Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings

Requested moved

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved. This close is reflective on the like move that was proposed for the category. The discussion was slightly in favor of keeping the old name and there was not a consensus to retain the new name. Hence returning to the old name. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.

Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings → Template:China – Hong Kong border crossings – 17:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the recent move from Template:China – Hong Kong border crossings to Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings. I would agree that the former name was a bit silly, since Hong Kong, after all, a SAR of PRC, and is usually viewed on Chinese maps as one of the 34 province-level units (along with all provinces [including Taiwan Province], autonomous regions, national-level municipalities, and Macao SAR).. The latter name is geographically correct in that the border crossings are physically on the way between HKSAR and Guangdong province. However, what the crossings are really about is the border between two legal domains - i.e. a customs and immigration border, as well as a border separating zones with two legal regimes with respect to various things (such as driving on the right/left). "One country, two systems", as they officially say. There are no "border crossings" like this between. When one crosses the border, one gets a passport stamp from the PRC migration department, not from some provincial Guangdong agency. The construction of the crossing and the modality of their operation were probably negotiated between the HKSAR government and the national government in Beijing, rather than between the HKSAR and Guangdong provincial government. The neidi ("the interior", the mainland China, or whatever you call it), i.e. the area within which the customs, immigration, laws-of-the-road etc. rules set in Beijing operate, is the entity with which HKSAR (or Macao SAR) borders. So I would think something like Template:Mainland China – Hong Kong border crossings would be most appropriate for the template and category in question.

The recent renaming was not an isolated step; there were also similar undiscussed changes within the articles involved, and in the Macao articles and template. This ought to be discussed in a centralized way instead of an edit war. -- Vmenkov (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree this could be discussed for a better solution. What I laid out in the last few days is better than what was here before so I hope that can stabilize without the disruption from a banned user (the IP address and one of his current sock usernames).

I do disagree that "Mainland China" is the best name for the template and category. That name works from the intra-country perspective as it differentiates two political jurisdictions, particularly from the POV within HK/MO, but it does not work from a global perspective. Our solution must be NPOV, but politically and geographically accurate. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The solution I do like is to explain in the text. Use prose to explain in the introduction that it is a Chinese {whatever} between {point a} province and {point b} SAR. That sets up the distinction that it is intra-country, and links appropriately to the political definitions why. Categories and templates can't have that much text in their name, so it is understood it might not represent the complete spectrum of views. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Well, the term we use does not have to be "mainland China", but when we talk about borders like this, we need to have something that concisely enough expresses the concept of the "territory of PRC other than HKSAR and Macau SAR", or "PRC customs and immigration zone". This is something for which 内地 seems to be used in China commonly enough (and for which "mainland [China]" seems to be a commonly used, non-neologism, English translation). The use of 内地 in China to refer to the "territory of PRC other than HKSAR and Macau SAR" seems to be quite widespread, e.g. in the context of talking about the Gongbei PoE: http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=%E6%8B%B1%E5%8C%97%E5%8F%A3%E5%B2%B8&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&source=hp&q=%22%E6%8B%B1%E5%8C%97%E5%8F%A3%E5%B2%B8%22+%22%E5%86%85%E5%9C%B0%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=ad8d00e26666dd60 Thousands of hits there, including plenty of .gov.cn sites: http://www.google.com/search?q=%E6%8B%B1%E5%8C%97%E5%8F%A3%E5%B2%B8+%E5%86%85%E5%9C%B0+site%3A.gov.cn&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=off&tbs= They talk about "内地旅客" (mainland travelers/tourists), 内地居民 (mainland residents), etc. Gongbei itself is described (at the official site of the border inspection office) as "内地与澳门的重要口岸", i.e. "important entry point between the mainland and Macau". So I really don't see anything politically inappropriate (or even PoV in general) about saying 内地/mainland in the context of discussing borders.

