Talk:Victoria School

this page is shit

Schools Start‑class Low‑importance

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort 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.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Reasoning for assessment: No references, Alumni list needs referencing and cutting. Adam McCormick 04:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SG

English Lit. was offered as a core 'O' level subject in 2004. A whole class (4H 2004) took that subject. ωhkoh [Т] 09:03, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Victorian

Does anybody know the history of the Victorian bumble bee? Also, why was 'Victorian' chosen to be written on the shirt instead of 'Victoria', 'Victoria School' etc like most schools?

REPLY: Victorian Bumble Bee started using in early to mid 1987, earlier Victorians wear a White PT shirt with front school logo in standard red-yellow colours and curved VICTORIAN in red at the back.

As for why VICTORIAN is used versus using VICTORIA or Victoria School, it seems to be the tradition at VS to use "VICTORIAN" for standard PT shirts (for all Victorians to wear / use within VS compound); and use "VICTORIA" for Tank Top/singlets, and special sports attire for representatives at national level meets or competitions...

REPLY:

I think if anyone has photographs of the old PT shirts, it would be good to post them up because it is a part of history. You don't see them anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.10.13 (talk) 05:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY: I'm not sure about the usage of VICTORIA and VICTORIAN. It seems like the singlets are also used for school events (sports day/school cross country) and not really for national level stuff. They have their own CCA singlet for national level stuff. Could there be some other reason why the PT shirts write 'VICTORIAN' while the singlets write 'VICTORIA'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.228 (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PT Kit

I read that LTC red shirts are not allowed to be worn conventionally in public. I understand that as a disciplined and regimented group, LTC has chosen to enforced such a rule. However, is it against the school rules to wear the yellow PT kit conventionally? I have spotted Victorians or Ex-Victorians who wear the PT kit in public even on public holidays, and I wonder whether the LTC rule applies.

hmm

There is no such thing as the "Victorian Bumble Bee", as far as I know. The clour yellow is from the school's crest. The word Victorian was probably used because of the camaraderie amongst Victorians, but the decision was made a long time ago and I am unable to verify it. But there are other schools which do interesting things with their PE attire, for instance Saint Patrick's School has "I <3 St Pats" similar to the famous I<3NY logo.

Visaisahero 18:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Achievements

I think there is no need to list all the achievements for the year. I've checked the pages of other top boys' schools and none of them do it. It's like trying to publicise over a little bit of achievement. The school website already has all this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.228 (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

drama SYF gold

this article overexaggerates that accomplishment, implying that VS won that competition, "..against powerhouses.." such as SCGS and NYGH. This is untrue, the Gold award merely places the school's drama performance in a broad category, akin to a distinction - below Gold w/honours which would denote a top 7(?) school. I find it highly unlikely that the other-mentioned schools would have done worst. Other schools have routinely achieved Gold awards on their first SYF attempts, for example Chestnut Drive Sec, and Gan Eng Seng (Sec), in drama in a year alone. A fine accomplishment perhaps, certainly not outstanding.

I further question the link between a strong drama tradition, should it exist, and a high general standard of english within the school.

does the accomplishment re 2004 debate refer to the Julia Gabriel-organized national competition? or..? can the article attempt to clarify that. If so, there are 3 tiers within that competition, A, B and C, for schools of different ability, which one did VS make it to the quarterfinals for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scyum (talk • contribs)

inaccuracy

there is an inaccurate use of the pictures and descriptions and rules are slightly inaccurate as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.154.14 (talk • contribs)

A Victorian here - Kindly explain or clarify the above statement. Otherwise it will be just another blowing hot airs type of comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.220.76 (talk • contribs)

Victoria Continuation School

Is Victoria Continuation School another name of Victoria School or related to VS? There used to be Anglo-Chinese Continuation (old name of ACS) and St Andrew's Continuation School which is part of the St Andrew's family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.243.218.4 (talk • contribs)

A Victorian here - "Continuation School" are used after WW2 to indicated schools that took in 'past their ideal age' students that miss their education due to the war. There isn't an official name change, at least not for Victoria School. However, when 1st President of Singapore Yusof B. Ishak was at Victoria School, it was known as Victoria Bridge School. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.220.76 (talk • contribs)

Reply: Thanks for the info. Does this mean to say that when a person attended Victoria Continuation School, he effectively attended Victoria School, but as an overaged student? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.243.218.4 (talk • contribs)

POV Check

Someone's put up the POV Check but has not included on this talk page why.

I removed it after reading the article (and find it to be rather neutral) but since I'm a Victorian, my POV might be different. Please comment if there's anything that you find biased. Jsamraj 13:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Memoirs

I remember back at the Geylang Bahru campus, there was some notable canteen stalls that students always patronize. 1 of which is the western stall with the squabbling couple and another is the rice with mixed vege stall which offers generous portions at an incredibly cheap price. anyone knows where these stalls shifted to? Or how are these "victorians" coping now.

