Talk:Military of Hong Kong

message: I thought the redirect was a better option than nominating it for deletion at WP:AfD where it will probably end in a redirect anyway. The cited sources are not suitable for creating a standalone article, or spin-off of the section Chinese People's Liberation Army Forces Hong Kong Building#People's Liberation Army in Hong Kong. We also have Hong Kong Military Service Corps. What is needed most are better sources per WP:GNG and WP:PAGEDECIDE. I also just read NYTimes article which refers to it as "People’s Liberation Army garrison in Hong Kong", so a page move to a new name might be another option. Let's discuss. Atsme 💬 📧 20:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: These articles don't talk about the same thing (if you are able to read). 218.189.215.212 (talk) 10:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  218.189.215.212 you may want to take a look at Military of Iceland. They haven't got a standing armed force of their own, but they got other organisations which assume part of the duties of military armed forces elsewhere. For example, its coastguard once entered into what's characterised as the "Cod War". Likewise Costa Rica got the Public Force of Costa Rica. 210.0.147.24 (talk) 10:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

text:  Obviously not the same thing. 218.255.11.66 (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Atsme please stop removing the inter-wiki link. Stop now. 210.0.147.24 (talk) 10:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: IP, can you even tell us what you're trying to accomplish with the interlanguage link? You realize there is an entire list of links to the article in other languages at the bottom of the left of the page? —valereee (talk) 17:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Presumably there's one corresponding article in another language of the article that Atsme has just killed and turned into a redirect. 218.255.11.66 (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: IP, yes, but there are already links in the article to the article in other languages -- they're in the left-hand menu. How does adding it into the article add anything? —valereee (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please elaborate? (That was the only one which appeared wasn't it.) 218.255.11.66 (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

text:  Hello? "[A]n entire list of links"? There's only one and only one link and we are talking about that one link. 210.0.147.24 (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

text: It is not my responsibility to argue my case because the onus is on you. I have already explained why those two subsections are noncompliant with WP:PAG. I will not respond beyond suggesting (yet, again) that you read the relative policies/guidelines and start looking for reliable sources that support your position and that will meet the qualifications for making those subsections into stand alone lists/articles per WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Once you get that done, you are in a better position to present a convincing debate/argument/reason for making them separate lists. It's all about gaining consensus from the community in support of 2 separate lists. Atsme 💬 📧 16:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

text: * "Two subsections"? Explained, did you? 218.255.11.66 (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

text: *Then whose responsibility is it? Onus is on you since you are the one who emptied the article and replaced it with a redirect without any prior discussion or consensus. 219.76.18.77 (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

text: And the Falkland Islands too. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 09:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. And Military of Aruba too. 58.177.160.150 (talk) 09:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do they recruit from among the inhabitants of these territories? The British forces did in Hong Kong. 219.76.24.198 (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would be interesting to find out and is definitely encyclopaedic. But that's irrelevant to whether this article should be redirected. 58.177.160.150 (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Nice. And I'd happened to have come across this from the Post Magazine of the SCMP, a newspaper founded in 1903 in the territory: "Now operating from its depot on Mount Butler Road, the EOD unit was established in 1972, and since then has dealt with all UXO found on land, except those on military property, which were handled by the British Army before the handover. Britain’s Royal Navy dealt with UXO found at sea until the early 1990s, when the EOD bureau took on responsibility for those, too."  Some other sources have suggested that before the EOD Bureau was founded in 1972 there was a ballistics division nominally in the RHKPF but staffed by British army officers on a part-time basis. 218.189.215.212 (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

text: And by the way the SDU was still trained by the SAS and the SBS until relatively recently. 218.189.215.212 (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Comment: Thanks. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Comment: Well said. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

text: 219.76.24.207 (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored the redirect 

message: Restoring the page to  pending outcome of the discussion above on whether this page should be kept, emptied and redirected, or merged and redirected. It shouldn't have been emptied until there's clear consensus to do so, even if that indeed going to exist. 219.76.24.202 (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a request to undo the alterations made with no discussion nor consensus. 219.76.24.202 (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Not done: Closing edit request from sockpuppet user. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

text: 219.76.24.207 (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit protected