Talk:Wan Chai

Wan Chai (area) and Wan Chai District
Wan Chai should be different from Wan Chai district, which also includes Causeway Bay. --Jerry Crimson Mann 17:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Population and area figures in the article
The population figure (170,000) is for the (broader) district, not for Wan Chai alone (not sure about the area figure). &mdash; Instantnood 18:36, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * The data is up-to-date, because it is adopted from the newly-launched GO2HK website listed in the reference. :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 19:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the data is for the broader Wan Chai District, not for the Wan Chai area. &mdash; Instantnood 20:15, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * O... -- Jerry Crimson Mann 20:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Centre of the area
The centre of Wan Chai in the post-war period was at Tonnochy Road, while the present-day centre is more like to be around the MTR station. &mdash; Instantnood 18:36, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Police Museum
This part will be deleted. It should belong to the Peak. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 10:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ATV
There's a documentary about Wan Chai on ATV Asia...i've recorded it, and surely this would help much with this entry :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann

Holy Cow!
Wow. You guys are legends! I did not expect having such an indepth article on Wanchai here. The detail is amazing. You guys (and you all know who you are) are legends! novacatz 03:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Good Article nomination
Hi to all contributors to this article. This article is exceptional in the amount of informtion and images (the coastline one is amazing!) it contains. However, I am going to fail it's nomination. The style is at places unencyclopedic, there are rather many occurences of "many people say" without attribution, and it is a bit long and a bit of a mess.

This is on its way to a Featured Article, if you ask me, but you should:
 * Reference it. Seriously, there are practically no references in a 45 KB article. Anything of this length needs inline references or at least mentions of the sources in the text. Facts in this monster are very hard to check.
 * Clean it up a bit. Think about keeping it around 25KB and moving some sections to their own articles.
 * Get rid of weasel words. Read this: Avoid_weasel_words.

I feel rather bad about failing your nomination, but I just don't think it's quite there yet. You should put some effort into this piece and aim for FA status, if you ask me. Thank you for making this article! -- Mstroeck 14:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Urban Renewal Authority
Some of the information are moved to Urban Renewal Authority as it is more related to this article. Shrimp wong 03:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

More cleanup on the way
Does anyone know the reclamation scheme name? If it is the Praya Reclamation Scheme then the year is likely off. Benjwong 07:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks to be cleaned up. It was also the "praya east" reclamation. Benjwong 20:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have been cleaning up grammar, and its good to see the 80 storey mosque is no longer there. But we still need more text on the Administrative and political aspects, such as what all the constituencies are called and who are the elected representatives, otherwise it would fail the broad in coverage rule for GA. Removing the expand tag does not expand the section! Another thing to clean up is the list of important roads.  This should all be included as prose, as some is already. Graeme Bartlett 13:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the "need expansion" area should not be a section at all. I am more than welcome to move the sentence to the intro and let it be. I think you are looking for something bigger like a political affiliation with some representatives. I am not sure the small area of Wan Chai has any special administrative policies compared to other districts. Benjwong 13:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not expecting any more than the name of the constituencies and representatives. Also the Wan Chai Church of Christ — is this the Church of Christ in China Wanchai Church next to the Hopewell Centre? (at http://www.wcc.org.hk/html/home.asp).  If so this is not primarily for Filipino's, but mostly for Cantonese speakers.  So the sentence in the Religion section should be amended if this is the Church talked about. A good source of local history can be found in the documents found at government reports online Graeme Bartlett 15:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the two sentences about the churches. Most of the religious section was not written by me. I have done some research, and it is difficult to say whether a church is for any particular group. So is either we mention it very very anonymously or we delete it. Either way is fine cause they are currently just red links with no articles. Benjwong 21:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

