Jump to content

Talk:Flag of Hong Kong

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleFlag of Hong Kong is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 30, 2005.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 14, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
August 22, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
August 17, 2007Featured article reviewKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 4, 2014, April 4, 2015, and April 4, 2018.
Current status: Featured article

Need sources

[edit]

I'm having trouble finding sources to verify some of the content in certain sections, namely these sections: Handling of the flag, Correct display, Showing the flag indoors, and Parades and ceremonies. Please help find sources for these; the article is undergoing FAC right now. If no sources turn up in a day or two, I'll probably do an overhaul of those sections, re-writing and getting rid of unverified information. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also - preferably HK government sources would be best for the information in those sections. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I've deleted chunks of information that we can't verify or find sources for.[1] If anybody finds sources for what I deleted, by all means, please add it back. The article is under FAR right now and we need to make sure every fact is verifiable. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the following incident be mentioned in the article?

Also, I don't understand Note no.9: does it refer to Snow's book, or to the book review? Cheers.--K.C. Tang 07:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note #9 comes from an article that appeared in the Air & Space Power Journal, volume 19, issue 2. I used the "cite journal" template for it.
  • Not sure if the Sydney Olympics incident is worthwhile to insert into the article. But feel free to insert it if you can find a good place to put it. Did the incident cause a lot of controversy? Or did they just apologise and that was the end of it? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link at Note 9 doesn't mention anything about the flag; I've also checked Snow's book, but could find nothing about the flag. Perhaps I've missed something? (btw, it seems that bookreviews should not be used as sources, unless the article in question is a book). Forgive my fussiness. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 08:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you're right. It talks about Japanese occupation but not specifically about the flag. Let's try to find a source that does talk about flag use in Japanese occupation. If we can't find anything, we can just revise that paragraph or delete it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I couldn't find any sources that specifically states that during the Japanese occupation, the British and Chinese flags were banned, and that the Japanese flag was canonised as Hong Kong's national flag. Although we can probably assume this was true, we need sources to back up the claim in this article. So I suggest we give it a day, if no editors can come forth with a source to verify that claim, let's just delete the sentences that mention the Japanese occupation. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked some local history books, but could find no allusion to it. I think that paragraph can go. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 05:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angle of the leaf

[edit]

In the image currently display it is written 36.48° while on the page cited as source [2] in the figure 2 it is written 13°48' that is 13.80° -- AnyFile 17:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Height of flagpoles?

[edit]

In the photo included inline in this article, the Regional Flag is on a taller flagpole than that of the National Flag. Is there any particular reason why? I'm rather sure I've read that the Regional Flag shouldn't be flown above the National Flag, and I'm certain that in Golden Bauhinia Square, the National Flag is flown higher.

From where is that photo? JSIN (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a difference in perspective. If the photographer happened to be closer to the regional flag pole, it's possible that the regional flag would have appeared taller in the photo. Maybe that's not the best picture to use. But looking at the Commons library, it seems like that's the best photo we have of the two flags flying high on poles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

[edit]

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting


  • (1) In-house only
  • (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
  • (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
  • (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.
  • (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences
  • (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.
  • (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates
  • (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
  • (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
  • (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.
  • (4) Typos and misunderstood coding
  • (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
  • (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
  • (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.
  • (5) Edit-mode clutter
  • (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.
  • (6) Limited application
  • (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
  • (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 11:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

[edit]

It seems to me that the flag doesn't look identical from the other side, but as I don't have a flag, I cannot check. Gyro Copter (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big deal. I've removed the sentence. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs section on the unofficial "lion and unicorn" flag, and the continued use of former colonial flag at protests

[edit]

http://badcanto.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/the-appearance-of-british-hong-kong-flag-in-dolce-gabbana-protest/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.161.224 (talk) 04:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PNG flags by Iman0613

[edit]

