Jump to content

User talk:Sheepunderscore/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Welcome!

Hello, Sheepunderscore, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Five Years 06:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Education in Australia

Welcome to the project. If you need any help, feel free to drop me a line at my talk page. Cheers. Five Years 06:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Sheepunderscore, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! DougsTech (talk) 08:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Wesley College, Melbourne

Regarding your assessment request, the B grade is the highest grade our project gives out without an independent peer review process. If you believe Wesley College has reached Wikipedia:Good Article status, you must nominate it for review at WP:GAN. Note that after a quick look at the article, I do not believe the article has reached GA status. An article at GA should not have any referencing issues (citation needed fact tags). Every part of a GA article should be referenced in some way, and there are several paragraphs that have none or only one. I recommend asking for a Wikipedia:Peer Review before going for GA and careful examination of the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Good luck, --Jh12 (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The feedback from the Good Article review I thought was very helpful. I think there is a strong implication regarding sources and in this regard I am concerned at the number of refs introduced recently which aren't easily verified. In this category I would place materials that are only easily accessible to school insiders such as letters to parents and other internal documents. The weight of Wesley-related sources as opposed to external sources is clearly not well regarded. So I think if there is a serious attempt to get this to Good Article status, there has to be a hard look at content that can only be sourced from inaccessible internal school documents. More generally, I think that this may point to the overall article being of a higher quality by having perhaps less material. More content does not mean a better article. Looking at the feedback, I think that this has implications for the sections on facilities and development plans. Murtoa (talk) 07:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I've removed the info on Houses you added. The clear feedback from the Good Article review was to resist putting in material for which sources close to the school would be the only logical source. Also, as I tried (unsuccessfully it appears) to convince you above, I think there's a strong argument for not adding material if it doesn't improve the quality of the article. In the case of House info, I think that's definitely the case - nearly every school in Australia has a House system and Wesley's is no more notable than anyone else. I like the photos you've added but also consider that there's enough there now. Cheers Murtoa (talk) 07:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi - the ref you found may well confirm the info on Houses but it is a school brochure - ie. not an independent source - and is not available for others to easily verify. But ultimately this is about having notable information in the article. I think the Good Article status is something worth pursuing, and as I've tried to suggest above, this is about improving the existing material, by either finding reliable external sources, or indeed removing material which can't be properly sourced externally. It's clear to me that adding school-related sources will not assist. Cheers Murtoa (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi - in all honesty I doubt Clunes warrants more material and certainly not from the Wesley/Clunes website. From personal experience, that website is largely for the benefit of parents who have their children at Clunes and is hardly an independent third-party source. As per the Good Article feedback the quality of the article won't increase with more Wesley-derived material. Murtoa (talk) 06:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I highly doubt whether adding to the sport section in the way you have proposed or commenting on the library is likely to bring up notable information ie. backed up by independent third-party sources. In my view, the last thing this article needs is more material derived from school or school-related materials and I would emphasise that less material could be better. I wouldn't use other APS school articles as models in this regard. Murtoa (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's simply untrue to say that Lemon's work is independent and has NO affiliations with the college whatsoever. His book was endorsed and promoted by the school at the time and may have been commissioned by the school. Murtoa (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Re King's School, Ely: Simply because a GA review has been requested, it doesn't imply that it's a good article. Case in point with King's school - I think the article has way too much content and a lot of it internally sourced. And has the type of House info I detest! Hopefully the GA review will bear out these comments. Sorry, but I took out the navbox template you inserted at the bottom. It contained internally sourced info and mainly duplicated material elsewhere. I think that mechanic is best used for grouping together like articles. Please don't take this the wrong way, but can we wait for the feedback from the GA review? I seem to be repeating myself, but this article is NOT crying out for additional material, particularly unsourced info or info that's sourced from the school, and it appears to me that your last few contributions have been along those lines. As tempting as it might be, I would hold off any those kinds of additions. Quality does not necessarily increase with quantity!!! Cheers Murtoa (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look at commons and while the host of images is interesting I don't think any of them really merit inclusion in the article. But others may have a view. With images I think it's important to get the balance right- not too many in the article. On balance, I probably think the images left in the gallery could probably be best viewed in the commons. I see the commons area as somewhere a reader could go if they wanted to see additional info, specifically images. Re the GA review, there doesn't appear heaps more to do except to resolve the facilities/arts/sport bits as per suggestion but not quite sure at present which way to go on this. Also I suppose waiting for the copywriter to do his/her thing which could be interesting. Murtoa (talk) 10:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I said I'd try to look at the article again before my departure tonight, but I'm afraid I just don't