The Bus Uncle is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 7, 2007. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This article may be an exelent example of how writing articles... but it contains nothing! This isn't an encyclopedia article, because:
The article should be decharacterised from all wikiprojects and featured articles.-- Περίεργος ( talk) 13:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Did you know that this article is longer than the one on Monet. It really shows that you have your priorities straight when we have more to say about some fad video than Monet. Wikipedia even had an overlong article about Slashdot trolling phenomena. Adamv88 22:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
IN TRANSCRIPT IT SAY 'IT ISNT SETTLED' BUT IN CAPTION IT SAY 'IT NOT RESOLVED'. FUCK THEY SAYING DIRECTLY TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH? SETTLED OR RESOLVED? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.195.132.253 ( talk) 10:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
I have removed the WPBiography banner, because this is not a biography. Since useful comments were made at the Biography project peer review, here's the link to that page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/The Bus Uncle. Er rab ee 22:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
In accordance with the Biographies of living persons policy, and personal dignity, I have removed the most egregious breeches of personal privacy from this appalling bit of muck. The names of the individuals involved, and irrelevant details of their private lives, have been removed. With immediate effect, I am removing this rubbish from the list of featured articles. -- Tony Sidaway 03:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Please don't change the articlehistory as it results in an error; if the article is removed, we'll have to figure out how to deal with the articlehistory and archives correctly. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted Tony's edits per Pomte's comment and what is written in the article. To wit, they've both given interviews about it - they've willingly put their names into the public discourse. Given this, it is disingenuous to then claim we should not name them when they themselves appear to be trying to gain publicity. Raul654 05:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the article complies with the BLP, with respect to their private lives. Let's talk about their one by one, shall we?
If this article simply states what has happened, from various points of view of multiple journalists, I don't think it's biased in anyway, let alone violating WP:BLP.-- Kylohk 08:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
What are thinking? Did you ever read an encyclopedia? Wikipedia started as project to gather the knowledge of the world, not the anecdotes and trivia. At the very least, keep this mess concise. -- Pjacobi 10:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Appalling bit of muck? It's a featured article, or at least was until it got gutted over 'BLP' phantoms. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 15:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess I will just re-add all the content Pjacobi deleted. After all, the inclusion of content is based on notability, not whether it has "knowledge". As for the 3 images, I will try to explain why they are so difficult to replace. Sure those people appear in public, and hence can have free pictures taken of them. But the question is, in a city of 7 million people, what's the likelihood one meets him in the street at any given time? The chance is almost zero. Hence it is so difficult to replace it with a free photograph that it might as well be considered not replaceable.-- Kylohk 15:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
For those curious about the genesis of Tony's assessment of this article, it might be worth taking a look at a number of recent situations, including the badlydrawnjeff arbitration, the various Allison Stokke discussions, the deletion of the Shawn Hornbeck article and the following deletion review. There seems to have been some recent reinterpretation of the biographies of living persons policy, which has led to a sizable number of speedy deletions, etc. JavaTenor 16:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering when this stupid WP:BLP dispute is going to be over, and when are the editors and admins involved going to actually discuss things first, instead of making unilateral edits and speedy deleting articles and then discussing afterwards. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 20:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
More more thing, I've readded the 3 images to the article. The reasons are that they do not offend their privacy, due to them being taken during press interviews. Apart from this, their are not replaceable, since you can't just go and take a free photograph of any press interviews anymore, since there is likely to be no "voluntary free" reporter Wikipedian.-- Kylohk 07:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
As the pretty little {{ FAR}} tag at the top of this page indicates, I've initiated a featured article review on this article, due to the comments made here as well as elsewhere. The subpage for the review can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Bus Uncle. Comments regarding the quality of the article and its suitability as a featured article are welcome. -- Jonel | Speak 20:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
While there is a clear copyright violation in this revision last year and it should be deleted from the history, is there any valuable information from these articles those can be cited? – Pomte 16:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I was looking at this ages history and saw that the article was "promoted" to GA status by an anon. Proof. Does that have any effect of what's going on right now? ( The Placebo Effect not logged in ) 66.82.9.108 03:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the quotations from the clip include the original, untranslated words as well (in brackets at least)? — Pengo 00:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
我有压力,你有压力,你做乜挑衅我呀?
