Talk:Bank of China Tower (Hong Kong)

Height Ranking

At this moment, the constructing ICC has already taller than BOC Tower. I suggest state it is the fourth tallest building in Hong Kong. Kublai (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Feng Shui

It is a masterpiece by I.M. Pei

You might think so. According to the guidebook I bought, a lot of local Feng Shui experts think it violates natural laws. I think it's a moderately elegant but basically unremarkable contemporary skyscraper. If it won awards or anything to back up the opinion, mention it specificially. --Robert Merkel

Merge?

This page should either be deleted, or the BOC Tower section in Bank of China (Hong Kong) should be merged into here. --Riyehn

This page should definitely not be deleted, since this article is (or at least should be) about the building itself, not about the company. The Tower section in Bank of China (Hong Kong) could be narrowed and some info could be moved here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siipikarja (talk • contribs) 08:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The subject (the building itself) is notable, and there are sufficient sources to attest to this fact. This article is well sourced, and I do not see grounds for deletion. The Bank of China (Hong Kong) is also notable in itself. You don't merge Alan Greenspan into the Federal Reserve. Ohconfucius 00:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Refering to edit at 17:43, 30 October 2005

Having to mention that one building exists in two SimCity's is barely worth noting because this is considerably too detailed for readers who are not familiar with the games. Besides, there are comparably more notable landmarks that may merit such mention, such as the Taj Mahal (India), CN Tower (Canada), Saint Basil's Cathedral (Russia) and Hagia Sophia (Turkey), all which are the only landmarks in their respective countries or territories to be featured in both games. ╫ 25 ^ring-a-ding 18:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC) ╫

The question is: the little fact appears as trivia in the article. Big deal. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 09:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreicate your consideration, frankly. :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 13:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Mission Impossible III takes place in Shanghai...

The reference to Mission Impossible III is wrong. Although the building used in the movie is similar, the story takes place in Shanghai and has nothing to do with Hong Kong.

It says Contractor: HKC(Holdings) Limited (Kumagai HK) in the infobox. Please add a reference for this. --Siipikarja ♫ 13:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Night picture

We need a night picture to show off the building's lighting. Night photos of the building would not only make the page look real nice, but would display the building's structural expressionist triangular frameworks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.nelson (talk • contribs) 03:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Gallery pulls

Back in March 2008 user BrokenSphere pulled out a picture gallery from this article. When I asked for the reason, user BrokenSphere gave the following reasonable answer. For the same reasons I reverted the last two edits by Alanmak. From my point of view the main reason for these two last edits was just the promotion of the added picture. Especially as the same picture has also been added to article Jardine House recently. What value does the picture add to the article? After all, the picture is still available via the Commons-link.

If you disagree with the reverts, please discuss here before further reverts to avoid Edit war.

“ I was not specifically targeting the Bank of China article, but rather a series of Hong Kong-related articles which I'm currently uploading some of my pics of to Commons. I've been pulling galleries there and in other articles as well, for the following reasons, which may branch off from Wikipedia:NOT#REPOSITORY:

• the galleries may be getting large (# of images in them) or dwarf the text in the article especially if it is short, at which point I think they are detracting from the article
• with all respect to the individual photographers, some of the photos in the galleries don't in my opinion really add to the article; e.g. a closeup up of the King George VI statue's feet which was in the Hong Kong Zoological and Botanical Gardens article
• the use of galleries here negates or dilutes the function of Commons, which is to act as a media repository for all Wikimedia projects. The galleries can be replicated there with the same information and layout to showcase the subject in a visual form. In my opinion, the primary purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information in a text form. Although it may be illustrated, the images are intended to supplement the text, but are not an article's focus. If the reader/viewer wants to find more visual information, then Commons is the place to go, which is why it was made easy to link to via template. Even if a Commons-hosted image is not used in any article by any project at all, it is not in danger of deletion the same way an orphaned fair use image is here. Replicating a gallery which is more appropriate to Commons is not making full use of this sibling Wikimedia project.

Basically, the question is does the presence of a gallery add to an article or is it starting to detract from it? Articles with images tend to have the appropriate images within the body, although here again, even without a gallery present, it sometimes to me is overdone with too many images, e.g. with the text getting squeezed between images in order to accommodate some images. Not a pretty sight, IMO.

I should note that date info of the picture is normally entered by the uploader into that specific parameter in the Information template for the image. If not and the EXIF camera information is available, then anyone else can do it. I am not seeing why this information is so important to be preserved in a gallery on an article page unless the image itself documents a time-specific event, e.g. the Eiffel Tower when Paris was campaigning for the Olympics, or for historical purposes is helpful to show how something appeared or existed in the past vs. now. It is somewhat similar to why I disagree with the credits for a photo being listed in the caption for an image that appears in the article; if the reader/viewer wants more info then they click on the image and have all the info they want there - author, date, etc. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 00:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

”

The Chinese template is quite nice, we can surely benefit from it. But it's place is not where it was put in the article.

Bank of China Tower
The Bank of China Tower (first building from the left) is located in the central business district on Hong Kong Island, next to the HSBC Building, Cheung Kong Center and Jardine House.
Traditional Chinese	中銀大廈
Simplified Chinese	中银大厦
Transcriptions Yue: Cantonese Jyutping zong1 ngan4 daai6 haa6

--Siipikarja ♫ 08:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

I agree with Siipikarja on this. The Chinese template doesn't need to have another image in it. Just float the box to the right under the main infobox. As to the rest of the images, I personally don't really like galleries, but some people do. In this case, the one on this page isn't too loud and in the way, but I think we might be approaching overkill with the images. We don't need a lot of images of the same building; one or two will do it. For example, the image of the inside isn't really useful unless there's something particularly notable about it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion HelloAnnyong. One more thing: the caption: "The Bank of China Tower (first building from the left) is located in the central business district on Hong Kong Island, next to the HSBC Building, Cheung Kong Center and Jardine House." is misleading. The BOC tower is not next to the Jardine House. Also, the Cheung Kong Center is between BOC tower and HSBC building, so strictly speaking BOC tower is not next to the HSBC Building neither. --Siipikarja ♫ 19:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)