- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 16:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
St. Louis School, Hong Kong
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- St. Louis School, Hong Kong ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable school. There was an AfD for this back in 2005 that resulted in keep. The keep votes seemed to mostly revolve around claims that all schools are notable and WP:OSE. As it currently stands, the article only cites two primary sources and is promotional in tone. It's also been largely edited by users with possible COIs. So, I see nothing that passes WP:NORG about this or anything else that would be in favor of there being an article about the school. Adamant1 ( talk) 09:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. The East Wing of St. Louis School is listed as a Grade II historic building, "Buildings of special merit; efforts should be made to selectively preserve". Additional info here: [1]. Underwaterbuffalo ( talk) 19:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Couldn't there just be an article about the east wing then? I don't think one building on a campus being notable automatically makes the whole thing notable. Including the design of their school badge and them doing inter-school quiz competitions. If the east wing is notable create an article for it then. There's nothing else notable about this and notability isn't inherited. Seriously. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
19:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes the school can definitely inherit the notability of its main building, seriously. If a couple of paragraphs in the article are not encyclopedic, they can easily be removed. Underwaterbuffalo ( talk) 09:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Couldn't there just be an article about the east wing then? I don't think one building on a campus being notable automatically makes the whole thing notable. Including the design of their school badge and them doing inter-school quiz competitions. If the east wing is notable create an article for it then. There's nothing else notable about this and notability isn't inherited. Seriously. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
19:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources.
- 黃棣才 (2015). "聖類斯中學: St. Louis' School". 圖說香港歷史建築 1920－1945 (in Chinese). Hong Kong: Zhonghua Book Company. p. 32. ISBN 9789888340200. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
- Tsang, Ian (2014). 小一入學全攻略 (in Chinese). Sing Tao News Corporation. p. 297. ISBN 9789623482288. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
- "無奈落車聖類斯開中文班". Oriental Daily News (in Chinese). 2010-01-08. Archived from the original on 2010-05-29. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
- "聖類斯中學 多元活動助學生掌握人生". Wen Wei Po (in Chinese). 2016-02-29. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
- "聖類斯涉讓學生接觸師生私隱". Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2019-03-08. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
- Good job. The last article doesn't say anything about it though and it's a tabloid newspaper anyway. Ao I doubt its reliable. I'm not sure how you can claim your citations are "reliable sources" when one is a tabloid and doesn't even talk about the school, but whatever. Also, don't you think there should at least be one source in English since this is an English encyclopida? If there isn't id think its out of scope of the intended audience and isn't actually notable to them. I.E. English speakers who read this (BTW, I only ask because I've seen it brought up before and I think it lacks scruples to a degree to call every non-English source reliable purely because they exist when you really have zero way of knowing that. Since I assume you don't speak Chinese and aren't deeply enough involved in the Chinese Wikipedia to know which Chinese language sources are reliable or not. They aren't all are, but you seem to be fine acting as id that's the case. Even when your citing a tabloid).