I have reverted these flags back to the SVGs. This user has repeatedly uploaded PNG flags of Hong Kong to Commons without sources which may be copyrighted, and are therefore not allowed on Commons. These files are up for deletion. Fry1989 eh? 02:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regional Flag of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region → Flag of Hong Kong – Featured Article was split and moved to an "official name" from a common name without any discussion or consensus. Last I checked, WP:COMMONNAME trumps official names. _dk (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not think that should be have any objection or oppose. As the flag of Hong Kong for the ones which before or after the Hong Kong handover, that really have a big change with the power control with UK and China, and the reason for Macau ones. In here, to have the official name is the way to avoid let readers confuse. Moreover, please watch the YouTube video (since 08:45) that the M.C. also announced with the official name ins this way but the regional flag of HKSAR is under the law (Ref here). If not follow the official name, I think the Union Flag should be moved as 'Flag of UK', 'Flag of United Kingdom'.--TINHO (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am having trouble understanding your English. _dk (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flag of Hong Kong should cover all flags, since that is the main article. And you would be wrong in thinking that no one would object to splitting the current flag from the main article. If you want a sub article for the current flag, you shouldn't have messed with moving/splitting but just copy-pasted (with attribution) the info of the current flag into a new sub article. This was just not thought through. --Cold Season (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support full revert of undiscussed edits, meaning undoing the split and move. And one may undo the split now in my opinion. Likewise with the articles concerning the flag of Macau. (Neutral on having a subarticle for the current flag, but these edits by user Sdee aka TINHO are improper; there's no discussion for a split between the current and historical flags.) --Cold Season (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support only one article is really needed here. What we effectively have is a article about the flag that omits history and an article about the history that omits the current flag. I don't think the article for the current flag should omit the history so the old colonial flags should be mentioned in this article. Rincewind42 (talk) 06:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree that the articles on the current flags of HK and Macau should stay at "Flag of Hong Kong" and Flag of Macau" per WP:COMMONNAME. If there is enough content about the British/Portuguese colonial flags to be moved to separate articles, these can be named "Colonial flags of Hong Kong"/"Colonial flags of Macau" or similar. (Note that I already commented above but hadn't !voted yet.) SiBr4 ("CyberFour") (talk) 11:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Flag of Hong Kong" and "Hong Kong Flag" should be a single overview article for all the flags of HK. The current flag should be a subarticle, if a subarticle is needed, if not, the current flag should be merged into a complete history of flags. (same goes for the British flags, if needed a subarticle, if not, a single merged one) -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what the move request is for, to get back the overview Flag of Hong Kong article. I quote from the nominator "Essentially what I am asking for is a full reversion to what it was like before: a revert of the undiscussed split and a move back to the name Flag of Hong Kong." --Cold Season (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Colonial flags of Hong Kong

[edit]

Please slightly change the colour of the 1959-1997 Hong Kong flag so it is the same as the 1873-1875 flag as the Blue Ensign on the 1959-1997 is much darker than other Blue Ensigns and also bring it fully up to Wikipedia standards and also on the same note please can we have a fully recreated 1910-1959 Colonial Flag as it is of very poor Quality as it is not a Wikipedia created flag but an upload from another website and is very amateur standard. (90.197.194.14 (talk) 11:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flag of Hong Kong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Design flaws

[edit]

It has some very delicate details. They can be interpreted as effeminate or indication of weakness. They are western, so the excuse of tradition is invalid.

Please tell them to create a simpler version, with elements nicely visible from afar.

Flag of Hong Kong only means the official flag of Hong Kong

[edit]

Flag of Hong Kong only means the official flag of Hong Kong, past or present. Any other flag is off-topic and should be removed from this article. STSC (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Countering Vandalism or Politically Motivated Editing on Speculative Flags

[edit]

The other wikipedia articles on "Flag of Country X" focus on official flags and don't include speculative or activist gimmick flags:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_China (although the flag of China does include one desecration example).

I tried to remove the speculative / activist flags in this article to try to counter this vandalism / political activism, but it got reverted possibly by the same vandal that added it initially.

Are there any higher level moderators who can contribute to fixing this given that there may be a concerted effort by Hong Kong or US based rioters / hate groups which are engaging in repeated vandalism here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.28.236.4 (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to drop the accusations of bad faith, maybe there can be a reasonable discussion of what's appropriate for inclusion. Your practice of claiming that everybody's a rioter or a vandal is why you keep getting reverted. Acroterion (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article is only about the official flag of Hong Kong as stated in the lead. Any other flag is off-topic. IP had the valid reasons to remove those undue flags. STSC (talk) 05:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure I agree with above since it is not uncommon for articles ostensibly about official national flags to include alternative flags which are used, or have historically been used, by various groups in the society. For example the inclusion of the a Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags on Flag of Australia, the proposed flags discussed by the Congress in Flag of India, the examples given for the discussion of the referendum in Flag of New Zealand, the section on unofficial flags on Flag of Spain, and so on. Each of these type of articles reflect the unique circumstances of each entity and comparisons only get you so far. I would argue that these alternative flags should remain on this article until such time as this current flag is replaced, and then they should be moved to the article about whichever flag is current since the discussion is related to proposed flags to represent Hong Kong, rather than alternatives to any particular flag. Kdm852 (talk) 08:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your misleading examples given are in the history of the flags. This article is solely about the official flag of Hong Kong government, not including any other whatever flag related to Hong Kong. By all means you may create a separate article about all the flags related to Hong Kong. STSC (talk) 09:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes you say the examples are misleading? They were intended to show that flags other than the current official national flag are, at least occasionally, included in such articles. The Aboriginal flag is not a historical flag, for example. Likewise the examples of alternative flags for New Zealand are quite contemporary and illustrate my point that each such article is a unique expression of the political environment in each jurisdiction. I see no reason why the scope should be so limited as you describe. Interested to hear what others think, though. Kdm852 (talk) 10:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Māori flag was created in 1989 and it's accepted now as official flag. I would suggest you create a new article: List of proposed Hong Kong flags. STSC (talk) 10:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A flag proposed in the official referendum on national flag was part of the official process. That's a totally different issue. STSC (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References required

