Talk:Wesley College, Melbourne

Wesley College might be editing the article to suit their own needs

If you notice, most of the article is written like an ad. I have no doubt that "Notable Alumni and Staff" was most definitly written by the school. 58.106.97.236 tried to delete a whole section of the article, probably because it was the only part not written by the school. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Penguinboy (talk • contribs) 14:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

It is to be expected that contributions can come from all sources, including ones quite close to an institution. I agree that an entry must not come across as self-promoting. Conversely however, an entry shouldn't include subjective criticism and the inclusion of commentary that is insignificant or irrelevant to a general understanding of a topic. Murtoa 15:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As a student of the school, i consider myself able to decide what is subjective and objective with regards to this article. The section you deleted was not vandalism, it was a statement of the facts. How are facts "not encyclopedic". But even if you did find sections of the article that were "approaching vandalism" then you should have edited them, rather than deleting facts and content from the article. --Penguinboy 11:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

As a student of the school, you may be too close to the subject to be objective. The technology section that was deleted has several problems. Firstly much of it was non-notable. Many schools have integrated computers into the school. It would require something more, ie the first, or recognized as particularly innovative in approach, for this to be notable. Secondly it is entirely unsourced. This is particularly important in the section discussing the release of viruses and worms, which borders on libelous. Everything on Wikipedia should be sourced, and anything contentious must be. Unfortunately what you hear around the school yard does not count. --Michael Johnson 12:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You'll find that most of the edits on this page, excluding all of the vandalism, has been created by Students or Staff of Wesley College, Melbourne. I understand the WP rules, however, for a small article like this, does it really matter if the user is too close to the subject? Also, to Penguinboy, if you want to create a new section of the article, it really needs more content then a one line statement. --DogGunn 10:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Understanding the relevant guidelines then, you'll have a good appreciation for the dangers inherent in an article largely authored by insiders, and school articles are regrettably a major breeding ground for poor practices, usually associated with notability and verifiability. Murtoa 00:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Recognised logo or "official" crest?

I notice there's been some swapping between the well-recognised logo seen at every Wesley campus and in marketing material, versus the claimed "official" crest, which I must admit I've never seen anywhere but in this instance. I would have thought the Wesley website might be a good reference point here, and unless I haven't looked far enough I can't see any instance of the "official" crest, but many instances of the logo. The "official" crest appears no longer in regular or common use, and the image that should headline this article should help reinforce the current branding used by the school. Therefore I strongly suggest that the logo be used in place of the "official" crest. Murtoa 13:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The official crest was actually found on the Wesley website. I think it should be used as this article exists for encyclopedic purposes not marketing purposes.Loopla 08:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree that the article must use encyclopaedic and not promotional content. The term "marketing logo" was being used here (and I didn't coin the term) to try to distinguish from the "crest" that has been displayed. To be clear, I don't think the crest currently displayed is in common use at all (and I have trawled the Wesley website but regret I am having troubling finding it), whereas the other representation is almost ubiquitous. On that basis I would change the image. Murtoa 12:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The crest can be found a few times on the site (usually on official documentation), e.g. at http://www.wesleycollege.net/v3/app2/files/GE_App_form_2008.doc It is also used constantly by the Old Collegians.Loopla 15:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Addition of substantial material - not NPOV, editorial, advertorial

I have reverted to a previous version after large amounts of editorial content were added, which has not been drawn from independent sources, which is not NPOV, and includes a great deal of school policy, values, vision etc which belongs only in school websites, history books, but not here. Have then examined legitimate changes during the period that this extraneous material has been added. Murtoa 05:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it was all copywrited too ~~

Wesley College enrollment figures

Orginally on Wesley's Wikipedia page, the college enrolment claimed to be 2980 students. With further investigation. I have discovered that the person who calculated student population, didn't include the Elsterwick Campus (which is another 450 students!). (Glen Waverly Campus and St Kilda Rd campus student population together equals this figure, but not the Elstie campus!!!) Thus after counting the college rolls in the chronicle (yes, I'm procrastinating), there is a population of around 3448.

Further, I have also discovered that Wesley is also the LARGEST school by enrolment, not the 2nd. Haileybury's wikipedia page claims to be the largest, but they have a population of 3,200 -wesley college has 3,450 - 3,500. Many past newspaper articles (the age - 2006) have claimed that wesley is the largest school in Victoria.

If anybody has further information that condradicts these statements, please feel free to correct me! :) 58.107.228.3 (talk)