Ngo yaw ngadlek, ney yaw ngadlek, ney jowmat tiuyant ngo a?
(我有压力,你有压力,你干甚么挑衅我?)
唔渣手即系未掂啦?未掂即系要搞到掂啦!系咪啊?
M ja saw jek'hay mey gaudim la? Mey gaudim jek'hay yiu gau dow dim la! Hay m'hay a? (不握手便是还没妥当,没妥当便要弄妥当啦。)
未解决!未解决!!未解决!!!
Mey gaikeud! Mey gaikeud!! Mey gaikeud!!!
你好好打咩你!屌***!
Ney how howda me ney! Diu ney lowmow!
(你打架很强的吗?***的!)
老母唔屌屌边个啊?
Lowmow m diu diu bingo a?
(娘亲不操操谁?)
我屌***我条野系咪系***果度丫?
Ngo diu ney lowmow ngo tiu ye haym'hay ney lowmow godow a?
(我***的,我那东西是否在你妈那里吗?)
搬人出黎就搬人出黎,你钟意小就小. 我钟意小就小,小人呢就唔系,冇害既,小丫小丫打你两鎚咩?
Bun yant cotlay jaw bun yant cotlay, ney jonkyi siu jaw siu. Ngo jonkyi siu jaw siu, siu yant jaw m hay, mow hoi ge, siu a siu a da ney leong coy me?
(搬人家出来就搬出来,你喜欢操就操,我喜欢操就操,操人家这不是,没害的,操啊操啊打你两拳吗?)
你警告我做咩?你警告我我唔捻惊拿人家出来。
Ney genkgow ngo jow mat'ye? Ney genkgow ngo ngo m lant geng na yantga cotlay.
(你警告我干啥?你警告我我不他妈的害怕搬人家出来。) 事实证明香港D阿叔级人士系几咁大压力 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Penkyamp ( talk • contribs) 02:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This article, a featured article appearing on the mainpage? This has to be a joke. As one of the initial contributors of this article, I feel bad denouncing it such, but, honestly, this article is NO way near featured status. In my opinion, not even a good article. Yes, I know it is common in Wikipedia for an article to be judged more on format and writing than content, but that does not mean any single article which somehow fulfils the "criteria" in one way or another deserves to be featured. Some articles simply do not have the basis, nor the importance, to become a featured article. Take a look at the history - when the article was first created it was considered for deletion and remained that way for a period of few hundred edits, mostly by the same user who has basically not contributed to anything else in Wikipedia. Does that tell you something? The article is simply void. Almost 70% of the article focuses on the "social impact" of the event - and yes, I admit it's important, but not that much - and still the article is terribly short for a featured article (there isn't a rule, but there is a generally agreed norm for the length of a featured article.) How is any reader supposed to be interested in one paragraph of the actual event preceding five paragraphs of background plus fifteen more paragraphs of "impact"? How does this set an example to how other articles should be written, when the article itself is so outrageously disproportional? For me, the featured articles and DYKs of Wikipedia haven't been much better than Uncyclopedia ever since some of the most experienced contributors left (though there are still some very well-written articles occasionally), but featuring an article like this? Wikipedia won't much last longer as a credible encyclopedia if this goes on. Seriously, start considering a complete overhaul of the featured article nomination system. Aran| heru| nar 06:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
So, Aranherunar, If say, Spideman 2 made it to TFA, would you be so mad? I think notability is hard enough to define for the deletion process, no need to add a layer at FAC. One more thing: only one article in one thousand two hundred and sixty articles is an FA in wikipedia. And you would like to reduce that? If it was to be included in the core topics, I'd be outraged too. And I admit more energy should be put by the community as a whole to push core topics to FA quality. But changing the rules won't make that happen. I think this is a great article, very informative on a notable contemporary event.-- SidiLemine 12:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not think that this should not be a Featured Article. I cannot help but feel that this articles's inclusion on WP:UA may have assisted in its choice, since this article, while a good article, does not go very in-depth into the subject-matter compared to other featured articles. It seems like a case of WP:VOTE-ness to me. I defy you to give a complete and logical explanation of why this is deep enough to be more than a YouTube Cruft-Meme. ~ PH DrillSergeant... § 14:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
References
beaten
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)
I don't know if anyone will listen to me or if I'll just be flamed for this comment... but I'm here to say I support this article and think the people who are attacking it are either xenophobic or nuts. Not to call names, but come on people, information is information. This is a well put together article. Nesnad 13:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
