. If not, then not. Herostratus (talk) 05:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
    Not to the exact city, but articles for George Washington and John Adams did list “British America” as their birthplaces, though I’m not sure whether there are any differences between the scenario for the 2 presidents and HK. SBS6577P (talk) 05:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
    That’s even more strange since “British America” wasn’t a single colony, or really a unitary entity. FOARP (talk) 06:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
    Using British America would be like using North America. Technically correct ... but clumsy; and also variable over time. Each colony was seperate. Was British Hong Kong even used in that manner, before China took over? I never heard it used. The common usage was Hong Kong. Nfitz (talk) 09:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I don't think this needs a bot, infoboxes are regularly edited as part of normal editing activities. Other than that, is this RfC different from above? CMD (talk) 06:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Just Hong Kong. Really, this is overcomplicating things. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
  • just Hong Kong. I was including this in my comments above but will add it here for clarity. Again, whether A HK resident is born before or after 1997 does not affect their right to Chinese or British citizenship. "British Hong Kong" is especially problematic as HK wasn't known as that, it wasn't a nationality you could have then or can have now. --92.40.36.74 (talk) 09:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
    The relevant field requires place of birth: city, administrative region, country. The citizenship or nationality status of those born in Hong Kong hardly changes any of those three either way. Docentation (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
  • just Hong Kong. My wife was born in Hong Kong well before 1997. Her birth certificate was issued by the "Births and Deaths Registry, Hong Kong". Her BDTC passport (British Dependant Territories Citizen, a nearly worthless British document that did not give her right of entry into Britain) listed her place of birth as "Hong Kong", her nationality as "British National (Overseas)" and had a banner saying "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" at the top of the page. Her HKSAR passport lists her birth place as "Hong Kong" but has a banner saying "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, People's Republic of China" at the top of the page. She was a natural born citizen of Hong Kong before the handover and remained a natural born citizen of Hong Kong after the handover. I don't believe anybody makes a distinction between Hong Kong nationality based on their birth year being before or after July 1997. Possible exception would be that the BDTC passport could no longer be issued for Hong Kong citizens after July 1997. I remember there being a such massive rush at the passport offices to get one in the last year before handover that it made it hard for me to book an appointment to extend my residency visa. When returning to visit relatives, our family passports have entry/exit stamps that just say "Hong Kong" with no mention of "China". Entry/exit stamps into mainland China have "China" in both Chinese and English at the top. Our visa to entry mainland China (ie, cross over into Guangdong province) has the Chinese characters for "Chinese People's Republic" at the top and says it was issued at Hong Kong (using 2 Chinese characters 香港, not English). As said by many others, it is a unique and well known name that needs no clumsy qualifier. Addressing it's status, it belongs to China as a special administration region. - no question. Whether that means it is part of China the country as opposed to be simply belonging to China could be open to question. Perhaps Jersey would be a good comparison - part of the British Isles, not part of the UK, but still a British crown dependency (aka territory). I remember Hong Kong often being called the "Territory of Hong Kong" - which allows it to have its own laws, currency, etc but these could be overridden by the British government. Similar for HK with the 1 country, 2 systems Basic Law that allows HK to have its own laws, currency, etc separate from normal Chinese law but these could be overridden by the Chinese government.  Stepho  talk  11:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
    Regarding your comparison to Jersey, there is one key difference. Hong Kong is constitutionally defined as an inalienable part of China.[7] It is fully integrated into the sovereign political entity known as the PRC. That does not stop it from having fiscal, judicial etc autonomy. In its most fundamental document it implicitly rejects the notion of being ruled by China. Hong Kong is not in real union with China, it is a part of China itself. Same goes for Macau. Best regards. Andro611 (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
    Agreed that HK is now an inalienable part of China. But does that refer to China the political entity or China the country? Compare to Tibet, which China also claims to be a part of China (see Seventeen Point Agreement) but is generally considered a separate country. And both Tibet and HK share borders with China. I can also compare it to my home of Australia - until the 1970s/80s the English parliament could overrule almost anything that the Australian parliament ruled.  Stepho  talk  02:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Again, this feels like WP:CREEP. If we're going to enforce a particular preference, [[British Hong Kong|Hong Kong]] would be my personal one, but I don't think that we need to enforce one over the other as a matter of MOS. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 13:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
    For the record, because I think that we should not mandate a style, I oppose a bot to go in and automanually replace everything. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Avoid the wp:creep of specifying it in an RFC. But on individual cases I would generally weigh in as "just Hong Kong" North8000 (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
  • British Hong Kong. We have used it more often than not and it is a useful indicator of the historical context of Hong Kong being ruled by the UK, but not being a part of it. It also reflects how Hong Kong was never a self-governing dominion like Australia or Canada and that is certainly important to stress in the case of for example biographies of politicians and/or activists in 20th century Hong Kong.
