Talk:Temple Street

Political status and sovereignty status

Hong Kong is a non-sovereign territory under the sovereignty of the PRC. User:Huaiwei has, like he has done to some other articles such as the list of seaports (talk · history · watch), insisted to present it like ordinary subnational entities [1]. See also a related discussion. — Instantnood 20:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If Hong Kong is a non-sovereign territory under the sovereignty of the People's Republic of China, then yes, adding the People's Republic of China after HK is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, since we are listing entities based on sovereignty (when the country is listed). Do you have facts to proof that this was erroneous. or is it merely an issue of interpretation on your part, and your insistance in trumpeting HK autonomy beyond reality?--Huaiwei 20:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you promise you shall enforce the same point of view towards all non-sovereign territories, besides Hong Kong and Macao? If not, could you please kindly explain why you're doing it to the list of seaports (talk · history · watch), but not the list of airlines (talk · history · watch) (i.e. like this [2])?

In what way am I " trumpeting [Hong Kong's] autonomy beyond reality "? — Instantnood 20:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Why do I need to make this promise, when you arent exactly adding brackets to the PRC in ALL instances in which it appears behind HK across wikipedia, and to ALL non-independent entities as well? Do you need to make this promise to me too? I could not care less. All in all, it is apparant you are merely concerned over autonomy in your territory, or against a common enermy (up above), and to apply it to other territories is merely your excuse to continue your little exercise, so I can do better without seeing you attempting to disrupt wikipedia by applying your brackets to the entirety of the site just to demonstrate that you arent just singling out the two SARS of china. Oh...List of airlines? Now who shifted them to the current version [3]? Thanks for the tip-of, for I didnt even realise this nonsense was taking place there.--Huaiwei 20:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Great, I have just moved only the two SARs [4]. I have just given you yet another great example for your quest in showing that I am particularly biased towards China. Thing is...do I even deny that I am not biased? Compared to yourself, who continue to pretend you are unbiased, yet has obviously been doing the opposite of what I do, demonstrating a clear divide in POV which you refuse to acknowledge?--Huaiwei 20:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm in search of a compromise in response to your POV-pushing edits. I'm most willing to apply the compromised way of presentation all across Wikipedia and to other territories sharing substantial similarities (if you were agreeing to compromise). (P.S. Please be reminded SARs ≠ (are not) SARS. Given the number of times you've confused them, it's hard not to believe you're deliberately mistyping it.) As for the list of airlines, it has been edited back and forth even long before I joined Wikipedia (e.g. [5] [6] [7]). — Instantnood 21:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia has conventions on how names should be displayed. When in doubt, I would follow the actual article on Hong Kong, which does not include the PRC in its title. —P^urpleRA^IN 17:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have conformed it with the recommendations of the style guide for disambiguation pages, so that the reader is disambiguated to the main articles this is about, the names of which this page should follow. Also, it is not necessary to have a fully qualified address here. Hong Kong just by itself is clear enough, and if it is not clear to someone they can simply go read the article, which is what they are here to do anyway. —Centrx→talk • 23:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)