Talk:The Samaritan Befrienders Hong Kong

Speedy deletion

Please try and make sure your page isn't deleted again. If Wikipedians threaten to do so, please convince them that The Samaritan Befrienders Hong Kong is a notable organisation E.g its service was the first of its kind in Asia, right? Does it contribute to the studying of sucides on an internatinal level? etc. 0101hannah06 08:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Settled down of Speedy delection

The problem was finally solved. Great~! I think maybe bullet point should be avoided in Wiki page. That's why it make the page looks like advertisement~!0101angelatky06 17:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No, bullet points do not make an article look like an advertisement; non-neutral wording usually does. --Geniac 18:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

But why after Bjelleklang had delected some of the bullet points, this page can be removed from the advertisement category? 0101angelatky06 07:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Respond to Speedy delection - advertisement

Actually, I would like to know why this page was categorized as an advertisement?
I had read the quality standard of Wikipedia and the other Wiki page, I still can't figure out what wrong with this page. Can anyone briefly tell me what should we do to make the page better and meet the Wiki standard?? 0101angelatky06 18:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delection

To groupmates, did you guys show the text box at the top of our page? We should carefully modify our page again~!

By the way, please take a look of what is the Wikipedia's quality standards, I think it can really help us to make the page better.

I think that the 4th paragraph of the intorduction should be delected, because I think it's a bit sounds like greatly appreciating SBHK, what do you guys think? 0101angelatky06 20:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

For the "Background", I think we should use more netural words to explain why SBHK would like to use Samaritan as their name~! What do you guys think?0101angelatky06 16:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have found something looks like promoting SBHK in the paragraph of Recent Development and Working Method, for example in the three stage of service......some of the words like "Well-trained professionals". What do you think? 0101angelatky06 07:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Photos provided by SBHK

I have received the photos provided by SBHK yesterday, and I am going to post some of them to our page, hopefully, it will make our page more informative. 0101angelatky06 11:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

dat's reali great!!! Tnks Angela! But after adding the pics, the spacing have some problem, I will fix it~ 0101zia06 14:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The Picture of the Meeting room cant be shown~ 0101zia06 14:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed the problem, please take a look~!0101angelatky06 14:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Last day of our project! Add oil together~

re: I think the versions now is much better, tnks so much my groupmates! so should we move the "working methods part", I think putting in the last part is quite wired. I moved it to the front, and moved the "logo" under the "background information". And I also rearrange some of the paragraphs' order. 0101zia06 03:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:I think the education progamme and course also joint programme can be deleted.Those are none significant information and seems to appear on the site of SBHK.0101sheungyng06 02:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Groupmates,

Its the last day of our project. As Hannah mentioned in the email, we have to summarise and select the most interesting and relevant information. I know we shouldnt add any new information in the last two days, but I just added one new critisim as i think its relevant and interesting to the topic, see if you guys agree with me.

So which parts could we delete? I think the working methods of the Suicide Crisis Intervention Centre can be deleted or moved to the part under the Suicide Crisis Intervention Centre. It seems a bit strange when it follows the working method of SBHK but with the missing of the working methods of the Life Edu centre. Besides, I think maybe we can also delete the "donation" and "Confidentiality" part. The "Recent Development " part is quite similar to the second paragraph of the Introduction part of SBHK, maybe we can choose one to post. 0101zia06 3 November 2006

Dear groupmates, sorry for joining your discussion so lately. I have read through the wiki webpage once, it's really a great improvement from the beginning. I have added more related articles to the webpage, I think our page is perfect now! Let's try to refine it more.

0101gina06 22;28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Interview with SBHK's Vice-Chairman Mr. Kan

Dear groupmates, I'm so exited that Mr. Kan give me a feedback call this morning.

The following are some suggestions from SBHK:

1. If it is possible, the logo of "ALIVE", "TOUCH", "GROW" and "CARE" should be placed in notable place.

2. Under the "Outreach program", "SKO" is not belonged to "SBHK"

And also, I have requested for some official photos of their centres and library. Hopefully, I can received them today and post it in our Wiki-page.

