Talk:Queensway

Turn this back into a redirect page...
The Birmingham definition of 'Queensway' has hijacked this re-direct page. It should point to its own page, and the picture should be removed. It is unfair to give this one definition of "queensway" more prominance than all others, especially considering that it is not the most common usage of that term worldwide. (For example, the Queensway in Ottawa is a 10-lane freeway that serves nearly a half-million vehicles per day... I doubt the road in Birmingham is as well travelled)

Also, the please include the country after the name of the city. Even though it may be obvious to you, it is not to everyone. --24.200.35.253 16:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Is "Queensway" really a neighbourhood in Ottawa?
I have lived in Ottawa my entire life, and I have never heard of a neighbourhood called "Queensway". "The Queensway" is the name of a road that spans the entire city. I am going to remove this phantom redirect, and if someone knows of a neighbourhood in Ottawa called "Queensway", then you may create an article for it and restore that redirect. --24.200.35.253 16:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit warring
Can we stop the edit warring? Are you all that desperate to get into WP:LAME? Let's discuss the issue before continuing. I'm not too sure about the issues for and against for each name, but if you could all justify your favourite choice of wording, then we can see where we all stand. enochlau (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this a voting exercise?--Huaiwei 00:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No. I just want to know the reasons for and against each. The edit summaries don't really give anyone a clue on what's going on. enochlau (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 *  Thanks for starting the discussion Enoch. But I'm afraid it's far from constructive and productive if we're having this kind of discussion on every single talk page. Further, we cannot guarantee the problem would be dealt with in a consistent manner for different articles (as well as categories and other entries). &mdash; Instantnood 19:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Should we take this to the MOS (disambiguation) people? Btw, as I noted above, this isn't voting - I just want people to explain why they support Hong Kong or PRC as the text. enochlau (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. See my elaboration below. I suppose the discussion should be conducted for all articles, including lists, that are sharing the same problem. &mdash; Instantnood 20:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Support "Hong Kong"

 * Instantnood (see also my comment above) 19:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As per Enoch's comment that this is not voting..: the reason why I prefer this is because sorting by country is the natural way in the real world. Sovereign state is not the usual way to present information, except for those that are restricted to them (e.g. UN, UPU, etc., memberships, territorial claims). &mdash; Instantnood 20:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * But then, are you sure you could call HK a "country"? It doesn't have full control over all aspects of itself, e.g. military. enochlau (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sovereign state is what you're looking for. :-) Instantnood 08:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Enoch's statement demonstrates the concern I have expressed all these while, that while the word country may have multiple meanings in academia, it is most commonly associated with that of an independent state in general English usage. It appears few people in East and southeast Asia, and particularly amongst the ethnic Chinese, are able to call HK and Macau "countries" without batting an eyelid. Do we allow this descrepency to continue?--Huaiwei 12:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd doubt if it's " most commonly associated with that of an independent state in general English usage " as you boldly claim.  &mdash; Instantnood 19:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but the way I see this dispute is not one of whether Hong Kong and Macau are countries, but whether the list should contain sovereign states (i.e. PRC) or just the approximate region that will identify that location (i.e. Hong Kong). I think the suggestion below to use "China" is a good compromise. enochlau (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's not something a few wikipedians can decide according to their own preference. Wikipedia should be a reflection of real life conventions and practices, that it's uncommon to sort these materials according to sovereign state. Every wikipedian has to decide in a way that reinforces Wikipedia's principles. &mdash; Instantnood 19:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't really know what you mean by sorting these lists in real life - I know of no such disambiguation lists in real life... enochlau (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In what way would you expect, say, shops of Dymocks Booksellers in Hong Kong be presented on an alphatical list of Dymocks Booksellers shops in real life? "Windsor House, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong" or "Windsor House, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong, China (or People's Republic of China)", when "Harbourside, Darling Harbour, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia" is also on the list? &mdash; Instantnood 18:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And its uncommon in "real life" to sort these materials according to sovereign state?--Huaiwei 03:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In what way does that source indicate the fact that in wider general usage, the word country is most commonly assumed to refer to an independent political entity?--Huaiwei 04:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the best way out is to draw the attention of people who're involved in the lists of countries, sovereign states, and a few dozens of other lists by countries or by sovereign states, then conduct a broad-based survey. &mdash; Instantnood 18:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's necessary. I can't see how you could call Hong Kong an independent political entity to start with. It is not independent. To be consistent with the other entries in the list, "China" should probably be used. enochlau (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's far from calling it a sovereign state. There are many around the world that are not sovereign states, and are conventionally listed in the same way as sovereign states do, or followed by the names of the corresponding sovereign states in brackets. Presenting a Hong Kong entry as "..., Hong Kong, People's Republic of China" is making Hong Kong nothing different from ordinary subnational entities. &mdash; Instantnood 19:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "or followed by the names of the corresponding sovereign states in brackets" Oh really? Show me how common it is for Hong Kong (People's Republic of China)/Hong Kong (China) to appear compared to Hong Kong, People's Republic of China/Hong Kong, China. Is it a convention to use the former format? Also, is it an established convention either here on in the wider world to enforce differing list format just to "avoid looking like an ordinary subnational entity"? And what is an "ordinary subnational entity", and what is not?--Huaiwei 10:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Support "People's Republic of China"

 * SchmuckyTheCat 10:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just plain "China" is fine too.
 * Hong Kong is now said twice, once as the section and again as part of the article title. Repetition is ghastly.
 * HK is part of China, whether some like it or not, so it's a logical grouping.
 * It gives the reader more information - if they are looking for the Queensway in Hong Kong, they'll see Hong Kong in the article title link. If they've heard of one in China, and don't know which city, they'll see China, and then know the city is Hong Kong when scanning the link.
 * It's a dab page after all, the purpose of which is user convenience - to give the reader as much information possible in the most efficient way possible for them to find the article they want.



Instantnood and Huaiwei Bans
I have reverted the page to the usage regarding Hong Kong that existed when this article was started in October 2004 and stayed that way until the Instant and Huaiwei edit war began on this particular article. They are now banned from editing this page. I encourage other users to discuss the change on this page before just going forward with it, I don't know if calling for a vote right away is a good solution but that's up to the contributors on this page. Instant and Huaiwei can vote and discuss, they cannot edit the article itself. --Wgfinley 02:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Redirection to Queen's Road
Let me be careful here in yet another (former) hotly contested battlefield less I get myself involved in the great war. I would like to raise my objection to SchmuckyTheCat's editing of the redirection of "Queensway, Hong Kong" from the genuine Queensway, Hong Kong to Queen's Road because: For the reasons given about I am going to revert STC's last edit. --Pkchan 14:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) In Hong Kong, that Queensway is a different road from Queen's Road is a common conception; see Talk:Queen's Road for the reasons I have given.
 * 2) When there exists an article which describes the Queensway proper I fail to see why the link from this disambiguation page should link to some other page.  If the reader is interested in the adjacent Queen's Roads, there exists links to Queen's Road from Queensway, Hong Kong.
 * I remind SchmuckyTheCat of his probation. Any changes that are likely to cause controversy should be discussed here first. enochlau (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat Ban
I'm banning STC from editing this page for redirecting this article the Hong Kong link without discussion or consensus on a previously hotly contested debate, a misleading edit summary ("fix rdr"), thus causing disruption on this apge. I encourage the other editors to continue working to achieve a consensus. --Wgfinley 15:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)