Talk:Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macau Bridge

pics

hey people i would like to add some pics in the article and since it would violate the copyright laws if i copy and paste another pic to this article, what do u guys say if i draw one and then scan it? --35ednalung

From the lecturer, this is OK. Go ahead please. --35patchau

Good idea, but i think it'll be a tough work for you. -- 36noelchan

Good suggestion, i think there is at least a picture about the proposed bridge location. So you are thinking about drawing a rough map including Hong Kong, Macau, Zhuhai? -- 39kschan

Hi all, I have drawn one and scan it as picture shown in main page, any comments are welcome, and I can use the mother copy to make changes. -- 39kschan

Hi there. Please remember to use “~~~~” to sign your messages. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 12:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

map

should the svg map image say "newly reclaimed land" because the airport is reclaimed, but it is not marked as reclaimed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:6100:1C9:41ED:D4FE:17E0:FF1A (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

topics and redlinks

Hello. Before I do anything big on the page, I just want to ask some questions. 1. Some of the content is irrelevant to our topic. I'm feeling that the information hasn't been precise enough. Delete some topics (eg talking about ferry routes when it isn't directly responsible for contributing)? 2. There are a lot of red links (ie words that doesn't exist yet). Some of them are too technical; some of them are too commonplace to be linked (eg, what, freight? I'm sure everybody knows what that means/is)

Just my 2 cents for today. --37blee

yeah i agree with 37blee, there are some irrelevant info but all is good we can each do some edition and it should be fine. ok what about the pictures then? i've already drawn one..just need to scan it...but which pic to use since 39kschan has already drawn one. -- 35ednalung

actually it doesn't matter...the one of kschan is sort of like a map...but mine is the actual bridge....what it may look like...so yeah no worries

Yes you guys are right. But I would like to know what information is missing and should be included in our page? So far I don't have much idea on what to be added on the page ... recently i simply make some minor amendments instead, a bit frustrated ... -- 36noelchan

I believe that most of the information that we need others to know are pretty much covered. What we want to do now is to proofread the document. Also, if we can find any images to spice up the page, that would be excellent. Good work people --37blee

i have a suggestion, could we delete the impacts behind each category under 'impacts and influences'? cuz i think it's very repetitive...and would be better if we just have economic, scio-economic, environmental..blah blah..well that's what i think any comments? --35ednalung

Please do. I'm currently in the process of proofreading the article...I have deleted several repetitive links and content in the past. Also please double-check what you have written for mistakes. --37blee

Chinese terms

Dear all, do you think it is better to include Chinese terms in the article? I guess that you may think that terms in Chinese are included in the diagram, but I think it is clearer to include them in the article. Well, I've just checked the history that Oliveir deleted the terms. --35patchau

Which Chinese terms? where? --37blee

hey people, we got a problem here...u know the four crossing points under background where's the fourth one? it's not there --35ednalung

The 4th one is Lo Wu? It is in a new paragraph which does not under 4th bulletin points. --39kschan

I have added the 4th points for standardization. --39kschan

Chinese names of Hong Kong, Zhuhai, Macau, etc. I added them, but Oliveir deleted them.--35patchau

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style for China-related articles for the reason why I have deleted some of the Chinese terms. olivier 11:25, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

pics

hey people anyone know how to delete a pic? --35ednalung

to remove the sentence that locating the picture, i.e. .... ..... -- 39kschan

A few questions

Under "Background":

• The number of passengers can reach up to 400,000 during peak hours...

Is it 400,000 per hour?

• Continuous expansion works have been done at these three crossings to meet the increasing demand for passenger handling capacity.

Which three is it referring to? I'm guessing Man Kam To, Lok Ma Chau and Lo Wu, but it'd be better if they were specifically referred to in the article.

• Railway to the Lo Wu crossing receives much traffic from the towns.

Is it talking about the towns within Hong Kong?