0101angelatky06 05:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

thx alot angela --0101yuka06 13:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Posting an interview could be considered original research which is frowned upon in WP and would be unsourced. I would carefully consider what information you include. Have your teachers Hannah and John considered that in the future, school projects should be done elsewhere that Wikipedia. I am troubled that this might become a workspace for students. Once more, there are a number of places to create such pages. perhaps your university should explore these options. Montco 14:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

To Montco:Thanks for your kindly reminds.We will be carefully consider before we add other sources now.And we will try to make the page more conform to wikis standard.

To Montco:The reason why we would like to chose Wikipedia as a place for our project rather than any other area, because as we all know Wikipedia is a new form of media, which users can actively contribute and participate in it , just like Youtube. As we are a group of students studying Journalism, we would like to experience this developing and new form of media and explore how it works in contemporary society, therefore we have chosen Wikipedia but not elsewhere.

Actually, in my opinion, I think that even though students are actively participating in Wikipedia as a school project, it doesn't mean that Wikipedia will be troubled.

I admitted that we did make mistakes in Wikipedia before, but everyone should have their first try, even though it might not be so successful as frequent Wikipedian expected. As Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, everyone can make contributions to it in order to expand the knowledge included in Wikipedia. As long as we improve and learn how to become a contributive Wikipedian, students should also be given a chance to participate in it. 0101angelatky06 16:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't focus on the quality of the writing. Nor is it necessarily important that this is a school project. If your school project had focused on taking the article on Hong Kong and making it into a featured article, I think everyone would welcome your efforts. More I focus on the fact that I still do not believe that the organization is notable. Every city in the world has suicide prevention centers. That doesn't make this one special. While your initial efforts did smack of advertising, I would have repaired it if I felt that the article belonged here. Again, WP is not a place for you to "tell the world" about an organization. There are web pages for that. It is an encyclopedia and simply cannot include every piece of information on the face of the earth. Montco 18:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion on reconstruction

I think it will be better if we combine all three centres in to one paragraph, and delete all the unnecessary materials, under each centre. (actually, which is also one of the suggestion from John) 0101angelatky06 07:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

OK and now start to rewrite it0101sheungyng06 07:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hello groupmates, I think that " criticism ' under hotline centre is not significant enough to be a bolded topic. Can we just put the criticism as a link under references?--0101yuka06 13:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Also i think the three centres shouldn't be combined into one paragraph for each of them serves different functions. it's better to clarify their duties. As i see it, its much more complicated to illustrate all of them clearly in one paragraph. --0101yuka06 13:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the "criticism" is also important to be shown as we should write both the good side and relatively bad side of the SBHK.

And I agree with yuka, its reali hard to combine the three centres in one paragraph, but I think now its quite confusing when some information cannot be devided into which centre as the "working method", we seem to put them together, but there isnt the Life edu centre part. And the work of Suicide Crisis Intervention Center has only two sentences. And its strange to talk two sentences suddenly after the working methods of SBHK. And if we finally decide to devide the three centres' information, then i think we should move the working method of SBHK and separate from the working method of Suicide crisis Intervention Centre. 0101zia06 3 November 2006

A place to find news

I'm trying to find news of SBHK. Every one may use "wisenews" in Dragon,type "wisenews" in Search title and enter the electronic search system. Click the button "Wisesearch" at the right top corner,and search articles of SBHK.I'm still in the process of searching. If you already knew it,ignore this message.0101sheungyng06 05:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• I suggest that we should delet some paragraphs of the works SBHK, to summarize their works in a paragraph. There is need not to be two paragraph about the Hotline Centre and Suicide Crisis Intervention Center,lets combine it into one.

• I also think that "Outreach Programme", "Volunteers","the Certificate Courses","The Library of SBHK" parts can be summarized or deleted.

• Meanwhile, I will change the two parts I created, delet the Ethos and rewrite Relationship with Mass Media.0101sheungyng06 03:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok i will summarize these parts--0101yuka06 12:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments from Hannah and John

Dear groupmates, today I attended the tutorial and received some comments from our lecturers stated as follow:

1. The languages we used are too postive, not really writing from the NPOV.
2. The whole wiki-page is just like a rewrite of the SBHK's web site.
3. We should balance the negative and positive things that SBHK done.
4. Cite our sources carefully, including the pictures.
5. Too much information included in our page.

