Talk:Macau/Archive 2

sister cities
there is no evidence to provide that these two cities below are sister cities with Macau SAR. Please refer to this web page (Chinese). However, for other cities including the one from Vietnam can ALL be verified. 72.138.191.63 19:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Flag of Malaysia.svg|20px|]] Malacca Town Melaka Malaysia
 * [[Image:Flag of India.svg|20px|]] Panaji Goa India

Gambling
"In 2004 gambling revenues from Macau's casinos were for the first time greater than those of Las Vegas (each about $5 billion), which means [Macau is now the biggest gambling centre in the World." Can anyone back the ab]ove statement up with any evidence? Las Vegas's Gambling industry seems massive compared to Macau's.
 * Las Vegas, whilst being the slot machine capital of the world, currently has fallen behind Macau as the gambling capital of the world. Vegas gaming tables on average are showing a $2524 win per table.  Macau on the other hand is enjoying $17808 per table per day.  With 19 casinos in operation and another dozen or so to open in the next 18 months, Macau has truly embraced the gambling culture with a success that Vegas can only dream about.

I removed the claim that Sands Macau is the largest Casino in the world. It says in the cited article that "The claim to being the world's largest could not be immediately verified..." If it can't be verified, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. VietGrant 23:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Las Vegas Sands Corp. (NYSE: LVS) announced that " the Sands Macao, the first western-operated casino in Asia, has completed the expansion of its casino floor. The Total Casino now measures over 229,000 square feet, and the 740 tables now on the casino floor position the Sands Macao as the largest casino in the world."therefore, it has been verified.  Please also refer to Macau Business.. Please pay attention to these sources that they are not pro-Macau government and thus it should be quite objective.  70.52.74.68 03:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you insist on placing this "fact" in the article, I suggest you find a more reliable source. We can't just take the word of the Sands Casino President.  I'm not saying that the Casino isn't the largest.  Just find a better source.  Even the quote at macaubusiness.com simply quotes the Sands President!  There must be some governing board somewhere who serves as the authority in such matters.  I can claim that I have the biggest house on the planet... VietGrant 19:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * of course you can claim that you have the biggest house in the world provided that you couldn't find any evidence to act against your claim. What do you mean by "reliable source"?  there is no critera at all unless you find another fact to prove that Sands Casino (i.e. one is larger than 229,000 square feet and more than 740 tables)isn't the largest, you can put it on wiki, what do you think?  The president of Casino of course can also claim as he must take the reponsbility for his speech in order to keep his business running well in future.  Intergrity is important for the head figure!!!  Plus, LVS (in the USA) is different from SM, it gives no advantages and benefits at all for LVS to recognise that Sands Macao is the largest one in the world.  If not so, why not LVS claim itself it is the largest casino in the world?  why not Wynn, Galaxy, MGM and other rivals stand out and prove that the president of Sands Macao is talking about rubbish?  70.55.132.88 21:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The point is that ANYONE can say they have the largest ANYTHING in the world. A person making that claim about their "whatever" being the largest "whatever" should not be THE AUTHORITY to cite in publication.  There must be a governing body or watch-group somewhere that keeps track of these statistics.  Find it!  Cite it!  It's that simple.  These are basic fundamentals of academic writing.  Most of us learned this when we took English Comp I at the age of eighteen. VietGrant 05:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * well, you didn't say anything and make any point here. This is NOT MY RESPONSBILITY to find out so-called authority to cite in publication.  The one who feel jealous and act againist the fact is you.  Why not you find the evidence from the related authority and cite it here?  YOU EVEN DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF AUTHORITY YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.  Even someone else would like to find a related authority (actually I don't know what you were talking about, and actually there is no such authority in this case) to cite this claim, surely you will suspect if that authority is already qualifed.  If you can find out if there is one casino in the world has more than 740 tabbles or larger than 229,000 square feet from whatever sources, you have enough evidence to act againist what I have already put on the wiki. 70.52.72.176 19:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * with authority from somewhere doesn't mean the figure is correct or not. Sometimes it has some mistakes or outdated.  Authority couldn't find out all figures in the world and make the list.  For 911 incident, the NY government at that time announced that certain amount of deaths, however more than 14 death bodies were found from that site in Oct, 2006, do you think the related "authority" has the final say?  I don't think so!  Medical doctor is enough to show this patient is sick.  Judge is enough to declare this person is guilty.  Do you need to find someone who is working related "authorities to prove that?  I don't think so because they are all professionals.  In this case, you trust these professionals because they are working in this field.  Same thing, if he is the president of that casino (he is the professional in this sphere) and a well-known person in this sphere (he is the third richest person in the US according to Forbe info.), it is already QUALIFIED FOR HIM TO MAKE THAT CLAIM. leungli 19:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think from the source of Travel Industry Review, it also reveals the fact. I think that I will take it.  Please also find other facts from Travel Industry Review and act against the claim.  Thanks! leungli 19:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

When making claims, the burden of proof lies upon the writer (YOU), not the reader (in this case, ME). If any standards of journalistic integrity are to be upheld, a legitimate "third party" source should be quoted. It is not my responsibility to find that third party. You guys insist on placing this claim in the article, therefore, it is YOUR responsibility to back it up with concrete evidence. I've been in the Sands Macau Casino. It's HUGE! By far the biggest casino I have ever been in. Is it the biggest in the world? Most likely, but I'm not just going to take THEIR word for it. North Korea's Kim Il Sung claimed to have invented the toaster. He was a powerful man. Should I just take his word for it? No. If Ford Motor Company claims to have invented the fastest car on the planet, does everyone take their word for it? No. Third-party organizations line it up with other cars and test it. And when it turns out that the car IS the fastest car in the world, nobody quotes FORD. They quote "Car and Driver" or "Consumer Reports" or whoever is deemed an objective third-party in the matter. The same goes for this. These are fundamentals of academic writing. I'm not arguing the validity of the claim; I'm stating that the article cited does not sufficiently prove the claim. You insist on the claim being there, so it's your responsiblity to find another source to cite. VietGrant 05:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * again! you didn't make any point still.  Go to find one where is larger than Sands Casino and write down the web site, otherwise, "Get Out"!!  Period!  70.52.72.176 07:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

No Point? Apparently you did not bother to read my post. Have you never taken a class in English Composition? POINT: The burden of proof belongs to the person making the claim. Find a reliable source. I'm not saying that there is a larger casino. I'm saying that the claim must be backed up by third party, an objective outsider. The burden is on you, as you are the one insisting that the claim remain in the article. The website used for citation will not suffice. This is the point. It is your responsibility to find a legitimate source to cite, because you are the person insisting that the claim remain. This is the last notice. Find a reliable source. If no reliable source is found in the next seven days, I will delete the claim and escalate this issue to Wikipedia moderators. VietGrant 07:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's my point. This casino, the Foxwoods, claims to have 340,000 square feet devoted to gaming. They claim to be the largest casino in the world. They have more square feet devoted to gaming than Sands. This contradicts everything you have said. Now, like I stated in my earlier post, go find a more reliable source, or the claim will be deleted. VietGrant 08:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and escalate, who cares? to cope with you such rogue is pretty easy, I will simply revert what you will do each time.  I knew you would take the largest casino in the US namely Foxwoods here.  I got this info and also I knew this is also a part of wiki topic as well.  Foxwoods is the largest resort casino in the world, but NOT the largest casino alone in the world like Sands Casino.  Resort includes Accommodations at the resort total 1,416 guest rooms and suites, including the 824 room Grand Pequot Tower, 312 room Great Cedar Hotel and the 280 room Two Trees Inn. For conventions and group events, Foxwoods features more than 55,000 square feet of meeting space and 25 conference rooms.  Unforunately what you claimed "Foxwoods" to have so-called 340,000 square feet is including all space even without tables, and also other gaming area where is not the category of casino like Bingo or something.  If you pay attention to the tables in Foxwoods, it is around 388, however, Sands Casino is over 740.  According to the surveying theory, one only calculates the actual space where is occupied by tables, or the area where is used, but not the space that is occupied by nothing (i.e. the whole building area will not be counted).  Therefore Sands Casino is the largest casino in the world for the time being.  You should go to the topic of Foxwoods and revert them. leungli 19:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * leungli, just ignore that person! The guy will not listen to your explantation.  He just feels jealous, that's it!   If he adds nonsense or removes on this topic, I will revert it if I have time. 70.52.64.82 23:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