I am looking at this official site of the PRC border inspection in Zhuhai. In Chinese they call themselves 珠海出入境边检总站 (literally, something like "Zhuhai entry-exit border inspection general station"), in English, "Zhuhai General Station of Exit and Enter Frontier Inspection of the PRC"). Talking about their role, they say that they are entrusted with "为国把守国门", i.e. "guarding the country's gate". They talk about their role as a national agency, protecting the country, and not the particular province they are in. (So this is different e.g. from fruit-fly quarantine checks between some states of Australia). Nary a word about Guangdong there. So I believe they are very much viewed as part of the nation's external border protection system. (There is, of course, no contradiction between this and the assertion of PRC sovereignty over the SARs; after all, a country may choose to "excise" a particular part of its national territory out of its migration/customs zone for a number of reasons. E.g., the US may have special visa/customs rules for Guam, North Mariana Islands, or Virgin Islands, and have full immigration/customs checks - same as for international flights - for travelers between those places and the US proper.) -- Vmenkov (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree mainland is often used for convenience, but when it is more proper, there is often a definition that is quite explicit, for instance the footnotes to treaties and such will define "the customs territory of China". And I still maintain that using mainland in that way is an intra-China usage, Wikipedia is written from a global usage.

Another potential outcome is just to delete the template altogether as superfluous to {{Immigration Control Stations in Hong Kong}} (et al for Macau). There is enough overlap already.

More later, the sun came out. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• OPPOSE. If you use the name "China - Hong Kong border crossings", are you going to list all the ports in mainland China that can be reached directly from Hong Kong then? The "Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings" shows the border crossing points (or immigration control points) specifically between Guangdong and Hong Kong in geographic terms; there's nothing wrong with that. STSC (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• OPPOSE. I'm baffled by the proposed move. The current name appears to be descriptive, precise and unambiguous. I don't see how changing 'Guangdong' for China is an improvement: after all Hong Kong is a part of China; Hong Kong's only physical border with the mainland only exists in Guangdong province. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose HK is part of China. This makes no sense. It's like saying the United States-Utah border crossings. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• support the previous name was descriptive precise and unambiguous. There are no border crossings between Hong Kong and China that don't go through Guangzhou, so that is no more precise. Or for added precision it might as well be renamed Guangdong – New Territories border crossings which is clearly unnecessary. The reason for restoring the name of a week ago is the common names of the territories that the border is between are 'Hong Kong' and 'China'. Many readers may not be familiar with Guangzhou or may know it under a different name (it's not very long ago that 'Canton' was more familiar in English, even in Hong Kong). Few readers will not know what 'China' and 'Hong Kong' refer to so as long as they are vaguely aware of the geography of south China will know which border this concerns.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I guess that what is meant here is Guangdong (province) instead of Guangzhou (city). In fact no border crossing between Hong Kong and China goes through Guangzhou. Or to be accurate, there is one, at the airport. There were ferries between the 2 cities in the past as well, with associated immigration processing. olivier (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support per John Blackburne, and per Ajax Smack's comment at Template talk:Guangdong - Macau border crossings. 203.198.25.249 (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support because the border is not merely an issue between a province and Hong Kong. The crossings are staffed by central government officials, not provincial ones. The unique nature of Hong Kong and Macao's political situation means that terms may seem a little strange at times but the proposal more accurately reflects the nature of the crossings, i.e., ones between Hong Kong and the rest of China. —  AjaxSmack  16:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support. This page was relocated from Template:China-Hong Kong border crossings to Template:Guangdong-Hong Kong border crossings with no discussion. 119.236.251.39 (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Template title (RFC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hong Kong is not a sovereign nation and commonly known as part of China (PRC). So that

The title parameter should use which?

1. Mainland China–Hong Kong SAR border crossings
2. Mainland China–Hong Kong border crossings
3. China–Hong Kong border crossings (The current incorrect wording and the wording from stable version prior March 2021)

Matthew hk (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment (Summoned by bot) – Please withdraw this Rfc, there are several problems with it:
  • First, please discuss the issue first, and see what other people think; See WP:RFCBEFORE. As an editor of ten years standing, you should know that Rfc's are part of the dispute resolution system, and are normally initiated after significant previous discussion has failed to achieve resolution on a topic. I see no discussion about this at all, much less a dispute, so due diligence has not been performed here, and the stage is not set for an Rfc.
  • Normally, you should couch the Rfc statement, assuming you choose to use an Rfc, in neutral language, and save your partisan argument in favor of one of the choices for your WP:!vote. Your choice of three options eliminates other possibilities, such as including 'PRC' as part of the title, or titles not containing the word 'border'— you said yourself they are not two nations in which case logically there is no border. (I'm not saying what I favor or believe, I'm just drawing conclusions from what you wrote.)
  • A change of title does not typically involve an Rfc, but a Requested move. It has different requirements for the initial statement; you can follow the procedure at WP:RM#CM.
  • An Rfc or Requested Move should be advertised in the logical places, which would include at a minimum, the HK and China WikiProjects, and that has not been done. See WP:APPNOTE.