Suggestion:

1. Try to find more information out of the SBHK's web site, e.g. News article.
2. Reconstruct the content of our page so that it is more easier to read.

Add oil everybody, we still have 3 days only~! 0101angelatky06 05:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Respond to speedy delection

I strongly think that "The Samaritan Befrienders Hong Kong" shouldn't be delected, because this organization is the forerunner of suicide prevention organization in Hong Kong and even in Asia.

SBHK definitely deserved to have a page in Wikipedea, since it is not a ordinary organziation, but a significant one in Hong Kong. Becuase the organization devoted lots of resources to help the suicidal people and promote the message of "treasure life" to the community. Besides, it also participates in a lot of sucide studies in Hong Kong frequently, for example, suicide statistics.

On the contrary, I strongly believed that the Wikipedians also deserved to know more about "The Samaritan Befrienders Hong Kong" in Wikipedia. 0101angelatky06 08:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi HKU students - if you want this page to be accepted in Wikipedia and prevent deletion you need to ensure several things:

• It should not read like an advertisement. It has to be written from a neutral point of view.
• It should not read like a brochure. Don't put all the contact info, phone numbers, details into the article when you could easily link to the web site and the more up-to-date info is there.
• It should not be a "dump" of Samaritans' web site. Do not simply copy all the details into the encyclopedia page. The value of an encyclopedia is brevity and being concise. Put in your own words what is interesting and notable. Do not simply "shovel" content onto the page. You will likely have to delete a lot of stuff you have here already.
• It should assert notability. Why is this organization notable, and why should it deserve a place in Wikipedia when there are other nonprofits/NGOs that don't have one. Is it the best, first, most outstanding in some way? Make sure that is plainly obvious in the first paragraph of the article.
• It should be like other articles. See how other articles in Wikipedia are written about organizations that are similar - Red Cross, Amnesty International, etc.

One of the challenging things of your assignment is to keep your writing neutral, and put the most interesting, relevant and notable things at the TOP of the article, and also not to exhaustively list everything you know. Be selective and put in only what is important. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think we need to coopreate well, groupmates. Quality is more important than quanity, let's try to tune the article finer but not adding imfornamtions as fast as possible. Work Hard!!! 0101gina06 15:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think it is a good idea that we discuss about the content of our page here before we post all the information. In my opinion, I think our page contain too much information, which is directly translated from the Chinese SBHK web site. Maybe we should find more up-to-date SBHK's news or information. 0101angelatky06 12:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• I suggest that we should delet some paragraphs of the works SBHK, to summarize their works in a paragraph. There is no need to be two paragraph about the Hotline Centre and Suicide Crisis Intervention Center,lets combine it into one.Meanwhile, I will change the two parts I created, delet the Ethos and rewrite Relationship with Mass Media.0101sheungyng06 03:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images

To whom it may concern, the fair use images used in this article require fair use rationales. If rationales are not added, the images will be deleted in 7 days. Cheers, Fang Aili ^talk 17:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Question about Categorization

I would like to know how can I categorize the page as non-government organization, since there is an uncategorization message at the bottom of the page.
Is that I need to officially claim that the page is NGO to Wikipedia? or Wikipeida would automatically categorize the page?
Actually does the categorization related to the use of infobox or images etc.? 0101angelatky06 13:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You would categorize an article as a non-governmental organization by adding [[Category:Non-governmental organizations]] to the very bottom of it. However, it is more useful to find a more specific category for an article. For example, [[Category:Non-profit organisations based in Hong Kong]]. For a FAQ on categorization, see Wikipedia:Categorization FAQ. Wikipedia doesn't automatically categorize articles and no, categorization is not related to the use of infoboxes or images.
Also, when added a new section to a talk page, please add it to the bottom, like this, instead of the top. Thanks. --Geniac 14:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hk flage red.gif

Image:Hk flage red.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)