About the constituencies info, after doing some looking around, I am not sure there is a select group that watches over Wan Chai. Going one step up, anyone that manages Wan Chai district probably belong in the Wan Chai district article instead. I'll throw a question out at wikiproject HK to see if anyone can assist. Benjwong 21:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I had assumed you were from the area or familiar with it. I have visited there many times, but I am not an expert.  Take a look at  for proposed boundaries.  With a street directory, you could work it out.  On the church front, they could be mentioned with out having a wikilink.  Not every church will get an article, but can easily be in a local article like this one. Graeme Bartlett 22:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that Wan Chai district is the one with exact boundaries worth putting up like this, but that is a separate article. I have emailed the towns people once, they suggested electorial lines can change yearly. I have a lot of maps, none of them draw an exact boundary of where Wan Chai starts or ends. I am going to delete the 3 constituencies statement because that can be misleading especially with the half constituency. You raised a good point. For simplicity purpose, we should only say 11 constituencies are part of Wan Chai district, and mention no more. I am not from Wan Chai. Just happen to be improving the quality of another article. Benjwong 13:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Constituency area
I think there may be some confusion regarding what are the constituency areas of Wan Chai District. I'm not sure Wan Chai as a whole is a constituency. Take a look at this - - I think Wan Chai may consist of several constituency areas. Although personally I'm not sure out of those areas, which is officially considered part of Wan Chai. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

GA review
The article contains a wealth of information, and is reasonably well-written, though I made a few minor spelling/grammatical changes. It's mostly well-sourced, though there are a couple of gaps. The 'administration' section is very short, and unsourced. This section more information on Wan Chai District, who represents it on the city council, how does it fit into city politics, etc? 'community life', 'buildings and construction', and 'transportation', are largely short of references. The government's urban renewal projects should be sourced as well.

Consider moving the education section into it's own main section, not under 'community life'. It also seems incomplete - it largely only talks about one school, and the teacher Mo Dunmei. It seems like if there are "several renowned schools" in the district, more should be included in this section. Are the any institutions of higher education in the district?

The following line in the 'southorn activities" section seems blatantly obvious: "Some people dress very casually when taking part in these pastimes, perhaps a T-shirt, shorts and flip-flops that borderline public pajamas. People call this kind of outfit the "neighbour look"." Really? I never would've guessed what people wear when they play sports! OMG! Did Ric Romero write this section? I don't think this is necessary here,...

The images are overall very good, although I am uncertain of the point of the two images (Fleming Road and Tai Yau Arcade) near the top of the article? They don't seem to be accomplishing anything there. Why not add those to the gallery, which only currently contains two images?

I don't understand all those numbers in the 'buses' section under 'transportation' (e.g. NWFB: 2, 2A, 2X, 8, 8P, 15, 18, 18P, 19, 23, 23A, 23B, 25, 26, 38, 42, 63, 66, 81, 720, M722)? Are those bus stops? It doesn't seem very encyclopedic; the article should cover a description of the services, and some details on how they operate and such, written as prose. Details like specific bus stops and routes are unnecessary, as you can find those by reading the bus company's own brochures. Same goes for the numbers in the 'minibus' section.

There's still some rather flowerly language and weasel words in the article. These should be removed. A couple of examples (though probably not a complete list) include:


 * "world-class conference centre"
 * "Notable plays praised locally include ..."
 * "Wan Chai's street stores offer an astonishing range of shopping. Walking down Queen's Road East a number of excellent rattan and Chinese furniture shops could be encountered. Spring Garden Lane and the stretch of Johnston Road near it are great places to pick up simple clothes and bags at unbelievably competitive prices."
 * "world-class commercial complexes and skyscrapers."
 * "Throughout Wan Chai's history, construction styles have changed and grew by leaps and bounds."

Hope this helps improve the article. I will place this on hold at WP:GAC for 5 days (until September 7, 2007), and revisit it again. Feel free to contact me with any questions or clarifications. Cheers! Dr. Cash 18:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

GA review response
I have cleaned up just about all the weasel words and moved the education section over to the history. The two remaining issues are the administration and bus routes.