- Hinto 21:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Span lengths

The references in the Intro section were a bit messy so I just did a minor clean-up there. In the process I removed the (superfluous?) statement that the longest span is going to be "between the artificial islands containing the Macau exit of the tunnel and the Macau border facilities" because I couldn't find any handy references to support that claim. The original wording was a bit strange and I got the impression that the longest span is between two points on the Macau side, which obviously cannot be right. Besides, I found the content of that sentence to be out of place in the intro section. Further down would be fine though, if anyone can cough up a reference and a less confusing way to word it. Cheers. Meiyou (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Managing Right hand drive (mainland PR China)

and left hand drive (HK) on the bridge is not mentioned. Is this concept approved yet? -Scriberius (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

They could do (or would already by now have) something that's already established. invenio tc 14:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Related project

Someone interested in this subject may want to create an article for the Tuen Mun – Chek Lap Kok Link. This tunnel from the airport to New Territories is required because of this project. one source, second source - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Road, rail or both

What mode of traffic is the structure intended to carry? 182.93.34.10 (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Road only. Citobun (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macau Bridge. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040301104303/http://www.etwb.gov.hk/about_us/welcome_message/index.aspx?nodeID=28&langno=1 to http://www.etwb.gov.hk/about_us/welcome_message/index.aspx?langno=1&nodeid=28

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Macau/Macao

Both spellings of Macau are used randomly in the article. Hongkongers and Macanese generally use Macau. Beijingers prefer Macao for some reason. So I guess I know which will win out. Anyway, it's inconsistent now. 202.81.249.34 (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The move was undiscussed and I've reverted it. Wikipedia usually uses the "Macau" spelling anyway. If people want to move it back, IMO its better to be done through an official page move request Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 07:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Dear Wiki staff: It's long past time for you to do what real publications do: Choose one style guide and one dictionary, and use their recommendations to resolve all such disputes. As a longtime copy editor at two big-circ. American mags -- as one who has perused style guides and dictionaries aplenty -- I urge you to choose The Chicago Manual of Style and the online Oxford dictionary (British and world English, not US English). BTW, Oxford opts for "Macao." Thanks. (And apologies if the preceding is incorrectly formatted; I've not contributed to such pages before.) 00:51, Sat 27 Oct 18 (UTC)

Macao sems to look better in Portuguese, but would have to have a tilde over the "a" als in mão for hand, or pão for bread, ocupação for occupation, colonização for colonization, and região for Region in the terrory's official name "Região Administrativa Especial de Macau da República Popular da China" (RAEM). But the Macau authorities themselves are not consistent. So the tourism industry advertises all kinds of "Macao" activities: See hhttps://www.macaotourism.gov.mo/en/ Nonetheless, settling here for Macau is OK. --L.Willms (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

After looking around, it seems obvious to me, that the official usage is Macau in Portuguese, and Macao in English. See the main page of the Macao SAR government: https://www.gov.mo/en/ (English) and https://www.gov.mo/pt/ (Portuguese). The HZMB is spelled with "Macao" in official HK websites https://hzmb.hk/text/eng/about_overview_01.html and https://www.hyd.gov.hk/en/road_and_railway/index.html .
So, while the discussion about renaming this particular article is closed, methinks that in future Wikipedia should follow the official practice by the government ruling the territory in question, i.e. the english language Wikipedia using "Macao", and the portuguese language Wikipedia using "Macau", and all other language versions using what they chose according to common practice in the countries speaking their particular language. --L.Willms (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

HKLR

The HKLR isn't counted as part of the HKMZB from a project point of view and it is not included in official sources as part of the HKMZB for the purpose of measuring the length of the HKMZB. 42.98.83.190 19:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.98.83.190 (talk)

Hong Kong's Transport and Housing Bureau has mentioned as such on thier page: "The 55-km Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB), comprising the 12km Hong Kong Link Road, 29.6km Main Bridge and 13.4km Zhuhai Link Road..." https://www.hzmb.gov.hk/en/ Jojoyee (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 21 October 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macau Bridge → Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macao Bridge – "Macau" should be replaced by "Macao" for the following reasons:

