Talk:Patrician Brothers' College, Fairfield
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Patrician Brothers' College, Fairfield is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Australia. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
This article is related to WikiProject Schools, an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within Schools. Please rate the article. | |
Contents |
[edit] Cleanup needed
I tagged this for cleanup because of the assorted obvious vandalism to the sidebar, the school song, and the list of notable alums. Unfortunately, it's not a simple revert, as people have done useful work in the meantime. William Pietri 18:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you
thanks for cleaning up for us, can you fix the article back to the original. Webmaster@pbcf.nsw.edu.au
[edit] more noteable past students
I'm sure there are more. eg Kiren Gilbert (sp?) from sky news.
Also, either the current mayor of Penrith, or very recent mayor was an old boy.
[edit] Disambiguation
Although there are no entries for the other Sydney colleges (Ryde, Granville, Blacktown, Forest Lodge) I think the article should be retited to Patrician Brothers' College Fairfield.
Decur 06:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC) St Pat's Blacktown old boy.
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Pats fairfield logo.jpg
Image:Pats fairfield logo.jpg 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Students
I have removed two sections from the article. Section 1 lists every head boy at the school and Section 2 lists the leadership of the school for 2007-2008. Section 1 is deleted purely because its non-notable, you may wish to ask yourself Who was the head boy at Patrician Brothers College, Fairfield in 1984?, the answer you will find is no-one cares. Section 2 is deleted for being unencylopedic, it may also be a bit of recentism. Twenty Years 13:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- This seems like a reasonable concern. I'd note that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a directory also precludes this kind of list information going into an article. The former says in part: Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. Orderinchaos 14:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I feel that the inclusion of names of minors is a concern. Schools must gain parental permission before publishing names of children, therefore wikipedia should ensure that they comply. I don't find the list of Patrician Brothers' College captains to be of any interest at all. None of the GA Aust schools have included them. If one of them is notable then by all means add them to notable alumni and mention that they were school captain. Loopla (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
--------------
In response to the removal of the aforementioned section, i adress Loopla and Twenty Years. I my self am i past captain of the college and believe that both i, and my fellow captains deserve a mention on this site. i also believe that the current leadership have the right to be mentioned, as i would have appreciated also many years ago. What is the point of wikipedia? the answer is to provide information to the public, and to let the public decide what is included. i feel that these two categories fulfill both criteria. the information is rlevant, wheter you accept it or not.
In response to it being unencylopedic wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn defines encyclopedic as being broad in scope or content. The history of college leadership isnt broad enough for you?
and finally, the audacity of saying that no one cares is shocking. evidently the poor soul who added the list cares, hence enough to warrent its presence. i feel that people should STOP trying to enforce their beleifs on this site. none of you, and i speak particularly to loopla and Twenty Years, are administrators on this site. you have the same entitlements as anyone else in this world does to decide what goes on this page. for this reason, i will continue to undo your edits. wikipedia is not about manipulation and controlling, thats not the reason why you are allowed to edit it. i hope to not have to continue in this childish war. if anyone wishes to discuss this issue further, please do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebra91 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a place for self promotion (see WP:SOAP). Please also see WP:SCH#WNTI, "School articles should specifically not include: Lists of current teachers, pupils, administrative staff, school secretaries, etc", and WP:DIRECTORY. Please remember to sign your comments Zebra91. Loopla (talk) 07:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
i truly find that offensive. i have not promoted myself at all. and in response to Please also see WP:SCH#WNTI, "School articles should specifically not include: Lists of current teachers, pupils, administrative staff, school secretaries, etc", i question why you have allowed the incluson of the name of the principle (administrative staff), also the secton on lay leadership, the section on brother richard. also, in reference to your initial tips i direct you to Aquinas College, Perth, Presbyterian Ladies College, Sydney which lists past and preset head maters. quite frankly, there is no valid reason that you have to continue this stupidity. i will continue to correct what you have edited Zebra91 (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Lists of students are not encyclopedic and don't belong here unless the students are notable outside the school. If students' names are continually added the page can be easily protected from edits. ... discospinster talk 18:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I refer everyone to WP:SCH#WNTI, the guide on how to write articles on schools. the last line of the intro sates Note that these are only recommendations, and editors are not obliged to follow them. Over the past week i have been bombarded with excuses on why these lists should not be added, from child protection (which was a void excuse, considering that the names of these students and many others appear on the school website without permission, also names do not breach any official codes), the quote that "School articles should specifically not include: Lists of current teachers, pupils, administrative staff, school secretaries, etc", where all school articles breech this, particularly this one with many references (where the so called refereeing of the article now?) and finally that it is unencyclopaedic. wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn defines encyclopedic as being broad in scope or content. The history of college leadership isnt broad enough for you?. Then after i tried to defend my reasoning, the only thing loopla had to retaliate with was Wikipedia is not a place for self promotion (see WP:SOAP). . Seriously, what is that? thats resorting to desperation, because you all know that there is NO valid reason why these lists should be removed. you are just blindly trying to enforce your points of view for the sake of it. not one person on this message board has presented a valid reason why it should be removed.
