WikiProject Aviation / Airlines	(Rated Template-class)	AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
v t e This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.  Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.   This template is supported by the airline project.

WikiProject China	(Rated Template-class)	ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
v t e This template is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

People's Republic of China, minus Hong Kong and Macau[edit]

As mentioned on my talk page, in this edit I removed all of the Hong Kong and Macau airlines. Whilst Hong Kong and Macau are part of the PRC, they both have their own civil aviation authoritys with oversight for their SAR, which includes airline licencing and CoA oversight. Hence, they should not be regarded simply as Airlines of the PRC, but as Airlines of their respective SAR, which means they get their own template. Comments? --Russavia 21:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Macau air regulation is considered as a special kind of domestic traffic. The regulating authorities are separate from the other civil authorities, but still answer to the central government. Foreign airlines that want to register an aircraft to Hong Kong need special permission of the central government. HK/MO air traffic is not at all independent. Plus, the ownership of HK/MO airlines can almost always be tracked back to state-owned PRC companies. Just lump it all together. SchmuckyTheCat 21:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A sub-entity getting its own template dosent mean the main entity must exclude them. A template on the countries of Eastern Europe does not mean all countries of Eastern Europe are exluded from a template for European countries. Templates are meant to assist in navigation, and not used to reflect some kind of a geopolitical setup.--Huaiwei 11:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have started comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines#Airlines_of_the_People.27s_Republic_of_China. It might be more useful there in order to get concensus on all airline templates to get them standardised across the board. --Russavia 05:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There seems no response there, so I response here. I agree with Russavia, only airlines which are given certification to fly by the CAAC should be included. Airlines in Hong Kong do not obtain cert from CAAC. Flight between China and Hong Kong are not just "special domastic", they are International (Travel Between Hong Kong and Mainland China and China Travel Depot). Central Governemnt's permission is not required for foreign airline to register to Hong Kong because it is not matter of national defense or diplomatic relations, as stated in the Basic Law of Hong Kong. Pointing out some airline companys outside China has shareholder from mainland China is not a sensible reason to support inclusion of those airline to be included in the China airline list. Most tram companies in Hong Kong can almost always be tracked back to French and Indian companies, but this would be ridiculous to use this to support a claim to include companies like Hong Kong Tramways in navigation box in Transportation in France. --Da Vynci (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Link to Category:Airlines of Hong Kong[edit]

Since SchmuckyTheCat keep reverting to include ainlines which are not under the Civil Aviation Administration of China. Hong Kong's airlines are not under the authority of Civil Aviation Administration of China nor any Chinese Central Government's departments. The Article 22 of Hong Kong Basic Law clearly states

Including Hong Kong's airline blending into the PRC template is misleading becoz it fail to inform readers about the highly automomous status of Hong Kong, and the fact that they are not under China's national aviation authority. A link to Category:Airlines of Hong Kong could be added into the PRC template to address the need to include HK's airlines but still seperating them from the China ones. Blending Hong Kong's airlines into the China ones is not an option. --Da Vynci (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Not every single mention of Hong Kong anywhere and everywhere has to advertise it's autonomy. Hong Kong is part of the PRC. It's airlines are part of the PRC even if they have separate licensing. As to your bold exclamation that this is not an option, the template has included HK since its creation. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Hong Kong's special autonomous status is a notable, important fact, it should be addressed. --Da Vynci (talk) 03:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It is addressed hundreds of times in the Pedia. A template is not the place to address that, it's a template. Autonomy is not separate. HK is part of PRC, HK airlines are PRC airlines. You have a history of presenting Hong Kong as separate from China, this is not the place for it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Regardless, misleading infomation should be removed. China's national transportation authorities have no authority over Hong Kong's airlines, this is stated in the Basic Law Article 22. Seperating Hong Kong's airline from the China one (while incldude a link to "Hong Kong's Airlines" within the template) is more appropriate.

You have a history of downplaying Hong Kong's presence on countries level and its highly autonomous status, too. Except in military & diplomatic matters, Hong Kong operate the same as how a country operate, and in case u didn't notice, seperated from China. Hong Kong's products are labelled "Made in Hong Kong" as Country of Origin, Hong Kong's country code top-level domain is .hk, seperated from China's .cn. --Da Vynci (talk) 05:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

1. This is not a battleground for political ends. It is a navigational template. There is no text here to describe Hong Kong's special status and it is not necessary in a template. Navigational templates are here to aid readers, not make legal or policial points. Hiding, obscuring or making readers go to other links is not helpful for navigation. Default to being inclusive, ok?


2. Hong Kong airlines are Chinese airlines. HK is part of the PRC.


3. Jurisdiction is not the only issue here. On an economic basis, there is no argument: Cathay Pacific being the best example, having a major ownership stake by Air China, which is a CPG owned company; and another large stake by CITIC, an HK holding company for companies within mainland China.


