Talk:Xavier College/Archive2010-2016

Incident in October 2015[edit]

You cannot remove things because you do not like them. It is factual, you must leave it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.201.86 (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new articles for Burke Hall and Kostka Hall Campuses[edit]

danjel (talk) has suggested creating separate pages for Burke Hall & Kostka Hall. Does anyone have thoughts on this? Nworsn (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To expound:

I'm proposing some rewrites to the main article such that it splits down into the separate campuses, in a similar way to Northern_Beaches_Secondary_College, as it seems the two schools share similarities in terms of structure (both being multicampus). This would improve the provision of information as it is as it will provide opportunities for people to edit in campus specific information, and it is a good compromise against the problems that I have with including too many heads in the infobox. Comments? -danjel (talk to me) 12:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Interesting idea. I've not seen it done before. (Though I have seen many examples of split pages being merged!) Do you have some other examples I can look at? Is there any policy or guideline on the subject? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Beaches Secondary College is one example, as I gave above, as is Sydney_Secondary_College. I'm sure there are heaps more, but those are the only two multicampus schools with which I'm very familiar. Reddam_House is a counterexample, but I don't think that article has the problems that I identify in Xavier College; if Reddam's article was as fleshed out as this, it could probably be split up too. The relevant policies would all still apply regarding notability etc., but I think that the new articles would be fine. -danjel (talk to me) 12:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. For the record, I have no opinion yet. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I don't think Burke & Kostka Halls are worthy of their own pages. It would ruin the integrity of the Xavier page. Considering "including too many heads in the infobox" is a very minor issue, I just don't think it's worth doing. Nworsn (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - per Nworson. Pdfpdf (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* This would make the article consistent with the way that other secondary school articles work both in respect to the infobox and in respect to structure. There's more than enough content to split and make good articles, and it would make three articles that would be more concise, accessible and pertinent to whatever anyone was actually interested in. But, if you guys insist that Xavier College be as inconsistent as possible, then whatever. -danjel (talk to me) 02:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* I'm not insisting on anything. I'm expressing my opinion, as requested. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: There are many, many multicampus schools with one article. What percentage of multi-campus schools would you say have multiple/split articles? Pdfpdf (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - one school in Sydney is not a good sample. Check out multi-campus schools in Melbourne My quick, unanimous sample was Tintern, Wesley, Caulfield. Single pages every one of them. HiLo48 (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two schools, Hilo.

The key characteristics that I believe should lead to a school splitting are all of the below:

Different executive structures (i.e., a separate headmaster/principal);
Different curriculum and/or student populations (i.e., one teaches K-6, the other teaches 7-12, or one offers a technological/science focus, the other a humanities focus or what have you);
Different histories (i.e., one was acquired by the "school" after another, or there was a merger between different schools);
Concise information available on these points.

Sydney Secondary College and Northern Beaches Secondary College both satisfy these points. Their campus information is fairly light on the ground, unfortunately. Xavier and the schools that Hilo mentioned are definitely in a different category as they have the information there.

On the other hand, Reddam House has one structure split across two different campuses (in this case, sites). Greenwich Public School is another example of a school that wouldn't satisfy this as it's one structure across two sites.

Not that I know anything about these schools, but:

Tintern Girls Grammar School seems to also be a good candidate to split, as its different campuses will have radically different histories and, presumably, structures (such as executive, curriculum, etc.)
Wesley College, Melbourne, I'm a little less sure of, because there seems to be a common history.
Caulfield Grammar School would be a classic example of an article that could be split. Different student populations, different histories etc.

I'm going to ask at WP:WPSCHOOLS how they deal with these things. Perhaps they have more experience. -danjel (talk to me) 04:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I await your information. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Danjel - "Not that I know anything about these schools..." I reckon that's a bit of a problem. To know how a school article is best done, one really needs to study a lot of school articles. Otherwise you're wasting a lot of time both reinventing wheels and heading off on unacceptable tangents. HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Although Danjel knows a lot about "schools in general", as all groups of schools are slightly different from all other groups of schools, what you know about one school does not necessarily apply to another school. Example in point: I suggested that Xavier having both a principal and a headmaster was unusual. Danjel simply said, "It's wrong". It isn't; Xavier has both a principal and a headmaster. So I agree that "Not ... know(ing) anything about these schools" is indeed a problem. Pdfpdf (talk) 06:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So having intimate knowledge of those schools is now a requirement for editing those schools? Don't be ridiculous. What an absolutely offensive thing to say. This is argumentum ad hominem. You're not addressing the meat of the issue here at all.

As to myself and my expertise, as if I have to actually spell it out, I'm a teacher and an educational consultant with over a decade of experience working with many public, Catholic and independent schools, their overarching bodies, universities and related institutions and organisations and am considered an expert in my field of education. Yes, my experience has primarily been limited to NSW, with a little bit of experience with public schools in Victoria. On Wikipedia, I primarily edit school articles. That means that I'm more than qualified to comment, not that it even matters. I see from your userpage, HiLo48, that you're primarily interested in geographical articles, not school articles, and you, Pdfpdf, are interested in Biographies. So don't you try to tell me that I'm not qualified to suggest things in regards to school articles, just like I haven't told you (or anyone) that they're not qualified to do so. Everyone on wikipedia is qualified to comment (WP:Anyone can edit).