have time, so I'll have to defer until around 18th/19th. I'm sorry about that - I will get to it. Brianboulton (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: I'm back now & will look at the revised article shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, agree with you that "structure" is probably ok. Regarding the infobox, if you look at template:infobox school there seem to be limitless things you could add (but shouldnt), but how many dimension the school as a "snapshot"? I'd say elements such as revenue definitely not; employment is already mentioned in the text. I actually like the idea of keeping it to items that aren't subject to constant change, which is a reason not to put fees in - but I guess you could. Interestingly, the Aquinas College, Perth article has fees and employees. My view re Clunes etc is that it's probably worth adding a sentence describing the notable elements of the Clunes program which I'd suggest are the way the Wesley campus integrates with the local community - eg. the students do electives at senior citizens clubs, primary school, join in local sporting comps while they're up there. This makes them different to the year 9 programs at other similar schools which are often more "going bush". It would be good to quote from an external source if possible rather than the Wesley material. Similarly, CCP could do with a sentence as it seems notable. I wouldnt add anything on the other camps (mallana, chum creek etc) - they're really not much different to typical school campsites in my view. Murtoa (talk) 10:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm unhappy with the further edits you have made about proposed development of facilities. They weaken the article in my view as they rely on sources that are not only internal but can't be verified (term 3 update) - these are always going to be of a promotional flavour since their main audience is parents of students. Also, I think they are very much crystal ball gazing; ultimately Wesley can state as many plans as it likes but typically they are eked out according to funding. Thirdly the plans are unremarkable. I also think that an old picture of Coates pavilion (which incidentally wouldnt be out of copyright yet) doesnt add anything. I think the overall article can be improved by co0ncentrating on areas that are genuinely notable ie. that make Wesley different to other similar schools, and we should steer clear of internally sourced references, especially ones that can't be verified easily. Murtoa (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I would rely on the direct feedback we have received regarding the GA thing as the best guide rather than taking an article like Caulfield Grammar and mimicking it, warts and all. There is a lot of curriculum stuff there that I think is not notable and not sourced particularly well, so no I don't think it's a good base to work from. I know a Wesley councillor who paints a different picture to you regarding the "fact" that all these developments are going ahead. If you are comparing with other school sites, I haven't seen any that go on at such length about what their school is proposing in terms of planned developments. These are future events after all. If you are looking to provide a guide for prospective parents, then they should go to the school website, which itself doesn’t commit to the length and breadth of future development - and why not? I think because they are ultimately plans, just plans and aren’t assured of going ahead. In any case, Wikipedia shouldn’t take the place of the school itself in providing marketing information to prospective parents. Regarding the lack of external sources, it's Wikipedia policy that I'm relying on. The fact that other school articles use internal sources weakens them, and I think to quote sources that can't even be easily verified such as info sent to parents is a further downward step. Murtoa (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Wesley College Institute. The councillor I know may well be able to shed some "inside knowledge" on the Institute, but that's not going to reveal any reliable, third party sources independent of the topic, is it? There has been enough of an issue with the article quoting sources that are difficult to verify due to their internal nature that I don't see any benefit going down that path. In my view, we've captured about all that there is to capture on the Institute to date. In my view, I doubt that it merits its own article. Murtoa (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Re Struture: I've noted the suggestions you put to the attention of Brian Boulton and find it hard to see the point of adding internally sourced information that is pedestrian and utterly non-notable in nature. I understand that other school articles are prone to describing internal structures, but this is an encyclopedia that is meant to be informative by imparting information of value. Describing the internal workings of the school and how the middle school varies from the senior school varies from the junior school and so on is utterly unremarkable. Who outside the school would care? And how different would it be from any other school? As per the GA feedback, any improvements should be looking to draw more on the elements about Wesley that are a point of difference, not a variation on a theme that applies to hundreds of other schools like Wesley. Quantity does not equal quality. Ultimately you're welcome to be bold as they say in these parts and edit accordingly but I will remain consistent in attempting to maintain the notability of the contents. Cheers. Murtoa (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Re Upcoming development: well done on your research. I've deleted the comments you added to my talk page which name individuals - Wikipedia is a public forum but those minutes aren't. I speculate that the audience - being parents as fee-payers - have a certain degree of expectation and I might suggest that the words "Approved" may not actually translate into "approved, funds released and work scheduled". However, putting that aside, it comes down to two things as far as this article is concerned 1. Is this information notable? I think not - all schools have plans for improvement. None of the GA feedback has been crying out for future plans as missing content. Also, are the best in breed articles full of this info? No. 2. Do we have any reliable and quotable sources for this info? No - this is not saying that I don't believe you and the minutes but this is all the result of your original research, a Wikipedia no-go zone as per WP:OR. Murtoa (talk) 07:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Having read your further comments I'm not of a mind to change my view. The fact that copies of the minutes are held at the reception desk hardly makes the source anything more than internal notes.