None of you understand my argument. I DON'T CARE which casino is the largest in the world. This is not about "jealousy". This is about finding truth, which you apparently don't care about. This is about using LEGITIMATE CITATIONS. To begin with, I had NEVER EVEN HEARD OF Foxwoods Casino when I started this discussion. Are they the largest casino in the world? I DON'T KNOW! Is Sands the largest casino in the world? I DON'T KNOW! THAT'S MY POINT! I don't care WHICH ONE is the largest. I care about Wikipedia having ACCURATE information. The fact that you have made this an "America vs. China" discussion minimizes your argument to the point of being absurd. I don't care if Foxwoods is in Connecticut, Russia, or Zimbabwe! I have no devotion to either country. You have attacked my home, which shows how low you are willing to go to further your nationalistic ideals. What we have here is two (or possibly more!) casinos, making the same claim. One has more tables, the other has more square feet and more slot machines. One has more this, one has more that, blah blah blah. Which is the largest? IT'S NOT FOR US TO DECIDE. It's not about China vs. US. It's about finding TRUTH and publishing it. You're not interested in finding truth. You are here to promote your agenda. Find a third party to cite if you want the claim to remain in the article.

''"If you can find out if there is one casino in the world has more than 740 tabbles or larger than 229,000 square feet from whatever sources, you have enough evidence to act againist what I have already put on the wiki." 70.52.72.176 19:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)''

I found a casino making the same claim "your" casinso is making. Which one is correct? It's not your decision to make. Find another source. Case closed. VietGrant 08:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Leungli, that was a great edit to the article. I'm satisfied with the quote, as it stands now. The Foxwoods article should be ammended to state "...largest casino in the world as measured by total square feet..." Nice solution. Finally, some logic has joined the discussion. VietGrant 09:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what you guys were arguing over, but it seems pretty reasonable right now. It still say that Macau is the world's largest gabbling destination - by total revenue. Which is backed up by references. Yongke 13:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Dependent
Macau is not a dependent territory. It is a "special" territory. Both categories would be superfluous. Also, category of dependent territories does not seem to list individual territoires but is organized as a list of other nations dependents. This same reasoning applies to Hong Kong and I am pasting this same text there. (added by SchmuckyTheCat at 22:48, Mar 10, 2005)
 * Would you mind telling your definition of the term "dependent territory"? &mdash; Instantnood 23:19, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * seems like we have a similar discussion going on here too: Talk:List_of_dependent_territories.--Huaiwei 05:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that definition does not include Macau and Hong Kong. Dependent area, read sentence 2 of paragraph 2.  HK and Macau are appropriate sub-national entities not dependencies.  In Chinese governmental structure they are equal to a province, but of course they are "special" as well.  Yes, this definition does not agree with the listings at List_of_subnational_entities and List of dependent territories but more importantly, it agrees with Political_divisions_of_China. SchmuckyTheCat 00:29, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for making it clear, and paving the foundation for a discussion. The level of autonomy Hong Kong and Macao are enjoying are much higher than ordinary subnational entities. Yet they are not overseas, and theoretically do not have the right to be independent. They do demonstrate a certain degree of "a different order of separation", but at the same time they are nominally placed at the same level of provinces, as first-level divisions.
 * Afterall the definition at the second paragraph of dependent area is ambiguous, by words like "commonly", "in most cases", "typically" and "might be". In other words the definition in that article does not provide a simple and suitable-for-all rule of thumb. &mdash; Instantnood 01:00, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree with you here, which is why dependent territory is a bad fit. A dependent territory seems more to be a possession or colony that does NOT enjoy a lot of autonomy even if it is thought of as being seperate from teh parent nation.  That is why the category of "special" territory is a better fit. It is not only HK and Macau with special treatment by the main PRC government, remember.  The PRC idea of federalism is weak in many regions.  This does not make the SARs and autonomous regions independent, nor dependent, just special. Beijing is willing to be relaxed about their rules if they believe it unifies the entire country. SchmuckyTheCat 01:29, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Autonomous regions and special administrative regions are not alike. Autonomous regions are much more province-like.  &mdash; Instantnood 01:40, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * and neither are dependent. SchmuckyTheCat 02:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The special administrative regions fit into some of the definition of dependent territory, but not the autonomous regions. &mdash; Instantnood 07:33, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * yeah right. You are merely comparing with the provinces in China thats why. Autonomous regions in other countries can have a much higher standing, and I dont see how an SAR cannot be called an autonomous territory.--Huaiwei 05:42, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It wasn't me who started compare special administrative regions with autonomous regions (of the PRC).
 * This is not an issue of who started that comparison. I am asking why are you comparing with the Chiense provinces. You can always pick a better alternative.--Huaiwei 10:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Could you please name a few autonomous territories of other countries which statuses are comparable to Hong Kong and Macao? &mdash; Instantnood 07:33, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Which is why they are called SPECIAL administrative regions. I have maintained for a long time that they are in a category on their own, and that distinction is actually based on its level of AUTONOMY. What does "special administration" mean? It means it has special rights to administer itself. Now if that is not a form of autonomy, mind telling me what it is? A form of dependency?--Huaiwei 10:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I'm tired of you baiting everything. They aren't independent. They aren't dependent.  Their specifics are unique but the situation is not.  They are first level divisions of the PRC with an independent arrangement for internal affairs. SchmuckyTheCat 08:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Then what are they? Could you tell why a google search gives more than 1800 hits? And this search gives more than 900 hits. &mdash; Instantnood 09:37, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so why dont you try other searches with different definitions?--Huaiwei 10:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * My responsibility is to prove what I claimed is valid. &mdash; Instantnood 10:41, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Again I ask. Are you interested in a resolution?--Huaiwei 10:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I do, but you never noticed and are never satisfied. If you are now interested, please read my response to Gangulf at Talk:List of dependent territories (10:29 Mar 5). &mdash; Instantnood 11:04, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * You assertion applies to yourself as well. You dont seem satisfied with other people's opinions, and neither do you seem to bother doing anything we ask of you, usually giving the excuse that it is "not your responsiblity" to do so? I suppose you also feel it is not your responsibility to stop conflicts, since you think you are not the one who ignites them?--Huaiwei 11:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Please go and read it first. &mdash; Instantnood 11:37, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have already replied, so of coz I have read it. So whats your point?--Huaiwei 12:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Three Revert Rule
This rule (3RR) says that no one should revert more than three times within 24 hours. At least two users have done so. This is a warning at the moment only. The next step would be a block of the offending editor for 24 hours. Anotehr possible step could be the protection of this page. This is invariably on the wrong version... Refdoc 23:28, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Does an edit count then? It seems like the above measure came too late, and is now awarding the person who PERSISTED in the rv wars.--Huaiwei 23:47, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Huaiwei has made 5 reverts and was the one who started reverting. One of my four reverts was not a real revert, but an edit on the disambiguation notice. &mdash; Instantnood 23:53, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, I undid questionable edits your conducted which where under contention. It is hardly surprising for your to revert my reverts. So who started it?--Huaiwei 23:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would suggets that both of you go and run a round around the block. I have warned everybody on this page who reverted more than three times and I will block everyone of those, when s/he reverts again. And I could not care less what the revert war is about, as I have not even read the article. Nor am I interested who started the matter, I am only interested in that it ends. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Refdoc 00:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed I am going out to take a break. Goodness knows what is going to happen when I come back. And I still ask....is an edit counted as a revert? What happens when an edit war ensues?--Huaiwei 00:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks Refdoc. &mdash; Instantnood 00:11, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