There's really no question of notability - this story is definitely notable, and notability was not limited to just Hong Kong. The article makes a point that the clip was the most viewed video in May 2006. Though I'd like to see it mentioned how much coverage the clip received in Overseas Chinese newspapers around the world. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 15:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It's very confusing when the same person is referred to by different names throughout the article. For example, the Bus Uncle is called Roger in some places and Chan in others. The same name should be used everywhere in the article. Mkeranat 15:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It's pointless to complain about the FAC system in general unless you're actually an active participant in the system. How much do any one of us contribute to reviewing articles under FAC or peer review? Most FAC articles don't nearly get as much reviewing as they need. If you think the FAC system is lacking, go check out the FAC page, see what articles haven't been commented on very much, and review and comment on the articles. Contribute to the system if you think bad articles are being passed. There's no point in complaining about articles being passed when you don't contribute to the system to begin with. In the past few months, this article went through a Peer Review, an FAC, and then a FAR. That's three peer-assisted processes that helped improve this article. For those editors that complain about this article not deserving of FA status - did any of you participate in those processes? If you think the FAC system is lacking, then go contribute to make it better. Peer review some articles, comment and vote on FACs and FARs. Experienced editors should know by now that there are a lot of areas in which WP needs improvement, and all that improvement is up to us editors because this beast runs entirely on a volunteer basis. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 21:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
And the thing is, if the article had only gone through a quick FAC, I can definitely sympathise with some of the complaints. But no, the article had gone through a peer review (with nobody at all commenting) and then a FAR also. As someone who has worked on improving articles on FAC and FAR, I can attest how frustrating those processes can be. And I know for a fact that there are other editors here have also done the same. I really can't identify with complaints about an article's FA status only shortly after an article has gone through a range of peer-assisted processes. Many many articles on the peer review, FAC, and FAR queues are dying for more reviews. If you have a complaint about the FAC system, those places are the best places to initiate change. Why complain about it on one particular article that's only recently survived a FAR? Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 17:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
This article doesn't really explain what the argument was about. It mentions that Chan was stressed and Ho didn't respond much, but what exactly did Chan say? What were his "catch-phrases?" I'm not asking for a word-for-word transcript, but surely some kind of summary..? Brutannica 23:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, never mind, it turned out the section was removed by some vandal when I first looked at the page. Brutannica 05:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
This section relies on a user forum for establishment. Unless a reliable source has said this is where the name came from, this theory can't be put forward. Random user comments and posts in a forum are not considered reliable sources.-- Crossmr 15:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I was just thinking, looking at the top paragraph. It dosen't give out the sense of how huge this was. Amazingly, lots of it was written by people who don't live in Hong Kong and weren't there to experience it, and still it was a very good article.But still, as I remember, commercials everywhere were using the phrases of Bus Uncle. The phrases were on Tshirts, mugs...etc you name it. I was studying Primary Six at the time and everyone was talking about it in class or at recess, even teachers were laughing about it, younger students acted it out with their friends...etc.