Either you're being trolls or you genuinely don't understand what wikipedia is all about. Perhaps you haven't read WP:Introduction and WP:BOLD. I think the former is more likely, because of your arrogant bs. Either way, I'm not interested in participating in banter with you. I'm out. -danjel (talk to me) 06:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't respond to criticism with misrepresentations of what was said. No-one is ever impressed with that. You wanted multiple articles for a multi-campus school in Melbourne. I looked up the first three multi-campus, Melbourne schools I could think of, and it didn't match what you wanted to do. I thought you might have been able to do some similar research yourself. And please don't make assumptions about others' knowledge and backgrounds. I didn't. I based my response on your own words. HiLo48 (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was referencing your and Pdfpdf's offensive, arrogant and completely ad hominem comments immediately above mine. "...please don't make assumptions about others' knowledge and backgrounds", nice. WP:Introduction - READ IT. This is my last post here. If anyone wants me for whatever reason, use my talk page. -danjel (talk to me) 06:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very wide gap between no knowledge and intimate knowledge. Please read what was said more carefully before taking such offence, and misrepresenting others' points. HiLo48 (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danjel: For the record, I'll draw to your attention to a few facts, (not opinions).

Neither HiLo, nor I, either said, or implied: "So having intimate knowledge of those schools is now a requirement for editing those schools?". These are/were your words, and yours alone.
Nor did either of us either say or imply, or try to say or imply: "that I'm not qualified to suggest things in regards to school articles." Again, these are/were your words, and yours alone.

Please do not attribute your words to us. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, remember to stay on topic with discussions and stay cool. Reading the several discussions there are frequent comments and remarks made by a number of editors that really didn't need to be made.

As for the original point of the discussion, from a WP:WPSCH standpoint, in my opinion there is no need to split the articles for the different campuses in this case. This article is nowhere near a size where it is in danger of being too large and the information available for each campus would make for two very small articles. Since it appears to be one school on different sites, splitting would also create confusion. The physical aspects and building history of each campus can be explained in the "Campus" (or "Campuses" or even "Campuses and facilities") section of this article. Right now, all we have on each campus is the name and colors of each house and the number of "Premierships" they've won (which I honestly have no idea what they are or why they're important). In the History section, I would recommend writing a more general history about the school as a whole rather than just focusing on the Senior Campus (which appears to be the original or first campus?); this would be where the foundations of the various campuses are mentioned and perhaps some background info on why they were established. In the Campuses section, mention a little about the buildings and layout as well as when they were built, expansions made, etc. Pictures would be more than helpful! --JonRidinger (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK we address the problem of multiple campuses quite easily; we put the main one (or the one where the main admin office is) in the infobox and treat the others like this and this, and this. There should be no need to create separate pages for the sake of creating separate pages. None of the school pages will ever be so long as to justify such a split up. If the school acquired its multiple campuses through school mergers, redirects from the former individual schools can always be created. Pershore and Malvern are good examples. Generally, one complete article that could eventually be got up to GA is a better idea than a bunch of perma stubs. --Kudpung (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding off-topic material[edit]

Refactored at User:C.Fred's suggestion:

are you afraid of people seeing what you and I said? - No. Far from it. If I was "afraid", I would have deleted it. The material I "hid" is irrelevant to the topic under discussion, and hence of no interest to anyone trying to follow the topic. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Combining "History" and "Campus" sections[edit]

I have just merged the Campus section into the History section, as it increases the clarity of the article by deleting the awkward, six-line "Campus" section and streamlining the information into the different campuses. Any thoughts? Nworsn (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

I am assessing this article for WikiProject Schools following a request. Firstly, I am leaving the importance rating as high-importance as it appears to be well justified. On the article content, in general referencing is good, and I think there is enough here to justify upgrading the article to B-class. Looking at the article content, it is good to have some pictures, though the low resolution and lack of meta data for File:South-Wing-Xavier-College.jpg makes me wonder where this photograph is from - was it taken by the uploader? On the caption, "impressive" should be removed as this is a peacock term. I would suggest creating a category for images of the school on Commons and linking to it from the main article using {{Commons category|Xavier College}}, which should be placed in the external links section. The lead needs to be re-organised to introduce and summarise the article better per WP:LEAD i.e. to have two or three solid paragraphs summarising each major section appropriately.

For article sections, a good guide to use is WP:WPSCH/AG#S. Generally the history section should be in chronological order with the sub-headings based on major events or periods. A separate campus section would be more appropriate for describing locations. The curriculum section desperately needs expanding, particularity when you compare it to the co-curriculum section. On referencing, again generally good, though there are gaps in the co-curriculum section and alumni section - List of Old Xaverians clearly needs far more references than are presently provided.

Overall, this article is coming on well and could gain GA status with further work, particularly with expansion of existing sections. CT Cooper · talk 20:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Xavier College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Xavier College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Xavier College. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 16:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Xavier College. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 19:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]