A revert happens when you revert to an earlier version, normally resulting a blank "diff". Complicating can be when you accommodate some edits but keep reverting others - the "diff" will show then the accepted edits and some interpretation of what is going on might be necessary. Fianlyy there are some people who think careful gaming of this rule is a smart move - rest assured, it is not. It is just a sign of deviousness and malice, making eventual blocks longer. And apart from all this normal editing can obviously continue. The page is not protected. Shoudl an edit war resume and shoudl I still be awake I will simply protect the page on a random version. Refdoc 00:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Well thanks very much for that assurance. I suppose my concerns are more or less laid to rest, as raised in the other talkpage. If an attempt to combine small edits with the main purpose of actually removing an offending piece of text (as someone is obviously doing) is not considered a rv, I would be quite amused! ;) --Huaiwei 05:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This would be a revert trying to "game the rules". I would count it as one, if I figured this is what is happening. I am not sure how clear I need to be. I do hope that you can find a more adult solution to your problem here. I have looked at the list of both of your contributions - they are very long and many. So please continue to do productive entries rather than this silly game here. Refdoc 09:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I will take my watch of this and related articles now. Contact me if you need. Refdoc 14:49, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dependency status of Macao
There is an ongoing debate at talk:Hong Kong. &mdash; Instantnood 22:33, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Spelling
The portal of the Macao government has recently undergone renovation. The prevalent spelling in the English version is mostly "Macao", although "Macau" is used in the Portuguese version. I am not saying we should rename all the titles on Wikipedia, but at least we cannot say that "Macao" is the wrong spelling, and all titles should be standardised with "Macau". &mdash; Instantnood 05:37, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * And in fact the passports issued by the Macao government have Macao (in English) and Macau (in Portuguese) printed on the cover. &mdash; Instantnood 14:14, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, most of the sublinks from that site have Macau spelt as such even in English articles and websites.--Huaiwei 17:05, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I came from Macau. I like the spelling of "Macau" much more than "Macao". I think most of the people in Macau have the same thought. I do not understand why and when the spelling of "Macao" existed. The official name is Macau but I am so doubt why there is a English spelling of Macao existing.--HeiChon~XiJun 16:49:14, 2005-07-24 (UTC)
 * I don't know why "Macao" came into exist either.. but the government use it as such on the cover of the passports it issues.. :-| &mdash; Instantnood 08:14, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * The form "Macao" is used in all European languages... except Portuguese. the reason for this, I think, is that "Macao" was the original Portuguese spelling, while "Macau" is the modern form that resulted from one of the spelling reforms in the late 19th century or early 20th century. See my comment below. --AngelRiesgo 09:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

About Official Language
The official language of Macau is Chinese and Portuguese but int strickly speaking it should clearly shown that both Cantonese and Mandarin official de facto, which is the same of in Hong Kong.--HeiChon~XiJun 09:29:53, 2005-07-25 (UTC)


 * I don't think Mandarin offical de facto because residents living in Macau are mainly Cantonese speakers. In legislative council, people mainly speak Cantonese with occasionally Portuguese.  On TV like TDM or Radio, mostly I can listen is also Cantonese. 70.52.65.43 20:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. Be bold and edit the infobox~ :-D &mdash; Instantnood 08:14, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Before being bold, any primary data to back this up?--Huaiwei 12:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

This link breaks down the languages by actual percentages according to Macau's 2001 census report. (Cantonese 87.9%, Hokkien 4.4%, Mandarin 1.6%, other Chinese dialects 3.1%, other 3%) Portuguese has practically been phased out. Although less than 2% of the population actually speak it, Mandarin is still considered official (as well as Cantonese) because of the recent ties to Beijing. VietGrant 06:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * According to the Article 9: In addition to the Chinese language, Portuguese may also be used as an official language by the executive authorities legislature and judiciary of the Macao Special Administrative Region 

the Basic Law of Macau doesn't specify Chinese language must be Mandarin or Putonghua. Cantonese is a de facto language and has been long established in Macau SAR. 72.138.191.63 03:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think someone should delete Portuguese as one of the de facto languages. As the comment above shows, Cantonese speaking is 87.9% which I would think is much more than enough to justify it as THE language for Macau. Also, even thought Portuguese can still be used by the authorities - I really don't think it actually is (at least to a degree that would make a difference). There's just no reason to: Macau doesn't belong to Portugal anymore; nor does the people speak it. It is only for historical reasons why it is even mentioned. Can someone please remove it? Yongke 14:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Portuguese is not a de facto language, however, it is an official language and that is why it must be put it on there. Refer to the above statement of the Basic Law of Macao.  Even Macau is not under the rule of Portugal, it doesn't mean that the official language should not be Portuguese but Chinese only. 72.138.191.63 15:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Confusion about names
The information about the names of Macao in the article seems a bit confusing to me. I read Chinese (with difficulty), and as far as I know the only normal Chinese name of the place is Aomen. However, this article stresses the two characters 馬交, at the beginning and in the "Names" section in a way that could lead readers to think that 馬交 is the ordinary and official Chinese name of the place, and Aomen just a popular variant, which is not the case at all. In fact, the way the two characters appear in parentheses after the Portuguese name can mislead some readers into thinking that "Macau" is just a transcription of those two Chinese characters, as when one writes "Shanghai (上海)". In this respect, I think the article puts the cart before the horse. 馬交 if used at all, is just a Chinese transcription of the Western name. I think it would be better to remove 馬交 from the article. I am a regular contributor to the China-related articles in Spanish Wikipedia and somebody had translated parts of this article, including the 馬交 bit, for the Spanish article. I removed that one or two months ago, and rewrote most of the article. However, I am not very confident about my writing skills in English, and I know that there are people much more knowledgeable than me in the English-language Wikipedia, so I'll leave it for others to decide what should be done here.

As for the Macao/Macau controversy, I understand Macao is the original Portuguese spelling which was adopted by all European languages a long time ago. The Portuguese language underwent several spelling reforms during the 19th and early 20th centuries, and at some point the digraph "ao" was standardised as "au" so that "cacao" became "cacau", the Brazilian city of "Manaos" became "Manaus", and "Macao" became "Macau". The rest of the world has continued to use the older "Macao" spelling for the most part. In Spanish, for example, only the "o" spelling is used. Since the People's Republic of China officially regards "Macao" as the official English spelling of the place, I think there is little justification for using the Portuguese name. I agree with those who think the article should be moved to "Macao". --AngelRiesgo 09:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I want to talk about the name of 馬交. It is so widely used in Macau that people in Macau is often called as 馬交人 or 馬交仔/女 for Macau young people. Aomen is seldom used in Macau because the most common languge in Macau is Cantonese. Macau people seldom speak Standard Putonghua and that's why Aomen is seldom used in Macau. I think 馬交 could be kept in the article as it is a commonly used word in Macau. On the otherhand, I hope the IPA and Jyutping can be added to all the article about Macau.--HeiChon~XiJun 18:48:22, 2005-07-29 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking, this is not about Cantonese vs. Putonghua, but rather about the Portuguese name being more popular locally. This is not surprising since the place was run by Portugal for nearly five centuries. Anyway, I've finally decided to "be bold", and I have edited the Names section in the article. I think it is a bit clearer now.--AngelRiesgo 16:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I just happened to read AngelRiesgo's comments on the Macau/Macao debate, and I am quite alarmed by it. Claiming that "The rest of the world has continued to use the older "Macao" spelling for the most part." is entirely false, as the vast majority of print media in English around the world has already adopted Macau, and not Macao. In fact, the only point which seems true, is that the PRC government considers "Macao" as the correct English spelling, but it is clearly at odds with the rest of the world, including even Macau itself. The article's claim that


 * Since the handover of sovereignty, the government of Macau considers "Macao" the official English spelling of the name, whereas "Macau" remains the official spelling in Portuguese. This is the practice followed in official documents like passports and immigration forms.

is actually inaccurate. The PRC may spell it as Macao, hence influencing its usage on passports and its official govt website and so on, but the fact remains that the Macau government uses the Macau spelling much more often. A google seach shows that 387,000 Macaus could be found in gov.mo sites, while there are only 40,200 Macaos. Contrast this with 51,800 Macaos on gov.cn, and 11,100 Macaus.