I wasn't sure how to express that kind of "impressiveness", so...can anyone else attempt adding something to the first paragraph [or edit]. Brittanity ( talk) 06:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure in some of the quotes, some of the meaning in the catchphrases are lost due to the absence of an explanation. I am lucky to understand both Cantonese and English, so I think that someone (maybe I) can add an explanation beside the quotes If you agree with such actions, post it in my talk --KelvinHO Wiknerd( talk) 13:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Hong Kong, hmm? Andrew Sicos ( talk) 22:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Andrew Sicos
I am a bit surprised that the "respect for elders" angle was not covered. The way I understand it, in China (and in collectivist societies as a whole) older people are deeply respected and not to be contradicted in a harsh manner, which could explain the young man's restraint. There are certain cultural norms pertaining to expected behaviour and hierarchies (frequently based on age) are always to be observed. Oleg Morgan ( talk) 11:55 am, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:HK Newspapers.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:HK Newspapers.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 19:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
The Bus Uncle. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Bus Uncle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on The Bus Uncle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
"Characters" makes it sound like the video was fictional or staged... wouldn't "Subjects" or "Participants" be more appropriate for a real-life video? Muzilon ( talk) 07:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Looking at this for the WP:URFA/2020 initiative to check old FAs for maintained quality. I note this article had significant quality concerns at the time of its 2007 promotion, and substantial debate occurred over whether its FA promotion was valid even by contemporary standards.
Personal notes:
Some of the sources also don't look great on my source highlighter script, but this is mostly Youtube videos that are either valid use of primary sourcing, or Youtube clips of RS news shows. These should be converted to {{ cite AV media}} without links. Not as big an issue as the aforementioned, though. (Pinging Padgriffin and Vampyricon for their personal expertise with HK culture to see if there's anything they can do for these problems, or any further they can bring up.) Vaticidal prophet 14:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I've re-written the lead of the article- I'll probably rewrite the bulk of the synopsis later. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 05:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
The Bus Uncle is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 7, 2007. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This article may be an exelent example of how writing articles... but it contains nothing! This isn't an encyclopedia article, because:
The article should be decharacterised from all wikiprojects and featured articles.-- Περίεργος ( talk) 13:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Did you know that this article is longer than the one on Monet. It really shows that you have your priorities straight when we have more to say about some fad video than Monet. Wikipedia even had an overlong article about Slashdot trolling phenomena. Adamv88 22:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
IN TRANSCRIPT IT SAY 'IT ISNT SETTLED' BUT IN CAPTION IT SAY 'IT NOT RESOLVED'. FUCK THEY SAYING DIRECTLY TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH? SETTLED OR RESOLVED? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.195.132.253 ( talk) 10:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
I have removed the WPBiography banner, because this is not a biography. Since useful comments were made at the Biography project peer review, here's the link to that page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/The Bus Uncle. Er rab ee 22:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
In accordance with the Biographies of living persons policy, and personal dignity, I have removed the most egregious breeches of personal privacy from this appalling bit of muck. The names of the individuals involved, and irrelevant details of their private lives, have been removed. With immediate effect, I am removing this rubbish from the list of featured articles. -- Tony Sidaway 03:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Please don't change the articlehistory as it results in an error; if the article is removed, we'll have to figure out how to deal with the articlehistory and archives correctly. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted Tony's edits per Pomte's comment and what is written in the article. To wit, they've both given interviews about it - they've willingly put their names into the public discourse. Given this, it is disingenuous to then claim we should not name them when they themselves appear to be trying to gain publicity. Raul654 05:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the article complies with the BLP, with respect to their private lives. Let's talk about their one by one, shall we?
