Talk:Xavier College

/Archive2004-2009, /Archive2010

Proposed new articles for Burke Hall and Kostka Hall Campuses

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

*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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The Last Post

This is my last post here. - That's the best news I've heard this year! Pdfpdf (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. I didn't expect that you would be true to your word. (And you weren't.)

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.

BTW: Stop putting your words into other people's mouths, and then accusing them of statements they didn't make. You have provided a multitude of examples of this, and I have yet to see even one case where your assertions of your opinions bear even a passing relationship with reality.

Finally: Have you really made your last post here? I will take a "no reply" as meaning "yes". Pdfpdf (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)