Talk:Tai Kok Tsui
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tai Kok Tsui article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | The contents of the One Silversea page were merged into Tai Kok Tsui on October 2009. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
| The contents of the Central Park (Hong Kong) page were merged into Tai Kok Tsui on October 2009. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
| The contents of the Shining Heights page were merged into Tai Kok Tsui on October 2009. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history. |
| The contents of the Harbour Green page were merged into Tai Kok Tsui on September 2011. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
 | This article is written in Hong Kong English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Untitled
[edit]It would be so much nicer if somebody could provide some photos or maps of the coastline changes over the years. 199.111.230.195 01:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- There are some maps on this website that you may find useful. — Instantnood 19:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! I'll see what I can do with those. 199.111.230.195 20:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
About Cleanup
[edit]A bunch of years of reclamation were given but it would be a lot better if there were detailed explanations (e.g. I added in "Airport Core Programme" to explain how the most recent development came about). Information in the "Other" section seems rather incoherent, although not pointless. I tried to re-phrase the entire article but simply lack on-hand information to make it actually good.
I anticipate that this cleanup is going to take a while because only a limited number of people actually know this place. And I appreciate all those who would devote their precious time to offering help. 199.111.230.195 02:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
About the Chinese Name
[edit]I do not have the time to verify and dare not challenge the correctness of the explanation of "嘴" being a noun and "咀" being a verb.
But (not trying to be stubborn here!! =P) what I have observed is that "咀" is officially used by the government. For example the library there is written as "大角咀公共圖書館". And "大角咀" is used in all addresses on government websites. Try googling "大角咀" and one will see.
Moreover, googling "大角咀" provides one with more than 80,000 results while "大角嘴" gives less than 800.
Hope this is convincing enough! 199.111.230.195 20:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes I agree there's a natural process that people tends to use the easier variant, and the government uses a variant according to what people prefers, and the people use what the government uses, and.. you know what. But then as an encyclopædia etymology is what we call encyclopædic and should be included. If there's an article on the library or any government facility that 咀 is always used and never 嘴, then we should include only 咀 for that article. But as for this article about the place, it's better to include the original and more correct way it is written. — Instantnood 21:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Google tests are never convincing enough for me; I have come across too many "non–non-notable" things that have zero or close-to-zero Google presence.
- Also, Google does not always do the right things: for example, it wholeheartedly accepted the Unicode Consortium's now-defunct-but-probably-still-used-somewhere version of Big5, which was obviously an invalid encoding but it still got used anyway. If you believe in Google tests in that period when it used Unicode's invalid code mappings, you would have based your findings on some very invalid search results.
- On another note, names do not always go from complex to simple; I believe "Kwun Tong" is a nice counter-example where the more complex variant is the more official name.—Gniw (Wing) 04:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hmmm interesting indeed. Kwun Tong is a counter example because the literal meaning did matter to the Government. :-) Nevertheless many people are still using the old name. — Instantnood 08:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)