Administration
 * The administration section has been entirely cleaned out. I think there are still misunderstanding. By international standards Wan Chai district would be like a town, and Wan Chai (this article) would be an area within the town with no presentable boundaries.  You can see user Hong Qi Gong's response above. He is pretty much saying the same thing I was. Literally it covers just a few streets sitting on top of a few political constituencies. It doesn't even cover those constituencies to the exact size or borderline.  I have in my possession a number of maps, all of them outline Wan Chai district at the lowest level.  That would be 1 level higher than this article.  It is different enough from the usual state-town-district structure found in other countries that we can't quite treat it the same.
 * If I geta couple of free hours I could fix this bit up, but it may not happen till the GA is failed again. Graeme Bartlett 05:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you have in mind? You can list the streets, but those draw a guess-etimate boundary for you at best.  Benjwong 05:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What I have in mind is to name the current constituencies that overlap with Wan Chai, or have Wan Chai in their name and who represents them. Future candidates and representatives or supporters will then be keen to maintain it in the future.  Shek Tong Tsui is an example of what I did before. Graeme Bartlett 06:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if you look at the constituency maps I can say Wan Chai sits on top of B11, B10, B01. But these are electoral boundaries.  If anything these belong in the other Wan Chai district article instead.  Last time I emailed the towns people, they admit these can even change yearly.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjwong (talk • contribs) 13:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Bus routes
 * I can see why the route info seems unencyclopedic. So far I just relabeled it as routes, so no one is confusing the numbers as bus names etc.  Please consider that very few people own cars in HK.  Public transport info make up 95% of any transportation data. Benjwong 05:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * for local articles at the lowest levels it makes sense to have the transport options like bus routes listed. But I think the GA reviewer did not understand that the numbers meant route numbers. Graeme Bartlett 05:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, is either have subway routes/bus routes etc or nothing. Benjwong 05:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest looking at the transportation sections of some other articles, such as New York City (specifically, Manhattan, which might be more relevant to this article) or London. Specific bus routes are just not very encyclopedic, as you can look up much more relevant and accurate information in published bus route guides. This section should actually be talking, in prose, about where you can go on the system (numbers are meaningless), how many passengers per day/month/year, maybe some information about the average cost of a ticket, etc? Dr. Cash 18:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is looking much better. Though, there's still a few issues here and there. I would suggest taking a look at the Manhattan article, which is probably similar to Wan Chai in that it is also a part of a city (a borough), and not a city unto itself. Manhattan is also a currently listed good article. East End of London would also be a good article to look at, and it's also on the GA list as well. One thing to notice specifically about these articles, is the organization and the prose - notice that the sections generally do not use bulleted lists, and are mainly well-organized and constructed paragraphs. Dr. Cash 18:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there is still a misunderstanding. If we do a direct comparison, then Manhattan would be like Hong Kong, and that already has its own transport page.  Wan Chai would be similar to just a couple of streets in Manhattan.  We really can't expect Wan chai transportation section to rival the entire HK or Manhattan.  That might be too much. Mostly we are trying to get an idea of what it takes to GA a small area such as Wan Chai. Benjwong 21:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps 'transportation' is just not important enough for something like Wan Chai, if it is more like a "neighborhood". I still think that things like listing bus stops in any medium (not just wikipedia) is pretty much useless to most readers without a map of where those bus stops are. From your responses, I could see now the justification for just dropping the whole transportation section as it is, moving a few notable tid bits with perhaps the 'reclamations' section, and calling it 'geography' or something similar. Describe some of the roads, and the overall layout of the area. Drop everything pertaining to mass transit, buses, minibus, and taxis, since none if it even has a reference anyway; and even if it did, it's just not that important. Maybe consider merging it with an article about greater Hong Kong, since many of the mass transit (railway and bus) connections and taxis will supercede the boundaries of Wan Chai anyway. I mean, no offense or anything; but this mostly is just meaningless and non-notable. Bus routes? Why do I need to know that the New World First Bus stops at M722, when I don't even know where M722 is (the article provides zero connection to that)? It's just wiki-cruft,... Dr. Cash 06:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Those numbers and letter numbers are the bus route numbers, not the bus stop numbers. The information is useful if you want to know how to get to Wan Chai by bus, and it could be expanded to say what general area each route covers.  The MTR is already well covered, and I think it is OK in the article here too.  The station is exception in the great number of exists it has.  Public transport plays a big role in the life of Hong Kong people, and a large fraction of the Wan Chai residents will be using one of the transport options every day.  So I think it is significant enough to be mentioned. The information suggested above about where the route goes (definately availbale) and numbers of passengers (may be OR) would be good. Graeme Bartlett 06:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Bus route info are not useful to readers outside of HK. I completely understand and agree on that. I am just trying to figure out how to draw the line and suggest "we can't have any more bus routes because we are shooting for high quality articles." The local citizens feel this is an integral part of their lifestyle. Afterall HK is 90% public transportation. Bus route info appears on a number of HK articles actually. So how we treat this one can also affect future nominees. If someone told me this would end up being the most questionable part for going GA, I would have never guessed. Benjwong 18:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