Adamant1 (
talk)
09:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
-
WP:GNG says "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." —
Toughpigs (
talk)
14:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- @
Toughpigs: The person posting them still has to be able to read the sources to make sure they are reliable and it's clear that Cunard didn't. So I really don't get what your point is. Language matters in so far as it being a barrier to actually knowing if the sources are reliable or not. Maybe they don't "have to be" written in English, but if someone is going to post them, they at least have a basic understanding of what the article is saying if it's not in English. That seems pretty obvious and is the only point I was making. I'll also support what I said with
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions arguments not to make in AfDs discussions. Mainly "Keep It has 345,400 Google hits, so it is clearly of interest. – GoogleBoy, 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)." Which is exactly what Cunard has a history of doing. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
15:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- You said, "don't you think there should at least be one source in English since this is an English encyclopida?" —
Toughpigs (
talk)
15:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Mainly because if there was one source in English that we 100% knew was valid then a few Chinese ones that were of iffy or undetermined quality wouldn't matter as much. Kind of like it's OK to use local articles to establish notability as long as there is one regional or national source to boast the article with. Context matters a lot to this. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 15:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- You said, "don't you think there should at least be one source in English since this is an English encyclopida?" —
Toughpigs (
talk)
15:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- @
Toughpigs: The person posting them still has to be able to read the sources to make sure they are reliable and it's clear that Cunard didn't. So I really don't get what your point is. Language matters in so far as it being a barrier to actually knowing if the sources are reliable or not. Maybe they don't "have to be" written in English, but if someone is going to post them, they at least have a basic understanding of what the article is saying if it's not in English. That seems pretty obvious and is the only point I was making. I'll also support what I said with
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions arguments not to make in AfDs discussions. Mainly "Keep It has 345,400 Google hits, so it is clearly of interest. – GoogleBoy, 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)." Which is exactly what Cunard has a history of doing. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
15:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
-
WP:GNG says "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." —
Toughpigs (
talk)
14:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- BTW, doing a basic look over of your Wen Wei Po source it contains a lot of sentences like "Saints High School has always attached great importance to students’ life planning education" and "The school attaches great importance to cultivating students' self-knowledge. Career planning and career exploration not only broaden their horizons, but also help them increase their understanding of all walks of life, but also increase their own personality and growth." So, there isn't anything neutral about the article. Which is a major test of reliability. Again, it's another problem with you posting sources you don't even review before hand and taking a "the only thing that matters is sources exist" approach to this. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
12:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Exactly what policy or guideline, Adamant1, says that non-neutral sources are not reliable? Many, perhaps most, of the sources we cite here have a POV one way or another, and quite a few are seriously biased. That such sources have taken note of a topic still contributes to notability. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 23:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- It should be pretty clear that an over aggrandizing puff piece that doesn't actually talk about the school, except to fawn praise on it, can't be used to establish notability. A bunch of vague personal opinions about how great it is and how much it benefits student's, or similar general statements, isn't "in-depth coverage." WP:GNG states "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail." Which the source isn't doing. Further it says ""Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity." An overly positive puff piece that's essentially a PR job isn't exercising editorial integrity. Otherwise, it would be more neutral. It should also be pretty obvious that there's a huge difference between the normal level of non-neutrality in most news sources, and something that is trying to sell people on the benefits of a school. The source is essentially a promotional review and WP:NORG applies to this. It says "Editors should use reviews only from sources with well established reputation for independence and objectivity." (or in layman's terms "neutrality") Otherwise, they aren't reliable sources. Also, WP:OSE isn't a valid argument.
- Good job. The last article doesn't say anything about it though and it's a tabloid newspaper anyway. Ao I doubt its reliable. I'm not sure how you can claim your citations are "reliable sources" when one is a tabloid and doesn't even talk about the school, but whatever. Also, don't you think there should at least be one source in English since this is an English encyclopida? If there isn't id think its out of scope of the intended audience and isn't actually notable to them. I.E. English speakers who read this (BTW, I only ask because I've seen it brought up before and I think it lacks scruples to a degree to call every non-English source reliable purely because they exist when you really have zero way of knowing that. Since I assume you don't speak Chinese and aren't deeply enough involved in the Chinese Wikipedia to know which Chinese language sources are reliable or not. They aren't all are, but you seem to be fine acting as id that's the case. Even when your citing a tabloid).
Adamant1 (
talk)
09:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep as meets, for one, WP:NBUILD and it may be notable enough as an educational institution as well. I see enough in the citations and further reading to think that someone else would find more. "The primary section of St Louis School was particularly famous in the 1970s and the 1980s, for it won almost all the inter-school quiz competitions organized by Radio Television Hong Kong" suggests something specific that could be sought out in secondary sources if an able editor is so inclined. Wikipedia is already too west-centric; there is enough here for this article on an east topic to remain. DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 23:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'm pretty sure winning some quiz competitions doesn't pass WP:NORG. Especially since here isn't really any sources about it so far. Even if there was though, I'm pretty sure it would be trivial. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 00:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- And how are you "pretty sure" that an undetermined amount of coverage by an undetermined number of news outlets for an undetermined number of years would be trivial?
