Talk:Fort Street High School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Fort Street High School:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Expand : The History section. The current expansion project is at this user subpage. Relevant talk should be posted to this talk page.
  • Source debatable facts such as "Established in 1849, it is the oldest government high school in *Australia"  DoneJame§ugrono
  • Try to remove the advertisement quality of the prose. Sentences using: "wide range", "excellent" are the most obvious appearances
  • Cut down the alumni list.
  • Make sure that there is independent confirmation (citation) for each alumnus who doesn't have a Wikipedia article.
  • Clean up the curriculum section
  • Add to the history section
WikiProject Schools (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
Reasoning for assessment: Some good information. Alumni list is excessive and needs to be sourced and trimmed. Only half the references are independent. Could be a B with a bit of cleanup and further research. Adam McCormick 19:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Australia / Sydney / Education (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Fort Street High School is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Australia (marked as High-importance).
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other than editorial assistance.


I don't want to sound peeved off, but I had already warned you guys not to put personal information onto Wikipedia. Enochlau 06:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

It is most disappointing that there are such immature people out there (especially from Fort Street!) that have vandalised the article to the extent that it warrants a protection.,. Enochlau 16:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Content removed from main page as inappropriate (a report of a reunion is not encyclopedic, and it's written in the first person and signed). AdamW 09:53, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fort Street Boys High School: Class of 1964 - 1969

We gathered together 52 guys from the Class of 1964-1997 on 19-mar-2005 for a Reunion at UTS Haberfield Rowing Club. There was a lot of emotion and comradeship generated during the evening, starting right from 6 PM when people started to arrive, for what was to be a long night.

Rod Horan was "volunteered" to act as Master of Ceremonies for the Evening. After an inspired performance to set the scene for the evening, which was also a great tribute to his late father, known to us as "Reg", Rod inspired a bunch of the guys to take over the microphone and remind us of long forgtten historical events during our time together at Taverners Hill. Nik Bogduk set a high standard, with a great presentation, supported by a Powerpoint slide pack. This opened the flood gates and some superb contributions were made by Graham Holley, Ian Cohen, Gary Gibbs, Tony Gee (can anyone spell his surname?), Victor Maktevich, Barry Peak, Peter Dunn

Special guest for the evening was Mr Music, Denis Condon a.k.a. DFC005.

The thing that amazed me is that by 8 PM the esprit de corps that had been put into cold storage for most of us in early November 1969, when we finished our last HSC papers, was in full flow. It was hard to remember that 36 years had passed since the whole group had been together previously.

Much of the evening was taken up postulating on the dysfunctional behaviour of past teachers - Mr Steinmetz probably got the award for most frequent mentions. But it was also noteable what deep personality scars were left on so manner of our alma mater by the PE Department in particular!

We certainly let a lot of genies out of many bottles during the evening. In the days following the Reunion email was running fast and hot between those who had made it to Haberfield, and those who regretted they hadn't talked their way out of other commitments. There was a strong consensus to keep the good karma of the Reunion going with the formation of range of communication tools based on the Internet, which I have branded as the Fortians Network. It is intened that this wiki site will become a major element in the realization of the Fortian Network.

As an exercise in Wiki creation, the Fortians of 1964-1969 are planning an in-depth portait of as many of the school personalities from our era as possible, students and teachers alike. The temporary location for the Biographies Project is to be found at the end of this hot link. We invite anyone who played a role in the community that was Fort Steet Boys High School between 1964 and 1969 to make a contribution to recording the hisytory of those 6 years we spent together.

John Young +61-407-940943


The "Curriculum" section of this article is clearly written in the form of an advertisment, and thus in accordance with wikipedia policy (see advertising section) will be marked as such untill the section in question is either re-written or deleted. Jason McConnell-Leech 14:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss here:

I think that I'll address the issue. I mean, if I don't, who will? ----JamesSugronoU|C 14:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if I still sound like an advertisement, I apologise, but I'm just really good at selling stuff. :P ----JamesSugronoU|C 14:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop the vandalism[edit]

Will the idiots who keep putting up vile comments about teachers past and present stop it now? Enochlau 04:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

moxham is a cow ahahahaa--Sumple 00:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted vandalism --DandanxD 10:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed text[edit]

The following text was removed: In 2005, year 11 has created a new lunch-time competition called the FORT STREET IDOL. This competition is similar to the Australian Idol or the American Idol when people sing in front of an audience as singers get evided slowy. The prize is a mini iPod.

-- Enochlau 12:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Any particular reason for removing the Barton clarifications as well? JPD 13:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I should've explained that as well. Personally, I'd call that piece of information unverifiable trivia. If you look at the history log, it originally said that he went to Fort Street for a year, then it got changed to a week. A week?? I have serious doubts about the validity of such a statement. Google was of no help, so it's probably best if we leave it off until we get a reference? Enochlau 13:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Thought it might be something like that. I had no idea what the correct time was, but it's fairly well documented that he complete his schooling at SGS. I found [1], which actually backs my memory of thinking Barton would be better claimed by FSPS. JPD 14:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
That timeline is very interesting indeed. A pity it doesn't make clear the timeframe. Enochlau 11:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


Yikes! Two weeks is enough! Unprotected as requested on WP:RFPP. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


Under "Environmental Council", the word "with" is missing from the sentence:

In a nod towards the school's heritage, the council works closely the Observatory Hill Environmental Educational Centre, including the planning of EcoTour 2010. Nick-cyclist (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Count of High Court Justices[edit]

Hey enoch, if you have time, can you verify the number of JJ from Fort St and Sydney Grammar respectively? I'm pretty sure its not 11/12. I've found 5 from Fort St and 7 from Grammar, counting Barton J in both cases.

There are several whose high schools I haven't been able to find, being Taylor J (1952-69) McHugh J (1989-2005) Gaudron J (1987-2002), and Crennan J (2005-). So I would say it's max 6-7 or 7-8.--Sumple 00:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I will look into it. The Butterworths dictionary has biographies - but I'm not sure if they list high schools. enochlau (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
There are some for which I can't find any info on. However, I can confirm 7 went to Sydney Grammar and 4 went to Fort Street. Who's the fifth? See my list of high court judges and their high schools at User:Enochlau/High Court Judges. enochlau (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Note: Cross posted at Talk:Sydney_Grammar_School#High_Court_Judges. enochlau (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

lets talk about Fort Street[edit]

removed by original author The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 00:35, 3 January 2006.

