Talk:Tai Kwun

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.

Hong Kong Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hong Kong To-do:

Attention needed (60)

...needing expert attention (4) • ...without infoboxes (18)

Collaboration needed

Recommend topic

Improvement needed

GA-Class articles (60) • B-Class articles (295)

Cleanup needed

C-Class articles (1,053)

Image needed (348)

Destub needed

Start-Class articles (5,476) • Stub-Class articles (6,683)

Deorphan needed

...orphans

Page creation needed

Requested articles

Miscellaneous tasks

...maintain popularity • ...assess the un-Class (388) • ...assess the un-Importance (1,337)

Requested move 25 November 2018

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

Moved 1st nomination. The 2nd nomination retained its title pending discovery of reliable sources in English that support the new title as the article subject's common name. In that case there is no predjudice, and a rename can be requested again at any time. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 11:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:COMMONNAME. These sites are few of Hong Kong's heritage conservation notable projects, which consists of different renovation works and renaming. These two are revitalized as a cultural and heritage hub and heritage hotel with food and beverage outlets and retail facilities respectively. I believe that the common name for these locations is mainly the new name. And this is not new, heritage conservation projects articles like PMQ have been using its new site name rather than the heritage building name. I hope to have everyone's input so that to make sure I didn't miss out any policies. There might be some other sites required for renaming per consistency, please list it out as well. Cheers. Wefk423 (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 22:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)--Relisted. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone present evidence of the common name beyond the assertion in the request? Dekimasuよ! 22:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~. Review of the citations in the article about the former central police station uncover several that confirm the renaming, including adoption of the new name by Time, which is an independent source. The second move is also confirmed by one independent source. It may not be an especially high quality source, but it looks adequate to establish that the facility has been reworked as a high-end shopping center that includes a hotel, and it seems safe to assume that the name of the shopping center won't be "Former Marine Police Headquarters". —BarrelProof (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the first move only, per further discussion below. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In general we do not rename articles on historic buildings to their new "brand name". We retain them at the title which suggests why they're notable in the first place. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Necrothesp: But I suppose we tend to use their current common name as the title regardless of its original name? –Wefk423 (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not necessarily. Necrothesp may have a good point. It depends on what is notable about the topic and whether the most recent name adequately reflects that. A relevant essay is WP:OUTOFBUSINESS. Obviously, if a historic Roman Coliseum has been torn down and a government office building has been built on the site, that doesn't mean we should rename the article from "Coliseum of Foo" to "Foo Administrative Offices Building #4". In some cases, the same place could even merit being the subject of two different articles if the two uses of the place are sufficiently distinct and both are notable. In this case, "Tai Kwun" is reported to be the historic colloquial name of the compound, and it was restored, not repurposed, and is being promoted under this name as a historic site (and Time magazine is using that name to refer to it for history tourism). So I think "Tai Kwun" is probably OK. I'm less confident about "1881 Heritage" – where did that name come from? – is it a street address? —BarrelProof (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - We might use it if it is the common name. But just being branded doesn't make a common name. Are people going to talk about "1881 Heritage" or are they going to continue to refer to it as the "Marine Police Headquarters"? We've had RM debates before where it has been proposed (often, it must be said, by an agent of the owner) that the article on an historic building should be immediately renamed to its current branding as an hotel, shopping centre, museum, office building, etc, often insisting that this "must" be done for marketing and "accuracy" reasons (i.e. they want their new name to completely supersede the original name in public consciousness and the original name to be quietly forgotten). They have almost always been turned down. I agree that if Tai Kwun has always been a colloquial name then that may be fine, but 1881 Heritage? Sounds very corporate branding to me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand both of your concerns on the 1881 Heritage name. After some intense research, it seems like the reason why it used 1881 is unknown. Some reports stated that even it was built in 1884, they used 1881 because the number "4" is unlucky in Chinese culture [1]. But on the other side, I also think I have to say that the name might not qualify as common name, due to the inadequate sources. Maybe I should simply remove that article from the request? –Wefk423 (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - You probably shouldn't alter the original proposal at this point, since that might cause the record of the discussion to become confusing. Perhaps strikethrough formatting with an explanatory note would be OK. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move March 2019

Deleting request due to inaction, this being 21 July 2019Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]