1. The English name on the road signs on the bridge uses "Macao" instead of "Macau". (photo 1)
2. Actually, authorities of Hong Kong, Macao and Mainland China treats "Macao" as the official English name (while "Macau" as the official Portuguese name). (photo 2) Hargau (talk) 08:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Reluctant Oppose - While the photos you presented are enough for me to vote support, I just can't vote for it as such, while the city itself is at Macau. Truly sorry, but I believe that articles should use the spelling used for the parent articles. --Gonnym (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't know why English Wikipedia does not use its official English name "Macao", but I think we can treat them as two separate cases. The evidence of the official name "Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macao Bridge" being used in Hong Kong, Macao and Mainland China is quite clear (link 1, link 2. link 3), therefore we can move this page first. For moving "Macau" to "Macao", it is such a huge change so it can be discussed later. --Hargau (talk) 13:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Note, the Macau page had a move request in July, with result as "no consensus to move". From that move request, it seems that the "official English name" being Macao isn't a valid reason to move that page. Not sure if that should affect this move request. Natg 19 (talk) 03:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
      • The Chinese might have chosen the Macao spelling to distance themselves from the previous Portuguese heritage associated with the Macau spelling, but this is my speculation. Brandmeister^talk 14:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Disagree. The official Portuguese name is still "Macau". Actually, the English name "Macao" has a long history before Macao handovered to PRC. However, since Macao uses Portuguese much more than English, people often see the name "Macau" but seldom see the name "Macao", many people do not know the spellings are different in two languages, so they keep using the Portuguese name "Macau" in English. --Hargau (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as the common English spelling is Macau. Citobun (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support We should go with the official name and not change it in favour of colonialism It's spelled "Macao" according to the bridge' official website. Openlydialectic (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose both name are official but Macau is more common than Macao in fact the Zhuhai Port uses "Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macau Bridge" see image here https://weiwenku.net/d/105046692. — ASDFGH (talk?) 05:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose based on local English-language sources: South China Morning Post uses Macau for the bridge; RTHK (public broadcaster) uses Macau; Hong Kong Free Press seems to be inconsistent; Macau Post Daily uses Macau. feminist (talk) 05:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The relevant guidelines all suggest that the common English name/spelling should be used instead of the official name, see: WP:COMMONNAME, WP:ENGLISH (summarized on naming convention guideline: WP:UE), and WP:CHINESE#Place names ("Use pinyin for place names in China unless another form is more well-established in current English usage. (ex. Sichuan not Szechwan, but Hong Kong not Xianggang). Past English usage which has fallen into disuse in modern English-language sources, such as "Canton" and "Tsingtao" should not be used to title an article.") and WP:CHINESE#Transport ("When naming articles of expressways, highways, railways, railway stations, or airports in China, use the common English name if it can be determined"). The pinyin transliteration is "Aomen" in Mandarin or "Oumún" in Cantonese (according to Names of Macau and Macau#Etymology), so the common English name should be used. Alternative names/spellings should be a redirect (which already exists with the Macao spelling) and also mentioned in the beginning of the article. Per WP:OTHERNAMES: "When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. ... All significant alternative titles, names, or forms of names that apply to a specific article should usually be made to redirect to that article. If they are ambiguous, it should be ensured that the article can at least be reached from a disambiguation page for the alternative term." AHeneen (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support, since the official name of the bridge is spelled with "Macao". There's a fair amount of Wikipedia articles whose titles already contain "Macao". @Feminist: Most project/contractor websites use "Macao"; the Standard consistently uses "Macao" but also calls the city "Macau", and goes out of its way to use official names containing "Macao" while retaining the "Macau" spelling for the actual city. @AHeneen: I think some of those guidelines would be interpreted differently for this article; the bridge isn't a settlement or other locality, and it's partially in Hong Kong (where English is an official language). Jc86035 (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment From commonly seen sources, it seems that both spellings are used, often inconsistently even by the same organizations, eg. the BBC was using the "macau" and "macao" for this bridge, along with the HKFP etc. It might be best to wait a while and see what the consensus spelling becomes. 150.251.3.1 (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose No reason to, as it is commonly called “Macau” as Hong Kongers and Macanese alike use this spelling. There is no reason to change it to a more “Chinese” spelling with the fact that the inhabitants themselves call it as “Macau”. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 12:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:OFFICIALNAME -- official names are not used on Wikipedia because they are official, common names are used. And "Macau" in the name seems more common. -- 65.94.42.18 (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support The official name is definately the Hong Kong – Zhuhai – Macao Bridge, according to [1], and from most of the major sources of news that talks about this bridge itself instead of the city, the spelling "Macao" is used, e.g. [2], [3], [4], [5], etc. --Yejianfei (talk) 08:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. The name of the Wikipedia article on the former Portuguese colony is Macau, which is the commonly used spelling. However, it has also been noted that the official name contains "Macao". epicgenius (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Agree with the users who support the move. Just follow the new structure's official name as from 24 October, 2018 (i.e., the modern name). This is not about "Macau" or "Macao" itself. Besides, even if "Macau" is the common name, that does not make "Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macau Bridge" also the common name. STSC (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support Naming in sources of the bridge itself (and not the S.A.R.), as demonstrated by Yejianfei, Jc86035, and others, is spelled with an o. I daresay it is a similar reasoning to PKU versus "Beijing University". CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support the official website use "Macao" instead of "Macau", which showed that the former one is the official name. --B dash (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support - no reason not to follow the name listed on the bridge itself. Are we conceited enough to suggest that China can't spell the name of their bridge properly? Red Slash 21:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Here the checkpoint is officially named "Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge Zhuhai Port", not "...Macao..."