Hence quite on the contrary, arguing that wikipedia should use Macao over Macau actually bucks the international trend. Are we suppose to remain as a nuetral website reflective of international uses, or are we supposed to reflect the desires of the Chinese government?--Huaiwei 18:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * There's so far no evidence showing that it's because "Macao" is the usage preferred by the PRC government, hence the Macanese government uses it, or the other way round. I'd be interested to know if Portuguese webpages are excluded in your Google test. Thanks. (In fact even if Portuguese pages are excluded, and only English pages are included in the test, the figures for Macau would still be inflated. This is because even for English pages that are using Macao in its entire content, since Portuguese is the official language, while English is not, Macau would still appear in the urls or in e-mail addresses.) &mdash; Instantnood 18:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC) (modified 19:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC))


 * Erm...please use Standard English and/or Modern English. I cannot comprehend the last few sentences. Honestly (as always).--Huaiwei 19:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd consider the above comment as a sign showing his unwillingness to discuss. &mdash; Instantnood 19:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Can I then consider that statement as a sign that instantnood cannot face up to the fact that his usage of the English language can be a serious challenge to people more accustomed to normal English? I simply cannot comprehend what he is saying here, and I am expecting it to be re-phrased. Accusing the other party of not being serious to partake in discussions is reflective of a person who himself was never willing to discuss anyway in the first place, and seems to be seeking every opportinity to wreak havok to the discussion process.--Huaiwei 19:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Huaiwei, when I said "the rest of the world", I was thinking about most Western languages that use the Latin alphabet. The Portuguese spelling "Macau" (which replaced "Macáo" after the spelling reform approved by the Portuguese government in 1911) has only made any significant inroads in English. In languages like Spanish, French or German, "Macao" continues to be practically universal. As for the English-speaking world, I don't think "Macau" became common immediately after the 1911 Portuguese spelling reform. It was probably in the second half of the 20th century when the English-language media (with exceptions) started to adopt the modern Portuguese spelling. This made sense at the time since Macau was a Portuguese territorry and its only official name was, understandably enough, the Portuguese one. After the handover of sovereignty, if the Chinese and Macanese authorities had decided to stick to "Macau" as the only romanised form in any Western language, I agree that "Macau" would have to be the preferred form in English. The problem is that they (and I don't know if this is the responsibility of the PRC government or of the Macao SAR authorities) decided to use "Macao" in English (and in othe Western languages. See the Spanish or French editions of the People's Daily online, for example). This makes the situation a bit awkward. "Macao" used to be the traditional form in English, but had been largely superseded by "Macau" at the end of the nineties. Now the spelling "Macao" has made a sort of comeback on the back of the decision to use it as the official English name by the relevant Chinese and Macao authorities. In my opinion, the argument for "Macau" is quite poor at present because both tradition and official endorsement support the use of "Macao". I agree that "Macau" became the most common spelling in English in the eighties and nineties, but is that a compelling reason to continue using it even if the Chinese authorities themselves use the "o" spelling in English? --AngelRiesgo 10:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, then I would be questioning how wikipedia practices its policies if governmental choices are always prioritised. The debate over China, Taiwan, and their respective official names immediately comes to mind. Anyway mentioning how the Spanish, French, German, etc spells the word Macau is of little relevance here, because we are dicussing its English spelling. Yes, the English media, plus many goverments, has started adopting the Macau spelling, and I dont think it happened by chance. I dont think they took this name just because "Macau" is the "official portuguese name", else Japan will become "Nippon". While it is true that the Chinese government appears to officially prefer Macao, they themselves uses Macau too, and so does the Macau government in English texts. the simple compelling reason we have here to spell it as Macau, is that it is now the most widely used spelling in English texts, irrespective of how the Chinese government spells it. (this reminds me of the debate over Laozi). :D)--Huaiwei 11:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, this matter is not so important after all. We can leave it as "Macau" if most people prefer it like that, but it is important to know why the two names exist, and my comment that the "rest of the world continued to use the old spelling for a long time" was an interesting comment in my opinion. A lot of readers of Wikipedia may not know that the reason why this controversy exists (or why in other languages like German or Spanish only "Macao" is used) is that "Macáo" only became "Macau" in Portuguese after a spelling reform in 1911, so most other European languages have just retained the traditional name that had been used for centuries. I don't think you will find any English source using "Macau" before the mid 20th century at the earliest. And I cannot think of any other reason why the English-language media would have started using the "u" spelling other than a wish to conform to standard Portuguese spelling. If you have any other theory I would be interested in knowing what it is. What I still don't know, and nobody seems to have clarified here, is whether the decision to use the older "Macao" spelling in English was made by somebody in Beijing (Peking if you like) or if it was taken in Macao itself. My contribution to the article attributed this to the PRC, but it was later edited to attribute the choice of English name to the Macao SAR. I'm still unclear whose responsibility it is, but I agree with you that Internet searches seem to indicate that it is the PRC central authorities that seem to have adopted the "o" spelling first. I still don't understand what the rationale for this is. After all, most people had already got used to seeing the "u" spelling in English. It is also a bit odd, in my opinion, because no other place name in the PRC has different romanisations for different languages. I mean, the PRC uses "Beijing" or "Hong Kong" or "Urumqi" in all Western languages. This is the only case I know where they have chosen to make a distinction in the official romanisation depending on the language. --AngelRiesgo 16:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I just dont think the statement that the "rest of the world continued to use the old spelling for a long time" was entirely true, at least not now. Other then this, all we seem to be doing is speculate and trying to form up our own theories, which I feel is quite a dangerous thing to do.--Huaiwei 17:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * (response to AngelRiesgo's comment at 16:46, October 20) Actually in many European languages Hong Kong is spelt as Hongkong. The non-Pinyin spelling of mainland Chinese cities (e.g. Peking, Pequim, Pékin, Cantão) are retained in common use in many European languages, too. &mdash; Instantnood 17:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, but I was talking about the official PRC policy. Most newspapers in Spain use Pekín, but the PRC always uses Beijing in its texts in Spanish (Embassy announcements, People's Daily and Xinhua Spanish services, brochures for tourists, etc.). I think it is the same in German or French (Peking and Pékin used by most speakers and the media, while PRC-produced texts in these languages use Beijing). It is precisely this PRC policy on place names that made the English-language media, and to a lesser extent those from the rest of the Western world, to adopt spellings like Beijing or Chongqing and ditch the traditional ones. What I find unique about the Macao/Macau situation is that it is the PRC itself that uses "Macao" in English and "Macau" in Portuguese. I can't think of any other example where the PRC officially endorses two different romanisations for different languages. --AngelRiesgo 18:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * True indeed. :-) &mdash; Instantnood 18:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Anyone heard of Singapur? Its not English of coz. :D--Huaiwei 17:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The PRC government considers Pinyin a romanisation method, not anglicisation. Therefore it wants all of its place names in all roman letter-based western languages to be changed to Pinyin. So far it has only been successful in English though. &mdash; Instantnood 17:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That's what I meant in my comment above, that the PRC endorses a unique romanisation (even when it is not pinyin, as in Lhasa or Urumqi) for all Latin-based languages. That's what makes the Macao/Macau case unique in my opinion. --AngelRiesgo 18:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Er...isnt Urumqi pinyin too?--Huaiwei 18:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ürümqi is written as Wulumuqi in Pinyin (diacritics omitted). &mdash; Instantnood 18:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah hor. Paiseh.--Huaiwei 19:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

To those who may concern, there's a debate recently at WP:SFD. &mdash; Instantnood 05:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I saw a job ad by the University of Macau on newspaper, in which it doesn't have a problem to have -u and -o in the same sentence. In the ad, Macao is consistently being used, except that when proper names, e.g. the name of the university, are mentioned. The same happens with the introduction on its official website. &mdash; Instantnood 18:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Lead sentence
Does anyone else find the lead sentence a bit crowed (due to multiple names/transcriptions, etc.)? Thanks --Dpr 05:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. Since we have a names section, wouldn't it be a good idea to move all the characters and Chinese names to that section and just use English in the introduction? --AngelRiesgo 22:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I also agree. There are a few sections that are rendered nigh-unreadable from the "visual clutter."Shouta 23:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The lead looks like a disaster, to be honest. Could the champions of full official titles in three languages please reconsider their stance and try a more pragmatic approach? You have all three titles only a few inches to the right, above the infobox. It's impossible to miss. Demanding to have them in the title really spoils the article for no good reason.
 * And it's time to start using Template:Audio. The "nohelp"-template is not appropriate since it obscures license information, which is a violation of our copyright policy.
 * Peter Isotalo 07:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge
The Economy of Macao article is quite long, too long to be merged into the main article. --Dpr 10:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Also oppose a merge with exactly Dpr's arguments. Kusma (talk) 05:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * oppose same arguments, both articles are big enough to be separate - also on the main page are discussed much more items than 'economy' 212.36.8.100 21:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Economy of Macau is far too long to merge in here. ¦ Reisio 05:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * oppose for the same reasons. A Summary of the Economy page linking to the main Economy of Macau page would be nice though.