Who is this btw? sign your post. Anyway, I agree that Fort St's efforts in the way of promoting talented students is woeful. If you look at the school website, you get a sense of what the current regime's focus is on - look at the achievements page, and you see they devote tonnes of space to some dodgy band tour of tasmania, and there is next to nothing on proper academic achievement. If the school authority doesn't value academic achievement, is it not to be expected that in recent years we never get into the olympiade teams, never get 100 UAIs, and sink lower in the rankings every year? --Sumple 22:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
The emphasis on the performing arts might be a function of the principal, who is a music teacher I believe. Of course, such activities are valuable in broadening one's horizons, but the relative lack of academically challenging activities, I would agree, does not fit in well with it being a selective school. enochlau (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

removed by original author

Oh hi akaash. this is tommy chen. class of 2002. remember me?--Sumple 23:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Everyone knows the famous Tommy Davis Chen :P enochlau (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
How could I forget?? :D
in response to akaash's original post::

I am a current student at fort st and agree completely with what you are saying. Ms moxham especially. She has gone completely overboard (especially with this recent uniform push) and is turning our school into a dictatorship! I recently went to state music camp and several of the students going asked for extentions on their assignments, which according to ms moxham was unacceptable, that she was unaware so many fortians were going on the camp and said that so many of us should have the oppeortunity was unfair to other schools! Shouldn't she have been proud that we all got in (30 of us)?! Then she started going on about how she only knew about the camp one day before we went on it, even though she PERSONALLY signed every single one of the forms!! Students and parents are having a very hard time changing any kind of decision made my ms moxham - like this year when she threatened to cancel all or overnight school camps, me and a friend went to her and tried to complain directly but she spoke at us for about 2 minutes and then told us to write out what we would do if we were the principal! We weren't given any chance to voice our concerns even though we had made several appointments which she had continuously reshedualed! I mean, she's a great guy and all, but I don't know why, I find her mustache somewhat... alluring.

:: removed by original author

I remember when she first arrived and heaps of teachers jumped ship in the first year or two. --Sumple (Talk) 06:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Fort Street came 13th in the State this year. Last year it was 21st. Good improvement. TarquiniusWikipedius 04:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I must say what a pretty little discussion this is. You might be interested to know that the school is having a crackdown on Internet security, Moxham threatening to suspend you guys if she finds out that you've been dishing this dirt on her on this page.

Please remember that Wikipedia is not a page for you to put your personal blogs. That's what Bebo is for, duh. Talk about school at school.

BTW, who are you guys? I'm a Fortian too so I might know you really. ætərnal ðrAعon 11:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not you personal blog, guys

Attack of the weird politicos![edit]

Omg what was with those lib/greenie weirdos? anyway sir john kerr was an ALP member, not a lib! --Sumple 10:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced comment[edit]

I removed the bit about Fort St having a State-of-the-art Recording Studio - We don't have one! Draction 22:39 22 April 2006 sir john kerr was a wan kerr.andrew 1971 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


I don't understand why this vandalism is so funny. The page will be semi-protected. enochlau (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

liberal stooges suck. --Sumple (Talk) 11:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


i was under the impression the old building has changed to the wilkins building, not the wilkinson. maybe i'm wrong, but you never know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sambob joe (talkcontribs) .

I thought it was Wilkinson, but I may have got it mixed up with the building at Sydney Uni. Are you a current student at fort st? --Sumple (Talk) 09:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
We might be able to check up Maroon and Silver - I have a suspicion that Wilkins(on) was a past principle/headmaster/headmistress. enochlau (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Good idea Enoch. Indeed it is: WILKINS William 1851-1851. Now why would you name a whole building after some guy who served less than a year? --Sumple (Talk) 09:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
From [2]: "The person most instrumental in the formation of the NSW education system in the latter half of the nineteenth century was William Wilkins. He was sent from England in 1848 as 'a suitable person trained in the Irish National System' to take up the position of headmaster for a Sydney model school. His past experience included several years at Parkhurst Reformatory for juvenile criminals." That would suggest that he was the first headmaster in 1849, but thought Maroon and Silver suggests otherwise, he was definitely a significant figure in NSW education. I think many other things in the NSW education system are named after him as well. JPD (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Cool, that's quite interesting. Thanks for that =) enochlau (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

yes, im currently a student in yr 10 at Fort Street comment was added by Sambob joe (talk

Hint: you can sign your comments with ~~~~. enochlau (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


Has someone actually checked sources for all the alumni listed? Most of the articles linked to do not mention where they went to school, but Harry Hopman actually says that he went to Parramatta High School! JPD (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

All the ones I added are listed in Maroon and Silver. --Sumple (Talk) 00:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I wonder how much we can trust that book. Does it appear to be well-researched? enochlau (talk) 00:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd say Ron Horan is better qualified as a historian than any of us. --Sumple (Talk) 00:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd trust the book as much as most other books. At any rate, I'd say it's good enough for WP verifiability standards - my question is more along the lines of whether all the people in the list were added because of sources such as that. JPD (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Separate "people" page?[edit]

I know Fort St's biggest asset by far is its alumni, but the alumni list is getting a tad long compared to the article. Perhaps a separate people page like they have at Sydney Grammar or was it Sydney High? --Sumple (Talk) 23:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say the trigger for moving the alumni list out is if the entire article is too long, not that the list is long compared to the rest of the article. But if you want to move it out, I wouldn't object. enochlau (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
There really are FAR too many redlinked people on this page. I hope some enthusiast of this school and page will work on cleaning this up or making pages for all these "notable" folk. Kukini 17:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter that there are too many red linked people on this page, and it's not up to editors of this page to create articles for them. All we have to be certain of is that the people who are linked from this page could have Wikipedia articles under notability guidelines. enochlau (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
This is true as long as the editors of this page cull off any non-notable people on the list as they are added by current students trying to put their name online or those of others around them. Large numbers of redlinks also make it easier to hide fake "famous" people in the list. Kukini 04:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well if they don't have their own Wikipedia page then wouldn't that mean they don't classify as "notable"? as sad as that may be, it seems these days having a Wikipedia page is the true sign of being well known.Sambob joe 05:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It could just mean that no one has gotten around to writing it. Wikipedia isn't complete. enochlau (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

be that as it may, i have not heard of a single of the "notable alumni" who do not have a Wikipedia page, apart from Deborah Hutton. and she was a Fort Street dropout who went on to host some completely pointless shows. on channel 9! Sambob joe 10:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Oldest School[edit]

Please stop making claims about being the oldest school of any sort unless you can verify it. I am conducting research on this topic and have found something like 10 articles on Wikipedia and heaps of websites and histories that get this wrong.