[edit]

I have temporarily restored the content Special:Diff/921983257 removed by DrKay. Since the content has been there for a while and it is plausible that references can be found, perhaps it would be good to give some time and let editors find sources themselves. I will leave notices at relevant WikiProjects to see if others can help.--DreamLinker (talk) 04:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All the tagged material has been added since May. This article no longer meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. In line with Wikipedia:Featured article review, the first stage of addressing concerns raised on the talk page "typically lasts two to three weeks". I will revisit the article at that time. DrKay (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Construction diagram

[edit]

Many details are missing from the construction diagram. If there is a diagram with the entire specification, it would be welcome. JDAWiseman (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


add note that flag designed approve 4/4/90 was part of the basic law for HK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.118.138 (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FA concerns

[edit]

Looking at this one as part of the ongoing FA sweeps. This article strays from the current FA criteria in several spots. There is significant uncited text, some MOS:SANDWICH issues, and the validity of the off-topic tag needs to be determined. If these issues are not addressed, a featured article review may have to occur. Hog Farm Talk 01:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the flags using in 2019 Hongkong protests

[edit]

This is the flag of 2019 Hong Kong protests, not Hong Kong, and it does not represent Hong Kong. If I also create a flag of Hong Kong, Can it be included in this article？ 梦随飞絮 (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not see the relevance of the flags used in the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests. Why not also add the yellow umbrella flag used in the 2014 Hong Kong protests if the criteria for this article should deviate from other similar articles? This article is titled "Flag of Hong Kong", not "Flags used in Hong Kong". Yue🌙 08:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Failed verification of recent additions to the "Display" section

[edit]

These recent additions by Zowayix001 to the "Display" section of the article are not verified by the citations given.

  • "... and the Hong Kong flag would be the same size as the mainland China flag." is unsourced. However, the paragraph it was added to was already unsourced as well.
  • "An additional conflict occurs during the opening ceremonies of such events. Normally, the organization's flag and the host's flag are raised to equal prominence and the organization's flag cannot be smaller than any other flag." – In regard to the use of the Olympic flag, the Olympic Charter cited states that:
"An Olympic flag of larger dimensions than any other flag must fly for the entire duration of the Olympic Games from a flagpole placed in a prominent position in the main stadium and in all other venues placed under the responsibility of the OCOG."
Nothing in the document speaks to the prominence of the host country's flag or the host city's. Even if it did, however, Hong Kong is not a country and thus was not the host country of the 2009 East Asian Games. The Olympic Council uses the term "Host Nation" and lists Hong Kong as "Hong Kong, China"; the distinction between host city and host country is clearly made.
Perhaps one would expect the Olympic and PRC flags to be of equal prominence and size during the Hong Kong ceremony and the display was as incorrect as it was inconsistent with other ceremonies' displays. However, the video of the ceremony alone does not verify the implication that the inconsistency in display is a standard when it comes to Olympic Council-sponsored games hosted in Hong Kong (and by extension Macau).

Yue🌙 09:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm surprised this isn't explicitly in the Charter, but I'm sure there's an official document somewhere stating that the flags of all participants must be the same size, as well as something that states the protocol for raising the Olympic/organization's flag and the host's flag during the opening ceremony. I'll try to find it and add it to the paragraph as a citation. I should also be able to find a source for the rest of the paragraph.
  • The distinction between host country's flag and host city's flag is irrelevant, because the flag of the host city is not normally used in the Olympics and no overarching Charter would mention such a flag.
  • The IOC Protocol Guide says that during the Parade of Nations, the "host country" parades last (emphasis added). During the 2009 East Asian Games, Hong Kong paraded last and China did not. Therefore, in this context, Hong Kong must have been treated as the host country.
  • There has only been a single Olympic Council-sponsored event hosted in Hong Kong, which is the 2009 East Asian Games, so I did not intend to claim that there was a standard. I can clarify this in the article text.
Zowayix001 (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zowayix001: I undid my commenting but added relevant maintenance tags. I do not think the claims made are controversial, but only citing a video as primary evidence is not sufficient to establish notability for those claims. Yue🌙 21:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Longstanding FA issues

[edit]

This article has evolved quite a bit since its FA promotion and review nearly two decades ago. A few issues have remained since the last time someone posted FA concerns three years ago:

  • Multiple unsourced sentences and paragraphs
  • Multiple dead links with no archives
  • Citation of unreliable sources and original interpretations of primary sources (e.g. a YouTube video of the Olympics)
  • Volatility due to the topic at hand; repeated additions of material with questionable relevancy to the main topic

These issues need to be addressed to avoid a featured article review. Yue🌙 19:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flag_of_Hong_Kong&oldid=1241006969"