Talk:Hong Kong/Archive 4

message: Hi, we need Chinese language help at Chinese wine.  There's a wine which isn't yet discussed that is sold as "hung-lu" wine.  It is reddish in color, with a sharp smell and is sold by the Oriental Mascot brand (which also makes mijiu and formerly also made Shaoxing jiu).  The largest photo of this wine is here, but the characters aren't easily readable.  I think "hung-lu" isn't Hanyu pinyin.  Can someone provide information about this wine, the characters, etc.?  Thank you!
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/B0000DJZ0F/ref=dp_primary-product-display_0/102-4042702-9901704?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=3370831&s=gourmet-food  Badagnani 22:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need Chinese language help 

message: I made a major change to the infobox so we no longer use the country template to rid us of the problems associated with it. I've adopted an infobox a few other Chinese cities use (not a template) and made it very HK specific.  Discuss if there is something missing or problematic. SchmuckyTheCat 03:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The new infobox is hideous, hard to read, and poorly formatted. I suggest we revert immediately. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 07:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not inlove with anything about the colors, layout or formatting.  I lifted it from the box used at Shanghai. Feel free to modify them to improve hideousness and readability.  When I created this box, I put it side by side with the old one, and IMHO, they are mostly the same. SchmuckyTheCat 17:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  I agree something needs to be done with the infobox, but more discussion is required before an infobox change.  However, I prefer the layout of the country template, too.  --Mintchocicecream 09:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The new format is actually from Shanghai, and the original people who made the new Shanghai's box actually directly copied it from Berlin's style. I completely disagree on the change. Keep it all consistent. Is there a strong need to change? Heilme 02:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem with infobox country was that it was inappropriate for a non-independent country.  Trying to use that template here resulted in two years worth of revert wars. If the problems with the new infobox are hard on the eyes, fix them, it's not a hard coded template. SchmuckyTheCat 18:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox change

message: Amidst the revert wars, I can't believed nobody noticed 17 footnotes missing from the article due to the missing  tag. I have inserted it. Also, reworded the caption in the Victoria Harbour by night photo. Kimchi.sg 15:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight edits 

message: Footnotes not in any proper citation format. Skinnyweed 14:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup tag in footnotes 

message: I see this at the Chinese page:  no idea what it is, but it looks very cool. Consider copying it to Commons, using it here and nominating as featured picture? Stevage 20:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it is 2IFC SchmuckyTheCat 20:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's already on commons, and usable anytime. :Image:HK-2IFC-sj.jpg Btw, it was nominated to be featured picture though was later rejected. April 2005 Featured Pictures Candidates -Hunter 13:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cool image to add 

message: :Of the territory's 1,102 square kilometres (425 square miles) and nearly 7 million residents, less than 25% is developed; the remaining land is remarkably green and significant portions are reserved as country parks and nature reserves. 
This article says only 25% of the land in Hong Kong is developed. When I looked at the google satellite photo of Hong Kong, I doubt if the 25% is accurate because only a small portion of the land looked "gray" (urban) and most of Hong Kong is covered by vegetations.  I remembered reading a tourist brochure from Hong Kong which said Hong Kong is one of the greeniest cities in Asia despite its high population because its population density is vertically stacked.  Kowloonese 01:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Low density development like that in NT and on various islands won't show up well.  If that statement doesn't have a citation, we should find one. I'll look later in the HK yearbook. SchmuckyTheCat 01:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I wonder how that survey was based.  No way would I believe Hong Kong is 94% urbanised.  Satellite photos and google maps obviously show the opposite.  I guess it all depends on how you define "urbanized".  If urbanized means land management, I would say Hong Kong is 100% urbanized.  But if you define urbanized according to how much land is covered by construction and human occupancy, then I would says 94% un-urbanised is about right.  To be fair, the word "greeniest" also needs definition.  If you define "green" according to the environmentalists as "pollution free", Hong Kong is a dirty city especially in the west side due to the bad air blowing from China.  If you define "green" according to percentage of land covered in vegetation, then Hong Kong is extremely green visually according to the satellite photos. Kowloonese 19:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Could you please cite the survey user:Cherubish. The figure may refer to percentage of urban population (people living in urbanised area) with respect to total population, instead of percentage orof urbanised area to total area.  Even Ap Lei Chau, the most densely populated island in the world, is pretty green. Only around half of it is built up. Most of the rest are two peaks, which are almost undisturbed. — Instantnood 20:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Hong Kong is 94% urbanised" can be very ambiguous.  It could mean 94% of Hong Kong population is urbanized just like what Instantnood has suggested.  It is very unlikely to mean 94% of land in Hong Kong is urbanized.  Kowloonese 21:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As far as I remember, it was one of the GCSE Geography textbooks, about the urbanisation thing. 
But I agree with you. There are pretty much outlying islands in Hong Kong that have no settlements on. My flat used to face the sea and there was a lot of these islands. Cherubfish 16:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Hong Kong is definitely not an environmentally green city.  The question is whether it is green in color.  At the current rate, the green vegetation in Hong Kong can be coated in a thick layer of black soot from the air pollution, then we don't need to ask this question any more.  :-)  Kowloonese 01:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greeniest city? 

message: The symbol in the top right corner covers the original small star for featured article. --Samwingkit 13:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hong Kong Article symbol