If you mean to ask for information on your aforementioned topics to be included in the article, please be aware that this is non-notable information. If you were seriously inquiring for your own interest, I believe this is neither the place nor means to obtain such information. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 10:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Alumni

It's nice to include a list of prominent alumni, but I believe everyone should be aware that not all of these "prominent" alumni are necessarily notable as per Wikipedia guidelines. Efforts should be made to crop it as soon as possible. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 10:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Agree. "Former Victorians" will be more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccer174 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If these are terms in regular use, Old Victorians or Former Victorians would be fine to include as information within the section but the section should be called "notable alumni". Former Victorians is a bit too inside of a term.--RadioFan (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Falli: Sports Man of the year. 1940s and 1950s

Link Can be found on National Library straittimes http://newspapers.nl.sg/Digitised/Page/straitstimes19500617.1.11.aspx

Ibrahim Falli was a champion athelete in the 1940s and 1950s. He was a champion athelete back to back for three consecutive years representing Victora School. He left Victoria and then later join the Singapore medical workers Unionand was a prominent soccer player for the SMWU and later for the Hotspurs XI soccer club. 202.156.9.231 (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His article can be found on the The Singapore National library. One article " School Boy Run in 100m in 103/4 sec". Link:http://newspapers.nl.sg/Digitised/Page/straitstimes19490702.1.12.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.125.20 (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VJC 6-year programme

http://www.asiaone.com/News/Education/Story/A1Story20090327-131603.html Referring to the above article, I am wondering why the principal of VJC has so much say in this matter. Principals come and go every few years. But the alumni will always be alumni. What is the VAC/VEC stand on this matter? Shouldn't the VAC/VEC have jurisdiction over the 2 schools?

Please sign and date comments on talk pages by typing 4 tildes (~) at the end of your message. Thanks. Alarics (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Female alumni??

If this is a boys' school as stated, how come there are women in the list of alumni? Alarics (talk) 07:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria School had girls in her Pre-University classes until 1984 when Victoria Junior College was setup. Past students (boys and girls) of Victoria Junior College are also part of the same alumni as Victoria School too. 202.156.9.231 (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. In that case, it would be good to explain this in the article under History. Alarics (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge Victoria School Hockey into Victoria School

it will make Victoria School page too long DragTian (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria School Hockey is essentially a paragraph with a partially filled table that could be summarized in a few sentences plus a list of alumni that is 90% red links. This could be easily merged into 2 good paragraphs on the club. Breaking it out into its own article is not appropriate because the subject does not meet notability guidelines and having its own article gives it undue weight.--RadioFan (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The unfilled cells are still in the process of being filled in. Just need a bit of time for it. DragTian (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see how this article could meet notability guidelines, even with the additional cells filled in. None of the information there is referenced. It also sounds like this was all created a bit too early.--RadioFan (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references is not an issue. I can get them. Just need a bit of time. DragTian (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag as I thought discussuin has ended. DragTian (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alumni

I see no reason to create a separate article listing notable alumni, especially one which is 80% red links. The list has been merged back into this article. Also, the term "old victorians" may be meaningful to alumni of the school but a more generic "alumni" term should be used to make it clear to all readers.--RadioFan (talk) 12:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about changing "old victorians" to "alumnus" and removing the red links? DragTian (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The red links have been removed and merged into the main article. The section isn't large enough to warrant a separate article. If it significantly expands, then this could be revisited.--RadioFan (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The red links with the contents inside [[ ]] brackets are removed as well. If by removing [[ ]], can it stay separate like before? DragTian (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they are not notable enough for an article, I dont see how they'd be notable enough to include in this list of notable alumni.--RadioFan (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RadioFan, it is common among all the Singapore schools pages where the alumni list does not have any write-ups, eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Junior_College#College_Alumni

another example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maris_Stella_High_School#Alumni - what is the difference between these that are allowed to exist while Victoria School's ones are deleted?

Forgot to mention that 95% do not have citations too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Secondary_schools_in_Singapore

