Jump to content

Talk:Newtown High School of the Performing Arts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notable Alumni

[edit]

Joe, perhaps we should setup some sorta criteria for notable alumni. Otherwise it's going to get a bit long...

Can I suggest some thing like if the person is refernced in a reputable news source (eg, smh) then they are notable. I just don't know if it's worth noting:

  • Alycia Debnam-Carey (graduated 2011) appeared in the TV series The 100 and Fear The Walking Dead as well as many feature films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.182.141 (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nicholas Brown (graduated 1997) appeared in the TV series The Cooks.
Appeared? Did he star or was a regular. A lot of people have appeared in a TV show, even kids who are still at the high school.
  • Abe Forsythe (1999) appeared in the TV series Always Greener.
Same comment as above
  • Tim Judge (1998) and went on to direct A Whole Lot Of Swing About Nothing at the Seymour Centre in 2000.
Show doesn't have any google hits. Was it a particularly notable show?
Casual as in...?
Hmmm...notable for the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Choir
  • Imara Savage (1996) is an Australian Youth Ambassador for Development.
Hey, I know her. There are a lot of Australian Youth Ambassadors
Could be considered vanity per the Wikipedia Guidelines.

I think we should be moving towards making this page more expansive with regards to the activies of the schools, and notable achievements. Chanlord 06:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a reasonable criteria. (Apart for Matthew Taylor, who is a journalist and can't expect to generate much coverage about himself.) I have removed the ones whose achievements have not been the subject of coverage in a major daily newspaper. Joestella 06:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the thing about vanity and autobiographies. I can see why you'd have cause for concern. Joestella 06:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No offence, but it's a bit of a faux pas to write about yourself. Perhaps your achievements are indeed notable, but if other editors start to think otherwise, perhaps they are right. enochlau (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, I read the guidelines on the subject of vanity. I also made a conscious decision to take my actual name as my username. Its not ideal to be writing stuff about areas in which you have personal experience, but then all of us in this discussion have been doing that. "Chanlord" has suggested a reasonable criteria for inclusion. I have included only those who I can verify have met that criteria. Joestella 00:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's bad form to write about yourself on Wikipedia, and it's even more bad form to revert that when it's taken out for non-notability. As I said on your talk page, editing a student newspaper doesn't make you notable. I could well have run for my university one this year and would have had a chance of winning, but if I'd won I wouldn't be adding my own name to the alumni section of the university article. And neither does being a random news reporter. Ambi 00:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps not. But then, ANU has more former Woroni editors than it does years in its history. I'd also be interested to know how appearing regularly on The Cooks makes one more notable than appearing regularly on Sky News Australia. Joestella 00:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So does every campus. Appearing regularly on a drama series gives one advertising, press coverage and interviews with that person. I've never seen the show, but I know exactly who it refers to. A reporter, on the other hand, isn't just notable by being a reporter; what evidence is there that this guy is any different to any other random reporter? Ambi 02:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Selective High School

[edit]

While Newtown High is selective it isn't a "Selective High School" in the sense that students don't have to sit and get appropriate marks at the end of Year 6 exams.

From the Selective High Schools page

"This is a list of selective high schools in New South Wales, a state of Australia. In New South Wales, the term "selective high school" refers to a public school where enrolment is contigent on performance in an academically-oriented entrance examination, as opposed to a comprehensive high school, which is typically community-based."