If this article simply states what has happened, from various points of view of multiple journalists, I don't think it's biased in anyway, let alone violating WP:BLP.-- Kylohk 08:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
What are thinking? Did you ever read an encyclopedia? Wikipedia started as project to gather the knowledge of the world, not the anecdotes and trivia. At the very least, keep this mess concise. -- Pjacobi 10:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Appalling bit of muck? It's a featured article, or at least was until it got gutted over 'BLP' phantoms. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 15:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess I will just re-add all the content Pjacobi deleted. After all, the inclusion of content is based on notability, not whether it has "knowledge". As for the 3 images, I will try to explain why they are so difficult to replace. Sure those people appear in public, and hence can have free pictures taken of them. But the question is, in a city of 7 million people, what's the likelihood one meets him in the street at any given time? The chance is almost zero. Hence it is so difficult to replace it with a free photograph that it might as well be considered not replaceable.-- Kylohk 15:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
For those curious about the genesis of Tony's assessment of this article, it might be worth taking a look at a number of recent situations, including the badlydrawnjeff arbitration, the various Allison Stokke discussions, the deletion of the Shawn Hornbeck article and the following deletion review. There seems to have been some recent reinterpretation of the biographies of living persons policy, which has led to a sizable number of speedy deletions, etc. JavaTenor 16:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering when this stupid WP:BLP dispute is going to be over, and when are the editors and admins involved going to actually discuss things first, instead of making unilateral edits and speedy deleting articles and then discussing afterwards. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 20:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
More more thing, I've readded the 3 images to the article. The reasons are that they do not offend their privacy, due to them being taken during press interviews. Apart from this, their are not replaceable, since you can't just go and take a free photograph of any press interviews anymore, since there is likely to be no "voluntary free" reporter Wikipedian.-- Kylohk 07:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
As the pretty little {{ FAR}} tag at the top of this page indicates, I've initiated a featured article review on this article, due to the comments made here as well as elsewhere. The subpage for the review can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Bus Uncle. Comments regarding the quality of the article and its suitability as a featured article are welcome. -- Jonel | Speak 20:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
While there is a clear copyright violation in this revision last year and it should be deleted from the history, is there any valuable information from these articles those can be cited? – Pomte 16:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I was looking at this ages history and saw that the article was "promoted" to GA status by an anon. Proof. Does that have any effect of what's going on right now? ( The Placebo Effect not logged in ) 66.82.9.108 03:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the quotations from the clip include the original, untranslated words as well (in brackets at least)? — Pengo 00:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
我有压力,你有压力,你做乜挑衅我呀?
Ngo yaw ngadlek, ney yaw ngadlek, ney jowmat tiuyant ngo a?
(我有压力,你有压力,你干甚么挑衅我?)
唔渣手即系未掂啦?未掂即系要搞到掂啦!系咪啊?
M ja saw jek'hay mey gaudim la? Mey gaudim jek'hay yiu gau dow dim la! Hay m'hay a? (不握手便是还没妥当,没妥当便要弄妥当啦。)
未解决!未解决!!未解决!!!
Mey gaikeud! Mey gaikeud!! Mey gaikeud!!!
你好好打咩你!屌***!
Ney how howda me ney! Diu ney lowmow!
(你打架很强的吗?***的!)
老母唔屌屌边个啊?
Lowmow m diu diu bingo a?
(娘亲不操操谁?)
我屌***我条野系咪系***果度丫?
Ngo diu ney lowmow ngo tiu ye haym'hay ney lowmow godow a?
(我***的,我那东西是否在你妈那里吗?)
搬人出黎就搬人出黎,你钟意小就小. 我钟意小就小,小人呢就唔系,冇害既,小丫小丫打你两鎚咩?
Bun yant cotlay jaw bun yant cotlay, ney jonkyi siu jaw siu. Ngo jonkyi siu jaw siu, siu yant jaw m hay, mow hoi ge, siu a siu a da ney leong coy me?
(搬人家出来就搬出来,你喜欢操就操,我喜欢操就操,操人家这不是,没害的,操啊操啊打你两拳吗?)