Its a laugh that you can't see The King's School written anywhere without the attached description "the oldest school in Australia" when there are four schools still operating which started before it.

By the way I think Newcastle East was no less established by the Government than Fort street. It was started by the Government but control was handed to the church in 1926. National schools (of which about 13 currently operating schools were started between 1848 and 1850 after the establishment of the National School Board) were established by local patrons and then sanctioned by the Board.

--Cmurphy au 08:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've found a source - the DET - that dates the establishment of the school as 1849 - it's inferred from the text, as it does not state that year exactly, but rather states that the school celebrated its sesquincentenary in 1999 (1999 minus 150 years is 1849). However, I still can't prove that it is the oldest government school, so I'll modify the text. If anyone can find a source which proves that Fort Street is the oldest government school in Australia, please add it and re-publish the statement. ----JamesSugronoU|C 07:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
(Further to the message on your talk page)
WP's attribution policy is intended to ensure that all contested material is attributed.
Whether a school is the oldest in Australia in whatever category is clearly verifiable: by comparing founding dates of all schools.
The claim about being the oldest public high school in Australia is based on attributed sources - check the general references cited, such as Maroon & Silver.
If you feel the claim made by those sources is wrong, you will need to make an argument as to why - e.g. by raising a contrary sources.
To make your job easier, Australia as at 19491849 comprised New South Wales, South Australia, Western Australia, and Van Diemen's Land. Unless there was an older public school providing secondary education in any of those other states, we have sufficient evidence to stay. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
You mean 1849? enochlau (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
LOL yes. =S --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Yep, sorry about that - I just wasn't clear if we needed to link it directly to a source. If it had been cited directly, I never would have doubted it.
any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.
I'm not sure how this applies here, where we have many pieces of infomation from only a few sources.----JamesSugronoU|C 08:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, don't hink any of us have the time to source every statement overnight. I suggest the best way to go forward is to tag any statement that you feel is inaccurate/wrong, and we'll see if we can find sources for it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sister School[edit]

Hey, I'm about to add a bit of information about Suginami Sogo being Fort Street's sister school. I am adding it to the first part... it seems to be the only section where it fits in. (Apart from school traditions, doubtfully.) If anyone feels it is inappropriate, feel free to remove or move, I just felt that Suginami Sogo should get a mention. Jamessugrono 09:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's good - even better since you provided a reference too. enochlau (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up[edit]

I removed:

The school's relative strengths are history, mathematics and the social sciences.

It had been tagged for a source since May, and I'm sure that if this statement was needed in this article, a source would have been found by now. If anyone believes I'm not actign according to Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:PROVEIT, feel free to put it back. If you agree with me and would still like this statement included in this article, please find a source, such as a HSC results book or some sort of reliable source Thanks----JamesSugronoU|C 07:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha, that could be said. That can probably be verified, but it goes down the lines of WP:NOR more. I have a feeling that more of these people are actually going to this school. Then again, it's the teachers/the principal teaching us about this school's history, so that could be original research, could it? ætərnal ðrAعon 11:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

original name[edit]

Maroon and Silver has "Fort Street Model School". Someone check the state archives? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Google search of "fort street model school" yields the following sources:
Kilgour, Alexander James (1861 - 1944) at ADB Online
Teaching Heritage - Observatory Hill
Concise Guide to the State Archives (A - B) : Board of National Education
In the last link, the descripton of "Plan of the Model School, Sydney" reads: "These documents consist of a draft sketch plan of the schoolroom of the proposed Fort Street Model School,..." --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, this contains a copy-and-paste job from an earlier version of the Wikipedia article. A compliment to us all! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The School on The Hill has the name National School. It seems that everyone has a differing opinion on the original name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamessugrono (talkcontribs) 14:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


Has tech drawing been deprecated? I'm probably sounding antedeluvian here. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll have to spoil the party and say that the new content is rather much like original research. Got references for that mate? enochlau (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I have to chase up a source regarding the learning centre, however, as for the rest of that content, it can be found at the School's website. I wasn't sure whether I should add a direct link to the Curriculum page, as the school's site is already on the page as an external link. I'll add the direct link now. And yes, I felt as though I had forgotten a subject! yes, Tech drawing, or "Graphics technology" is studied. However, it does not appear on the Curriculum page of the school's website, so I doubted whether I should have put it there.
So, to summarise, the following things I have done to the section:
  • Added a single citation to the first line (not sure where that should have gone.)
  • Removed the last paragraph, until I find sources to support it.
Thanks for the criticism, I, for one, appreciate it - at least when it's constructive. I am going to try to keep improving the article as best as I can, but I'm not sure whether this is done, and where I should go next. ----JamesSugronoU|C 07:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you have access to a copy of School on the Hill or Maroon and Silver? There is a lot of content there that could be added (and sourced!) --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I think I'll be investing in a copy of one of those soon. It should be well worth it, and I'm hoping to bring this article up to GA standard. It probably won't ever be able to be an FA, but if we try, I could be at least A ----JamesSugronoU|C 12:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you could buy those now... Are you a current or former student? enochlau (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh no, I'm a current student... I'll just ask around.----JamesSugronoU|C 04:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
There should be a copy in the library. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll be sure to grab a copy as soon as the holidays are over... if only I'd bothered to find out before the holidays, there'd have been so much work I could've done on the article. Oh well. There is that weird limbo-type period of time after School Certificate is over, this should fill in that time nicely. ----JamesSugronoU|C 16:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


I have given a B rating for WP Australia and a rare mid importance for a school. However it really needs more references and in line citations to get any where near a GA rating. Some more photos and possibly a diagram would not go astray either. Graeme Bartlett 03:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


Suggested photos:

  • Gym
  • Oval
  • General Photographs

Add to the above list, but leave a comment also. Thanks

Hey, I'm an attending student right now. Are there any other phots that would be appropriate for me to obtain? Perhaps a picture of the school assembled on Speech Day at Town Hall, to add to or replace the Memorial Hall? I can take above-average photos, but I need some ideas. Compile a list here, if you have any ideas on what to take photos of, and I'll work on getting them right after holidays are over.----JamesSugronoU|C 16:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be fabulous if you could take some photos. Just keep in mind that its best to avoid images of minors as schools have to gain parental permission to publish names and images of students, and you never know when it could be a safety risk. A photo of assembled students where you can't clearly identify each student (eg. from a distance) would be fine though. Photos of facilities are always good so maybe one of the gym or oval or something (i've only seen Fort Street from the road so not sure what would be best). I'll have a look for some historical photos. Best of luck! Loopla 02:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll add those to the list, and work on them as soon as spring holidays finish. I mean, these are the spring holidays, right... Maybe I'll get a photo of us at Town Hall next year, maybe a shot from above and slightly side-on would be acceptable? Because if I do it straight from the back, you can see the people on the stage, and from the side or front would pose similar problems. I should remind myself to do that, the opportunity only comes around every year or so. I'll take as many photos as I can, and I'll post them in a gallery-style thingy here, so we can figure out which ones would be best. Nice work getting that photo of the cigarette card. I'll see that it be moved to Commons as soon as possible, it fits the criteria. ----JamesSugronoU|C 05:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah maybe a shot of the students sitting in the raised seating area taken from the ground floor (or vice versa) that way you can see uniforms etc without too much detail. There are 3 more cigarette cards online for Fort Street (girls and boys).. feel free to change it if you prefer one of the other ones. They may be found Here. There are also heaps of historical images that can be used. They can be found Here. Hope those links work. Loopla 09:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the statue in the Fountain quad still there? How about the fountain itself? Would be good to have photos of those. enochlau (talk) 05:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be, but would there be enough room in the article to house them? I'll take some photos of everything, and see how they can fit in.----JamesSugronoU|C 05:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
It's never a bad thing to have images, even if you are not using them immediately. Any that don't fit in the article can go on a Commons page and might come in handy later on. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

History Section[edit]

Hey, I'm going to be adding a lot, and I mean a lot of content to the History Section. A school with a history as rich as ours deserves a History section that does it justice, no? Anyway, the information will be from Maroon and Silver, "The School on The Hill", and Fort Street. If there are any questions, feel free to ask me about them. Jame§ugronoContributions 11:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll just add that just because something is in those books doesn't mean it's important enough to write down. Just remember that this is an encyclopedia, and there are some things that just aren't congruent with that - just use your judgement. I'm sure you'll do well - thanks. enochlau (talk) 11:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course not. Heavens, there's so much in there that I didn't add! In fact, since a lot of the information in those books is derived from interviews, there's a lot of nostalgia which make them appear a lot longer than they actually are. I'm only adding, of course, information of encyclopaedic value, or at least, what I would expect to find. However, I'll take some advice from PalaceGuard008 and move the new section into a subpage. In the meantime, I'll revert only the history section to the revision just before my changes. The new section in progress can be found at this user subpage. And thanks to everyone who's been adding internal links to the sections. I expect to have the new, re-furbished History section done at the latest, by the end of the year. I would say sooner, but that I can't actually guarantee. Jame§ugronoContributions 08:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please also provide a link to from mention of the original site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick-cyclist (talkcontribs) 04:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced comments...[edit]

I recently removed some unsourced comments. Please make sure that you add sources for new information, or at least explain it on the talk page. Don't add {{fact}} tags, move the information here. We don't need dodgy information cluttering up the page. On a similar note, original research is tempting as so many who edit this article would have some connection with the school, and some experience with it. However, personal experience oftens causes things to seem more important that they really are. Like that the 53rd stair in the eastern stairwell has white paint on it. Or the third toilet cubicle uses a slide-lock. That was pretty random of me. Oh well. But yeah. Slay the dodgy information monster!Jame§ugrono 14:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

James, what is forbidden is contested and unsourced material, not contestable material.
The usual procedure is to tag it, and if no source is added after a reasonable time - say a week or two - remove it.
However, I agree with your comment re trivia and minutiae. Those should probably be deleted for non-notability.
But a distinction should be made between merely unsourced material (which exist in abundance in most articles) versus non-notable unsourced material. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree with PalaceGuard008 - if it's material that would, in the ordinary course of things, be in the article, but we just don't have source for it (and it's slightly contentious), then {{fact}} is the way to go. enochlau (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I probably didn't make myself clear enough. And I was probably wrong. But after a bit of thinking, it's more of the trivia-adding. Is the fact that we only sing certain verses at Speech Day noteworthy? Would we really include that in the article in the ordinary course of things? Forgive me if I'm wrong again, but I don't believe that Wikipedia is an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because something is does not mean that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Jame§ugrono 03:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
If it si true that certain verses are currently only sung at Speech Day, I wouldn't say that is worth describing here, and describing this as "Fortain tradition" is ridiculous - you were right to remove that. However, the fact that most Australian schools have a house system is a different matter. JPD (talk) 10:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about the belated response. If most Australian schools utilise a house system, and it is a salient enough fact to have been mentioned in another article, or better, a reliable, secondary source, then I would have no problem in keeping it. However, as an unsourced, {{fact}} tagged statement, (I believe) it added little, if anything, to the article. I might be wrong in that assumption, though. Jame§ugrono 07:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

List of alumni[edit]

It is ridiculous to list social categories of alumni in alphabetical order. Are you telling me that some TV show host should be listed before the first prime minister of Australia, just because "Arts" ranks before "P"olitics" in alphabetical order? These are categories, not names. The natural order for such categories is in order of notability. It might be debatable, for example, whether Sports is more notable than Arts, but there is not a shred of doubt, in my mind, that the prime ministers and judges of this nation are more notable than television hosts.

The list has been categorised thus for a long time, and it is consistent with other alumni lists; see, for example, List of University of Sydney people and List of Old Sydneians. Your view is just ridiculous. You can completely re-order the list just by switching orders - "Lawyers and Politicans" instead of "Politics and the Law", for example.