The originator of an Rfc may decide to withdraw the Rfc at any time, so you don't need permission or closure by an admin to do that. If you wish to withdraw this one, you can simply remove the {{Rfc}} header at the top. My recommendation would be to withdraw it and start a normal discussion about what you think the title should be. If I were doing it, I would ask two questions:

1. Is the current template title adequate or should it be changed?
2. If it is changed, what should it be changed to?

and see what happens. Maybe the discussion will find consensus for a new name (or for no change to title) in which case it will be simpler and you won't need an Rfc or a Requested Move at all. Or maybe you'll get various suggestions which have some support besides just the person who proposed it, and then after a certain amount of discussion back and forth to see which ones have the most support, you can then start a Requested Move proposal based on those options. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 05:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Based on the thread in the ip talk page it just another ultra-localism or separatist that refuse to discuss, and WPHK is dead project for a long time, so that rfc is right place. Matthew hk (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, it seems the ip has problem with the edit with user:S 0524. Please ask the ip to sit down to talk with S 0524 instead. Matthew hk (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Ultra-localism? Separatist? Are you simply jumping to your own conclusions like what youknowwho often do? 203.145.95.207 (talk) 05:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot. Agree. And in fact there's already clear consensus in the discussion in the section right above, i.e. the move request submitted by Vegaswikian.[1] 203.145.95.207 (talk) 06:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• I support moving to Template:Mainland China–Hong Kong border crossings. The current title is, strictly speaking, inaccurate, in a way that gives the impression of non-neutrality. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

This is not a WP:RM BTW. It is what value should be in |title=. Matthew hk (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

My mistake. I support using the strictly accurate terminology ("mainland China") in both the title of the template and the title parameter. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

When there's no ambiguity there's no point to make things unnecessary complicated. The border guards and customs officers are Chinese ones. They don't call their organisations Mainland something administrations or Mainland something agencies. If they themselves find nothing unclear then that's fine enough isn't it? AjaxSmack's remarks above put it most clear. 203.145.95.207 (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• 3. The RfC should be withdrawn and reopened with a neutral proposal, but in the meantime I will comment on my preference; a return to the "China-Hong Kong border crossing". The title does not imply that Hong Kong is a separate country from China. Meanwhile, appending "Mainland" to "China" would be inaccurate, as this template also includes border crossings with Macau, a SAR that is not typically classified as part of "Mainland China", while appending "SAR" to "Hong Kong" clears up no ambiguity, as there is no current ambiguity about what "Hong Kong" refers to. BilledMammal (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• If Macau Ferry was what you noticed: That pier also got some ferry routes to (the mainland of) China. But yes there ought to be a navbox for Hong Kong—Macau. 203.145.95.207 (talk) 05:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Appending "SAR" actually creates another problem, since there were former crossings which were closed before the SAR came into existence, some of which covered by this template. The same would be true if "Mainland" or "People's Republic" are to be appended. The conclusion would be that given there's little if not no ambiguity and there's nothing to solve doing so would create more troubles. 1.64.48.231 (talk) 06:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy close and/or considered withdrawn per Mathglot @ 05:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC). 203.145.95.207 (talk) 05:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• 3, Imma have to agree with the others here when they say there is problems with this RFC and it should probably be withdrawn and reopened with a neutral proposal, but my opinion is 3, per BilledMammal Rexh17 (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Some off-topic. IP from HK was escalated to WP:ANI before for POV pushing and adding borderline hoax of OR and unsourced content . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1058#Please instruct how to deal with ip hopping, meat and suspected offsite canvassing from a lot of ip ranges from HK. The current ip that edit warring with user:S 0524 is just match that pattern. (I think i end up have 4RR as big no-no BTW) I will only assume good faith if the ip provide reliable source and use talk page much often. Matthew hk (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• And for ref. the Ip fails to provide source. And there is SCMP article:

Hong Kong and mainland Chinese authorities need to agree on the specific circumstances that will trigger the suspension of quarantine-free travel in the negotiations for reopening the border, the city’s leader has said.

https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/3151836/coronavirus-hong-kong-leader-carrie-lam-says

Chinese source:

內地邊防部隊涉佔用香港土地 沙頭角建橋擅自過境 factwire

內地邊防 = Mainland (inland) Border Force.