• Oppose Even we are discussing how that is officially called, please note that the Zhuhai Port (the vehicle checkpoint on the Zhuhai-Macau artifical island) is using Macau, so there's confusions even in the officially installed plaques, thus let's keep using common Latin script name. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. When the WP:OFFICIAL name differs from usage in reliable English sources, [6], [7] we follow the latter. --В²C ☎ 17:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: please relist. I would relist, but I just participated, so am asking next closer who sees this to relist. It's had a lot of participation but discussion remains active. No hurry... --В²C ☎ 17:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CONSUB; subtopic titles should generally follow the supertopic title. bd2412 T 04:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macao Bridge is not a subtopic of Macao. It involves three locations. STSC (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

This isn’t Java. Multiple inheritance is allowed. It’s a subtopic of all three. —В²C ☎ 05:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, even the article for the territory is located at Macau despite "Macao" being its official spelling Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 14:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

---

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.

Environmental impact

Has there been no discussion of the environmental effects? Article I have read refer to it, but I'm surprised to see it lacking from the 'effects' section of this article. Orathaic (talk) 12:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I am not an experts, but why would there be any effect? The approaches on the land were developed years ago, and the bridge itself is just a bridge. It's not blocking the waterway even for the largest of animals nor influences the currents, so I am not sure there should be any. I mean, it's not a mound like the Putin's bridge in the occupied Crimea Openlydialectic (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Openlydialectic and Orathaic: This, this and this might all be relevant. Jc86035 (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Openlydialectic There is no reason to ignore it. All information should be on Wikipedia if it is important enough. There is a reason this is a 'free encyclopedia'. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 23:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

STSC added it on 28 October 2018 and I think it's a good point. Jojoyee (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Bridge length