Re Food Services. I'm sorry, but I consider this information utterly non-notable. The info you have contributed contains info that in my view is not encyclopaedic. It's my view that what Wesley does is no different to other schools in this area. That they engage Rowland in not notable; they all engage outside contractors. And unfortunately once again your info is all based on material that is within the school - campus newsletters. I suppose you've made a first as I can find no other school article that has deemed its catering an noteworthy and I'm afraid my strong vote is with them. Murtoa (talk)

I find it hard to believe that you actually consider fruit and veg vending machines as encyclopaedic material. Purely and simply, they're not. Would you actually consider that as notable to the school as, say, L A Adamson's contribution over 30 years? Regarding these elements or your other ideas re heritage-listed buildings, my view is that if these elements were truly notable, they would get coverage well beyond campus newsletters. I seem to be repeating myself, but I would implore you not to keep trawling through internal sources such as campus newsletters and minutes of internal meetings hoping to find "notable" material. Their internal nature makes them unsatisfactory sources in wiki terms anyway, others will point to WP:OR but I wish you'd accept that if the material only gets mentioned in those sources and nowhere else, then that material doesn't deserve a place in an encyclopaedia. Cheers Murtoa (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see much that needs to be worked on with the article. I would definitely not look to expand Facilities, Sustainability or WC Institute. These are all over-represented in my view and dominated by internally sourced material. Suffice to say campus newsletters and other internal sources should be avoided at all costs in considering additional material. Overall I think the article is long enough. I think the GA process has been helpful but not convinced it needs to be further pursued. Murtoa (talk) 06:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not surprised you haven't been able to find any more independent material on the Institute, as I doubt it exists. I doubt that the requests for additional info can therefore be met. Following the last lot of GA feedback I remained unconvinced that some of the additional changes requested would actually improve the article. eg. "Uniting Church in Australia, a union of non-conformist Christian denominations" Murtoa (talk) 06:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Re alumni: "Prestigious Melbourne private school" is not neutral POV and is unnecessary frumpery. Just plain "Wesley College, Melbourne" is sufficient Murtoa (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"prestigious" is a subjective term and should be avoided. Wesley might be more prestigious than a primary school in far north Queensland (say), but is not prestigious compared with Eton or Harrow. Just because someone else may have used the term doesn't justify it. Let's stick to facts. Murtoa (talk) 12:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Re alumni: You state "ALL of the other schools list: current and former AFL/VFL players, Olympians, commonwealth games representatives, Victorian and Australian cricketers, etc.". Let's examine the facts - number of Olympians referenced by other APS school articles - Carey NIL, Caulfield 4, Brighton 4, Geelong Grammar 2, Haylebury NIL, Melbourne Grammar 2, Scotch 7, St Kevins 1, Geelong Coll 1, Xavier 8. After your additions, the Wesley article had 30, that's THIRTY. Every other APS school article had been selective; not so your proposed blanket list. Barely ANY articles listed Commonwealth Games reps or Victorian cricketers. Re footballers, I have difficulty with articles that weight their lists towards current footballers, whose notoriety is transient. The article would be better if it had past players on an equal footing. Which would restrict the list to the top footballers, not just anyone who had a few AFL games. Going back to the Olympians, technically most of these would meet WP:ATHLETE. But this is not about adding a heap of names of red-linked athletes. Nor do I think this would be solved by adding stubbed entries for all of them, which would almost certainly never be developed as proper articles. My view is that the alumni list should be shorter rather than longer, of past students who are generally well-known for what they did later in life, rather than have this as some kind of school one-upmanship on who has the biggest list. Murtoa (talk) 12:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Pictures: interesting additions, but there are now too many (we've been down this path before). The Goldstraw crest is better than the playing cards one. The Chum Creek pic is quite dull and doesn't appear to show much. The fireworks at StK Rd is superfluous - did you really take that picture? I like the cricket team pic. Murtoa (talk) 12:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