The merge tag has been at the top of the page for almost a month now. I'm going to remove it. If someone objects, they can put it back and make a comment here so that we know why it ought to be there. NoIdeaNick 08:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The Colour of the flag
The colour of the flag now used in article is seemed to be different with the real flag used in Macau.--HeiChon~XiJun 09:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

telephone numbering plan
anyone fancy adding a section for macau there? Plugwash 03:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have writen the article of Macau telephone numbering plan and added it there. I hope someone can help to improve this new-born article.--HeiChon~XiJun 01:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Unclear Sentence
I don't grasp the meaning of this sentence in the article:

"Macau is guaranteed for 50 years starting from December 20, 1999, provided under the Basic Law, will be over by 2049."

Guaranteed WHAT, exactly? To keep the name? And exactly what "will be over" ??? This makes the sentence absurdly ungrammatical, as well as uninterpretable. The sentence must be re-written carefully, or the sentence should be removed.Daqu 18:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Unlike the socialism adopted in Mainland China, the Basic Law of Macao guaranteed that the capitalism of economy system, legal system, lifestyle, etc will be remained the same as it was before under the rule of Portuguese government. 70.52.74.68 03:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Human Development Index
What is the HDI for the Macao SAR? mdjkarazim 2006 May 15 12:30 EST


 * please refer to the info box and you will see that the HDI figure is clearly shown with reference. 70.52.74.68 03:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Macao Coat of Arms/Flag
Was there a colonial era flag or coat of arms that can be posted on the Macao page? Sirbob.
 * Yes, colonial flag was added in this topic. For the coat of arm I couldn't find it but you can go to Chinese version and check it out. 70.52.65.43 20:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

So how many Chinas' there are then?
Is it just 1 China, or is it Popular Republic, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau?. Are Hong Kong and Macau counted as independent countries or as part of the Popular Republic?. How many Chinas can one speak of?


 * there is only "one China" in the world. Taiwan is the province of PRC; however it is out of PRC control at this moment.  Hong Kong and Macau were already taken over by PRC as special administrative regions. 70.52.74.68 03:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"Macao SAR of PRC" vs. "Macau SAR of PRC"
I can agree that "Macau" gets more hits than "Macao" on Google. But "Macao Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" gets 25,300 hits while "Macau Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" gets only 746 hits. I think we need to keep it at "Macao Special Administration Region....". --- Hong Qi Gong 15:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There are numerous arguments for an against either spelling, and the current concensus is to keep it at Macau. I would think we need a full-fledged discussion on this if there is a desire to review this yet again.--Huaiwei 13:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree we should keep the short name at Macau for now. The strongest argument for that is common usage, as per the number of hits that Google hits get.  Under the same logic, I feel the Macau... spelling for the long official name is unjustified given the huge difference in the number of Google hits.  25,300 as opposed to 746!  --- Hong Qi Gong 14:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't there an entire paragraph discussing this? We should keep our spelling consistent through the article, with that paragraph explaining the spelling differences and why they exist. SchmuckyTheCat 15:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would agree with keeping the spelling consistently "Macau" in the article when it comes to the short name. But considering the huge difference between the number of Google hits for the two different long-form name, I think it needs to be spelt with an "o" for the long-form.  --- Hong Qi Gong 00:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So would you consider a sentence which reads "The Macao Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, or Macau for short, is a former Portuguese colony in Southern China." acceptable? Google may be useful as a determinant on "common usage" in some instances, but to use it at face value in this case borders a tad on ridiculousness.--Huaiwei 13:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with that reasoning is that I see Google hits as the strongest argument for using the "u" spelling in the short form in the first place, both in the content of the article and as the name of the article. If we are to dismiss Google hits as "ridiculous", then we'd basically be forced to revisit the whole "u" vs. "o" discussion without using Google hits as an argument.


 * But anyway, yes, I think your suggestion is OK. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There are certainly more reasons to utilise the u spelling than goggle hits alone, and I certainly dont consider google as the sole determinant factor in many such instances, and neither should others. My point on "ridiculousness" was not the use of google hits per see, but the fact that you are willing to allow goodle hits to become the sole determinant in countering the basic need for spelling consistency within a single sentence. Simply open up your own English newspaper on your table, and there you will find another justification for using the u spelling in English.--Huaiwei 11:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Other factors considering, I'm of the opinion that Google hits is the strongest argument for using the "u" spelling in the short form. It shows common usage, despite the fact that the local Macao government seems to inconsistently use both spellings.  Again, I do think we should keep the short form consistently spelt with a "u".  I'm talking about the long form here.  The difference between the number of Google hits for the different spellings in the long form is just too great to justify we keep spelling it with a "u" in the long form.  25,300 to 746!  --- Hong Qi Gong 15:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I do understand your request. What I was asking, is if it is not ridiculous to say Google hits are more important than basic English-writing styles. This is an encyclopedia, not a google statistics page. Would you write an academic essay using such a convention, and tell your professor that google hits is your sole reasoning for having two different spellings in one sentence?--Huaiwei 15:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why this is a problem for "basic English-writing styles", since I'm not saying we should spell the short form differently in different places of the article. I'm only saying that the long form should be spelt with the "o".  --- Hong Qi Gong 16:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not refering to the different spellings for the short form either. I am disputing this suggestion to use a different spelling for its short and long form. Which respectable publication in the world today does the same for Macau? The only instances, besides those by the Macau Govt, in which both spellings appear within one text is when dealing with certain proper nouns, particularly that of business entities such as The Venetian Macao . Could you find any publication which consistently spells Macau's short name with a u, and long name with an o?--Huaiwei 12:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I fail to see how that is bad English-writing style, if the long and short forms are spelt differently. The local Macao government inconsistently spells the word, but definitely uses the "o" in the English long form.  And there are a lot more Google hits for it.  I don't understand why that is not convincing enough to use the "o" for the long form.  But obviously, you are not going to budge on this issue.  --- Hong Qi Gong 14:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As I have said, find me any reputable text not published in Macau which spells the word Macau differently in its long and short form names, failing which your argument that this practise is an acceptable writing style is moot. May I also remind, that in essense, you are vearing towards original research, by assuming that the long form name of Macau must be spelt with an O, based on nothing but google searches alone. The local Macau government definitely does not use the "o" in the English long form consistently either, unless you are trying to argue that the Macau Government Tourist Office is not a government body . So what if they are alot more google hits for it? I have consistently reminded you that google hits is not the sole reason why Macau is used for its short spelling, so quit saying we are using google hits to justify the use of "Macau" in its short form. Have you been able to show any other reasoning besides google counts to counter my stand despite my repeated calls for it? If not, do you think I have much reason to budge?--Huaiwei 16:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Recording
It's very odd, and a bit ugly, how the IPA transcriptions of the Portuguese are all in European pronunciation, but the .ogg recordings are all in bizare, deafening, mechanical Brazilian pronunciation. It's inconsistent, and that computer voice makes my ears bleed. - Kyle543 07:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Administrative divisions
I'm copying these two posts from my User_talk:Mafmafmaf page, because I think they (or at least my answer to them) belong here:

Macau
I am CHINESE from Macau. please don't added something that you are not 100% sure.

Adm. Divisions are still valid in Macau although the functions were offically abolished in 1999. YOU KNOW NOTHING!!! Plus, please don't rearrange the photos (actually I took) without purpose, you made the layout very ugly and actually I don't want to correct over and over again, you understand "Portuguese MAN"?

