Jump to content

Talk:Victoria, Hong Kong/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Discussion

I have been living in Hong Kong for decades and I have never heard or read about Victoria City with the word "City" omitted. Please stop reverting if you are not familiar with it. Thank you.

You cannot move an article by simply copying and pasting it to another location. See Wikipedia:How to move a page for why this is not permitted. Continued attempts at copy-paste moves will only be reverted, and you may be blocked from editing temporarily if you continue. -- Hadal 07:17, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Let me know why Victoria, Hong Kong but not Victoria City is preferred? Thank you.

Vote

  • Move - reason: I have been living in Hong Kong for decades and I have never heard or read about Victoria City with the word "City" omitted. Even in Cantonese the word 城 meaning City is never ommitted. If you simply say Victoria one could hardly understand and would be confused with Victoria Park, Victoria Harbour or Victoria Peak (or even Victoria Road, Victoria Street, Victoria Prison, etc).
  • Dear anon, many of your edits are being reverted because you haven't Read The Fucking Manual or bothered to follow it. Please take a look at wikipedia:How to move a page. We cannot tolerate copy and paste moved. There is a page to request moves. Please read the manual, find it, and post this page there. --Jiang 09:39, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Dear Jiang, please be polite.
  • Let me know which of my edits are being reverted and show me why for each of the reverts, or else I won't know how to follow. Many thanks.
  • Please do not vote for me. I am not against moving the article. I dont have an opinion here. I (and others) reverted you because you made an illegal move by cutting and pasting, thereby losing the page history. Yes, discussing here and listing this at requested moves is the way to go.
  • We usually don't set up polls unless an attempt at discussion has been made. You should see what your contributions are being reverted if they no longer display top or if you check the page history of article. Again, please read the manual. You should sign your posts. --Jiang 11:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Thank you. But [1] it says there's no such page. Please show me a list which articles and reverted, and the reason why for each of the reverts. Thanks in advance. -- anon, 14:11, December 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks Jiang. But this list shows only the pages that I've edited, but not pages that have been reverted. I would like to know which pages are reverted, and the reason behind each of them. -- anon, 08:31, December 7, 2004 (UTC)

Victoria City in Canada, etc.

As Victoria is the name of a number of other cities (most notably capital of B.C. Canada), the contents of this should really be moved to Victoria/Victoria City, Hong Kong, and the present article turned into dab/redirs to avoid confusion. -Hlaw 19:30, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The move from Victoria, Hong Kong to Victoria City was discussed and approved at Wikipedia:Requested moves.
Victoria City in Hong Kong is the only city named Victoria with the word "city" very rarely omitted. -- 20:38, December 7, 2004 (UTC)
This has no conflicts with the previous move. Google return 54000 results for "Victoria City" but 916 for "Victoria City" and "Hong Kong". So 98% of people reaching this page directly may probably want something else. (Plus the name Victoria City is no longer in modern use in Hong Kong - See Talk:Twin cities). So this should instead be a dab page or a redirect to the section of Victoria (disambiguation) on cities. -Hlaw 18:15, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I do agree with Hlaw. Check any search engine, and you will find hundreds of "Victoria Cities" all over the world. Thankfully most of them are not worthy of their own page yet, but it dosent hurt to consider the possibility of disambigility problems?--Huaiwei 19:03, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The reasons that I've suggested at Wikipedia:Requested moves was that the Victoria City in Hong Kong is the only "Victoria" never with the word "City" ommited. All other cities named Victoria have set up their pages with the word city ommited, and added the names of provinces or countries for disambiguition, leaving Hong Kong's the only "Victoria" to keep the word "City". In would be rather meaningless to use "Victoria City, Hong Kong" as there isn't any other one needed to be written as "Victoria City". If you guys don't agree then let's go with "Victoria City, Hong Kong" then. -- 21:19, December 8, 2004 (UTC)

Capital City?

I have been wondering: Where may I find official texts declaring that Victoria City is the capital of Hong Kong today? I am actually wondering the rational of insisting that this "city" continues to exist independent of the rest of Hong Kong, even thou I know it has been historically demarcated.