And no, there isn't a single public servant in that list. They are all politicans or lawyers. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Putting it in alphabetical order looks like some sort of thought has gone into it, rather than just looking sloppy (as it does now). I don't understand why you think politics is more notable than science etc?? Doesn't make much sense. Why is Vicki Bourne more notable than Basil Catterns (a war hero)? Its offensive. Please show me where on wikipedia I may find this "order of notability". I used the headings common for alumni lists..see List of Old Girls of PLC Sydney, List of Shore old boys, List of Riverview Old Ignatians, List of Old Trinitarians, List of Old Boys of The Scots College (Sydney), List of Old Collegians of PLC Melbourne, List of Old Boys of The King's School, Sydney etc. You're changes to the headings cause Table of Content concerns (its way too long).
In regards to your idea that there are no public servants, please tell me what category Alison Peters should go under, cause I would classify her as a politician or a call her a public servant. Loopla 13:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Order: you have your conventions, based on those schools lists, I have my conventions, based on Sydney Uni and Sydney Grammar lists. If you will indulge my arrogance for a moment, Fort Street, in terms of history, importance, and quality of graduates, is more comparable to Sydney Grammar than any of those schools you listed. But to be fair, both orders have merits, and deciding on one or other is purely a matter of editorial discretion. As a result, leave the order be, please, as they were written.
How is Alison Peters a public servant? She is notable as a union official, which is more politcal than public service. IMO, union officials should be regarded as "Community" figures, and go under the same category as charity personalities. She is, by the way, a lawyer.
Her other claim to fame is through her directorship of Sydney Water, which is a state-owned business enterprise comparable to the ABC. We don't list Donald McDonald in the politics and law category (he is under Media instead) - If you believe her directorship is more notable than her union roles, then she should be under business. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we should follow the convention across basically all school lists in this instance, whilst it may be claimed that it should be based on Sydney Uni & Sydney Grammar, in reality, we have a convention, that needs to be put across all school alumni articles. So Sydney Uni & Sydney Grammar should fall into line, as should this list. What we want is uniformity, if Sydney Grammar, Sydney Uni & Fort Street all go off on their merry way, then you are giving a license for everyone to do the same, follow the convention that is most widely used and stop wasting others time. Twenty Years 07:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that the alumni list should be dchanged so that it doesnt have a section, which uses the subsection of alumni, it should use the ";", to bold the heading so that the ToC doesnt get too long and un-usable.Twenty Years 07:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no good policy reason for alphabetising the categories. That it is used in several other articles is not a good reason, when this convention is also used in a number of other articles. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and "I have 4 articles and you have 2" is equally not a valid argument.
In the absence of a policy argument, each case must be decided on its own merit. The alphabetised list may well be more appropriate for those other schools, but there are sound considerations for why it is not suitable here. If I'm reading the alumni list of Fort Street or Sydney Grammar, I would expect Edmund Barton to be near the top of the list, not some random businessman.
You mention stability. Alphabetising by arbitrary, constructed categories is not stable. If someone wanted to promote, say, their favourite sports stars to the top of the list, all they have to do is change "Sports" to "Athletes". You are encouraging instability in both ordering and category naming. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
By the same token, there is no good policy reason for not alphabetising the sections. If its not a good reason, why did you mention it again?
What are these considerations, you have not mentioned any of them~
It is stable, youve simply created a situation where it wouldnt be, and the simple answer in that instance is that the community wouldnt allow it, thats how its going to be stopped, and how your plan will be stopped.Twenty Years 10:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
This article had been stable for a long time before Loopla came along and disturbed its arrangement.
If there are no good policy reasons for either case, you should leave it be as it was written - in this case, arranged in order of notability and not alphabetically.
I have mentioned the considerations: that when I go to the Sydney University alumni list, or the Sydney Grammar alumni list, or the Fort Street alumni list, I expect to see Edmund Barton near the top of the list, nor a random businessperson. To put it more formally, I expect to see those alumni who have made the greatest impact on their world and who are most notable to be prioritised in ordering the categories.
Ordering by alphabet may be fine in some cases, but here, it is inappropriate for two reasons:
  1. The naming of the categories, their labels, which decides their ordering under alphabetisation, is not unproblematic nor inherent in the list members. As the discussions have shown, whether a category is called "politics and law" or "politics, public servants and the law" is debatable; similarly, whether the cateogry is called "sportspersons" or "athletes" is debatable. Thus, the rationale applied to, say, alphabetise a list of countries is inapplicable, since countries have (generally) unproblematic names which are not inherently ordinal.
  2. The consideration that we are dealing with a list of notable people, some of whom may be inherently more notable than others by virtue of their categorisation, militates against alphabetisation. To say that a TV host is as notable as the prime ministers, governor generals and high court justices of this country is to engage in unacceptable value relativism.
When you rank alphabetically, you are ranking the names - the labels affixed to each category. When you are ranking the categories by notability (albeit it is a value judgement), you are ranking the thing itself -- the connotation vs the denotation. For the reasons stated above, I believe that it is more appropriate to rank the thing itself than the labels in this case.
Do not threaten me with "the Community" - you do not speak for the community, and neither do I. Your presumption to speak for the community is simply bad form. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I have contacted WikiProject Schools and asked for their view on the situation. Twenty Years 13:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
To be 100% brutally honest, i dont give a flying f@@k about whether theyre in alpha order or not, i think it would look neater. But leave the sections as they are now, we dont want a long ToC. Ill let others look into the matters. Cheers. Twenty Years 13:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, and just for the record, I feel unable to engage in a serious discussion with a user who spits out offensive language at the merest setback, rather than engaging with arguments. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair response under the circumstances TY that really is unnecessary and unhelpful. BTW why not just place a paragraph at the start of the section highlighting the most significant figures something like;
Fort Street High School has had within its alumni many significant people including Australia's first Prime Minister Sir Edmund Barton, three premiers of New South Wales Sir Joseph Carruthers, B.S.B. Stevens and Neville Wran and Governor General Sir John Kerr. Alumni have not been only successful in politics but across the whole community including Antartic explorer Douglas Mawson, Harry Hopeman tennis player, John Singleton broadcaster and advertising. Not everybody has been notable for their positive effects on the community underworld figure Abe Saffron also attended Fort Street.
that just a thought as prose is always more interesting to read than a list and these people do deserve being highlighted rather just lost within the list. At the same time no matter how the lists are formatted they still retain appropriate significance. Gnangarra 16:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Twenty Years left a pointer to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. There's some quite detailed advice in the guideline at WikiProjectSchools: Alumni, though it's no more than advice and doesn't have to be followed to the letter. You may find some parts of this more helpful than others, but in summary -

  1. All alumni information must be referenced. See Wikipedia:Footnoting for technical help. Individual alumni need a citation a) to verify that they did indeed attend the school and b) to verify the statement of their notability in their short one or two line description. If an alumnus has their own article in mainspace, then it is not necessary for their notability to be referenced, as long as it is done on their actual page.
  2. All alumni, provided that they meet the notability criteria, are to be included on an alumni list regardless of how much time they have spent on a school roll, from one day to several years.
  3. Entries should be bulleted and have a one- or two-line description declaring notability. Links to articles related to an entry are encouraged, but beware of overlinking.
  4. A decision about which entries to redlink, in the case of many entries without their own article, should be made by editors at individual pages.
  5. After a description, state when they graduated or what years they attended. After that, list any school awards or positions e.g. School Captain.
  6. People on the list should be categorized according to the field that made them famous: e.g. Politics, Medicine, Academia. It is acceptable to list someone in more than one field, provided that this is mentioned in a side note. Add something like: "(note: - Also listed in Sport)".
  7. Other ways to categorize entries include purely alphabetically, but it has been expressed that this is not particularly helpful to the reader.
  8. As all alumni who attended a school for any amount of time must be included across all alumni articles, some attendees will have attended more than one school. Place in brackets the name of any other schools that they attended.
  9. If a bulleted list of alumni in a school article becomes quite large, consider moving it to another page entitled "List of...".