In my strong view the reinstatement of unnotable info and the introduction of a host of unnotable information sourced entirely from school newsletters is a retrograde step and dilutes the quality of the article. This is consistent with the GA feedback received months back and consistent with my comments above which you don't seem to concur with. Two strong themes here (1) quantity does not equal quality (2) information sourced internally eg. school newsletters is not the way to go. I also saw the voluminous changes you've made to the Wesley Institute article along exactly the same lines, but I can't be bothered addressing that article. Cheers. Murtoa (talk) 11:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wesley College - Copy Editing

I've copy-edited it and everything seems fine to me! :) Pheebalicious (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wesley images

Hi there, sorry to add to the list but the image on Commons - "PortlandSandDunes.jpg" which you claim as your own work appears to be the work of Philip Greenwood photography - see here. I also presume it's not part of the Wesley property? Not a good look. Can you please remove all of the images that in fact other people's work that you have claimed as your own? Murtoa (talk) 07:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Centro edits

Given your stated conflict of interest on the Centro topic, it's probably best to be very clear about why you are making major edits to the Centro article, especially since some of them appear to be minimising the impact of any sections critical of the company. The best place to do this is on the talk page for the article. I have reverted, and restored only those edits for which I can identify a clear rationale. Also, introducing American spelling to an article which is in Australian English is not "fixing a spelling error" - see WP:ENGVAR for more information. Orderinchaos 10:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Wall Project

I have nominated The Wall Project, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wall Project. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Murtoa (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:The wall project promotional pic.jpg)

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:The wall project promotional pic.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Coates Pavilion - Artist's Impression (1).jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Coates Pavilion - Artist's Impression (1).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Coates Pavilion - Artist's Impression (2).jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Coates Pavilion - Artist's Impression (2).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Coates pavilion image

I just saw the image you claim as being entirely your own work in the latest Glen Waverley newsletter. I have removed it from the article on the basis that it is an image Wesley has copyright claim on. If I have this wrong and in fact you took the photo and supplied it to Wesley, then by all means reinstate and I will contact Wesley suggesting they credit photos you have taken. On past evidence I'm guessing this is not the correct scenario. Murtoa (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wesley Institute

The significance of the studio colleges will be measured by the existence of independent, verifiable third-party references outside the Wesley community - of which there appear to be none. Brochures sent to selected "stakeholders" are a non-reference in my view and not worth mentioning. Murtoa (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Xavier College

I wonder whether you have any comments on the most recent controversy at Xavier regarding suspension of nine year 12 students for egg throwing on a tram. My addition was speedily removed by an editor who in the past has been fiercly protective of Xavier's "reputation". How many more incidents of this nature will constitute of a "Contoversy " section? Browning ave (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:MTM Train Livery Concept.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:MTM Train Livery Concept.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria.

If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the image can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sk8er5000 (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sheepunderscore/Archive_1&oldid=1088322003"