Not very helpful also to see Victoria City being almost "forcibly" added to this list by a manipulation of words and definitions: List of capitals and larger cities by country. In order to insist on telling the world the HK's capital is Victoria city, we end up having a small list of other "territories", "colonies" and so on? Perhaps we should add the capital cities of provinces, states, departments, districts, and what have you next?--Huaiwei 19:02, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Boundary of the City of Victoria is still defined by law. Although in everyday conversation, especially for people having less contact with the City or with the Hong Kong Island, "Victoria City" or "the City of Victoria" is seldom mentioned, quite a number of organisations still uses "Victoria City" for its divisions or chapters. "The City of Victoria" is still used in land leases. Its use is not obsolete, redundant or "historically demarcated".
Many encyclopedias and dictionaries have entries of Victoria City as the captial of Hong Kong. In my opinion, Wikipedia should be no exception.
Let's deal with the problem with List of capitals by country at the talk page out there. -- 21:29, December 8, 2004, UTC
No, this problem stays right here, because this entry has a line stating that the city is the "capital" of Hong Kong (and you are obviously going through wikipedia redefining HK as a country, bestowing "Victoria City" as its capital, and basically threating HK as thou it is still a collection of independent cities today). Since you claim thare are "many encyclopedias and dictionaries" which state the above claims, would you mind quoting them? But more importantly, I would like to ask if relying on dusty and faded paper enyclopedias is more realiable then governmental and official websites which can give proof (or disproof) that the capital city of Hong Kong is indeed "Victoria City"?--Huaiwei 21:44, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Administratively speaking Hong Kong is unitary, but it is de facto a collection of cities and towns (and villages / hamlets), though you might argue Victoria City/Hong Kong Island and Kowloon has come into one and has overcome the natural barrier. Geographically Hong Kong is not quite similar with other big cities, which are developed like a continuum and density gets lower and lower, due to the constraints of its landscapes.
A list showing separate statisics of Kowloon and Hong Kong (probably referring to Hong Kong Island)
Victoria City is de facto capital of Hong Kong, as the seat of the SAR government, and the colonial government before 1997. The City's boundary is sorta blurred with urban expansion, but the limits of the City is still defined in law, i.e., de jure existence.
Gotta check and see if Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh and London are written in laws as capitals. It's gonna be interesting
Try look up on Encyclopædia Britannica and the chapter on geographically names of the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Some atlas may also have a list of capitals.
Some lists on the web showing lists of capitals: Believers.org, Education-World.com, Mongabay.com, data from CIA's The World Factbook 2002 -- 13:30, December 9, 2004 UTC
I do not know why "de facto" capitals are supposed to be considered here. And no, telling us that the coundary of the city is fixed in constitution still does not lend any weight to the idea of Victoria City being the capital of Hong Kong. Would you mind showing us any offical sources from Hong Kong itself which actually state that Victoria is constitutionaly the capital of Hong Kong, instead of relying on those third party souces which often present questionable data?
I don't know how much do you know about politics, public administration and law, and urban planning and geography. The existence of Victoria City is de jure and it is the de facto capital. Look up on the web and see if Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh and London are stated in law as the capital. As long as the government departments and agencies are located in a certain place, that place would be the seat or capital of the division or entity it serves. Yes some countries and states / provinces do state in their laws that which places are their capitals, but such a practice not a must. Federal or conferderated countries tend to do so because they have capital states or territories (say, US, Australia and Malaysia). -- 16:58, December 9, 2004, UTC
I said official sources. It does not have to be in the constitution. Even in a situation whereby the capital is "de facto", you still fail to proof at least two points. 1. Is victoria a officially recognised distinct city seperate from the rest of Hong Kong? 2. Does the HK government "offically or inofficially" refer to Victoria as the capital of Hong Kong consistently? So long that these two criterion are not met, we have little basis for further discussion!--Huaiwei 06:54, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(reply to Huaiwei's message at 06:54, December 10, 2004, to avoid too many indents)

I think my understanding of what makes a city is quite different from yours, and I don't understand why you keep insisting a city has to be officially recognised as distinct or separated from the rest of a territory.