We should be careful with the level of details that are offered as far as something like bus routes and MTR routes are concerned. They should be mentioned, but not at a very fine grain level of information, because that would be a violation of either WP:NOT or WP:NOT. In essence, the article should not be written in a way that readers come here specifically to look for directions on how to get to and from Wan Chai. That's not the purpose of WP. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to make a heads up edit to cleanup what doesn't fit, please go right ahead. If this does go GA, we will have to treat other articles the same eventually. At the moment it seems rather harsh to delete what the local people might find useful.   Benjwong 21:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehheh, come now, locals don't need to come to English WP to figure out how to get to and from Wan Chai. I mean, seriously, Wan Chai?  Everybody knows how to get there.  It's right on the MTR map even if you don't know what bus or mini-bus to take.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I'll wait till you make an edit. You can change it to whatever grainy level you feel is appropriate. I just think if it is on every locale page, there must be enough significance.  Benjwong 22:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just making a suggestion. I don't think I am interested enough to devote editing time to this.  I assume the goal is to take this article to FA status, and if so, I think WP:NOT issues are going to be brought up in a FAC.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The article has been failed at WP:GAC as the on hold time has elapsed without issues being resolved. Please feel free to renominate it once the issues are resolved. The article is pretty close; the introduction & history section look good. Reference citations are still severely lacking in the buildings and community life sections. The organization of the transportation section is also sub-par; for the most part, it lacks good, readable prose (although the main roads and tunnels subsection appears reasonably good, the rest is just a collection of very trivial and hardly notable cruft. I also don't see why the 'external links' section has a second section after it called 'bibliography', which only contains external links anyway? This seems very redundant, and makes the article's organization look quite poor. All external links should go in the section entitled 'external links', and nowhere else; the section should be also listed at the end of the article as well.

Please feel free to renominate the article once you've addressed the issues (though I can't keep this indefinitely on hold while you debate the matter amongst yourselves).

Hope this helps improve the article! Cheers! Dr. Cash 04:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the inputs. We'll take these info into future considerations. Benjwong 16:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Central a.jpg
Image:Central a.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

History
I removed the line (even though it is referenced):
 * When the British arrived in Colonial Hong Kong, Wan Chai began modernizing in the 1840s as a high-class commercial centre..

'Modernising' is an odd term to use - what is modern in 1840? Moreover, the source I quote, a Chinese University historian, paints a very different picture, of lowly paid outcasts from bustling Central, and part of the area as a red-light district. So if anyone can reconcile this info, please do so, or discuss here. Earthlyreason (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, can someone (the author,?) clarify the line:
 * During the Japanese occupation in the 1940s, many bombardments took place.

Were these aerial bombardments? Certainly not after the original invasion. Or bombings? - also unlikely under rigid Japanese control. Earthlyreason (talk) 09:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)