你警告我做咩?你警告我我唔捻惊拿人家出来。
Ney genkgow ngo jow mat'ye? Ney genkgow ngo ngo m lant geng na yantga cotlay.
(你警告我干啥?你警告我我不他妈的害怕搬人家出来。) 事实证明香港D阿叔级人士系几咁大压力 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Penkyamp ( talk • contribs) 02:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This article, a featured article appearing on the mainpage? This has to be a joke. As one of the initial contributors of this article, I feel bad denouncing it such, but, honestly, this article is NO way near featured status. In my opinion, not even a good article. Yes, I know it is common in Wikipedia for an article to be judged more on format and writing than content, but that does not mean any single article which somehow fulfils the "criteria" in one way or another deserves to be featured. Some articles simply do not have the basis, nor the importance, to become a featured article. Take a look at the history - when the article was first created it was considered for deletion and remained that way for a period of few hundred edits, mostly by the same user who has basically not contributed to anything else in Wikipedia. Does that tell you something? The article is simply void. Almost 70% of the article focuses on the "social impact" of the event - and yes, I admit it's important, but not that much - and still the article is terribly short for a featured article (there isn't a rule, but there is a generally agreed norm for the length of a featured article.) How is any reader supposed to be interested in one paragraph of the actual event preceding five paragraphs of background plus fifteen more paragraphs of "impact"? How does this set an example to how other articles should be written, when the article itself is so outrageously disproportional? For me, the featured articles and DYKs of Wikipedia haven't been much better than Uncyclopedia ever since some of the most experienced contributors left (though there are still some very well-written articles occasionally), but featuring an article like this? Wikipedia won't much last longer as a credible encyclopedia if this goes on. Seriously, start considering a complete overhaul of the featured article nomination system. Aran| heru| nar 06:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
So, Aranherunar, If say, Spideman 2 made it to TFA, would you be so mad? I think notability is hard enough to define for the deletion process, no need to add a layer at FAC. One more thing: only one article in one thousand two hundred and sixty articles is an FA in wikipedia. And you would like to reduce that? If it was to be included in the core topics, I'd be outraged too. And I admit more energy should be put by the community as a whole to push core topics to FA quality. But changing the rules won't make that happen. I think this is a great article, very informative on a notable contemporary event.-- SidiLemine 12:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not think that this should not be a Featured Article. I cannot help but feel that this articles's inclusion on WP:UA may have assisted in its choice, since this article, while a good article, does not go very in-depth into the subject-matter compared to other featured articles. It seems like a case of WP:VOTE-ness to me. I defy you to give a complete and logical explanation of why this is deep enough to be more than a YouTube Cruft-Meme. ~ PH DrillSergeant... § 14:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
References
beaten
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)
I don't know if anyone will listen to me or if I'll just be flamed for this comment... but I'm here to say I support this article and think the people who are attacking it are either xenophobic or nuts. Not to call names, but come on people, information is information. This is a well put together article. Nesnad 13:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
There's really no question of notability - this story is definitely notable, and notability was not limited to just Hong Kong. The article makes a point that the clip was the most viewed video in May 2006. Though I'd like to see it mentioned how much coverage the clip received in Overseas Chinese newspapers around the world. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 15:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It's very confusing when the same person is referred to by different names throughout the article. For example, the Bus Uncle is called Roger in some places and Chan in others. The same name should be used everywhere in the article. Mkeranat 15:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It's pointless to complain about the FAC system in general unless you're actually an active participant in the system. How much do any one of us contribute to reviewing articles under FAC or peer review? Most FAC articles don't nearly get as much reviewing as they need. If you think the FAC system is lacking, go check out the FAC page, see what articles haven't been commented on very much, and review and comment on the articles. Contribute to the system if you think bad articles are being passed. There's no point in complaining about articles being passed when you don't contribute to the system to begin with. In the past few months, this article went through a Peer Review, an FAC, and then a FAR. That's three peer-assisted processes that helped improve this article. For those editors that complain about this article not deserving of FA status - did any of you participate in those processes? If you think the FAC system is lacking, then go contribute to make it better. Peer review some articles, comment and vote on FACs and FARs. Experienced editors should know by now that there are a lot of areas in which WP needs improvement, and all that improvement is up to us editors because this beast runs entirely on a volunteer basis. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 21:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