May I suggest a new category: Schools with a focus on the Performing Arts in Australia and include other schools just as Jannali, Campbelltown and other such schools. This category could even be a subcategory of selective, although personally I wouldn't as each school has it's own method of accepting students Chanlord 01:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. "Selective high school" in New South Wales has a specific meaning: academically selective high school. Newtown doesn't belong in this category I don't think. enochlau (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia definition of a selective high school is obviously subject to change - it having been written last month by Enoch Lau. Viewed from the point of view of education policy, a list of state-run high schools that accept students on the basis of merit rather than (or in addition to) address is useful to the reader. The DET has divided its information by market segment - parents rarely want to send their child to a school merely on the basis that it selects for something.
The DET categorises its schools as follows: General, Selective High Schools, Technology High Schools, Sports High Schools, Senior High Schools and Colleges, Collegiates, Language Schools and Creative and Performing Arts. While "selective" is the current (and no doubt transient) internal category, it isn't illuminating to the reader and so is a poor basis for creating categories on Wikipedia.
That Campbelltown, Westfields and Newtown are non-academically-selective selective schools provides information about the NSW approach to state education. Indeed, some controversy surrounds the presence of both selective and non-academically-selective selective high schools in the system. In any case, throughout my time at NHSPA, from the auditions through to study, the school always presented itself as "selective". Joestella 02:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Newtown High School of the Performing Arts is NOT a selective high school, where, in New South Wales, entry into a "selective high school" is based on an academic examination sat by Year 6 students towards the end of the year.
Now I'm sure there are many schools across the state that have some sort "entry criteria", academically or otherwise. For instance, Westfields Sports High School in Fairfield, requires students to have excelled in a sport, Northmead High School, Newtown High School and others requires students to have excelled in dramatic arts, I even had to sit an examination for entry in Barker College in Year 3, and I'm sure other Non-Governments schools do the same, but these schools are not selective schools. Only those deemed by the New South Wales Department of Education and Training are considered so. Regards -- Ianblair23 (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also went to NHSPA and yes, while it does chose most students based on their auditions for Music, Drama and Dance, it isn't a Selective High School not just in the terms of DET classification but also just in terms of the general public and acceptance of what selective high school means. It doesn't make NHSPA any less important or significant, it's just merely not acamdemically selective. I would highly suggested a new category if you so wish: Schools in New South Wales with a focus on the Performing Artsor something similar-Chanlord 02:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, perhaps it's time to subcat Category:Schools in New South Wales. enochlau (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than argue any further about the problems of internally-significant categories, I have just created a subcategory based on the DET creative and performing arts high schools internally-significant category. Joestella 03:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that in the normal English-language sense, NHSPA is a selective high school, but the NSW Department of Education uses the term in a more restricted way. The department usage has become to a certain extent the normal usage within NSW, but not completely, and definitely not for people from elsewhere. I think the list of selective high schools should be the list of Department defined selective schools, but I think this is a yet another example of why we shouldn't just label them as "selective high schools". I don't know why I didn't thinkof the selective on non-academic merit issue during the earlier discussion, since I know remember having a very similar discussion about the meaning of "selective high school" with respect to NHSPA about 10 years ago while I was still in Sydney. I'm more and more liking something along the lines of "NSW Selective High Schools". JPD (talk) 10:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We've discussed this in depth before at Talk:List of selective high schools in New South Wales, but to reiterate, I get the difference you're trying to portray, but it is a subtle change in sematics ("NSW" in front as opposed to after it). It might still just be a little too subtle for those unfamiliar with the system. Perhaps we create lists of other Department-defined categories, and create prominent links to them, to enable the reader to explore the issue him/herself? enochlau (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If we agree to run with the Department's categories (easy at least in that there is always one authoritative source on them) then we need only ensure that all the department's categories are mirrored in the Wikipedia category tree and that each category document makes clear that the terms (like 'selective') are being used in the departmental sense. (This is very important when we get to the DET category "Schools for a specific purpose".) Joestella 12:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I totally agree. Let's go! enochlau (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New criteria for notable alumni

[edit]

Last time we discussed (and, I thought, finalised) this, it was determined that the criteria for notability in this context is that the alumnus have been the subject of an article in a major media outlet. In the Chanlord's formulation, "if the person is referenced in a reputable news source (eg, smh) then they are notable" This is a good rule of thumb for as long as it produces a managable number of results.

What passes muster as a notable alumni will be different for each institution. Being on The Cooks wouldn't be enough if your school is more than a century old and counts High Court justices and Prime Ministers among its alumni. What matters in the context (ie, what would be illuminating for the reader) is who the school's most notable alumni are. This information speaks to the school's age, focus and quality.