It does not said "Hong Kong and Chinese authorities". and this Rfc will be offsite canvassing anyway with user that less than 500 edits (and registered in 2013 and without edit for full 5 years) suddenly emerged anyway. Matthew hk (talk) 08:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• What about these [2] [3] [4] [5]? 1.64.48.231 (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• I recall they call it China Customs instead of something like "Mainland Customs" or "Mainland China Customs" even in Luohu, like this[6]. 219.76.24.210 (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Good examples. Great catch Matthew. 210.6.10.66 (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Nice try on black mudding. I never heard HK people that use HKBN that use Mainland Chinese forum, and don't even posted there . Matthew hk (talk) 06:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Was it ever suggested anywhere by your fellows that that was a Mainland Chinese forum? Freudian slip? 219.76.24.204 (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• <s>Speedy close per Mathglot and BilledMammal. Otherwise 3 per BilledMammal, Rexh17 and 1.64.48.231. 219.76.24.210 (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• (If this isn't going to be closed and resubmitted,) a reasonable, alternative solution would be splitting the template, with one for Hong Kong and another for China. The former would include those which serve passengers and goods for Macau (and other jurisdictions, if there's any), and the latter would include Taiwan, North Korea, Mongolia, Afghanistan, Russia, Kazakhstan, Laos, Nepal, Pakistan, Macau, etc. 219.76.24.210 (talk) 09:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)</s> — 219.76.24.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew hk (talk • contribs) 20:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC) [7] 219.76.24.200 (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Have just learnt that the Putonghua version of the template is already arranged this way. 219.76.24.210 (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• close this malformed Rfd and restore it to its long standing version. On the actual issue there are times when it's useful to disambiguate or clarify by adding "Mainland" and "SAR" but it's not needed in a navigation template which is only about the connections between the two territories, and just clutters up the box.--2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:B578:5490:57B9:A4CB (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC) — 2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:B578:5490:57B9:A4CB (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew hk (talk • contribs) 20:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC) [8] 219.76.24.200 (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  to clarify, if this is to go to a !vote then mine is for 3. If there is consensus for that it would be better to close with that result, to guide future discussions.--2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:7589:82DE:89D0:39E (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Procedural close as there was no neutral description or proper RFCBEFORE, as noted by Mathglot. However this goes, I think C is the only good option, with the template parameter needing to match the template title. Any rational observer of the RM would agree that the participants !voted based on what they think the displayed title of the navbox should be. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'm convinced by Aquillon's points. If consensus remains as clear as this when this discussion is closed, feel free to interpret my !vote as being for C. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Would you mean 3 rather than C? 219.76.24.210 (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Another semi-offtopic. Either meat sock or there is sockmaster keep running around in HK related topic . Here is one Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dgtdddsx123. Matthew hk (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• What? 219.76.24.210 (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• 3; although I agree with everyone above that this is an obviously non-neutral RFC (you can't flat-out call one of the options "incorrect" when that's the crux of the dispute), it still seems like there's enough to put down a clear consensus for 3 and end this rather than wasting time on more discussions and another RFC only to reach the same result. The fact is that plenty of sources refer to "Hong Kong" and "China" as if they were separate entities, especially in the context of the boarder; it's the least-clunky option and it seems unlikely to actually cause any confusion. --Aquillion (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• 1 per Matt and Granger. Thanks Matt for bringing this up on a Chinese language online forum. 210.6.10.66 (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Matthew hk requested for our assistance but went on to call us trolls. (See the link he posted below at at 21：46.) I don't want to be involve with this anymore . Please consider my ≠vote above withdrawn. 210.6.10.118 (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• --2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:DC9B:A2E8:5DDE:B202 (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Please do pay attention to the massive changes in the absence of any discussions to this navigational box brought by S 0524 too, when he appended "Mainland" and "SAR" to the title. He restructured how everything is presented.[9][10][11] Please discuss below. 219.76.24.204 (talk) 08:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• For anyone like this drama. Please refer to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#HK unregistered ip cult again. Matthew hk (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Also quoting @Tamzin: in SPI: "I think 210.6.10.0/24 has engaged in blockable conduct." in ANI: " in my opinion outright trolling". For any closer please consider strike out the excessive ip vote stacking and outright troll. Matthew hk (talk) 06:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't consider myself vote-stacking and anyhow it's !vote. I just put forward my own comment and what I consider legitimate and valid. Every editor got their right to take part and that's the cornerstone of the wiki language. But do feel free to disregard my !vote (at 08:02, 15 October 2021) if there's indeed vote-stacking concern. The consensus is clear and common sense apparently prevails. 219.76.24.207 (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit protected

