Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education in Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Article alerts[edit]

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:06, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Education in Australia Template[edit]

Having seen the Education in England template on the school year levels pages, wondered if we should have something similar to it for Australia? Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Shadowmaster13 (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement[edit]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

James Ruse Agricultural High School[edit]

The article James Ruse Agricultural High School has been vandalized repeatedly. Please keep an eye on it. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 06:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

North Lakes State College[edit]

Could someone please watchlist North Lakes State College? Editors have repeatedly been inserting blatant POV, vaguely sourced to "", which is a dead link. decltype (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed it up a bit. If you are really concerned you can watchlist, otherwise I have Shadowmaster13 (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! decltype (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Education in Australia articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release[edit]

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Education in Australia articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing[edit]

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Australia school private[edit]

Proposal to remove fees parameter at Template_talk:Infobox_Australia_school_private#Fees. Opinions welcome. –Moondyne 15:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a historical reason why the usual Template:Infobox_Aust_school isn't suitable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danjel (talkcontribs) 22:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
None that I can see. There's a bucket load of alternative templates at Category:Education infobox templates - what a mess. –Moondyne 00:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Yikes... Yeah. I think that we need /just one/ for all Australian Primary and Secondary schools, preferably Template:Infobox_Aust_school. In that template, I agree, there's no place for fees for the reasons that you've mentioned on the other talk page. Are we agreed to put the proposal to convert all the pages that use the private school one to the general one (I'll help out with fixing things up if you like)? -Danjel (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Cool. I made a work list at User:Moondyne/Australia schools templates. There was a merge proposal here which I support - ie. move all to Template:Infobox school. I've sample tested and all parameters seem to work fine. Appearance is superior also, IMO. –Moondyne 02:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I saw that proposal.. I'm less keen to move everything to that template. I would much prefer to move to Template:Infobox_Aust_school.
There are enough differences between Australian and US schools to justify the extra template, plus it would allow us the flexibility to provide other, more Australian specific information in the future (I'm sure you know the website to which I'm referring, but I'd vehemently disapprove of linking to it at the moment). -Danjel (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
What are those differences? AU, NZ, UK and Idaho(!) are the only ones still not using Infobox school, although many school articles in those countries as well as in AU (about 50% from my subpage above) use the generic template perfectly well. Agreement on your last point ;) If a future link (or ranking) was needed, there's a {ranking} parameter there now, or something new could be added, or an add-on template could be built without needing to change the master. I also cannot see why Template:Infobox secondary school is needed (except that it has 2400 transclusions). –Moondyne 06:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, Template:Infobox secondary school is completely unnecessary.
My problem is that I envisage a situation where people will be spoilt for choice with regards to how to represent some of the Australia-specific things. Going through and fixing things like enrollment versus enrolment is going to be a headache.
If we're going to do this then we at least have to agree on a common set of requirements for every page's infobox and a preferred option among several options, for wherever there's a choice (for example, in regards to religious_affiliation and religion, etc.; why are there both btw; it's redundant). Also, fees and tuition are in this template, and as I said above, I agree, IMO these should not be used with any Australian school lest we get into WP:SOAP. -Danjel (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Enrollments uses a label "Number of students", so spelling is moot. Colour/colors is handled by separate parameters and labels. Fees are in the generic as well as the Australian one. I don't understand the religion thing at all. –Moondyne 06:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Yep, OK. Getting to it. -Danjel (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

What are the Australian-only fields in the template? From what I can see there's no difficulty with the proposal - looking at Ocean Reef Senior High School or Belmont City College (disclosure: I created both) there doesn't seem anything that isn't in Cheyenne Mountain High School. Orderinchaos 12:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"One almost needs a university degree to figure out Infobox School, I think that the consensus of Australian education editors that Infobox Aust school is a better alternative is a reasonable one. It definitely isn't a case of redundancy of one for another."[1] Essentially {{Infobox school}} hasn't really changed much since you said that at the TfD. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Clearly his stance has changed. That's allowed. -Danjel (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Cross posting from my post at WP:AWNB:
Moondyne did some excellent legwork listing the articles that use the various templates here: User:Moondyne/Australia_schools_templates.
Template:Infobox Australia school (163)
Template:Infobox Australia school private (265)
Template:Infobox school (206)
Template:Infobox secondary school (171)
From this it seems that the practice is to use {{Infobox school}} anyway. In any case, there's no real content difference between the two templates. There's no reason to have several templates doing the same thing.
User:AussieLegend hasn't chimed in here, yet, but he pointed out at WP:AWNB the previous decision not to move to schools (I don't mean to put words into his mouth, I expect that he'll make the same argument here shortly). Yes, absolutely. But it seems that practice has changed, even if, on that occasion 3 years ago the viewpoint hadn't (yet). -Danjel (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, and welcome. As I've said above, practice has changed, even if that decision on that date went against change. Approaches to wikipedia aren't set in stone when a decision is made, and that's clear from the fact that there has been more use of Template:Infobox school than Template:Infobox Australia school. Clearly the consensus changed without the need for discussion (even if consistency would be a good thing).