Andro611 (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Just Hong Kong - Again, no RfC is required here. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Allow both. Won't advocate a bot to systematically replace all mentions of Hong Kong with British Hong Kong. Agree with the sentiments that this RFC is scope creeping. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose bot, allow both with preference for Hong Kong with a piped link to British Hong Kong, a la Hong Kong. Curbon7 (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
  • just Hong Kong but linked to British Hong Kong I was torn because just Hong Kong seemed correct based on the contemporary usage, but I also felt like it's important to recognize that it wasn't the same political entity before 1997. I think red-tailed hawk has come up with the most elegant solution: [[British Hong Kong|Hong Kong]]OckRaz talk 15:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Hong Kong - (Summoned by bot) I have no strong opinion on how it should be piped, but the sovereignty does not necessitate a disambiguation. To the point about British America above, that's a very different situation because a sovereign disambiguation makes sense there; British America was not synonymous with "America" as there was also French America (New France) and Spanish America, for example, whereas within a specific time period there is (to the best of my knowledge) only one entity called Hong Kong at a time. - Aoidh (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
    Also, a bot should not be making those kinds of changes, regardless of what consensus determines is appropriate. - Aoidh (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
  • No bot, whatever is chosen. We have enough prescriptive bots changing our work. I write something a certain way because that's the best choice of words in my mind, give me that satisfaction at least and don't tell me I was wrong -- especially if you're a machine. We have enough of those already. Yesterday I wanted to watch Spongebob Squarepants but my TV made me watch Judgement at Nuremburg instead, as the TV AI considered that to be "more worthwhile". Enough. Herostratus (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Hong Kong actually the use Hong Kong, China is a rare phenomena that only started in the past year or two. I suggest WP:TOOSOON and we wait a bit. Probably another 5 years PRC is able to push this into mainstream, but we dont lead the way at wikipedia. We follow. Any editor can move my comment, I am confused by the proposal. There is also no British Hong Kong in the majority of RS by the way. This notion is likely recent mainland nationalism. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
  • British Hong Kong; No bot. I have no idea. I think the correct answer from a policy perspective is Hong Kong, British Hong Kong but that feels redundant. Given that we (should) use Hong Kong, China for post-1997, I feel like it is worth giving equal emphasis to the sovereign status before then. ~ El D. (talk to me) 17:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
    Titles should reflect common usage. Is there any indication that a pre-1997 common term was British Hong Kong? Of course you can't have two Hong Kong articles. Options for the original article are things like "Colony of Hong Kong", Hong Kong (pre-1997), Hong Kong (18??–1997). We have other examples to guide us. Like Province of Quebec (1763–1791) in addition to the current Province of Quebec. For 1841 to 1867 Canada we have Province of Canada. And for 1791 to 1841 Canada we have The Canadas. Nfitz (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Hong Kong, clearer. Blythwood (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Just Hong Kong, and I would suggest so for both British and SAR Hong Kong. Given the SARs unique statuses, I think it's best that we just put Hong Kong with no sovereign state and use piped links to go to either SAR Hong Kong or British Hong Kong depending on what Hong Kong we're talking about. I'd suggest a similar resolution for Macau/Macao/Aomen/whatever you want to call the other SAR, if necessary. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
  • British Hong Kong Hong Kong was under British rule before 1997, we need to respect the historical fact. 203.46.37.2 (talk) 04:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
  • No one size fits all rule, please; also, wrong forum for this discussion. I do tend to think that the most apropos descriptor in a majority of cases is likely to be British Hong Kong. (which thereby is my second choice if a closer needs to form consensus from just the two proposed options), but I agree with Red-Tailed Hawk that there is no particularly compelling reason to embrace a WP:CREEPy rule here, which seems to be a solution in search of a problem (or at least a reflection of compulsive drive to standardize all biographical infoboxes, which I do not view as either a particularly feasible nor desirable goal for such templates). This is absolutely something that should be left to the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of editors on particular articles based on what the context suggests. Further, I do not think that linking to British Hong Kong, but rendering "Hong Kong" through piping is particularly useful or appropriate.
There's also the matter that this is an invalid RfC as hosted here, per WP:Advice pages; WikiProjects are not meant to be creating their own idiosyncratic rules that they then try to force upon any articles (BLPs or otherwise) that they perceive to be within their purview. Even for a relatively narrow issue like this, that inevitably leads to conflicts and is broadly considered to be WP:disruptive behavior, particularly if editors then try to enforce this "consensus" en masse over articles. As such, the bot absolutely cannot happen or someone is likely to end up at AE or ANI. If you want a binding consensus on this, the discussion would need to take place at an appropriate central community space where policy or style guidance are validated (that is an independent WP:PROPOSAL at VPP or a discussion on a relevant MoS talk page).