To add the Ocean Terminal and the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal Control Point to the list of Hong Kong piers. 203.145.95.91 (talk) 09:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you just stop edit this template? It is you removed the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal Control Point link from the template as vandalism-like reverting the edit by user: S 0524. (The link was there in Special:Permalink/1027683925 before your "constructive" edit) . Matthew hk (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

This is funny. You requested to lock the page when someone else was working hard to re-piece everything together and now that you are complaining that other people are not finishing it. Do you actually know what you've been doing? Can't you simply entertain the request with your account privileges? 203.145.95.207 (talk) 05:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: The Kai Tak Cruise Terminal link was previously added. The Ocean Terminal, Hong Kong link was reverted, citing vandalism. Curbon7 (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit protected

To change the link to Changping railway station to Changping railway station (Guangdong). 1.64.48.231 (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

 Undone: This request has been partially undone. The disambiguation link was reverted, citing vandalism. Curbon7 (talk) 03:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

There is currently no service on the entire Guangdong Through Train route between Guangzhou Tianhe and Kowloon Hung Hom as a result of the pandemic. But there's certainly no announcement for the termination of this station on the route should the service be resumed. 1.64.48.231 (talk) 06:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

S 0524's edits

S 0524 can you explain the rationale of your edits which restructure the template box entirely while omitting some entries with no clear explanations, and can you undo them before there's clear consensus? 219.76.24.210 (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Ping S 0524. 219.76.24.210 (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Shanghai, Amoy, Swatow and Swabue

Should these piers be included too? There used to be ferry services between the colony with these ports. 219.76.24.210 (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Why not? From what I read there were ferry services to piers like Wuchow, Chinchew, Weichow, and so on. 1.64.48.231 (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

What about Tsamkong aka. Kouang-Tchéou-Wan/​Fort Bayard? 219.76.24.200 (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if the ferry service was still operated after the French cession ended after WWII. 219.76.24.210 (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Piers in Sheung Wan and Sai Ying Pun

In the interbellum period and the first few decades postwar there were several piers in Sheung Wan and Sai Ying Pun that served ferry routes to Macau and China, e.g., Hong Kong, Canton and Macau Ferry Pier, Yuen On Pier, Tung On Pier, Hoi On Pier and Sai Kong Pier. Should these be added? 219.76.24.210 (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Former border

Between 1860 and 1898 what became the Boundary Street in the 1930s was a border. Was there any designated points along this land border that acted as border crossings? Yes there was little enforcement until after the Second World War but then was this border entirely open in its existence? 219.76.24.204 (talk) 09:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Come across materials somewhere else that Macau imposed no border control themselves for some time until they reimposed that as late as 1993 or 1994. Throughout the period the Chinese side still exercised control though. But that's another story. 219.76.24.198 (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Tai Po Kau Pier and Tap Mun Pier

There used to be a ferry service to Sha Yue Chung/Shayucong and Tit Fuk Wan/Diefuwan. Should it be added? 219.76.24.204 (talk) 09:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Also spelt Sha U Chung or Sha Ü Chung in some sources. 219.76.24.198 (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC follow-ups

Given that the RfC above has been concluded with a clear consensus what would be the next, immediate steps? 203.145.94.193 (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I just edited to change the "title=" parameter to "China-Hong Kong border crossings", which is unambiguously supported by the RfC. There are more possible edits:

• What to link? – I went with Category:China–Hong Kong border crossings, which was present in the stable version from earlier this year]]. There are other feasible link targets.
• What about flags in the title? – I've included none, but am not opposed if others feel the flags help.
• What about other uses of "Mainland China" and "Hong Kong SAR"? – I haven't changed any of these.