Of course I am not interested in editing you stupid "Portugal".68.191.14.91 00:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

feel free to do that
Feel free to change the size of photos in Macau, remember that I will revert for each time after your work. 24.176.138.81 00:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm honored that you (one person? two?) took the time to write to me even though you don't sign with a username and were obviously trying to be rude (which I will disregard). Regarding the content of your posts:
 * I made an effort to verify everything that was written and I quoted the sources for everything. Your changes were not substantial to what I wrote and just add to an article already too long, at 44 KB instead of the recommended 30 KB.
 * Still, can you confirm if your use of the term "district" should be translated to Portuguese as "distrito" or "concelho"? Because those are very distinct terms in Portuguese: a "distrito" is made up of "concelhos", which in turn are made up of "freguesias" (parishes). Macau had two "concelhos", not two "distritos". "Concelho" is translated to common English as "municipality", not as "district". Even if you use the term "district" in Macau (and English is not an official language in Macau anyway), the term "municipality" should still be used for universal understanding. That is why I created the title Municipalities of Macau. Again, everything that I did was thoroughly researched, both in Macau law and in the SAR website. As it is now, the information in this article and in that other article is not consistent.
 * Also, there are now articles for each of the two municipalities, but your changes removed the links to them.
 * You reinstated a link to a main article which is just a redirect to the other main article that was already there.
 * Congratulations on your photo-taking skills and thank you for sharing your photos with us. However, to call "very ugly" the result of my removing the forced thumbnail sizes is a personal opinion - WP guidelines in WP:Extended_image_syntax, state: "From MediaWiki 1.5 the default thumbnail width can be set in the preferences, so it is recommended not to specify "px", in order to respect the users' preferences (unless, for a special reason, a specific size is required regardless of preferences, or a size is specified outside the range of widths 120–300px that can be set in the preferences)." Personally, I set the thumbs preference to the smallest size - why should I be forced to see 300px thumbs (as you set some) - is there anything special in those pictures that I did not notice at a first glance?
 * I would also like to call your attention to the fact that WP articles do not have owners. You have to assume that everybody is acting in good faith in their edits and working towards a better and more compliant article.
 * Thank you. --maf 01:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't assume that I am the sole owner of this page. However, you made the layout suck.  Of course you can change the correct term of "district" into "concelho".  You don't need to stress that it means "municipality" in English that actually it doesn't adopt in Macau as the Portuguese language is one of the offical languages.  Laws and Codes printed in Printing Bureau Macau are either in Chinese or Portuguese; English is not available, how could you draw the conclusion immediately that it means the word in your way?  obviously you are talking about nonsense.  I didn't say that the parishes are still in full functions in Macau.  Rather I put (before 1999) under the diagram of adm. divisions - Macau and "formally" in the first paragraph.  I didn't force you to read the photos in certain size.  Same analogy, I didn't force you to read wiki.  Should I destory wiki?  24.176.138.81 02:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for addressing the points that I raised and for changing your edit of the Administrative Divisions section. I couldn't make it any better than it is right now. About the thumb size issue, I'll let it drop and won't touch it again although I think I didn't make myself clear. Let me try again: I like to see all images as small as possible (it has to do with the size of my display). That's why I set the thumbnail size preferences to 120px. Everytime a thumb comes up without a specified size, I see it at 120px. But if you put in "200px", then you are forcing me to see the thumb at 200px instead of my preferred 120px. That's an image almost 3-THREE times bigger (in area)! That's why the WP guidelines (quote:) "recommend not to specify 'px', in order to respect the users' preferences". Hope I made myself more clear now. --maf 09:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject
Anyone interested in starting a project for Macau, WikiProject Council/Proposals, User:Enlil Ninlil/WikiProject Macau. Enlil Ninlil 08:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The nature of Macau
1)I delete all the categories referring macau as a country and nation.The reason is as follows Macau Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China which clearly demonstrates Macau is a subdivision of People's Republic of China,not a country, a nation or a state.Despite Macau is a Dependent territory within China

see the exemple of Åland and Svalbard which donn't include any category of country or nation.--Ksyrie 23:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The concept of autonomous status; same as the status of province or state in one country, is completely different from the one of special administrative region. The Chief Executive of Macau is the HEAD of the government of Macao, a special administrative region of the People's Republic of China and a former Portuguese overseas province.  The central government of PRC is not directly administered in this region, like other provinces and autonomous regions in Mainland China.72.138.191.63 03:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone being the "head" dosent change the nature of a territory, so I fail to see how that emphasizes anything here. The SARs of the PRC are Chinese territories enjoying a higher degree of autonomy than other Chinese autonomous territories. Nothing more, nothing less.--Huaiwei 14:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It emphasizes this region "special". This region, if necessary, can represent itself as Macao, China diplomatically, for example in WTO, Asian Games or any other forms of international organization.  It is provided by the Basic Law of Macau with the concept of One Country, Two Systems.  And this unique policy is only adopted in Hong Kong and Macau, but nowhere else in PRC and even around the world.  Not only higher degree of autonomy (IT MEANS THEIR OWN PEOPLE IN THIS REGION CAN GENERALLY DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT, EXCEPT NATIONAL DEFENCE AND DIPLOMATISM) but also its legal system, monetary policy, custom/immigration and border control, education, police forces, etc can be enforced in this region independent of provincial or central government of PRC.  That is why this region should be depicted separately.  Take an analogy, the head of Canada is not the prime minister Steven Harper, but the Queen Elizebeth II, should Canada considered a part of Britain according to your way of thinking?  For autonomous region enjoying higher degree of autonomy, just like what you said, doesn't mean the head is not the central government/federal government.  Here is the difference.  I suggest that you had better do more research on the Basic Law of Macao before coming back here. 72.138.191.63 17:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Cos QEII is also the Queen of Canada. From the constitutional point of view each of the dominions is personal union with the United Kingdom, especially after the British Parliament renounced almost all its power over the dominions. &mdash; Instantnood 17:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What does the term "special" mean in this case? Special is relative, and have no meaning to the rest of the world, many of whom also accord "special powers" to their territories without calling them "special". Harping on the level of autonomy still points to the fact that the territory enjoys a high level of autonomy. What's new? Your own statements points to the fact that this "autonomy" is not cast in stone, and is not neccesarily and completely uncontested. "(IT MEANS THEIR OWN PEOPLE IN THIS REGION CAN GENERALLY DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT, EXCEPT NATIONAL DEFENCE AND DIPLOMATISM)". Can the people of HK and Macau decide who is their "head of state" as we speak? Can they vote to become an independent state? Can they amend their own "constitution"? Can they make any changes to their political system without interference from the central government? Can they, in fact, do any tweeks to their economic system with full liberty from the wishes of the central government as well? If not, why?--Huaiwei 07:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * you didn't read my question carefully. you didn't know how to ask the question properly that might lead to wrong answers.  I suspect that you didn't spend time on reading the material that I told you above.  I am not talking about soverignty.  Autonomus regions in other countries may have limited soveignty, it depends on how do you define it.  Greenland is a good example.  Go back to the topic, if you ask "can they amend their constitution" or " political system without interference from the central government", it clearly reflected that you didn't read the Basic Law of Macao and didn't understand what and how it operates.  So it makes no sense to discuss this matter anymore if you don't/didn't read it. 72.138.191.63 13:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You assume too much, and perhaps it isnt worth too much time talking to individuals who assume complete ignorance amongst all who oppose his views.--Huaiwei 12:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (response to user:Huaiwei's comment at 14:09, February 3) To support your bold claim, would you mind presenting any evidence, constitutional basis, or academic works that compare the special administrative regions with the autonomous regions? Thanks. (If you can't present the neccessary information, could you please kindly stop posting your claim on Wikipedia?) &mdash; Instantnood 17:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just what exactly is my "bold claim" which needs supportive evidence?--Huaiwei 07:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (response to 72.138.191.63's comment at 03:45, January 25) The Chief Executive is not only the head of the government, but also the head of the special administrative region. &mdash; Instantnood 17:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (response to Ksyrie's comment at 23:26, January 23) Could you please show us any legal or constitutional evidence that special administrative regions are divisions of the People's Republic of China, comparable to any of those listed under Article 30 of the 1982 Constitution? Thanks. &mdash; Instantnood 17:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you show any evidence to show otherwise? Asking for the same thing over and over without providing any evidence to back up your own viewpoints isnt really advancing anything here.--Huaiwei 07:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