I'd ask Ambi, Enochlau and Chanlord to suggest an alternative criteria if they have any better ideas. And to apply it consistently. Sound fair enough? Joestella 02:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think as it stands now, the included alumni are good criteria for inclusion as notable alumni. Because the school in a performing arts high school particular notice should be give to students which have excelled in their chosen fields. Notable actors and musicians are now included in the articles and I feel each of them is notable. I am not saying that other people who are Notable in other fields shouldn't be listed. By I do agree that working on a student newspaper isn't notable and being one of many many many news reporters (on cable no less) isn't notable. But appearing as a regular on an Australian TV series is notable. Appearing as a main character in an Australian film is notable and having your own album (and with a lots of google hits) is notable. I recommend a good test would be to do what you would normally do for new articles (see Google test).
An example: I'll give you an example of someone who might be a notable alumni in the future, Rose Jackson, a former NHSPA student (2002). At the moment she is the President-elect of the NUS. However, someday I'm more than sure that'll she enter some form of government in Australia (State or Federal). At that time, I would consider her notable.
So to sum up, let's use the Google test and leave it at that, because in the end it doesn't really matter -- Chanlord 03:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that "the included alumni are good criteria" is not an acceptable criteria, because it's a standard that exists only in the mind of the person who last edited the list. I take it that you want to change your suggested criteria "if the person is referenced in a reputable news source (eg, smh) then they are notable", then. I'd be interested to know why. Also, how does a Google test work?
I was not aware that Rose was a former NHSPA student. She will generate a fair bit of press in her new role and will absolutely be notable enough. When did she graduate? Joestella 04:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
She went to Usyd and she graduated from NHSPA in 2002, she was in my year. And no, I don't think she's notable enough now because outside the world of student politics and students in general, it just isn't that notable. Definitely worth mentioning on the NUS page though -- Chanlord 04:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is she notable enough to warrant her own article? I guess not. But she's about to represent 800,000 students to the Australian community - and that's clearly as big a deal as, say, being part of Hi-5. It seems like what you're saying is that, for example, Stephen Gray isn't notable enough to be listed as the principal because he isn't notable enough to have his own article. The criteria for mention in an article is not the same as the criteria for being the subject of an article.
It's clear that "the included alumni are good criteria" is not an acceptable criteria, because it's a standard that exists only in the mind of the person who last edited the list. I take it that you want to change your suggested criteria "if the person is referenced in a reputable news source (eg, smh) then they are notable", then. I'd be interested to know why. Also, how does a Google test work? What is the exact benchmark you propose? Joestella 04:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rose Jackson is absolutely notable. Articles on really notable student politicians have tended to survive VFD (c.f. Felix Eldridge, Julian Barendse and Samantha Aber). As incoming president of the NUS, she's bound to get an article soon, and putting her on the alumni list here is a nobrainer. Ambi 04:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped caring about a page and a half ago. In the end, no matter what criteria you sent out, it's only going to be as good the person who comes along and edits it after you. Read the Google test article. Use your common sense. And on Rose Jackson she may be representing over 800,000 students but of those students probably less than 5% of them would actually care. Edit it more if you feel you must, but don't be suprised if it's edited by someone else, because that's the nature of Wikipedia. Chanlord 04:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for notable alumni

[edit]

In order to be listed as a notable alumnus, a person must satisfy one of the following criteria.

  • be the subject of a Wikipedia article in their own right
  • be part of a band, or a principal cast member of a show, that is the subject of a Wikipedia article in their own right
  • the person's activities in their field have been the subject of coverage in a metropolitan daily newspaper on more than one occasion

