Talk:2010 Hong Kong by-elections

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge[edit]

There should not be a merge. The election and the resignation is two different events. Not to mention the merge had no vote. The previous five constituencies referendum talk page contents were also wiped out. The edit history of that other article is also wiped out. This article is also too long. Anyone else think having 2 articles is better? Benjwong (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The two are absolutely indissociable. It seems that you do not understand how the electoral mechanism works. Yes, the resignation and by-election are different events, the former precipitates the latter. Without the resignation, there would be no by-election. The by-election is the referendum. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Jackson memorial service is the result of Death of Michael Jackson. Yet that is still two articles. Similarly here both events here are big in their own right. Clearly they are related, I will not argue on that point. From an article standpoint however, the referendum was an event all by itself. They did not happen on the same day, week or month. Benjwong (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The former is a spin-off from the latter, because it got too long, and not because the two events are unrelated. The latter is now very long articles, made so because of the stature of the guy. You talk as if the referendum has already taken place - it has not; it has been called for 16 May. In response to previous points, the previous talk page has not been obliterated; we can always ask an admin to merge the edit history of the Referendum article to here; the present article weights 26kb, and only articles which are over 100k warrant the {{toolong}} tag. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the talk page + page history is restored, there is no longer a "five constituencies referendum" article. Basically two big events have just become one. On zh.wikipedia the referendum article and the election article are separated. There is no reason not to follow that format. We didn't merge Ma Lik with the 2007 by-election. Elections of this importance by themselves has enough contents to be independent. Benjwong (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to monopolise the discussion, and would invite other views. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should the Five Constituencies Referendum remain independent of this article?[edit]

  • Merge - I believe the two are absolutely indissociable; both articles were vulnerable to WP:Content Forking. The January 2010 resignation which resulted from the Five Constituencies Referendum concept precipitated the 16 May by-election. Without the resignation, there would be no by-election. The by-election is the referendum. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split - The "five constituencies referendum" should focus on the resignation portion. While the election, should just be about the election. How big & historic is the resignation part? If there were no election, the resignation article would stand on its own just fine. Benjwong (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – I think it will make this a stronger article, at least for now, then split up if there are too much information in this page later on. Tvtr (tlk–cntrbtn) 13:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Five Constituencies Referendum is clearly the pivotal event that caused the subsequent by-elections - thus I was initially unsure whether or not it should be the by-elections page being incorporated into the 5CR article, not the other way around. But either way works - the two things are one in the same. They belong to a single topical area - which, for continuity and clarity's sake, would better serve our readership and editorship as a single article. Colipon+(Talk) 01:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to be overwhelming vote for merge. Merge it is. Benjwong (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archived[edit]

Previous discussions are moved to archive 1. Benjwong (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chain links[edit]

I just removed some chain links and links which were not germane. However, they have now reappeared.

I feel that, while 'Central, Hong Kong' and 'Zhuhai' are relevant to the article, they are not germane. OTOH, the chain links are lower value links which dilute the value of the article (and are probably unlikely to be clicked on): 'Secretary for Home Affairs' and 'Tsang Tak-sing' are next to each other; so are CPC 'HK liaison office' and 'Peng Qinghua'. The "chain" is that clicking on Tsang Tak-sing will lead the interested reader to Secretary for Home Affairs; by the same token, clicking on Peng Qinghua will lead the interested reader to Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Those who are not interested will be less distracted by the links in close proximity. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The links do not have to be related to the topic. Now if there were links for ridiculous things like newspapers or other too-obvious topics, that would be a problem. Not everyone knows Zhuhai and Central. Especially if there are many Central. Locations should be linked at least once unless no links are available. The government positions and structures should all be linked at least once for better access. Benjwong (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The links do not have to be related to the topic". Yes they do. Please refer to WP:Linking. It doesn't matter if people don't know Zhuhai. The important thing is that a meeting was held. The location is only of secondary if not tertiary importance to this article. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is not one link (after the fixups) that violate these rules. How is Zhuhai, where the conference was held, not be related? It is also a term readers are unlikely to understand at first sight. It might be best if you point out specifically which link is bad. Benjwong (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking that question in a rhetorical manner as if the matter was evident. Well, I'm not disputing that it is relevant, or I would have removed the word altogether. I merely delinked it because I believe it is not germane. It really doesn't matter that people don't know, for the purposes of this article, where Zhuhai is. 'Zhuhai' exists here to define the session of the meeting in question and for no other purpose; it could have been Zhangjiajie, or Kashgar, but that would not make it any more germane. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a post at WT:Linking. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If a word appears in the article, then it must be related to the topic. Why else would the word appeared in the article at the first place? Tvtr (tlk–cntrbtn) 17:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Communist commentary picture[edit]

is it really necessary? I don't think it adds much to the aricle. Kayau Voting IS evil 14:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now I just noticed the source, and it makes my question the neutrality of using the panel, if not its copyright status, as the declarations on the image page are contradictory. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well the poster is not neutral, considering that the League has added a 'b******t rating' under each quote. I also believe the picture may not satisfy the fair use rationale it's supposed to satisfy. Kayau Voting IS evil 15:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

The infobox of this page is currently very messy when rendered. Colipon+(Talk) 19:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I dislike it immensely. I tried making sensible modifications to the |party= parameter contents (here and at other similar articles where this template is used), but it seems to refer to another template that I consider a nuisance and unnecessary. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Hong Kong by-election, 2010. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hong Kong by-election, 2010. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Hong_Kong_by-elections&oldid=1196567610"