2)I delete the portuguese empire category which I found the exsitence of this tag without reason.See Brazil which was also a part of portuguese empire,but in this page no the tag of portuguese empire.--Ksyrie 23:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * see your talk page, I already explained. 72.138.191.63 03:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

About the book: Encountering Macau
If you read carefully on editorial review, it desp. ''as poised to revert to China like its better-known neighbor, Hong Kong, the tiny peninsula of Macau stands in the vortex of massive regional economic and social change, serving as a dynamic launch for China's dramatic, export-oriented growth. Making liberal use of historical photographs and illustrations, Gunn traces Macau's history, skillfully charts five hundred years of colonial encounter and economic relations with China, Japan, and the Asia region. Gunn's exploration of Macau's complex and fascinating saga draws out wider lessons about the nature of colonialism in Asia and the shape of the East Asian world order in the coming Pacific century.'' Based on this reason, it is not purely talking about history in political sense but also the history of foreign relations of Macau. Please check the last 2 subjects heading of this book:


 * subject headings: Macau


 * subject headings: Macau -- Politics and government


 * subject headings: Macau -- Economic conditions


 * subject headings: Macao


 * subject headings: International economic relations


 * subject headings: Foreign relations

Please also refer to this site for more detail: 72.138.191.63 02:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply to above: What a dog's breakfast. This Further Reading list on Macau could only have been put together by a robot, although the "gatekeeper" is very human. For starters, listing by family names is not consistent, just as most books are misplaced by category. I mean, Macau is entering the era of free citizen education and its citizens could be better guided by a better Further Reading list.

- Viva Macau (1980) under Culture (and out of print) is an early guidebook with lots of pictures and should be slotted under Guides.

- Pina-Cabral, Joao de (2002) ...Culture, Emotion... is by a well known sociologist publishing in a LSE series on social anthropology. He does take history seriously but all the better it is placed under a new category "Society". He would probably agree.

Add to the new Society section: Berlie, J.A. (ed.) Macao 2000, Oxford University Press, Hong Kong, (1999) ISBN 019-592074-0

Also place the edited collection by Cremer under Society. This book is not about mere "culture" nor does it stand with Christian Cheng's culture studies genre which is correctly identified.

Politics and Economy Add Lo Shiu Hing, Political Development in Macau, Chinese University Press, Hong Kong, (1995) ISBN 962-201-658-8

Remove "Mathews Dad" from Other. Or, by your own criteria, defend this esoteria? There actually are many significant "other" books.

You may as well place Macau's Gardens in this "other" category.

Place Encountering Macau, under History >From the TOC

Introduction
 * 1) The writing of Macau history
 * 2) Macau and the World Economy (16th century)
 * 3) Rise of Macau Civil Society (18-19th century)
 * 4) Sovereignty Question (19th century)
 * 5) Macau's Rentier Economy
 * 6) Macau in the Age of Revolution (1911)
 * 7) Wartime Macau (1941-45)
 * 8) Postwar Economic Transformation
 * 9) Postwar Political Development
 * 10) Towards 1999

By the way, have you even *read* Encountering Macau?

Can someone else who has actually read the above book please explain to 72.138.191.63 who has obviously not read it, how the book is not mainly on Foreign Policy?


 * Even you provided this information, it is still under the cat. of foreign relations. I don't care the content here above you provided.  If the subject heading listed above have listed the subject heading of foreign relation, it will be put under the category of foreign relations. 72.138.191.63 23:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You cite a source that is obviously wrong and you "don't care" about the actual TOC of the book, and you haven't even read it. I fail to see how you are so confident on the subject. Come to think of it, the Encountering Macau version that was here before I moved it doesn't even exist. That is how accurate your "sources" are. 61.211.27.162 11:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

To 72.138.191.63: Please describe your reasons for believing certain books I have deleted need to be in the "Further Reading" section. I have stated my reasons above, which you have somehow not noticed. I'm under the impression that you have read none(well, most) of the books in the list, and have just gathered information off a certain database, and that you are just offended that your work has not been recognized. Or do you have an agenda of your own?

Oh, and please stop sending me nasty private messages.


 * I didn't send you any nasty message, plus you are my wife, why do you deny this? OK!  I don't force you to admit.  Actually I read all of these books and I keep these books in my bedroom where once upon a time, your bedroom. 72.138.191.63 01:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You sir, are scaring me...

Look, state your arguments here before reverting. I've stated mine and waited a good few days for you to reply before updating it.