4. Hong Kong airlines are intrinsically tied to the rest of China, just like everything HK is tied to China. This template is a new proxy battleground for your personal politics of separatism and denial, see no PRC, speak no PRC, hear no PRC, in relation to Hong Kong's situation.


5. Behaviorally, you play a thin line of disruption to the way Wikipedia operates. You were bold and made a change here, it was reverted, further discussion has not brought about your desired change. I've gone ahead and listed this on "third opinion". SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

This is about a template. From my experiences it seems quite clear that this user simply goes around all the Hong Kong related things and changes them to make it look as "non-Chinese" as possible. This is disruptive at best and crude political agenda pushing at worst. The Hong Kong airlines belong here, and they can also have their own template. There is a point to be made about them not being under the CAAC but that point does not warrant non-inclusion on a navigation template. Hong Kong's autonomy is also irrelevant to this template - it is defined extremely well on the article for Hong Kong after an extremely long and arduous debate a few months back. We do not need to return to these issues. Colipon+(Talk) 03:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:3O[edit]

I am responding to the request for a Third Opinion. I would ask that the disputants please assume good faith and marshal arguments, rather than borderline personal attacks. Frankly, I think that each side makes an equally valid case; this is just one of those instances where the general rule meets the exceptional case. I would like to suggest two possible solutions for discussion:

1. I think Da Vynci's suggestion of adding a further pair of "See also" entries at the bottom of the template is a good idea: "See also: tl:Airlines of Hong Kong" and "See also: tl:Airlines of Macau". It makes it clear that these aren't being "forgotten" but are being treated elsewhere with their own templates (for historical reasons). This would seem to me to be in line with how these two entities are treated elsewhere in Wikipedia.


2. Another possibility would be to add further sections in the template to cover non-CAAC-administered airlines in these two special administrative areas; while still SAAs, both enclaves are part of the PRC. My main objection would be that the template would grow somewhat unwieldy with a new pair of sections (passenger and cargo) for each SAA.

If you cannot agree on one of these, perhaps you should repost Russavia's query to the talk page for WP:AIRLINES; I believe it's more active than it was over two years ago. Cordially, Askari Mark (Talk) 03:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, AM. I retract my personal commentary. Colipon+(Talk) 03:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong may not be under the CAAC jurisdictionally, but there are close to 200 operating agreements between HK, MO, and the CAAC making their internal regulations consistent with each other - and they are steadily increasing. Further, CAAC/HK/MO now require that certain of these regulations be done in all three jurisdictions. When all the rules are the same, the jurisdiction doesn't matter. Further, the cross-border ownership of these airlines makes it somewhat moot to split them, which is why removing them from the list and point to a See Also is a bad idea.

Here is another alternative: add a superscript ¹ or ² to designate airlines with their corporate base in HK or MO, respectively. This leaves all the airlines in the list, but distinguishes the legal jurisdiction.

It may also be useful to add a row on the bottom for the CAAC, CAD (HK), CAA (MO) authorities, since a big deal is being made of their roles here. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The other way to compromise is just indicate HK & MO airlines in italics. Colipon+(Talk) 20:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Superscripts provide a way to identify Hong Kong or Macao. I have implemented this. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

These are good ideas as well. I think footnoting like Schmucky has trialed is fine, and probably a better idea than italics since somewhere one has to explain what it means. Superscripts tied to footnotes are well interpreted without having to add further text to the template. Schmucky's approach at least seems to be a good compromise with what Da Vynci was trying to achieve.

I would point out one issue which can't be solved so easily here. There are already templates for airlines of Hong Kong and Macau. If all are captured here, then these would seem to no longer be necessary. Since it involves multiple templates, I would recommend posting an RfC for wider comment — along with a notice of same to WP:AIRLINES — prior to proposing them for deletion. (And before taking this step, let's wait for Da Vynci to respond.) Askari Mark (Talk) 02:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for Askari Mark’s 3O. I tend to agree with you, adding a pair of “see also” entries at the bottom of the template seems to be a good solution. As u pointed out an important issue, if all Hong Kong airlines are added into the PRC template, the Hong Kong airlines template must be deleted.

I would like to point out that due to Hong Kong’s special autonomous status stated in Hong Kong’s Constitution (Article 151), despite HK is officially “inside” China, Hong Kong is entitled to continue to maintain its identity and self-representation on country level (except in defense and diplomatic matters).