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

What about S 0524's restructuring of the entire navbox? 219.76.24.198 (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 15 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Template:China–Hong Kong border crossings → Template:Customs and Immigration Control Points of Hong Kong – Current naming convention is both non-sensical and sub-optimal, its existence is a testament to systemic bias on Wikipedia that caters to a small group of vocal users. Allow me to present my reasoning as follows for the change. (1) HK is recognized as a constituent part of not just China but the PRC. (2) Updated name follows the official conventions of the Hong Kong immigration department's English language website and the editorial standards of Hong Kong's English language newspaper of record the South China Morning Post. (3) The renamed template should be straightforward and neutral to all parties. It is possible to achieve this simplistically by avoiding the term "China" altogether; this template is, after all, Hong Kong-centric, not China-centric, not about borders of China proper, hence I don't think many would object to "China" not appearing in title at all (also this neutrally deals with Macau-HK control points). (4) Inability to translate in congruent fashion to and from Chinese - the corresponding Chinese article is titled Hong Kong-Neidi Crossings. (5) Many (perhaps half) of the "border crossings" listed on this template are in fact not border crossings at all - they are instead simply extra-territorial custom control points that are domiciled entirely in the "other"'s territory. (6) My proposed name should be stable for the long term - regardless of Hong Kong's political situation, level of autonomy, or beliefs of Chinese and Hong Kong editors.
By the way, the proposal for the left-heading "China" would in this case be simply changed to "Entry" and "Hong Kong" would be replaced by "Exit". Alternative naming of this template can be "Entry and Exit Control Points of Hong Kong. Regardless of which title we pick, it is better than the current title, which is neither neutral nor stable. Colipon+(Talk) 21:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• I have updated the request to show that this wasn't intended as a cross-namespace move. Note as well that there is also already a separate template called Template:Immigration Control Stations in Hong Kong. And of course consensus itself can change, but it's unclear what may have changed since the RfC shown above. Dekimasuよ! 06:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Template:Immigration Control Stations in Hong Kong would be made redundant by this renaming (it already is anyhow) and can be deprecated. Also neither previous move nor RfC had any sound proposals and in any case no true "consensus" was achieved - many users opposed the results, their arguments were simply ignored. I read those discussions and came up with what I thought to be a sensible solution that could satisfy all parties. Colipon+(Talk) 14:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Attempting solicitation for opinions for anyone watching this page or anyone wanting to make their opinions heard. If I do not hear back I presume I can go ahead and be bold and execute the move. Colipon+(Talk) 01:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
      • Since there is a previous move request, it would be best to allow a closer to evaluate the discussion, or to relist it if necessary. Dekimasuよ! 17:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
        • That's fair - I will say though that my request should not be in any way be conflated with the previous ones in that it's a very deliberate, different, and moderate compromise solution that is politically neutral and avoids all the pitfalls of previous proposals. So it should be treated as an entirely separate proposal discussed on its own merits. Colipon+(Talk) 02:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• What you proposed certainly isn't "politically neutral" and "avoid[ing] all the pitfalls of the previous proposals". (Btw are you a reincarnation or meatpuppet of the legendary Instantnoodles? Arguing the use of "Mainland" in place of the much simpler and clearer word "China".) 203.95.212.95 (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• If I do not hear back I presume I can go ahead... Apparent Chinese way of working with others. This is not collaboration in a civilised sense. 203.95.212.95 (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• You apparently haven't compared the two navboxes carefully. 203.95.212.95 (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Hong Kong has been notified of this discussion. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose. All arguments have been presented above (#Requested move, #Template title (RFC) if you bothered to read. As you said on ‌your own user page that Taiwan is often a common name and shorthand of the RoC, China depending on contexts is a common name and shorthand of Mainland China or the PRC. This template deals only with crossings between China and Hong Kong. The current title is the simplest, neatest and most unambiguous. (You may have thought that the Macau Ferry Terminal is only a crossing to Macau but that terminal also serves ferries to a handful of Chinese piers.) 61.15.254.31 (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Only Shekou and Jiuzhou? And perhaps Xiangzhou? "[A] handful"?