However, to the extent that this discussion continues and results in a recommendation on how to approach this issue across affected articles, my choices are 1) no needlessly constricting rule of thumb, or 2) and as a distant second "British Hong Kong" as the default, since I see no reason to hide valuable context from the reader, nor to confusingly disguise it with a pipe. I think some of the !votes here, well-intentioned as they, are confusing our pedantic impulses with regard to finding the distinction arbitrary with the choice that is most useful to the reader, as a purely utilitarian matter.
But again, above all, please do not attempt the bot or attempt to edit war to enforce the result of this discussion on individual articles--that will not end well: even without adding automated edits into the mix there have been numerous arbcom cases and community behavioral reviews that have resulted from WikiProject efforts to mass enforce the preferred approach of a certain WikiProject clique over large numbers of articles. SnowRise let's rap 18:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
  • While generally I'd agree with your points on the discussion venue, this is currently linked from WP:CENT, so I personally wouldn't see it as a local consensus. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
  • That's a very good point, The ed17. I still think this is a suboptimal way to go about codifying a consensus, but the involvement of WP:CENT alleviates some of the concerns. I think the discussion was not yet listed on CENT when I first replied, though? SnowRise let's rap 05:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Snow Rise, I just saw this so sorry for the late reply. Can you clarify why you think that linking to British Hong Kong, but rendering "Hong Kong" through piping is [not] particularly useful or appropriate? This is quite typical with former geographical/political entities; as an example, the infobox for Andrzej Duda uses [[Kraków]], [[Polish People's Republic|Poland]]. Curbon7 (talk) 01:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Hi, Curbon7. Well, it might very well be common in certain classes of historical biographies (or just in the infoboxes?), but if so, it's a habit that I feel very clearly runs counter to virtually the entire of WP:PIPE: WP:PIPE#USE, WP:NOPIPE, and WP:EASTEREGG. Basically pipes are only meant to be used where the syntactic/grammatical context or other pragmatic style/formatting factor makes a naked link unwieldy. Otherwise, the full name of the article should be utilized to maximize the principle of least astonishment and reflect the WP:COMMONNAME of the article as determined by consensus. Considering these priorities on when pipes are (and are not) useful and appropriate, I think a plain link in an infobox should pretty much always be a bare link for WP:TRANSPARENCY's sake, barring some compelling reason relating to navigation itself: not what the local editors on a given article think is the right name for where a person lived at a given time. Navigation need to reflect the reader's effort to reach the content they want first and foremost, which is the way WP:PIPE is written as it is. SnowRise let's rap 05:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Snow Rise I believe that pipes are appropriate in certain such circumstances as that per WP:POLA. Saying "Lwow, Polish People's Republic" is wrong since it was simply known as "Poland" at the time and the "Polish People's Republic" is merely a a historiographic term of convenience; on the other hand, linking to modern-day Poland violates POLA since people (rightfully) don't expect a link to modern-day Poland in an article from before the 1990s. So, given the historical context EASTEREGG yields to POLA in my opinion. Similarly, "British Hong Kong" is a useful anachronism, but still an anachronism, so saying a person was born in BHK in the infobox likewise doesn't make sense. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 09:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • That's a reasonable perspective, John, but for my part I think it's just too irrational to pipe a wikilink for one article with the name of another, completely different article. Particularly in the context of an infobox where there is no particular syntactic need for it. I'm much less concerned with getting the exact anachronistic name of the polity as its residence would have called it at the time in front of the reader than I am with keeping both the navigation and the subject matter of the parameter clear; we can handle somewhat more pedantic details in the body of source article and on the other side of the link. It's a your-mileage-may-vary kind of issue I suppose, but I do somewhat strongly disagree that PIPE should be regarded as the subordinate concern in this instance. SnowRise let's rap 09:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Hong Kong. While Hong Kong was at the time a British colony/dependent territory, it wasn't commonly called "British Hong Kong", at least not during the latter years of the territory. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Hong Kong. We are to list the city, administrative region, [and] country (Template:Infobox person). The city is obviously Hong Kong. Was ‘British Hong Kong’ an administrative region? No: the name of the administrative region in question was the Colony of Hong Kong (see the Letters Patent 1917 to 1995). Therefore, the field for the administrative region should be ‘Colony of Hong Kong’. But that would be unnecessary or redundant, so Hong Kong is preferable. The appending of letters after ‘Hong Kong’ or ‘Hong Kong, Colony of Hong Kong’ to include the country cannot yield ‘British Hong Kong’. Moreover, the field should be left blank. Hong Kong was not part of any country. (Hong Kong was a British dependent territory [Schedule 6, British Nationality Act 1981], which category was later renamed ‘overseas territory’ [British Overseas Territories Act 2002], none of which form or formed part of the United Kingdom [British Overseas Territories Law (second edition), p 14].) Therefore, the country field should be left blank. Docentation (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hong_Kong/Archive_14&oldid=1176501981"