On the thoughts in this thread above about putting the most notable people first, that seems to me to call for subjective judgements. Is a famous astronomer more notable than a famous boxer, and does it matter very much? I've organized several of these lists for English schools, and I'd say just being included in the list somewhere is what matters most, and the position of someone in the list doesn't seem to me very critical. In the words of St Matthew, "The first shall be last and the last shall be first". Xn4 03:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, you clearly don't want anyone to touch this article. If you don't like my additions please feel free to also remove the referenced alumni I added and images. BTW, "if you will indulge my arrogance for a moment", according to the who's who (in the Sun Herald article "The ties that bind"), Fort Street boys ranked 8th in terms of number of notable alumni (Grammar not in the top 10, Shore above Fort Street), whilst girls from Fort Street didnt even get a mention (while PLC Melb came first and PLC Syd 4th). Do some research before making such sweeping claims. Do what you want with this article, I quite frankly couldn't given a damn, just thought I would help try and get it to GA since it seems to be in a rut. Loopla 05:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Loopla, are you actually from Australia? I don't know how to respond to your number counting argument, except to say that counting the number of people in the Who's Who (based on this result) is not a good way of determining school reputations. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're talking to me, Loopla? The layout of the page is for its editors to decide, and I can't see any real objections to the present format of the alumni list (by PalaceGuard008, as amended by Twenty Years, who replaced the headers with bold text) or to the previous format by you. If the article is going to look for GA status, then here are two comments which may help: (1) the list would do much more for the article if it were fully referenced; and (2) it's now taking up so much of the page that it would be better to move it to a separate page, linked from Fort Street High School, such as List of Fortians. That approach has already been adopted by other important Australian schools, such as Geelong (List of Old Geelong Grammarians) and Newington (List of Old Newingtonians). If your list does get onto a separate page, then in my view headers would be useful to help people to navigate up and down it, but that would be for those of you here to discuss. Xn4 06:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Considering that this schools is only of Mid importance, i dont think an alumni page is nescessary. The bold text headings are fine as they are, as it shortens the ToC. I think that the sections should be named as users with (eg. arts, politics and the law etc), but they should be in alphabetical order, because it makes for better readability. This list is long, so having it in alphabetical order will make it easier for users to navigate around the section. Alternatively, we could use the multicol template, which will create two columns for the alumni section, and just make it even shorter, so as not to dominate the page. Thoughts. Twenty Years 02:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
On a further note, per WP Schools, the alumni should be referenced on their actual wikipedia page. In the case of there being no article, then they should be referenced on their schools page. Agree with XN4, if there is to be a new article, then sections would be appropriate, instead of the bold text, to create easier navigation, where there wont be a ToC issue. Cheers. Twenty Years 02:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with the subsection formatting. As I have stated, my view is that arrangement in order of notability is more logical - and thus, more readable.
On the issue of importance ratings - why on earth is this article "Mid" importance when, say, Newington College is "Top"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
On the question of Top priority, see Category:Top-importance school articles - only twenty-six schools in the world have so far been given that priority (the category also includes secondary pages for three of those). Xn4 02:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course, Twenty Years, it's up to the editors here whether to keep such a long alumni list on the main page, but if you do decide to make a GA attempt, then you may prefer to avoid the known causes of failure. As an instance, see Awadewit's explanation here of his failing Institut Le Rosey on 20 July 2007. His fourth bullet point reads "The list of alumni is too long - either create a separate page or drastically reduce it to a paragraph. (Yes, all alumni claims have to be sourced.)" The alumni list at Institut Le Rosey was (and still is, but now on its separate page) much shorter than your list here. The point about referencing alumni is that it's their attendance at the school which needs to be referenced, and that is only rarely done on the biographical articles. The foolproof way to cover it is to reference them all in your own list. Xn4 02:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh no, I have no problem with this school being mid-importance - sounds about right - and I note that Sydney Grammar School doesn't even have an importance rating. I was just surprised that Newington - not a particularly noted school even in Sydney - is "Top importance". I guess that's a question more appropriate for the Wikiproject talk page than here. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The rule of thumb is that only one or two schools in each country should be given Top importance. On the assessment of Newington, see Talk:Newington_College#Assessment. I see that Camaron1 made it Top but then downgraded it to High, but was persuaded by one of your editors here to change his mind. I'm not qualified to judge the top two schools in Australia, but you may feel there should be a discussion on that at WikiProject Schools. As you say, Sydney Grammar School hasn't been rated yet, I guess because no one has so far asked for an assessment. Regards, Xn4 03:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I have re-assessed Newington College (High) and Sydney Grammar School (Top). FYI, i am an "experienced assessor" at the assessment department of WP:SCH. Thanks for your input here. Twenty Years 05:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


Some of these alumni appear to be non-notable:

  • Linda Ashford (P&L) is NN - being a district court judge isnt notable, supreme court is.
  • Ross Blunden
  • Harold Hart
  • Make sure the sporting meet WP:SPORT, didnt check them