Many international sources quote the length of the link as 55 km. Sources in this article's "Route and elements" section demonstrate that the length of the fixed link between the Macau/Zhuhai border crossing and Chek Lap Kok (Hong Kong) is 39 km. The sources that publish "55 km" seem to be including related but separate projects such as the Tuen Mun–Chek Lap Kok Link (TM-CLKL), which has yet to even open. As the two pieces of infrastructure are operationally independent of one another (i.e. the HZMB could function normally whether or not the TM-CLKL were built, and vice versa), and as they span two different geographical obstacles (Lingdingyang vs Urmston Road), it is misleading to bundle the two lengths together. The two projects are also separated by lengthy stretches of motorway on previously existing land (Chek Lap Kok). Citobun (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The HZMB is 55 km, excluding TM-CLKL. It comprises three main sections: the Main Bridge (29.6 km) in the middle of the Pearl River estuary, the Hong Kong Link Road (12 km) in the east and the Zhuhai Link Road (13.4km) in the west of the estuary. I'll add more details about this in the article soon. Jojoyee (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jojoyee and Citobun: Is the part entirely in Zhuhai considered to be part of the bridge? The Hong Kong project website indicates that it isn't. OpenStreetMap says the bridge length is about 43 km including the Hong Kong link road. Jc86035 (talk) 08:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Thanks for checking out Jc. Based on my understanding, the context "Through its link in Zhuhai" implies that it is HZMB's Zhuhai Link Road. I don't think the Map data is complete, neither the Google Map has updated about the link. I've edited the article about the three sections of the HZMB project, with various citations. Jojoyee (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Here the Xinhua Headlines also reported that "the Y-shaped construction spans over the Lingding Channel in south China meandering for 55 km." http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-10/23/c_137553194.htm Jojoyee (talk) 10:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know much about the Zhuhai side. But I find it extremely dubious to include anything beyond the link's landfall at Chek Lap Kok (a pre-existing island) in the total length. Citobun (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Citobun: A new artificial island housing the HKBCF is located at the north-eastern side of the pre-existing island Chek Lap Kok.

The HKLR is clearly specified here http://www.hzmb.hk/eng/about_overview_02.html

"The HKLR comprises a 9.4km long viaduct section going from the HKSAR boundary to Scenic Hill on the Airport Island; follow by a 1km tunnel section to the reclamation formed along the east coast of the Airport Island and a 1.6km long at-grade road section on the reclamation connecting to the HKBCF."

HKLR is also an intergral part of the HZMB project as stated here http://www.hzmb.hk/eng/about_uniqueness.html.Jojoyee (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

See also the press release on construction of the Hong Kong Link Road of HZMB. https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201801/20/P2018011901035.htm Jojoyee (talk) 12:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Also a map showing the HKLR https://www.hyd.gov.hk/en/road_and_railway/hzmb_projects/6787th/HZM6844TH-PD0005.pdf sourced from https://www.hyd.gov.hk/en/road_and_railway/hzmb_projects/6787th/index.html Jojoyee (talk) 13:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I know. But that section of the HKLR doesn't form part of the bridge to Zhuhai. It's just a road in Hong Kong territory. So it seems dubious that this article portrays a 55-kilometre-long sea crossing, which is not really the case. Citobun (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Citobun: I don't see why it is dubious. It has been clearly stated in the article with citations from reliable sources that the HZMB consists of three parts, namely Zhuhai LR, the main bridge and the HKLR. The 12-km HKLR, which is under the HK territory, is part and parcel of the HZMB. I'd appreciate it if anyone can give a reliable source which claims otherwise. Jojoyee (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Removal of well-sourced explicitly bridge-related allegation