DiamondRemley39 (
talk)
00:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Because there's certain topics that WP:NORG considers trivial and the number of news outlets that cover it or years over it taking place doesn't matter to it. For instance "of event schedules or results" is considered trivial. There's no "unless the event schedules are covered in multiple news outlets over a certain number of years" or whatever clause. Just like "of the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel," doesn't become non-trivial if a company has promoted a lot of people because they have been in business for a long time. The topic is what determines triviality. At least in the example we are talking about. There can also be the triviality of details in a specific article, but that's not really relevant to this or what WP:NORG is talking about. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 01:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep for (1) the listed building is notable, an article on the school makes way more sense than one on its main building alone, unsure what the argument was there?2) the sources per Cunard's rather stellar source search. Side note: English is actually an official language of Hong Kong, 4% speak it as their usual language and almost 50% can speak it, so the English speaking argument is not only incorrect from the policy perspective but also fails to take into account Hong Kong's English speaking population. PainProf ( talk) 01:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- A lot of schools have articles about notablw buildings on their campuses when a specific building has it's own notability. Usually if something is a government denoted historical landmark its notable enough for its own article to. There are cases where specific things are more notable then where they are located or what they are associated with. That's all I was saying. But apparently its disruptive, combative, and abusive yo explain things. So I didn't feel the need to gice more details about what I meant. Plus, it seemed obvious anyway. I'm not sure how it wouldn't make sense to have an article about the building if its notable enough for one, but whatever. Apparently the thing that isn't notable about this deserve an article and the thing that is doesn't. "Shrug." Adamant1 ( talk) 12:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per the sources identified, particularly the historic building. The idea that you should have an article about the East Wing and not about the school is silly. — Toughpigs ( talk) 02:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 16:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
St. Louis School, Hong Kong
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- St. Louis School, Hong Kong ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable school. There was an AfD for this back in 2005 that resulted in keep. The keep votes seemed to mostly revolve around claims that all schools are notable and WP:OSE. As it currently stands, the article only cites two primary sources and is promotional in tone. It's also been largely edited by users with possible COIs. So, I see nothing that passes WP:NORG about this or anything else that would be in favor of there being an article about the school. Adamant1 ( talk) 09:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. The East Wing of St. Louis School is listed as a Grade II historic building, "Buildings of special merit; efforts should be made to selectively preserve". Additional info here: [1]. Underwaterbuffalo ( talk) 19:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Couldn't there just be an article about the east wing then? I don't think one building on a campus being notable automatically makes the whole thing notable. Including the design of their school badge and them doing inter-school quiz competitions. If the east wing is notable create an article for it then. There's nothing else notable about this and notability isn't inherited. Seriously. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
19:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes the school can definitely inherit the notability of its main building, seriously. If a couple of paragraphs in the article are not encyclopedic, they can easily be removed. Underwaterbuffalo ( talk) 09:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Couldn't there just be an article about the east wing then? I don't think one building on a campus being notable automatically makes the whole thing notable. Including the design of their school badge and them doing inter-school quiz competitions. If the east wing is notable create an article for it then. There's nothing else notable about this and notability isn't inherited. Seriously. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
19:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources.