I would like the descriptions to be shortened, they are too long and make using the Multicol template completely unworkable. Twenty Years 05:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I note from the history that there seems to be some controversy on the ordering of the alumni sections and that the page has been going backwards and forwards depending on the whims of the current editor. To my mind it would be much better to organise the categories in alphabetical order. The current order is subjective and illogical. Why should the lawyers be listed at the top of the list? If you want to highlight particularly famous alumni such as the former Prime Minister then do so by means of a short introduction to the alumni section. Of more concern is the lack of references for most of the alumni (including your PM). There should be a reference either in the person's Wiki article or in the school article to verify the claim that the person actually attended the school. The list could also do with some trimming as there seem to be a lot of seemingly non-notable alumni who are unlikely to have Wiki articles. Dahliarose 11:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Entirely agree with you on all other points, but still don't understand why people think arranging categories alphabetically is "logical" or "neat" - categories are labels - you can label a group of people however you want. They're not like names, where you can find an agreed-upon name. To give you an example, should the first category be "Politics and the Law"? or should it be "Statesman and Jurists"? or should it be "Public Office"? Or maybe "Lawyers and politicians"? You can't say any of those labels is better than another, and choosing between labels will change the alphabetical order.
Alphabetical order is logical when you have a list of things identified by their names for which there is no inherent order - e.g. list of people, or list of countries.
For lables of categories, alphabetising is not logical - it's a default method when there is no single (or no reasonable) way to order things.
There are very good reasons for why the politicians and lawyers should be the first category. Leaders of the land, for better or for worse, make the greatest impact on the country. If you search lists of notable alumni on most school or university's own websites, they tend to list the political leaders first.
Surely John Kerr and Garfield Barwick have had more impact than anyone in the other categories?
Anyway, I think whether alphabetising should be used depends on the particular case. If the school is famous for producing sportspeople, then sportspeople should be put first. If the school is famous for producing judges, then judges should be put first. If the school has a long history, chronological categories are probably appropriate. If the school is well-rounded, then alphabetising may well be the way to go.
Imposing alphabetical order on an article just in the name of "neatness" is not a good approach. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I can understand putting royalty or prime ministers at the top of the list but I can't see any logical reason to include a list of lawyers at the top, especially when the list is headed by two red links, which makes it look very unsightly. I live in the UK and have not heard of any of the alumni listed. The alumnus of the most international interest would probably be Sir Douglas Mawson so if you're having a subjective ordering of categories then the science section would probably be better at the top to my mind. At least with an alphabetical ordering there can be no dispute over precedence and it is easier for people to find the appropriate categories and add more alumni. I suggest you take a vote and go with the consensus. Dahliarose 14:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I think Dahlia has nailed it on the head. Thank you. Twenty Years 14:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Since you haven't heard of any of them, then whether you know of them or not seems to have no role to play in determining order of notability.
In Australia, domestically, however, the high court judges, prime minister and governor-general would be well known.
I do agree that "lawyers" shouldn't be at the top of the list, and, absent other claims to notability, a district court judge or a senior/queen's counsel should not be in the list.
You said it is reasonable to put royalty and prime ministers at the top of the list - well unfortunately here in the colonies we don't have much in the way of royalty (except, of course, for Geelong, where, for some reason, HRH Prince Charles is listed behind some minor clergymen). But my point is - political leaders and high court/supreme court judges should be at the top of the list - just as royalty and political leaders, one would think, should be in other contexts
Finally, alphabetising is not a standard convention: in addition to the examples I listed before, you can see that Geelong also uses notability-ordered categories, as did a number of other schools (e.g. Sydney High) before Loopla came and changed it.
Discounting Loopla's intervention, there are enough exceptions to disestablish the alphabetising rule. More, telling, perhaps, is that those schools that don't follow alphabetical categories tend to be older, more prestigious schools - precisely the category to which this school belongs.
That said, I think a poll is a good idea. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
(reduce indent) I would beg to differ on even your first point here, whilst PM's are notable and known, many Australians have little knowledge of who is on the high court, let alone GGeneral of the country, the only ones they will remember will be Hollingworth over the issues he had, which ultimately lead to his resignation and possibly about the homosexual high court judge. People simply, do not know their name.
We do agree there: Judged from the supreme court and above are notable, nothing else, unless they have done something else significant.
Going by alphabetical ordering, it creates certainty and stability. How many discussions need to be had on school talk pages to determine the order of the Alumni section? It is simply wasting everyones time, we should just go alphabetically, like many people have suggested and continue this trend across all school articles.
My major issue with the notability order proposal is what happens when people disagree as to which section is more notable? They have a discussion, to determine consensus, and then watch it happen on another 100 school articles, so that we develop another precedent. The plan is flawed.

Thank you. Twenty Years 00:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Funny you should mention the homosexual high court judge, because he is on this list ;) - as are 1) the first prime minister of Australia, who became a high court judge, 2) the one who stopped the Communist Party case and went on to become UN General Assembly president, and 3) the one who advised the GG to dismiss Whitlam.
These are well known people. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion here between notability and fame, which is not required. See Wikipedia:Notability. Xn4 01:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Completely agree with Xn4 in this case. Being well-known is not the same as being notable. Notabilty means it (in this case, these people) have had significant coverage by reliable, independent sources. Having said that, we should trim the list down. It does seem to be too large, and we really do need sources for all of those redlinked alumni. Reliable sources, that is. I would like to propose that for now, we postpone ordering the alumni sections. Agree with Twenty Years - it is a waste of time, especially when the alumni section is not all that complete or properly formatted, and sourced yet. So for now, could everyone please just forget about ordering the list? Try to prove notability instead of trying to disprove it, which will lead to the better article which I'm sure everyone here wants. Jame§ugrono 12:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

New history section[edit]

Hi - as many regulars will know, I've been doing significant work on the school's article, adding more information referencing the old, etc. However, I would like to make an open call for help on the new History section, which I've been working on in one of my subpages. Anyone who can get their hands on a reliable source documenting the schools history, particularly notable events in the school's life should contribute. Anyone who can contribute any reliable, independent sources should help. The subpage can be found at: User:Jamessugrono/Fort Street High School History Thanks in advance for any help. Jame§ugrono 07:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


Following a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Assessment it has been decided to upgrade Fort Street to high importance in view of its status as the oldest public school in Australia and because of the length and importance of the alumni list. Dahliarose 08:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


The alumni section is getting very long, about time to create a new page for the alumni, I'll get started ASAP.Libstooge 01 03:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

== Removing PR from this page ==andy seagrove is the best guy to ever agtend fort st, high school.

