Talk:List of primary schools in Hong Kong

Red links
The links are removed indiscriminately and, also, there will be an article for each of read links eventually. In order to avoid edit wars and violate WP:3RR, I propose to resolve it in two close related discussion boards, i.e. Wikipedia talk:HK wikipedians' notice board and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong. &mdash; HenryLi (Talk) 06:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Since it is unlikely there are reliable published sources for all of these schools, none of these articles will last. Even the articles at the currently blue links have sourcing and POV problems. Is there a single article on this list that is up to Wikipedia article standards? —Centrx→talk &bull; 04:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For sourcing, the Hong Kong Education City is a website operated by Education and Manpower Bureau of Hong Kong Government. Alternative references for the list are given. The list is from official list and it is absolutely reliable and verifiable. If in doubt of any entry in the list, have a look in it and verify it carefully.  If in doubt of any blue-linked article, go to that article and put suitable tags in there.  This is how wikipedia works.  Could you elaborate any neutrality problem here?  It is important to verify and conduct some researches before doing any change.  &mdash; HenryLi (Talk) 11:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There need to multiple independent sources that cover the subject non-trivially. See also Notability. —Centrx→talk &bull; 14:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please answer the question directly instead of keep finding policies to justify previous acts. Also, please do research on the article and verify it before making changes and arguments.  Back to the article issue.  The principle of wikipedia is to find authoritative source whenever possible in a controversial issue.  Here is  two authoritative source and the issue is not controversial at all.  What're the points to find secondary sources?  It is sure that the list do have a lot more source on the Internet, books, and magazines.  Again, please conduct some studies.  For notability, please note that "Notability is not subjective".  Both research and consent are the keys to define one's notability.  Notabiliy is not an argument from nowhere.  By the way, there is even a school of wikipedians have a conclusion that "all schools are inherently notable".  &mdash; HenryLi (Talk) 17:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I was referring to sources for creating articles for each individual school. The Hong Kong Government is undoubtedly a reliable source for the list, but is not sufficient to create separate articles for each of the items in the list. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The argument now shifts to sufficiency. While in doubt of each of the items in list, again, please check before making comments, at least a random check.  Wikipedia is based on facts, not arguments.  &mdash; HenryLi (Talk) 02:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you want me to check. I have randomly checked about 15 of the blue links in the list: none of them had third-party sources, some of them were but a few sentences, some of them were directory entries about the equipment on each floor of the building or extracirricular offerings. Is any one of the blue links in the list an encyclopedia article? —Centrx→talk &bull; 02:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In previous comments, you have mentioned there is no sufficient verifiable sources for supporting any articles. Have you even done for any simple web search in these articles for reference to improve the wikipedia?  Some of them do contain some good references in zh wikipedia but fewer wikipedians to translate the articles concerned.  Yes, in wikipedia, there are lots of stub articles waiting for us wikipedians to improve their quality. &mdash; HenryLi (Talk) 05:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not care about spending my time trying to find sources for primary schools, especially as it is likely to be a fruitless search. I do care about all Wikipedia articles having reliable sources. Most of these blue links do not have inter-wiki links, but the two I found that do have articles on zh are of equal length or shorter, and have no additional sources. Anyway, this sidesteps the point. There may be schools in this list that have enough reliable sources for Wikipedia, but not all of them, and having a list of red links encourages people to waste time creating stubs that will be deleted for lack of sourcing. —Centrx→talk &bull; 15:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed all the redlinks in the article. The vast majority of these pages do not have and never will have stand-alone articles in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Creating the list with all the redlinks baits new users into creating pages that will just get deleted for failure to comply with policy. That frustrates and confuses the new user and wastes everyone's time. Please do not re-create the links until there is an actual article behind the link that has a reasonable chance of meeting the generally accepted inclusion criteria. Rossami (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetizing
I have alphabetized the order of districts. ysw1987 | Talk 04:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Headers should not include wikilinks
Headers should not include wikilinks. I fixed the first one. Many more need correcting.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)