• Right. 61.15.254.31 (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. In addition to what others had said please bear in mind that this is the English version of Wikipedia and customary usages of the terms in question in the English language shall generally be followed. Don't let the other language or other languages corrupt your thought, let alone patriotist or irredentist rhetorics. 203.95.212.95 (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed name is vaguer and different in scope. If you want to add "mainland" to the current title, e.g. Template:Hong Kong–mainland China border crossings, to allay some insecurities, fine by me. —  AjaxSmack  04:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Thoughts: two IP users threw some personal attacks my way, accusing me of being a sock; another established user insinuated I needed to allay some "insecurities". No one addressed substantive arguments around this infobox consisting of not "border crossings" at all but merely customs entry points located in the "other's" territory, among many others. I mean if this is the level of toxicity involved in a good-faith attempt to remedy a sub-optimal naming convention, I don't know what else I can say here. Colipon+(Talk) 17:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you for calling me on the "insecurities"; that doesn't convey what I meant. I'm sorry. Please keep up your good work. —  AjaxSmack  17:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

    Thanks. "Hong Kong-mainland China Border Crossings" was proposed in some of the earlier discussions but rejected as not sufficiently concise. Hence I did not suggest it again. For what it's worth this is what Hong Kong's very own authoritative English-language newspaper calls it. But it doesn't quite solve the problem of the extra-territorial custom control points which make up roughly half of the articles on this template box. Colipon+(Talk) 19:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• You don't rely only on the SCMP. Read newspapers and sources published elsewhere too. And no there's no extraterritorial customs control point on the list. None. 61.15.254.31 (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• Do any customs authorities other than Hong Kong's have any operation at these places? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  On the Hong Kong Zhuhai Macau Bridge there's customs checkpoints for all three entities but they are not co-located. My understanding is that the bridge itself is basically neutral territory while each jurisdiction maintains some sort of "gate" at the ends of the bridge to control entry. Not sure if Exit is controlled at all. Colipon+(Talk) 19:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  Does it make sense to view all the border crossing locations through the lens of one of the relevant customs authorities? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  It is impractical and undesirable to have a template that contains all the customs control points of China proper - there are hundreds of those and there is no value to having a navigational template of that sort. Also reading through the list, a lot of the "water" ports actually link only to the articles about the cities themselves and not to articles about the control points per se, meaning this template would not even be placeable on some of the articles it links to. Additionally the "water" checkpoints are most definitely not "border crossings" in any real sense. We would be better served to have that truncated to a single list. Colipon+(Talk) 22:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• there are hundreds of those There aren't really that many and that's way beyond the scope of this box. 61.15.254.31 (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• ...through the lens of one of the relevant customs authorities? Exactly. You caught the point Firefangledfeathers. Colipon is pushing a Sinocentric point of view and the agenda of Beijing. 61.15.254.31 (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• My understanding is that the bridge itself is basically neutral territory ... You are simply wrong. There is no neutral territory. The border between Hong Kong and China over the waters has always been clearly demarcated. It cuts through the bridge. The border between Macau and China has also been demarcated before the bridge was opened. There was a case that a Hong Kong men was arrested by the Chinese authorities on his way from Hong Kong to Macau in the middle of the bridge. Of course exit is controlled. Not sure if Exit is controlled at all. It would be unimaginable for a jurisdiction like China not to do so. 61.15.254.31 (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• Do any customs authorities other than... Those listed under China are operated by the immigration and customs authorities of China. Those listed under Hong Kong are operated by Hong Kong. 61.15.254.31 (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• ...they are instead simply extra-territorial custom control points that are domiciled entirely in the "other"'s territory. None of them is extraterritorial. 61.15.254.31 (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
  • If this is the quality of discussion and engagement, then to the admin presiding over this: just close the poll as "no consensus" and move on. I'll point back to this as an example of the absurd level of systemic bias now present now on WP with most of the veteran editors who have knowledge on these issues now disengaged, and IP users hurling wild insinuations can just stonewall good-faith move requests without addressing any of the substantive arguments raised. Only on Wikipedia are there a cabal of users that enforce their preferred naming conventions for British royalty (cf "Princess Diana" must be titled "Diana, Princess of Wales"), but a silly name like "China-Hong Kong border crossing" used by literally zero official Hong Kong English-language sources stands by default. Just laughable. Colipon+(Talk) 20:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.