i ask again for reason. whether it be loopla, twenty years, or this new player discospinster, stop playing administrators. this is a public forum. past, present and other members of the college have the right to determine what is included. and yes, i have browsed your user pages, many medals, congratualations. if you were truly that good, you would be writing for funk and wagnals, or britanica. but no, you are not. you are trying to exercise power over a wiki page(WIKI: A website or similar online resource which allows users to add and edit content collectively. www.tvb.org/multiplatform/Multiplatform_Glossary.asp). you have no right to threaten with securing the page. all that is, is a baby winging to have their own way. and i am sorry to make this personal, but thats all this is. Cyberbullying. everyone has the right to determine what content occurs on a page. and yes, securing can be aranged. but look at pastsites that have been secured, George Bush's page is most notable. and why was it secured. because of vandalism on the site where people were including political views. you can hardly say that these lists are vandalism, political, or creating a non neutral page.
without having WP:SOAP thrown at me again, i have had my day in the sun at the school. i dont need praise. but this now is purly about principle for me. You can not use mob mentality to group up on another person. again i will continue to edit this site. i ask again for this stupidiyt to be brought to an end.
Zebra91 (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nobody is "playing administrator", since administrators do not have any more right to edit a page than "regular" editors. Furthermore, whether someone was or is a member of the College does not give them any more right to determine what goes on the page. Wikipedia has guidelines and policies that have been put in place by consensus. The guideline for schools is that lists of students do not belong in the article unless the students are notable outside the school. If you have an issue with that, then you can bring it up on the Wikiproject Schools talk page. ... discospinster talk 03:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I came across the alert over at Wikiquette. As someone who regularly edits articles about schools, I have to say that I agree that this list of students really does not belong. I know that in the here and now, these people have the feel of being important, but in the long term scope of what consists of encyclopedic material. In my opinion: if the school were open 100 years from now, and one wanted to find information about the school, would this information be important to an outsider? I think the answer is no. Wikipedia should not be used as this school's website. The school might wish to list this information as it is of import to the school community. I don't mean for you to take this personally, but this really does not belong. LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Protection
As the edit warring over the list shows no sign of abating, I have protected the article for now. Orderinchaos 07:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Suggestion
- I think theres a good way all parties can be satisfied here. We remove the actual list from the article, but we add a link to the page listing the past captains of the college in the "External links" section of the article. So basically, the content is still there, and everyone is happy. What do you guys think. Twenty Years 08:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ive contacted several of the involved parties and we have received no response here. I will be WP:BOLD and go ahead with the move. Will open this discussion again should the issue flare up. Thanks. Twenty Years 08:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- i question hwo the suggestion that the list be linked externally is any greater a remedy that having it on the page. if you all staunchly believe that this is unencyclopadedic content, then you should be having no ossociation with it on the page. however, you have all agreed that it is suitale to external linking. it just doesnt sound right. i respect your views in no having the content on the main page, however my link to leadership at patrician brothers college seems like a fair outcome. please remember, its fair by everyones standards, not what you tell others is fair. Zebra91 (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- "Everyone's standard" implies consensus, which is generally how Wikipedia works, and a helpful guide to "consensus" is past or common practice on similar pages elsewhere in Wikipedia, which is also reflected in Wikipedia guidelines and policies (eg. WP:N). Wikipedians can't influence content that appears in external websites (eg. school websites containing long lists of students), but through consensus can influence what appears in Wikipedia articles. Murtoa (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] General Facilities
Wikipedia articles should be restricted to information which is notable. It is not intended to substitute for or mimic information that would logically be found on the school's website. For this reason, I have deleted the long list of all of the buildings and facilities that would be expected to be found in any similar school. It is not notable for example to describe that the facilities include Year 8 Block, College Ovals, Year 7 Block, Tennis courts , Canteen facilities , Car Park and so on. This is not notable (or even helpful) information. If there are any notable facilities, eg. unique or novel buildings, or buildings of a historic or otherwise notable nature, then these should be included. I encourage editors to look at school articles that have reached a B class rating. Murtoa (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WYD Cross & Icon
By any reasonable measure there is an undue amount of minutiae which I have edited. This event occupies undue prominence in the history of the school overall. How the organising committee came about and a description of the catering etc is not notable. Murtoa (talk) 10:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