And the thing is, if the article had only gone through a quick FAC, I can definitely sympathise with some of the complaints. But no, the article had gone through a peer review (with nobody at all commenting) and then a FAR also. As someone who has worked on improving articles on FAC and FAR, I can attest how frustrating those processes can be. And I know for a fact that there are other editors here have also done the same. I really can't identify with complaints about an article's FA status only shortly after an article has gone through a range of peer-assisted processes. Many many articles on the peer review, FAC, and FAR queues are dying for more reviews. If you have a complaint about the FAC system, those places are the best places to initiate change. Why complain about it on one particular article that's only recently survived a FAR? Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 17:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
This article doesn't really explain what the argument was about. It mentions that Chan was stressed and Ho didn't respond much, but what exactly did Chan say? What were his "catch-phrases?" I'm not asking for a word-for-word transcript, but surely some kind of summary..? Brutannica 23:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, never mind, it turned out the section was removed by some vandal when I first looked at the page. Brutannica 05:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
This section relies on a user forum for establishment. Unless a reliable source has said this is where the name came from, this theory can't be put forward. Random user comments and posts in a forum are not considered reliable sources.-- Crossmr 15:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I was just thinking, looking at the top paragraph. It dosen't give out the sense of how huge this was. Amazingly, lots of it was written by people who don't live in Hong Kong and weren't there to experience it, and still it was a very good article.But still, as I remember, commercials everywhere were using the phrases of Bus Uncle. The phrases were on Tshirts, mugs...etc you name it. I was studying Primary Six at the time and everyone was talking about it in class or at recess, even teachers were laughing about it, younger students acted it out with their friends...etc.
I wasn't sure how to express that kind of "impressiveness", so...can anyone else attempt adding something to the first paragraph [or edit]. Brittanity ( talk) 06:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure in some of the quotes, some of the meaning in the catchphrases are lost due to the absence of an explanation. I am lucky to understand both Cantonese and English, so I think that someone (maybe I) can add an explanation beside the quotes If you agree with such actions, post it in my talk --KelvinHO Wiknerd( talk) 13:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Hong Kong, hmm? Andrew Sicos ( talk) 22:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Andrew Sicos
I am a bit surprised that the "respect for elders" angle was not covered. The way I understand it, in China (and in collectivist societies as a whole) older people are deeply respected and not to be contradicted in a harsh manner, which could explain the young man's restraint. There are certain cultural norms pertaining to expected behaviour and hierarchies (frequently based on age) are always to be observed. Oleg Morgan ( talk) 11:55 am, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:HK Newspapers.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:HK Newspapers.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 19:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
The Bus Uncle. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Bus Uncle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on The Bus Uncle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
"Characters" makes it sound like the video was fictional or staged... wouldn't "Subjects" or "Participants" be more appropriate for a real-life video? Muzilon ( talk) 07:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Looking at this for the WP:URFA/2020 initiative to check old FAs for maintained quality. I note this article had significant quality concerns at the time of its 2007 promotion, and substantial debate occurred over whether its FA promotion was valid even by contemporary standards.
Personal notes:
Some of the sources also don't look great on my source highlighter script, but this is mostly Youtube videos that are either valid use of primary sourcing, or Youtube clips of RS news shows. These should be converted to {{ cite AV media}} without links. Not as big an issue as the aforementioned, though. (Pinging Padgriffin and Vampyricon for their personal expertise with HK culture to see if there's anything they can do for these problems, or any further they can bring up.) Vaticidal prophet 14:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I've re-written the lead of the article- I'll probably rewrite the bulk of the synopsis later. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 05:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)