- 黃棣才 (2015). "聖類斯中學: St. Louis' School". 圖說香港歷史建築 1920－1945 (in Chinese). Hong Kong: Zhonghua Book Company. p. 32. ISBN 9789888340200. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
- Tsang, Ian (2014). 小一入學全攻略 (in Chinese). Sing Tao News Corporation. p. 297. ISBN 9789623482288. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
- "無奈落車聖類斯開中文班". Oriental Daily News (in Chinese). 2010-01-08. Archived from the original on 2010-05-29. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
- "聖類斯中學 多元活動助學生掌握人生". Wen Wei Po (in Chinese). 2016-02-29. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
- "聖類斯涉讓學生接觸師生私隱". Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2019-03-08. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
- Good job. The last article doesn't say anything about it though and it's a tabloid newspaper anyway. Ao I doubt its reliable. I'm not sure how you can claim your citations are "reliable sources" when one is a tabloid and doesn't even talk about the school, but whatever. Also, don't you think there should at least be one source in English since this is an English encyclopida? If there isn't id think its out of scope of the intended audience and isn't actually notable to them. I.E. English speakers who read this (BTW, I only ask because I've seen it brought up before and I think it lacks scruples to a degree to call every non-English source reliable purely because they exist when you really have zero way of knowing that. Since I assume you don't speak Chinese and aren't deeply enough involved in the Chinese Wikipedia to know which Chinese language sources are reliable or not. They aren't all are, but you seem to be fine acting as id that's the case. Even when your citing a tabloid).
Adamant1 (
talk)
09:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
-
WP:GNG says "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." —
Toughpigs (
talk)
14:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- @
Toughpigs: The person posting them still has to be able to read the sources to make sure they are reliable and it's clear that Cunard didn't. So I really don't get what your point is. Language matters in so far as it being a barrier to actually knowing if the sources are reliable or not. Maybe they don't "have to be" written in English, but if someone is going to post them, they at least have a basic understanding of what the article is saying if it's not in English. That seems pretty obvious and is the only point I was making. I'll also support what I said with
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions arguments not to make in AfDs discussions. Mainly "Keep It has 345,400 Google hits, so it is clearly of interest. – GoogleBoy, 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)." Which is exactly what Cunard has a history of doing. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
15:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- You said, "don't you think there should at least be one source in English since this is an English encyclopida?" —
Toughpigs (
talk)
15:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Mainly because if there was one source in English that we 100% knew was valid then a few Chinese ones that were of iffy or undetermined quality wouldn't matter as much. Kind of like it's OK to use local articles to establish notability as long as there is one regional or national source to boast the article with. Context matters a lot to this. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 15:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- You said, "don't you think there should at least be one source in English since this is an English encyclopida?" —
Toughpigs (
talk)
15:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- @
Toughpigs: The person posting them still has to be able to read the sources to make sure they are reliable and it's clear that Cunard didn't. So I really don't get what your point is. Language matters in so far as it being a barrier to actually knowing if the sources are reliable or not. Maybe they don't "have to be" written in English, but if someone is going to post them, they at least have a basic understanding of what the article is saying if it's not in English. That seems pretty obvious and is the only point I was making. I'll also support what I said with
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions arguments not to make in AfDs discussions. Mainly "Keep It has 345,400 Google hits, so it is clearly of interest. – GoogleBoy, 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)." Which is exactly what Cunard has a history of doing. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
15:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
-
WP:GNG says "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." —
Toughpigs (
talk)
14:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- BTW, doing a basic look over of your Wen Wei Po source it contains a lot of sentences like "Saints High School has always attached great importance to students’ life planning education" and "The school attaches great importance to cultivating students' self-knowledge. Career planning and career exploration not only broaden their horizons, but also help them increase their understanding of all walks of life, but also increase their own personality and growth." So, there isn't anything neutral about the article. Which is a major test of reliability. Again, it's another problem with you posting sources you don't even review before hand and taking a "the only thing that matters is sources exist" approach to this. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
12:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Exactly what policy or guideline, Adamant1, says that non-neutral sources are not reliable? Many, perhaps most, of the sources we cite here have a POV one way or another, and quite a few are seriously biased. That such sources have taken note of a topic still contributes to notability. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 23:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- It should be pretty clear that an over aggrandizing puff piece that doesn't actually talk about the school, except to fawn praise on it, can't be used to establish notability. A bunch of vague personal opinions about how great it is and how much it benefits student's, or similar general statements, isn't "in-depth coverage." WP:GNG states "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail." Which the source isn't doing. Further it says ""Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity." An overly positive puff piece that's essentially a PR job isn't exercising editorial integrity. Otherwise, it would be more neutral. It should also be pretty obvious that there's a huge difference between the normal level of non-neutrality in most news sources, and something that is trying to sell people on the benefits of a school. The source is essentially a promotional review and WP:NORG applies to this. It says "Editors should use reviews only from sources with well established reputation for independence and objectivity." (or in layman's terms "neutrality") Otherwise, they aren't reliable sources. Also, WP:OSE isn't a valid argument.