Btw, there's another website showing Victoria (City) as the captial and Kowloon as a major city. -- 12:10, December 10, 2004, UTC

Secondly, Hong Kong is not that unique in having a history of being an amalgamtion of previously distinct cities. Brooklyn, was, afterall, once a distinct city from Manhattan. Is there a need, hence, to re-educate the world in recognising Hong Kong as a collection of cities rather then one, when today, it has already been recognised as such? It is ok to be included as an entry for historical education, but you are close to presenting it as thou it is a contemporary truth, as thou Hong Kong is still administratively and politically a collection of distinct cities today!--Huaiwei 16:43, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Kowloon was added to the colony, but the development of Victoria City and Kowloon was like two closeby cities owing to natural barrier, until very recently. The pattern of development of the twin cities are quite different.
There were (and there are still) numerous towns and villages all around the territory, especially in places with very little access, or on outlying islands. The new towns, notably, are not a sprawl of the urban areas, but are outlying across mountains.
Administratively and politically Hong Kong is unitary (unitary is a concept in political science, just in case you don't know). I've nver said that Hong Kong is administered as a collection of distinct cities. The truth is it has never been administered in this way. But then geographically it is not very correct to fit Hong Kong into the models of other typical cities, which density has a continious trend to decrease from the centre (i.e. a continuum). I'd rather say Hong Kong is a metropolitan area, with one single level of government responsible for the administration of the entire metropolitan area.
If you don't mind, let me know where you come from, and I'll try my best to explain to you with examples that you're familiar with. -- 17:03, December 9, 2004, UTC
Encyclopædia Britannica defines "Victoria" as the administrative centre. Source -- 23:44, December 9, 2004, UTC
Most cities expand over time anyway, and sometimes are divided geographically too. Look at Istanbul. Look at Shanghai. Look at New York. Or the countless cities divided by large rivers. Your main basis of argument, appears to be that Hong Kong is unique, because its topography does not allow for a continous urban mass, and hence, can qualify as distinct "cities" in their own right, irregardless of how they are administered, or officially designated (makes me wonder, of coz, if the urban area of victoria itself is physically sperated from the rest of urbanised Hong Kong Island!). What kind of convention is this?
Finally, if you have not realised, even supposedly reputable sources like Britannica do produce rather strange information. If you want a comparison to another entity which is similarly treated this way, it is Singapore. Look at many of these western maps and references, which show a map of Singapore, and have the "capital" shown as a star over the CBD area. No officially Singaporean-produced map, or those who are a little more enlightened in knowing how to treat city-states, would indicate it as such. The entirety of Singapore is the capital of Singapore, and this is not in any laws too, btw. I would imagine, that these sources would treat other entities like Hong Kong in the same way, afixing a star over the victoria area, and claiming it is the "capital." The only difference here, is that you happen to have a different name for your historical area of administration. Singapore's original colony only extended around the current central area too, and not the entire island or offshore islets. Are we gonna start calling Singapore a metropolitan area with downtown Singapore as the capital, and with 24 distinct towns?--Huaiwei 06:54, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As mentioned in a reply in the discussion page at another article, Geography and Urban Planning people can tell you what makes an area a city. Victoria City (tho expanded along the northern coast of the Hong Kong Island) and Kowloon are cities. Yes politically speaking some governments do have definitions on "cities", but that doesn't mean that such definitions have to be identical or similar to that in Geography or Urban Planning. You have suggested a good definition of a city, that is, by official status granted by governments, but that's not the only, sole and exhausting definition of "city". To my understanding Hongkongers never treat the entirety of Hong Kong as the seat of the government, but the area around Central, which is inside Victoria City.
"I would imagine, that these sources would treat other entities like Hong Kong in the same way, afixing a star over the victoria area, and claiming it is the "capital."" Imagination is imagination. I am not familiar with Singapore and I won't try to assert my own set of standards on Singapore. Likewise, you're not in a good position to apply any of your understanding of what makes a city on Hong Kong or Victoria City. I am not saying Britannica must be correct, but you've gotta have supporting reasons to challenge. Why don't you write to Britannica and those maps publishers to express your opinion?
I have looked up on the internet for space images showing the area of Hong Kong. In the images you can clearly see that how the built-up areas of Hong Kong are clustered along the shores and in valleys converted from bays by reclamation. Compare them with images of, say, NYC, and you'll know how they are different. Yet I bet you're still going with the definition of official status, but not by Geography or Urban Planning. -- 10:25, December 10, 2004, UTC
But I AM a "Geography and Urban Planning" people! :D Not good enough for you? You dont need supposedly local folks to tell us whether Hong Kong's capital city is Victoria. I do not know why you insist that we have not shown evidence to back up our claims, but if debuking your claims systemetically is not enough, what is?--Huaiwei 10:55, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(reply to Huaiwei's message at 10:55, December 10, 2004, UTC, to skip having too much indent)