Reverted "list of old fortians" to List of former students of Fort Street High School as "old fortians" is a PR term used to make the alumni of the school sound prestigious, and the majority of schools that do not see themselves as elite use the original convention for naming alumni. The title is also more familliar for non-sydneysiders. The title potentially also makes the article a POV Fork Libstooge 01 (talk) 04:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

All of that is OR on your part. Clearly the school calls its alumni Fortians. Wikipedia prefers official names over descriptions whenever it exists.
You say the majority of schools that do not see themselves as elite use the original convention for naming alumni. That is your original research. From the article, it would seem that the oldest selective school in the state and the alma mater of 10% of the High Court is pretty prestigious. Of course, prestige is entirely subjective, but this delineation between schools that do and do not "see themselves as prestigious" seems very Original Research.
The convention on Wikipedia is to prefer what the school calls its own alumni. A descriptive name is used only when no such name exists. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Very bizarre. When does a name stop being simply the name that is actually used, and become "PR"? Are we in a position to judge which names are valid, and which have been chosen to sound prestigious? Actually, I think you will find that in the real world, when schools first started talking about the alumni as a group, they used terms like "Old Etonians", and that was the original convention. These days, this convention is associated with the "elite" schools as it has not in general been continued by newer schools. However, for whatever reason whether simply history or seeking prestige, Fort St Alumni are called Fortians (although I have never heard the phrase "Old Fortians"). Wikipedia prefers actually prefers commmon names over descriptions, and the common name is Fortians. JPD (talk) 11:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
You are the ones that have just given no explaination as to why this PR sham of a title should continue. it is an unfamiliar term to anyone who does not attend the school,evidenced by the last poster "although I have never heard the phrase 'Old Fortians'"(JPD (talk) 11:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)). Let me give you an example. If one wanted to find the alumni of a school, for example Bean High School and had no knowledge of the school, they would search for for "former Bean high school students", or "been high school alumni", which is mare likely to yield a favourable result if the top page was descriptive, rather than objective. Furthermore, if the top page in search was "Old Beanies", for example. it has the potential to confuse. The practice of school-sanctioned PR alumni names has to stop. You former fort street high students using this wiki have given no logical explaination to justify why the status quo should remain in reagrds to this page, except to try and save the now declining prestige of the school. it is also unrepresentative of the bulk of alumni who would not be considered "old" by national standards. Libstooge 01 (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. Coca Cola is a "PR exercise". Do you think it should be changed to "Red and white carbonated cola drink manufactured by the Coca-Cola company"? There is no rule against "PR" on Wikipedia. None of your arguments are sourced and it is all based on your own personal opinions - it's not even original research because it is not research. Stop moving the page for no good cause. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Yet you still haven't justified why it should remain on the "old Fortians" page. My opinions raise a good point about article titles that are dismissed out of hand by your vested interest in the page. (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh for heavens' sake, it is not PR as you say. You raise a number of other issues that are worth discussing, but your PR point makes no sense. It is a fact that alumni of this school are called "Fortians". You claim that having Fortians in the title would make it hard to search for. Wikipedia:Common names would tell you that we have titles at common names, and Fortians is what we call these people. Also, a web search would pick up in the text of the article that we are talking about alumni of Fort Street High School. No problem there. You argue that it's inconsistent with other school articles. However, there is a substantial number of alumni list articles that use a particular name for alumnis: see List of Old Sydneians, List of Old Falconians and List of Old Gowers (the latter two are actually referenced from Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools). If you insist that the article title should not have Fortians in it, you are creating an inconsistency instead. The issue you raise of whether we should be using these terms at all is an issue wider than just Fort Street High School, and the correct way to go about it would be to propose something at WikiProject Schools and have a wide group of people discuss a proposal that affects all articles. Arguing over just one school is not the right way to go. Also, I will note that if you want to move something, the onus is usually on the person performing the move to justify why it's warranted, not the other way around. Also, never perform a cut and paste move. enochlau (talk) 12:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I will point out that I think that as long as these sort of articles do use the names used by the schools/alumni associations, the name should be "List of Fortians". Many schools do use the "Old XXXians" approach, but I don't think this has ever been the case at Fort St. This has nothing to do with whether the name is prestigious or not, just whether or not it is the name that is actually used. (Libstooge, I suggest you also look up "old" in a dictionary, where you should see definitions such as " former, past, or ancient, as time, days, etc.", "formerly in use" and "having been so formerly: the old girls of a school.") JPD (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
That is a good proposal. enochlau (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Moved. enochlau (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Attempted armed assult[edit]

I'm sure many of you know about this, most probably in a greater detail than I do myself. For those that don't, several Fortian students were involved in an attempted armed assult against students at a neighbouring school earlier this week.

Of course it goes without saying there will be a section created in the main body of this article concerning this incident as soon as appropriate media coverage is available.Jason McConnell-Leech (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, any developments? enochlau (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
As a current student, I know that one student was expelled for possessing of an illegal firearm and drugs. Another student suspended for being at the scene. Since there is no media coverage over this (it's not even in the school newspapers) I can't say who was involved or who the other school is. Extremepro (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
As a student indirectly involved with the alleged assaulters I can tell you that this event received no media coverage as it was an internal issue that never got out to the media as the police were not present at the scene to defuse the onset of the alleged assault and the students involved were intercepted by the principal. The student mentioned above by Extremepro was not in fact expelled for possession of an illegal firearm and drugs, instead they were suspended for the maximum allowed time period and asked to consider moving schools to split up the group involved which they chose to do. The information from Extremepro about other students was purely rumour and speculation and does not in fact represent the true events proceeding and preceding the "attempted armed assault" which in fact was not even attempted, merely considered, some might say a little too much.--Guywithoutaname (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

School Principal[edit]

The school principal is not "John Gaal =D", its Roslynne Moxham. That should be pretty obvious, considering the =D, now FSHS teachers ridicule Wikipedia at being unreliable just because now they actually have proof. I would've left it, because Gaal would have been a better one, if I didn't care so much about Wikipedia. First line of the history section also has an obvious error. (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the editor's point was that John Gaal (or any random walking off the street) would have made a better principal. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

change principleCokepenguin, 9 June 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} principle=John Gaal

Cokepenguin (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: According to the official website, the principal is still Roslynne Moxham. Favonian (talk) 08:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

FLOP protests?[edit]

Hey, I'm just wondering whether there is any kind of revival movement regarding the FLOP? The article makes it seem as though this is current, so I wonder whether anyone knows whether it is? I'm going to change it to past tense, if anyone contests, feel free to cite and edit. Thanks! Jame§ugrono 09:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Crests of Fort Street High[edit]

A reader has supplied a photo of a collage of the crests of Fort Street High.

Crests of Fort Street High.png

This image may belong on the article, but it isn't clear to me where, or whether it needs accompanying text. I hope some of the editors can find a way to use it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Fort Street High School. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Fort Street High School. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fort Street High School. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)