• This edit by me yesterday added the paragraph below to the Controversies section, with the edit description "unlike mere hints before, this allegation is explicitly connected to Xi and the bridge opening; but please feel free to shorten the section". It was removed an hour later by User:Jojoyee with this edit, with the edit description "Rm a paragraph, of which source does not say the cause of the death is due to the project. Please discuss it in a Talk page."
• So, as requested, I am taking it up here on the Talk Page.
• This is a well-sourced explicitly bridge-related allegation (the source explicitly alleges misconduct occurred in order to avoid disturbing the opening of the bridge and President Xi's related visit), so it belongs in the article, per WP:NOTCENSORED. (And incidentally, the logical place to include it would seem to be the Controversies section, which is where I put it).
• It is true that "source does not say the cause of the death is due to the project", but it is also irrelevant, since the paragraph doesn't say it is, and does say what the source says.
• I don't have much of a problem with adjusting some of the wording, and perhaps shortening some of the text (tho if done carelessly this may make it harder for our readers to understand what is being alleged).
  • For instance the section title might be changed to something like Allegation of overhasty processing of a reported Macao Suicide or Allegation of inappropriate processing of a reported Macao Suicide or Allegation related to visit by President Xi Jinping or whatever anybody else might prefer.
• But, as already mentioned, per WP:NOTCENSORED, I have a very big problem with simply suppressing all mention of the allegation.
• Incidentally, 'reading between the lines', I suspect those making the allegation may be being very brave, even if it's likely too difficult and/or dangerous for them to be as specific as one might wish. But there may be other sources which can be more specific, in which case it might improve the article (which is the purpose of this Talk page) if some editor could find and use them. But for the time being we just have to stick with the sources that we've got.

For ease of viewing, the removed paragraph (with a citation fix) is as follows:

• Allegation related to a reported Macao Suicide

See also: Zheng Xiaosong § Death

Bruce Lui Ping-kuen, convener of Hong Kong's Independent Commentators Association, claimed that in order to avoid speculation that might disturb Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit and the opening of the bridge, Beijing had been too quick to conclude that Zheng Xiaosong, director of the Macau Liaison Office, who died in Macau three days before the official opening of the bridge after falling from a tall building where he lived, had died while suffering from depression, a conclusion they announced even before the completion of the investigation by the Macao police..The Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office in Beijing issued a statement saying that he had suffered from depression, with the implication that he had committed suicide. On Chinese social media many expressed concern and sadness about his depression, but others noted that at least 7 other Chinese officials have fallen from buildings this year, with one injured and at least 6 dead. Although there is no evidence that Zheng was suspected of corruption, in recent years hundreds of mid-level Chinese officials accused of corruption have died, reportedly by suicide, although observers have doubted such accounts. Such deaths have been much more common during Xi's presidency than during that of his predecessor Hu Jintao. The Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office has been investigated for corruption since 2016 by the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection and criticized by it for its "six sins", and other Hong Kong and Macao official organizations have also been suspected of corruption.

• Regards,Tlhslobus (talk) 11:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks Tlhslobus for working together on Wikipedia's HZMB article and bring it up for discussion on the Talk page. My understanding from the news reports is as follows: the 59-year old Zheng Xiaosong, Director of China's liaison office in Macau, died on 20 October 2018 after falling from his residential building. The reason for his sudden death is so far unknown. This event occurred three days before the official opening ceremony of the HZMB. For this timing alone, I don't think it is noteworthy to add it to the Controversies section of the HZMB article at Wikipedia, unless there's any further development revealing that it was related to the HZMB project. What do you think fellow editors? Jojoyee (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for your reply, Jojoyee. However I must emphasize again that, once again contrary to what you claim, what is being said (in the paragraph that your edit has suppressed) is NOT (repeat NOT) about "this timing alone". What is being said, and what we are currently suppressing, contrary to WP:NOTCENSORED, is an explicit sourced allegation that inappropriate action occurred (after his death), an inappropriate action which is explicitly alleged to be in order to avoid "disturbing" both President Xi's visit and the bridge's opening. However I agree with you that some feedback from other editors would be very helpful, and may spare us a lot of hassle involving things like formal dispute resolution (preferably before any of this ends up drawing the attention of the media and/or Wikipedia's critics to the apparent inappropriate censoring of Wikipedia, etc, attention which, incidentally, probably would not be welcome in Beijing ruling circles either.) Tlhslobus (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed with Tlhslobus that Wikipedia is not censored. However, Wikipedia also provides that the offensive material, when used, should be relevant to the article. At WP:NOR, it also guides us to be able to cite reliable, published sources that are "directly related" to the topic of the article. According to the Standard's news report, the Convener of the ICA said that Beijing wanted to eliminate room for speculation on Zheng's death in order not to disturb Xi's visit and the opening of the bridge. Based on my understanding, the Convener's view in the report is more related to the controversies about Zheng's death or Beijing's politics, than the controversies about the HZMB bridge. I hope this understanding achieves a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), as one of the core content policies of Wikipedia, and the HZMB article can be represented fairly and proportionately as required. Jojoyee (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• You guys do share the common sense that for a major city like Macao there are people dying literally every day of all kinds of reasons right? Are we supposed to link every murder or crime or death that happened several days around the time the topic of a wikipedia page and make them all political conspiracies and list them in the page? Or are you going to argue that because Xi is in beijing, no crime or murder ever happens in that city otherwise it would disturb him? Many of the so called "sources" are also ridiculously low effort in their writing and wording, with layers and layers of nuanced speculations after another that they are no more "source" than speculations/views with agendas on their own.

