Talk:Visa requirements for Chinese citizens of Hong Kong

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

What happened to the article?[edit]

Until last Saturday this used to be a well-arranged article with the countries sorted into categories / continents, short texts in between with some additional information, and a very comprehensive listing covering pretty much every country and territory on this planet, including those which the official hong kong government websites don't provide information about due to political reasons. I appreciate the efforts of checking for dead links and cross-checking with other existing wiki articles for double listings of the same content, but the result should not be to significantly shorten the article, removing vital information and putting everything into one big overloaded table. It would be much appreciated if user 'Twofortnights' could revise his changes (instead of me clicking on 'undo', as i'm sure some useful changes have been made too and checking the links sure must have taken some time too).

Instead of deleting entries such as Kosovo (which is especially important in the list, as it's not covered by the official Hong Kong SAR government websites), because the old reference link doesn't work anymore, it would be great if instead an updated reference would be provided.

--MarsmanRom (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can open the previous article version, and start opening the references (so well arranged against every Wikipedia style and reference rule out there - as mere links). How many of them are working? None. 404 all over the place. So please, don't criticize this version in a fashion that prefers a previous version that was useless full of dead links and outdated information. Yes there might be some oversights like removing information on some regions, I will try to fix that, but overall 99% of information is now up to date and all the references are working and they are actual references adhering to the manual of style. Also the article now covers every country in alphabetic order no matter if the visa is required or not, previously it was unclear what the criteria for inclusion is.
Saying that you are sure "some useful changes have been made" when referring to fixing 99% of references and updating all information in the article is plain ridiculous.
Also the article should not go over its limits, it covers visa requirements for Chinese citizens of Hong Kong not the visa policy of Hong Kong nor the visa requirements for British Nationals Overseas, there are separate articles for that.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being a little impulsive when posting my original comment, I undoubtedly stepped over the line by making it look like your changes were minor in importance, while major in 'damage'. I hereby want to say sorry for that, and want to thank you for your efforts in updating the article. I always appreciate it if people take the time to update those slightly boring tables, checking links etc. And though the number of broken links and references was more like 50 to 60% (instead of 99) and I indeed liked the old system of sorting by continent a little bit better, there is no "but". Especially after you updated the article with all those politically problematic 'regions', I once again just want to say: SORRY and THANK YOU! --MarsmanRom (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and all the best in the future editing,--Twofortnights (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Visa requirements for Chinese citizens of Hong Kong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Visa requirements for Chinese citizens of Hong Kong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli stamps[edit]

@BushelCandle +Twofortnights, the problem with the Israeli stamps us that them seem to target specific type of countries: East Asian/West Pacific [China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea (South), Philippines, San Marino, and Thailand], major historically-Catholic countries [Andorra, Brazil, France, Hungary, Mexico, Monaco, Poland, Portugal, and Spain], and some random set of countries [Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Norway, and Serbia]. It explicitly excludes most Anglophone countries except Australia and New Zealand, African countries, Carribean countries, and certain large countries such as India, Italy, and Russia. There seem to be an intrinsic reason why the editor is intent on forewarning people from these countries. That and the statement reamins unsourced which may equate to vandalism. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar[edit]

Timatic says, "Visa required, except for Passengers with a Hong Kong (SAR China) passport for a maximum stay of 30 days." I have correspondingly updated the Qatar entry. Huon (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Discussing edit war[edit]

@207.154.226.251: asked on IRC why his edit was reverted. Looking at the rev history, I told him it was because it lacked reliable sources. I advised he use the talk page to communicate, instead of just reverting and using the edit summary. Since he is inexperienced at WP, I'm pinging him and @Twofortnights: to join the discussion. From what I understand, Kyrgyzstan is now accepting eVisas, for which Chinese citizens can apply (Hong Kong is not listed individually and neither are the other SARs). The IP seems to think this implies HK citizens can apply (as Chinese citizens).