This criteria should be reviewed after the list has exceeded 25 entries, until then I see no reason to be any more picky. And hopefully this will cut through spurious arguments about what constitutes a "big deal". If no-one has any better ideas, I'll implement this in the near future. Joestella 05:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need criteria when common sense serves just fine? The current list seems to be more or less agreed upon, and we can use the same process for any later additions. Ambi 05:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded -- Chanlord 05:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of consistency and fairness - and to make it easy for anyone to add new entries.
The two of you have (unstated) criteria in your heads that you propose to use when discussing future candidates for this section. The outlines of those criteria will show themselves in any future discussion - you will make appeals to them as you make your case. So the desirability of criteria per se is not in question. So why not bring those criteria out into the open where they can be the subject of proper scrutiny? Joestella 05:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because people can use common sense and if others feel that someone isn't notable enough to be put into the section (and other agree) it's easily removable. Ultimately I don't think it's going to be that much of a problem that you need to set out criteria. Probably more on a case-by-case basis. But again, why is this important? -- Chanlord 05:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is an important manner of principle, it proves the good faith of the participants, and it eliminates disputes. See it from my perspective: there was a disagreement, you set out objective criteria, I added people who met the criteria, you sought to remove them, I queried your interpretation, you now oppose the very notion of objective criteria. Joestella 05:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've stopped caring and I'm not going to continue debating the matter purely for the waste of Wikipedia server storage -- Chanlord 05:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a bit frustrating. I'm trying to be reasonable and develop a consensus here. Joestella 06:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of reinventing the wheel here. It's all been thrashed out at WP:BIO; although that's for articles in themselves, I think it wouldn't be too much of a stretch of the imagination to say that a criterion for whether an alumni of an educational institution should be listed is whether they deserve an article on Wikipedia, just so as to be consistent. enochlau (talk) 09:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a consistent criterion in and of itself, debates over votes for deletion show this. It isn't easy to apply we can only prove whether those listed qualify after their pages have been created and have survived a vote for deletion. More importantly, it's not strictly relevant to a Wikipedia reader visiting the NHSPA article that few of its alumni deserve a place in an encyclopedia. More important for them to see what sort of things its alumni are doing - with higher standards of notability applying if and when the list becomes unweildy. Joestella 09:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written ... in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more" would encompass not just the editors but contributors to student publications at major Australian universities. Joestella 09:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you raise a good point. However, I'm not so sure about the meaning of "Published authors, editors, and photographers" -- note the "Published in front". I don't know - there must be some way to stop people who've written a letter to the editor of the SMH and saying they're notable. But I guess if you were editor, that's somewhat notable! Don't know, I now don't really have a strong feeling on the issue. enochlau (talk) 10:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop the vanity edits, Joe. If you're notable enough, you'll be added to the article by someone else (or they'll write an article on you). There's not a hope in hell an article on you would survive an AfD, and per WP:BIO, you're simply not notable enough to go in an alumni list. It's not just you, either, for the same applies to the reporter. Ambi 10:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I find that offensive. The point of this 'talk' page is to resolve disputes. I see little in your last post besides attacks. Joestella 11:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rephrase. I'd really rather not make this personal, but you must understand that vanity writing on Wikipedia really is frowned upon. Furthermore, it often does tend to meet a nasty response - particularly when pushed. This whole conversation seems to be for the sole purpose of you trying to argue why you should be included in this article for some not overly noteworthy deeds. I'm sorry, but you simply don't meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Do you want to keep pushing this, or can we get on with working on building an encyclopedia? Ambi 11:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons for vanity writing being frowned upon are good ones: one cannot be expected to write objectively about oneself. And one cannot be expected to be objective in determining whether one is noteworthy enough to merit inclusion. Fair enough. But the point is not to allow subjective judgments to be made by others.
So what are the criteria against which potential inclusions must be objectively judged? You are unwilling to articulate them. Chanlord is unwilling to stand by his earlier criteria. And Enochlau is hazy on how strictly to apply the WP:BIO criteria, having suggested it himself. What is going on here? Joestella 11:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You've said it yourself. "One cannot be expected to be objective in determining whether one is noteworthy enough to merit inclusion." Can we just leave it at that? Ambi 12:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that he strictly meets the following: "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more". My gut feeling is that (no offence meant, just being realistic) Joe is not notable, but by the guidelines, he is? enochlau (talk) 12:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ambi's comment was not an attack. It was perhaps a little strongly worded, but definitely not an attack. An attack is something like, "You're such a artsy stuck up!" or something like that. enochlau (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good thing no-one levelled that attack... I may have been forced to make unkind comments about grammar and spelling :) Joestella 12:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Student Representative Council Paragraph

[edit]

The SRC paragraph has this slightly muddled sentence: "The SRC underwent significant change when its constitution was rewritten to formal ambiguities from the previous one." I'd repair it myself, but I'm not quite sure what the original editor was trying to say.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Newtown_High_School_of_the_Performing_Arts&oldid=1201747454"