Examples that respect this spirit are extremely common, Hong Kong maintain separate top level country domain .hk from China’s .cn; Hong Kong's product are labeled as "Made in Hong Kong" as Country of Origin, Google Hong Kong remain separated from Google China, in Mircosoft’s website, the countries pull down list lists Hong Kong separately from China. Apart from respecting the aforementioned Constitution, listing Hong Kong separately from China also serves a practical purpose, for instance, Hong Kong’s airlines pay taxes to Government of Hong Kong, not the Chinese government, when insurance dispute arise against Hong Kong’s airline, it is settled in Hong Kong’s court of law which practice English Common laws, not China’s Law Court which practice civil laws; China’s national aviation authority has no authority over Hong Kong’s airlines, flight between Hong Kong and China is considered international (see also here).

Respecting the spirit of the aforementioned Constitution and current common practice, I think Hong Kong and Macau’s template should not be deleted, nor we should do anything that would cause it. Consequently the only was to prevent this is to not include Hong Kong and Macau’s airline into the main PRC airline template. But as I said, I am ok with a “see also” link to be added at the bottom of the RPC template to “Airlines in Hong Kong”. --Da Vynci (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of some editors seems bounded by the rules that "Hong Kong is inside China, so all Hong Kong entries must be listed under China", however this is not the common practice of the real world. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective. It is time to apply good common sense. --Da Vynci (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Da Vynci's point is well-taken. It is true that Hong Kong, for many practical purposes, is listed outside "China". There is an important consideration that the "People's Republic of China" is not always distinct from "mainland China" in practical usage - and this is not always taken into consideration. Some agencies list Hong Kong under "HKSAR", others list Hong Kong as "Hong Kong, China" (Olympics), yet others still list Hong Kong as simply "Hong Kong". In light of the facts that Da Vynci has presented, Hong Kong's status as a "separate entity in every way but in name, defense and foreign affairs" is not actually a usage that is recognized uniformly across all international organizations. In airline traffic, Hong Kong traffic from mainland China is considered, for all practical purposes, international flights. Here, when dealing with airlines, it is important to demonstrate that there is a certain "separate-ness" between Hong Kong and China, but not enough to warrant a separate template altogether - provided we indicate a distinction exists. If the templates were separated, then the NPOV way of naming these templates (according to WP:NC-CHINA) would be "Airlines based in Mainland China" and "Airlines of Hong Kong", not "Airlines of the People's Republic of China". It is therefore reasonable to use subscript or italics to indicate this distinction. Colipon+(Talk) 16:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The PRC basically keep the separateness between the UK and the crown colony of Hong Kong in place since it assumed the role over HK previously played by the UK. It treats HK as its colony or a jǐngwài territory pretty much in the same manner as BOTs or the external or unincorporated territories of other countries. The question on Wikipedia over how HK should be presented should therefore not answered alone. All colonies, overseas territories, external territories, etc., should be dealt with in the same manner. Quarrian (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The constitutional issues about non-interference don't mean anything when (1) the respective bureaucracies on all sides are conforming their rules for cross-compliance, and (2) ownership is so intermingled. Voluntary integration is not constitutional interference. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

What about Nordic countries or members of the EU? Are they conforming their rules? Are the ownerships of their airlines intermingled? Quarrian (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a moot point. Hong Kong's arrangement with China is arguably quite different from other overseas territories (like Bermuda, Gibraltar etc.). Nordic countries and EU are not the same type of arrangement whatsoever. Colipon+(Talk) 22:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

[Unindent] Good discussion! I understand the difference between the SAA’s and the national government, but this is a template, not an article in which it is necessary and desirable to get everything technically and precisely correct; instead, this template’s main purpose is to help readers find related articles which they may find interesting. Certainly equally good cases can be made for incorporating or excluding them from the PRC template and neither approach would be “wrong”. The current approach seems to me to be a good compromise; if nothing else, readers don’t need to know more than that an airline is based in mainland China (a.k.a. “the PRC”) to find their way to the desired article.

BTW, I have added “Airlines” to the Transport sections of the tl:Hong Kong topics and tl:Macau topics templates. I had to use the List of airlines of Hong Kong and List of Macau airlines as the targets since there are no articles on these topics. I also noted that the Transport in Hong Kong, Transport in Macau and Transportation in the People's Republic of China articles lack a discussion of the difference between the roles of the CAAC and the SAR organizations – in fact, Transport in Hong Kong doesn’t even have an “Air transport” section. These might be fruitful areas for further work for the editors here. Keep up the good work! Askari Mark (Talk) 23:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Seperate section for big 3[edit]

What do people think about breaking the “big 3” airlines into a separate section of the template? The concept of a Chinese “big 3” is well covered in reliable sources, see, for example [1], [2], [3]. My concern is where to place Cathay Pacifc, since it appears that there was considerable debate about weather to include non-mainland airlines. Billhpike (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)