I couldn't find any sources about Hong Kong and Kyrgyzstan specifically but wanted to introduce the IP to the building of consensus and use of reliable sources on WP. – jfsamper (talk•contrib•email) 10:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Twofortnights: 207.154.226.251 has requested via IRC that a discussion between you and them take place about the recent changes dispute. @207.154.226.251: please state your case here. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 12:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everything was explained already on Talk:Visa_requirements_for_Chinese_citizens_of_Macau under "Regarding recent edits by the IP address" by User:C-GAUN. The fact is that China and its SARs have independent visa policies and sign independent visa agreements and are treated as three different entities based on their different passports despite all being Chinese citizens. Something like different classes of British nationalities and citizenship. I have already explained in edit summary regarding the concrete thing that on http://evisa.e-gov.kg/ Hong Kong is not on the drop down list of "select your passport country", meaning you can't apply with a HK passport through that system and there is really nothing much I can add to that, it's simply not there.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did some more digging and it looks like there is currently no further evidence to support the claim made by the IP address other than the simple syntax on Timatic. As explained before, Hong Kong and Macau maintain their separate visa policy and hence are treated differently by other countries from ordinary Mainland China passport holders per international customs, and although the lack of these SARs and Taiwan are evident from the website, I am not convinced that the sole selection from the drop-down menu, "China", can cover passports issued by four different, completely unrelated authorities. Although it is possible that the Kyrgyz authorities might have unintentionally missed out on Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, there is currently no evidence to support the claim made by the IP address. Should the editor with IP address require further evidence to support his or her claim, I recommend he or she reach out directly to the Kyrgyz government here so they can clarify. C-GAUN (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@C-GAUN: I don't think Taiwan has anything to do with this discussion, this is about SARs. So far through IRC the anon argued that IATA shows a visa requirement, like you mentioned. He also said he wrote an email to the Kyrgystan eVisa contact and they told him HK and Macau citizens should select China when applying for a visa.
I realize these probably can't be used as refs here but I also think that the mere absence of an item from a drop-down list might also not be the best interpretation for the evisa website ref.
Again, I encourage 207.154.226.251 to join the discussion directly. He seems worried that his level of English isn't good enough, but talking through intermediaries on IRC will get tiresome soon. Maybe we should contact WP:LOCEMB?– jfsamper (talk•contrib•email) 00:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have already had this discussion extensively for many other countries. Usually countries do not require visas for SAR passport holders but do require visas for Chinese passport holders. On those few occasions where some countries dropped the visa requirement for Chinese passport holders we had IP users quickly jump to use the flawed analogy and claim how this obviously applies to SAR passport holders as well. And it was proven not to be true. We can't write encyclopedia based on assumptions, we need verifiable references and if we have two references giving different information in that case we should to the one closer to the source, in case of visa policies it would be the national government (using common sense of course as some countries never update their websites but the Kyrgyz website is brand new).--Twofortnights (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments Twofortnights, I agree with you in that we need to use good sources to avoid OR. 207.154.226.251 please backup your claims with reliable sources. – jfsamper (talk•contrib•email) 03:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

China data is dup in article.[edit]

The Mainland China info is dup in Greater China section and Visa Requirement section. Should we merge the data together? TheTrainNoch (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancies in Visa Map[edit]

I had a look at the map, and found that it shows that Cuba can be entered without a Visa, but actually a Tourist Card is required. Also, the map does not show that eVisas can be applied for Pakistan, and a Visa can be obtained on arriving at Bangladesh.

Could anyone update the map please? Thanks. Alasdair 22:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alasdair: - thank you for pointing out those issues. They have now been corrected.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Visa free entry into UK[edit]

The source cited for the visa-free entry in the UK does not seem to contain any information about visa-free entry for Hong Kongers into the UK. This here may be a better source: https://www.immd.gov.hk/pdf/Full_List_of_Visa-free_Access_or_Visa-on-arrival_for_HKSAR_Passport_en.pdf 89.14.176.69 (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Visa_requirements_for_Chinese_citizens_of_Hong_Kong&oldid=1203747371"