You keep "debuking" my "claims" but I don't think that's convincing... at least not convincing to me. Would you consider listing Victoria City as the capital, and add a note that it is not agreed by everyone? Or put (administrative centre) in brackets behind the words Victoria City? -- 11:22, December 10, 2004, UTC


If you have contributed to discussion on this page you may want to comment here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Instantnood

Proposed version

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victoria_City&diff=10675172&oldid=10668162

The version I proposed and its differences with the immediately previous version, regarding the description as the capital of Hong Kong. — Instantnood 02:14 Mar 2 2005 (UTC)

  • there is no dispute about the capitol. period.SchmuckyTheCat 16:00, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More about the capital city nonsense

I asked the HK government again, specifically about Victoria City this time. I recieved this as a response: 

At present, Hong Kong is the "Special Administrative Region" of the People's
Republic of China, Hong Kong is not a nation and so there is no capital city
for Hong Kong. When Hong Kong is a colony under British rule before 1997, it
also does not have any "capital" city as well. In fact, Hong Kong is always
a small but dynamic city.

For the so-called "Victoria City", we regret to inform you that we do not
have any information on this place. As far as we know, there is no such
place in Hong Kong (when we have Victoria Harbour and Victoria Park).

Hope that the information will be useful in your discussion.

Now obviously there was at some point the "city of victoria", it IS in the law books, but it's obviously so little used that the current government doesn't recognize the name at all!

I also searched google with the following searches:

  • site:gov.hk "victoria city"
  • site:gov.hk "city of victoria"

The second search gives up more information, including the boundaries law referenced in the article, and references to the boundary stones in a parks department guide. The last reference by the legislature or anything other than museums and parks is in 1974!! That search indexes LegCo and predecessors going back to the 19th century. There is no mention of it ever being the capitol in an official way that I can find. Surely something as important as Instantnood wants this to be would have some, any, official reference.

I would also note "city of victoria" seems to be much more favored in the historical context than "victoria city".

Continuting this argument is an Argumentum_ad_nauseam exercise in futility without some hard evidence to back up some claim of Victoria ever being a capital. Or as a rude American might say: Time to put up or shut up. SchmuckyTheCat 08:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If its status as the capital is de facto and agreed upon by historians and political scientists, the point of view of the government is unimportant. I am interested to know which government department did you write to. The response it has given is so funny. — Instantnood 09:45, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
"The point of view of the government is unimportant." wow. as i said before, go to www.info.gov.hk, hit contact us, ask away. this is the third time I've told you who I've asked. If you believe this is factually inaccurate, post FACTS, don't continue writing without them. SchmuckyTheCat 15:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Is it so confidential that you cannot tell the e-mail address of the person who sent you the replied, or the department that person comes from (or at least the domain of the e-mail address)? — Instantnood 18:47, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
You do sound like you are determined to give the impression that he is faking that email?--Huaiwei 18:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Don't you think it is necessary to know which department gave her/him that response? — Instantnood 21:17, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
Where is the unanimous agreement amongst historians and political scientists you proclaim? And please be reminded we are only refering to contemporary Hong Kong.--Huaiwei 11:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The e-mail SchmuckyTheCat cited said Victoria City has never been the capital of Hong Kong. — Instantnood 11:39, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
I am asking for your evidence. If you finally realise why you seem to be repeating your points, welcome to the club. This is the EXACT feeling I have when talking to you most of the time.--Huaiwei 12:18, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Is your feeling relevent? — Instantnood 12:33, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
Of coz not. Your feelings matters the most to the entire site thou.--Huaiwei 12:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Victoria,_Hong_Kong/Archive_10&oldid=433586721"