• Thanks for your reply, Jojoyee (and, incidentally, congratulations on seemingly winning this argument). I strongly disagreed with your previous points, and I now strongly disagree with your latest point that this was OR (Original Research). The explicit wording of the source made it quite clear that it directly related to the bridge. If the fact that an editor could claim to see it as referring more to other things were to be accepted as making it OR, then almost anything in Wikipedia could and would be censored as OR. But to continue this discussion seems more hassle than it's worth, especially as even if you were to concede my point there is presumably a never-ending supply of other points that could be raised by you and/or by others (and probably not just confined to the likes of the above unsigned comment, which is from an anonymous IP in Japan who has ostensibly made no other contributions to Wikipedia but is apparently nonetheless to be accepted as some kind of authority on what constitutes "common sense" regarding what should appear in Wikipedia). Some of these new points might even turn out to be correct. But even if none are, this would then just be one more tiny drop in what is already the vast ocean of witting and unwitting censorship of Wikipedia, so it hardly seems worth bothering about. So, per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:BNO, I am now withdrawing from the discussion (and the credit for this is all yours, as I was planning to do so before I was even aware of the above anonymous contribution, whose only effect was to somewhat delay my concession while I considered how to deal with it). So unless others take over instead of me, which seems unlikely, you appear to have won this argument, and indeed won it in effect single-handedly, so once again, congratulations. Regards. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• replying to the above comment, im the one with jp ip address, since when did I claim that i have authority on "common sense", and how is one in need of being the "authority of common sense" to point out others' lack of common sense in their argument? You do understand what common sense mean i sincerely hope? As I found your insecurity quite hilarious that you had to look up the location of my ip address just to even argue with me(and by arguing with me, clearly to you it means discrediting me (which is called ad hominem, as this notion seems completely new to you). And could you not make everything about "censorship"? Seems to you that anything no matter how far fetched and totally unrelated must be listed otherwise its censorship. Honestly I dont even know why am I wasting time here with someone like you. In the spirit of your glorious freedom of speech, please do list all the things and anything you love to on the page(otherwise clearly im censoring you), pleast do go ahead.

• Appreciated your kind reply Tlhslobus and glad that we can close this topic here. Your point of view is nevertheless well noted. Jojoyee (talk) 13:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks, Jojoyee. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The first map

The first map in the infobox shows an area of empty sea. If you click on it and zoom out far enough, you find that in the Gulf of Guinea. I would correct it, but I've no idea what it's meant to show. Maproom (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Underground tunnel is mentioned but not explained.

Why mention it at all? 61.15.85.96 (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)