- Good job. The last article doesn't say anything about it though and it's a tabloid newspaper anyway. Ao I doubt its reliable. I'm not sure how you can claim your citations are "reliable sources" when one is a tabloid and doesn't even talk about the school, but whatever. Also, don't you think there should at least be one source in English since this is an English encyclopida? If there isn't id think its out of scope of the intended audience and isn't actually notable to them. I.E. English speakers who read this (BTW, I only ask because I've seen it brought up before and I think it lacks scruples to a degree to call every non-English source reliable purely because they exist when you really have zero way of knowing that. Since I assume you don't speak Chinese and aren't deeply enough involved in the Chinese Wikipedia to know which Chinese language sources are reliable or not. They aren't all are, but you seem to be fine acting as id that's the case. Even when your citing a tabloid).
Adamant1 (
talk)
09:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep as meets, for one, WP:NBUILD and it may be notable enough as an educational institution as well. I see enough in the citations and further reading to think that someone else would find more. "The primary section of St Louis School was particularly famous in the 1970s and the 1980s, for it won almost all the inter-school quiz competitions organized by Radio Television Hong Kong" suggests something specific that could be sought out in secondary sources if an able editor is so inclined. Wikipedia is already too west-centric; there is enough here for this article on an east topic to remain. DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 23:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'm pretty sure winning some quiz competitions doesn't pass WP:NORG. Especially since here isn't really any sources about it so far. Even if there was though, I'm pretty sure it would be trivial. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 00:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- And how are you "pretty sure" that an undetermined amount of coverage by an undetermined number of news outlets for an undetermined number of years would be trivial?
DiamondRemley39 (
talk)
00:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Because there's certain topics that WP:NORG considers trivial and the number of news outlets that cover it or years over it taking place doesn't matter to it. For instance "of event schedules or results" is considered trivial. There's no "unless the event schedules are covered in multiple news outlets over a certain number of years" or whatever clause. Just like "of the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel," doesn't become non-trivial if a company has promoted a lot of people because they have been in business for a long time. The topic is what determines triviality. At least in the example we are talking about. There can also be the triviality of details in a specific article, but that's not really relevant to this or what WP:NORG is talking about. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 01:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep for (1) the listed building is notable, an article on the school makes way more sense than one on its main building alone, unsure what the argument was there?2) the sources per Cunard's rather stellar source search. Side note: English is actually an official language of Hong Kong, 4% speak it as their usual language and almost 50% can speak it, so the English speaking argument is not only incorrect from the policy perspective but also fails to take into account Hong Kong's English speaking population. PainProf ( talk) 01:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- A lot of schools have articles about notablw buildings on their campuses when a specific building has it's own notability. Usually if something is a government denoted historical landmark its notable enough for its own article to. There are cases where specific things are more notable then where they are located or what they are associated with. That's all I was saying. But apparently its disruptive, combative, and abusive yo explain things. So I didn't feel the need to gice more details about what I meant. Plus, it seemed obvious anyway. I'm not sure how it wouldn't make sense to have an article about the building if its notable enough for one, but whatever. Apparently the thing that isn't notable about this deserve an article and the thing that is doesn't. "Shrug." Adamant1 ( talk) 12:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per the sources identified, particularly the historic building. The idea that you should have an article about the East Wing and not about the school is silly. — Toughpigs ( talk) 02:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.