Are these good enough reasons to have it un-merge? DragTian (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Let's focus on this article rather than compare it to WP:OTHERSTUFF. Generally if someone is notable enough to be included in a list of notable people, they are notable enough to have biographical wikipedia articles. If these people can meet WP:BIO then a having them as a red link for a short time while the biographical articles are created is not a problem. However if they cant meet wikipedia's notability guidelines themselves, then they probably aren't notable enough to include in this list. --RadioFan (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RadioFan, are you doing something about the rest of the schools' pages alumus sections? DragTian (talk) 05:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Even if it is not allowed to be un-merged back, the original list should be allowed to be put under Victoria School page. The [[ ]] can be removed. It is not only schools, but many other pages with Notable sections but no write-ups in Wikipedia. I think this is being fair to Victoria School. DragTian (talk) 07:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They can listed under Alumnus, and not Notable Alumnus. In this way, it will meet Wikipedia guidelines. What do you say? DragTian (talk) 07:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want to list alumni if they are not notable? I dont understand. The list would be huge and that certainly wouldn't meet guidelines. Also, lets not compare this article to others, if there are others with extensive lists of claimed to be notable people who lack biography articles, please provide a list on my talk page and they can be looked at as well. Let's focus on this article here.--RadioFan (talk) 13:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been names who are minister of state (eg) which have been removed. Will certainly refer to you when there are disputes of the same kind. DragTian (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caning

Is private caning practiced in VS? I have never heard of this. Is there any evidence of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.228 (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC) All the schools follow Ministry of Education's guidelines. Only public caning when the student has breached major rules, eg hitting a teacher. DragTian (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY: It is written on the Wikipedia article that private canings are carried out in Victoria School. Since only public caning takes place, the sentence that VS practises private caning should be removed.

How do we know that "only public caning takes place"? The only source cited (the discipline page on the school's website) refers only to "caning" without specifying public or private. Most Singapore schools do a lot more private caning than public caning, so if Victoria is untypical in that respect, we need a reliable source. -- Alarics (talk) 09:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could be right. But I do not know if there is ever any private caning being conducted in VS before.

I guess since nobody has heard of private caning, there is no basis to insert it into the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.228 (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This statement has no evidence: "Canings are normally meted out in private, but in rare cases, may be performed in front of the entire school population during morning assembly." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.228 (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever wrote it in the first place must have had some basis for saying it. -- Alarics (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been cases of internal caning. However to protect the students, these have not been openly announced. Thus no evidence what-so-ever is providable without violating the student's privacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.136.64.13 (talk) 06:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria School

Suggest you talk to RadioFan. Previously he had deleted and merged pages created separately into Victoria School without discussion. We cannot allow people who are trigger-happy to create/re-merge and repeat this all over again. DragTian (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest removing a lot of fluff from the article. It doesn't really need a long list of people that were in charge. As it is I removed a huge pile of youtube links and if you don't want to shorten the article, others will. Eeekster (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you check what RadioFan had previously done. He will delete and re-merge them again. DragTian (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don't care what that editor has done. What concerns me is the article. Besides, there was nothing wrong with doing the merge. Now that the merge is done, the article needs to be trimmed. Eeekster (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

all you guys do is don't care. and where is the neutral pt of view discussion that has been put in repeatedly by you?

If I didn't care, I wouldn't be involved. You just don't agree with me. As for the neutrality discussion, there is none. If you want to discuss the tag, start discussing it. And please keep talk about this article here and not on my talk page. Eeekster (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok, fine. why wasn't a chapter not created to discuss? i wan to state my point that refernces, links, etc have been used to substantiate points mentioned. isn't this neutral pt of view?

waiting for answer

No discussion has been started. Start one if that's what you want. Eeekster (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

we can discuss it right here

so what's wrong with school anthem copyright? r u putting that in into every school page article? please answer

What's wrong? It's probably under copyright and there's no permission to put it on Wikipedia. What happens on the pages of other schools is completely irrelevant. So either deal with the copyright issue soon or the content is going to be removed as per policy. Eeekster (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do u have something against Victoria School when u r not putting it for other schools?

What is yr answer to the neutral pt of view?

Categorisation of article under 'Boarding schools in school'

Hi. I note that the article has been placed under the Category:Boarding schools in Singapore. I'm wondering though if this is a right categorisation; if the boarding school in the school campus is called Victoria School only, then it should be fine. However, if the boarding school has a separate name (say Victoria School Boarding School), then perhaps the categorisation should be removed, and creating a new article on the boarding school itself would be appropriate. Thanks, and if you need further comments, you may find me on my talk page. AngChenrui (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthem lyrics

By default, lyrics are copyright protected. Because of Wikipedia's licensing scheme, copyrighted material of any type must not be included anywhere in Wikipedia. It is the responsibility of the author to demonstrate that any material added to Wikipedia is adequately licesnsed or shown to be in the public domain. An anonymous user has claimed that because the lyrics are reproduced on the school website at http://vs.moe.edu.sg/ (see School Information -> Anthem), this means they are in the public domain. I cannot find any claim on the website that shows its contents are public domain. Please point me to the section of the website if I am missing it. The default copyright would lie with J.A. Frazer and could not be assigned to the public domain without the explicit permission of the copyright holder - presumably Mr. Frazer or his heirs or similar. Its possible the copyright was assigned to the school, and the school has subsequently put them into the public domain, but we would need to se some documentary evidence to back up this claim before they are restored to the article. Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]