rating
I personally think that this geography article should be rated as the same grade as other tags posted here. 72.138.191.63 05:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Until it actually passes GA it cannot have a rating higher than B. --Ideogram 04:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * can you explain clearly why the rating in Wikiproject Portugal is different from the one in Wikiproject China? 72.138.191.63 22:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no requirement for the ratings from different WikiProjects to be the same. --Ideogram 00:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understood and agreed with you, but didn't they use the same scale on that table to evaulate? if so, why the result would be different on the same criteria?  do you understand what I am asking? 72.138.191.63 00:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It is confusing, but different WikiProjects use the rating system in different ways. The ratings are being applied by different groups of people and there is no attempt to get them to agree on the same standards. This was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. --Ideogram 04:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A few weeks ago I already re-rated the WikiProject Portugal grade to B. Importance scales may be different, but the quality rating should be the same, based on availability of referencing, adherence to WP:MOS, etc.  These things do not change from one WikiProject to the next.  But most importantly, this article is not listed on Good articles as a GA article.  Or maybe I just missed its listing.  If it is on the list, then by all means, re-rate all the quality ratings to GA.  It's definitely not a stub or a start class, so the only other grade it could possibly have are A and B.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, there really is no agreement between different WikiProjects on what each specific rating means. See the discussion I linked to for details.  --Ideogram 04:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That looks to be mostly a discussion between you and one other editor. I suggest we stick with the criteria listed here - Template:Grading scheme.  And again, most importantly, the article has not passed a GA review.  (However, that does not mean it should not be nominated for GA status).  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I invite you to inquire on that page if anyone else thinks there is a standard rating system. You might want to think about the fact that each WikiProject is free to write their own grading criteria and there is nobody reviewing the different WikiProjects to make sure they use the same criteria.  --Ideogram 05:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No need for me to inquire myself. I prefer to stick with the grading scheme at Template:Grading scheme.  It's straightforward, objective, and many WikiProjects specifically link to that template as the grading scale.  And if a WikiProject does not use that scale, I would think that it should anyway.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) No, there are many questions about grading that it doesn't answer. And my point is that no one is forcing any WikiProject to use that scale, and if you change the rating used by another project (as you did for Portugal) you shouldn't be surprised if they change it back. --Ideogram 05:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There's nothing for you to be "getting tired of". I'm only stating what I prefer to use as a grading scheme.  And to qualify for an article to be rated at GA, it has to pass a GA review.  Please read Good articles.  It specifically states:  "Good articles correspond to grade GA of the Wikipedia article Grading scheme."  This article is not listed as a GA article, that's why I re-graded it to B.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't understand what I am trying to tell you. Of course GA can only be given by the GA process, but that doesn't mean it's higher than B and lower than A as the template seems to say.  WP:MILHIST ignores GA entirely in their grading scheme.  In WP:MILHIST A class requires a peer-review by other members of the project; other projects don't require this.  You know, I wish you could accept that I've been through all this already and listen to what I'm telling you instead of finding things to argue about.  --Ideogram 06:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't even know what you're arguing about. You said I "shouldn't be surprised" if others change my re-grading back for WikiProject Portugal, to which I stated that GA articles need to pass GA review.  Again, I changed the grading from GA to B.  Changing it back to GA would be unjustified, and you seem to understand this already, so I don't know why you think I "shouldn't be surprised" if someone changes it back to GA.  It would seem that you shouldn't be surprised if it does not gain GA status until after it passes a GA review.  And again, I'm only stating what I prefer to use as a grading scheme.  WP:MILHIST should go on with its bad self if it deviates from what the grading scheme should be.  I don't have to agree with it.  And the fact that they require a peer-review first for A class doesn't even mean that they deviate from the grading scheme.  Heck, it just tells me that they want to gain consensus that it meets class A criteria.  In fact, the grading scheme suggests that peer reviews are "helpful" at class A.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What if Portugal changes its rating to A? --Ideogram 06:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Then I'll review the article myself to see if it qualifies, or I'll file it for peer review. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You can change the rating from WPCHINA if other participants from WPCHINA agree. But you can't change the rating from Portugal if they don't agree.  Which peer review were you talking about?  WP:PR doesn't assign quality ratings.  WP:MILHIST uses a peer review system for class A, but WPCHINA doesn't.  --Ideogram 08:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There's nothing barring me from changing it if I don't agree with them. However, if a whole WikiProject agrees that it's A class material, then chances are, it is.  And I never said that peer review assigns a grading.  But right smack in the first sentence of WP:PR it says "Wikipedia's Peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate."  Whether or not it fits A class criteria, a peer review will probably be able to demonstrate it.  To be honest, I have no idea why you're having such a problem with anything I'm saying.  Why do you have such a problem with that I think we should use the grading scheme in Template:Grading scheme?  I don't have a problem with you thinking otherwise.  I just disagree without "getting tired of this" or thinking that you "still don't get it".  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 09:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) "the quality rating should be the same, based on availability of referencing, adherence to WP:MOS, etc. These things do not change from one WikiProject to the next". This entire discussion started because I moved the question about whether ratings from different WikiProjects should be different or not. You seem to think that all WikiProjects will agree on what A and B and Start mean. I am telling you that they don't, and there is no way to make them. If you have no problem understanding that, then there is nothing to argue about. WP:PR isn't going to demonstrate anything about A class criteria because they don't use the term. You certainly aren't going to edit war with Portugal over whatever rating they choose to assign for their project. --Ideogram 09:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't even know what we're arguing about. You seem to be very irritated that I think we should use the same grading scheme as outlined in Template:Grading scheme because I think it's clear and objective.  I never even said that we should enforce this on all WikiProjects.  I only said that it's what I personally prefer, and what I feel WikiProjects should do.  Does that anger you for some reason?  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 09:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am irritated because you spent all this time trying to defend what you are trying to say while ignoring what I am trying to say. I am trying to say that different WikiProjects can and will give different quality ratings for the same article.  If you knew that all along then there was no reason to have this entire conversation.  I don't really care what your preferences are because they don't change the reality.
 * Don't worry, I'm not really angry, and even if I was, I would still like you [[Image:Wink.png|16px]]. --Ideogram 09:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't ignored what you've said. You're saying that WikiProjects may disagree on their quality ratings, but that's something I never disagreed on.  You're also saying that WikiProjects may change ratings that I may give, but that's also something I never disagreed on.  This is why I have no idea what we're arguing about.  I've never said we should force all WikiProjects to use the same grading scheme.  I only think that we should use the same grading scheme.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 09:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was answering the question from the anon ip, which was why we allowed the quality ratings to get out of sync. Your comments were not relevant to that question and confusing.  I misunderstood you and he is likely to as well.  --Ideogram 10:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I was noting that I've re-rated the article. And I would have to say that my comment is relevant as I'm saying that we should rate the article according to Template:Grading scheme.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 10:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud, I'm not going to argue about whether the argument was relevant. If you really want to have the last word, you can have it. --Ideogram 10:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is senseless to have a criteria to evaulate (i.e. grading scheme)any topic we have if different groups can evaulate at their own attitude. Just like a person takes off his or her underpants to fart, I personally think it is not necessary because he or she can fart without taking off his/her underpants, what do you think? 72.138.191.63 16:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Many people do not understand that it is not possible for any grading scheme to specify every last detail, and the template mentioned is not even close to being the most objective possible. There are always judgement calls and procedural differences such as whether A class requires a project-wide peer review or not, and whether A class articles must be better than GA class articles or not.


 * Everyone has different perspectives and different people (or groups of people) will evaluate the same article in different ways. This is why GA is so problematic in the rating scheme and some projects ignore it and there are proposals to take it out of the scheme entirely.  In a project like WP:MILHIST where A class articles require a project-wide peer review, it is very easy for the group assigning A class and the group assigning GA class to have different interpretations of the written criteria, no matter how carefully it is written.  And there is no objective way to determine whether A class or GA class is "better"; it is comparing apples and oranges.


 * Certainly it is desirable to have a standard grading scheme; I myself argued for it in the conversation linked to above. But it was proved to me that it is not possible to impose a standard grading scheme at Wikipedia, since different groups are responsible for grading different sets of articles.  Only FA can claim to be a Wikipedia wide standard, because it applies the same procedure and any article can be submitted.  WPCHINA certainly isn't going to evaluate all of Portugal's articles or vice versa.


 * Note that this does not mean that grading scheme guidelines are useless. It is possible to achieve rough agreement between different groups if they have the same basic understanding.  My point is that no scheme is perfect (there will always be cases where ratings differ) but this does not mean all schemes are useless (having something is better than nothing).


 * If you can think of a way to improve the current scheme, by all means propose it. --Ideogram 19:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

recent edit war
.
 * The spelling of Macau/o is not that important. For consistency with the title, lets use 'u' please. Discussion, not unilateral action needs to happen to change that.  Previous discussion agrees on Macau.
 * The map is being changed to a world map. Macau is an SAR of China, not a nation by itself.  It's better in both context and location to show it's location in the Pearl River Delta.  It is less than a single pixel in the world map, unhelpful. SchmuckyTheCat 18:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is edit war in any sense. Spelling of Macau in the official full name is predominantly "Macao". There are far lesser number of hits to google with "Macau Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" than "Macao Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China". Bermuda is much much smaller than Macau. It is illustrated with a large-scale map. (Is Guam's map a good one, by the way?) What we may perhaps do is to follow Gibraltar's example. - Privacy 19:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Map: The issue is what is best for this article. Guam and Bermuda both have regional maps and it would be impossible to show them near their parent nation. Macau is part of, and connected to, China.  It's right there on the map.  There may be better maps!  But the one you are reverting to isn't it.
 * Name: *sigh* SchmuckyTheCat 19:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Logical fallacy. If it is part of China how can it be connected to China? Can Califonia be part of the United States and be connected to the United States at the same time? Do people say "Hawaii is not connected to the United States"? What do you mean by "nation" and "parent nation" (neologism?)? - Privacy 21:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * what? SchmuckyTheCat 21:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A revert war over a naming dispute is still an edit war, and you are obviously involved in it.  --Huaiwei 03:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A question comes to mind: if Privacy's suggestion (Spelling of Macau in the official full name is predominantly "Macao") is correct, then the whole intro section and the infobox should be rewritten with the "o" spelling. --Deryck C. 04:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You can get any answer you want depending on how you search. There simply isn't any definitive answer. The issue has come up many, many, many times, on several different WP forums and repeatedly the result is "Use the 'u' spelling for consistency." There is a contingent that demands the 'o' spelling (which Privacy has apparently joined) and are willing to engage in disruption to get it. I simply do not understand how a simple letter gets some people so riled but I know based on their previous tactics that it would be more disruptive and confusing (can you say massive scale move wars?) to Wikipedia to abandon that consistency. SchmuckyTheCat 05:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea whether it should be "u" or "o" (I usually use "u"), though the CIA World Factbook use "u" as in here. --WinHunter (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * PS, during those many discussions in many forums, I repeatedly said I didn't care either way. But as consensus to stick to one consistent spelling came about, I was glad to have it.  It's just a PITA otherwise trying to figure out whether an article or category exists, or needs a redirect, etc.  BTW, watch this: People's Daily has a map spelling it with an 'o'  then you click through and it is 'u'. Or even .gov.cn pages that use both spellings in the same sentence: "The Macao Government Tourist Office (MGTO) held a press conference 'Join Hands to Bring Macau Tourism to the Next Level'" SchmuckyTheCat 05:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like you don't know what we are talking about, or maybe you're pretending. What you reverted is its full name, from "Macao Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" to "Macau Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China." The former has much more hits on Google. We are not talking about "Macau" and "Macao." - Privacy 21:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: User:Privacy has been blocked indefinitely for being a sockpuppet of Instantnood as confirmed by checkuser. --WinHunter (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)