Look, I don't care one way or the other. I've stated above that I like Infobox Australia school (but that might just be me being a little bit nationalistic), but I was swayed by the simple raw statistics. -Danjel (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

  • @AussieLegend, now can you explain what's so terrible with {{Infobox school}}, or is it a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT? I converted 20 or so articles this afternoon and had no dramas so useability isn't an argument. Aesthetically, I think the generic one looks better. Not quite half the AU school articles were using the generic templates before this discussion. –Moondyne 13:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, converting articles is easy but you're not seeing the whole picture here. While {{Infobox school}} may contain the same fields that {{Infobox Aust school}} contains, the big issue is that Infobox Aust school doesn't include the billion or so fields that are irrelevant to Australia that are in Infobox school. This was the main thing that resulted in this template being kept and nothing has changed. When somebody creates a school article using Infobox school they have to navigate through and delete seemingly endless irrelevant fields, which they don't have to do when they use Infobox Aust school, because it contains only the fields relevant to Australia. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I can't remember the last time I wrote a school article but would probably have copied an existing one including the template stuff. It'd be easy enough to make some boilerplate text in the documentation. –Moondyne 13:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't like copying infoboxes from other articles as I've found far too many articles with infoboxes that have many, and often, significant errors. I always try to use a fresh version of any template to avoid errors. I don't actually have an issue with this template being based on Infobox school but we don't need most of the fields in that template. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
An example of what I meant by "being based on", is {{Infobox Sea Patrol character}}, which uses {{Infobox character}}. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I think a lot of those fields are or may become necessary. I was looking through it and was surprised to see "Chaplain", but of course, courtesy of the ALP and Coalition... All schools have (or at least have the opportunity to have) Chaplains. We're slowly becoming more Americanised in our approach to schooling, so... Yeah.
Could be useful for some articles. In regard to Chaplains, at least, and I can't remember his name (been trying for the last couple of minutes, but it's too late at night), but I can think of at least one Chaplain who's probably notable (and probably already has an article here) and would be good to link from the couple of schools for which he now ostensibly works. -Danjel (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Only school chaplain I'm aware of was recently charged for possessing child pornography. –Moondyne 13:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Re: {{Infobox Sea Patrol character}} sooooo redundant.
So any changes that have to occur to the overarching template structure then have to be filtered down to each child template? -Danjel (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I see that as a poor model to work from. –Moondyne 13:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Perhaps not. Pondering... –Moondyne 13:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
We don't have to change the template at all. The only fields that we need worry about now are the ones that we already use. We certainly don't need zipcode, LEA, MOE, ofsted, ceeb, SAT, ACT or a whole host of the other fields. As for adding fields, if we really see the need to name the head cleaner, "Chief custodian" can always be added later. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
What I mean is a design or layout change, not a content change. If there was any overarching part of the broader template that changed, in order to maintain consistency, the child templates would have to change as well. For example, an interface change on wikipedia more generally predicating a design change for templates.
There being no link between them, do you intend for editors to make those changes themselves when things happen? In your example, an editor who's interested in Sea Patrol would have to then go back and check the parent template in order to maintain design consistency. It makes more sense to have less templates than more, particularly for the same things. -Danjel (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The Sea Patrol template automatically gets any changes that Infobox character gets. Only the actual fields have to be changed if fields are deleted from the main template. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
If the rest of wikipedia (with the exceptions of us, NZ and Idaho) is moving towards consolidation, as you said Moondyne, then we should follow the trend. The notion that we're so different that we have to be separate is a little bit nationalistic, particularly in light of the continuing Americanisation of the Australian education system.
The notion of it taking too long to wade through the infobox options, is, IMO, not a very strong one for the reason I laid out above in regards to chaplains, and as it may give editors ideas on what other information to provide.
I don't think that editors who start articles become daunted by having to remove lots of detail from an infobox - we do it all the time any time we commit to editting a page (and I intend to shortly begin putting up a whole stack of notable primary schools, so I'm committing myself to it.).
Finally. The current practise, regardless of the previous decision and regardless of whatever decision we make here, has been to use infobox schools. That suggests that the community of editors has moved to that template whether we like it or not. That is the community consensus already. -Danjel (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
AussieLegend's suggestion of a "feeder template" into school may well work. Alternatively, perhaps a "model blank" for infobox school within this wikiproject's space. A good example of such a model blank is at Template:Infobox Australian place/Blank. Orderinchaos 23:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with a model blank, but don't agree with a feeder template for the reasons already given. I can put together a model blank this afternoon, if it'll help. -Danjel (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the terminology! I messed around with the feeder template idea in my sandbox last night but the restriction on having to explicitly decide on which parameters are included makes it a less desirable way to go IMO. Why should we second guess which fields editors need? Of course, one advantage is that you can build categorisation into it. All said, a model blank (off {{Infobox school}}) is a better idea. –Moondyne 00:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
@Danjel - You've mentioned consistency a few times now and a consistent approach, using Infobox school would certainly be a reasonable aim, but it's not always a good thing. Continued use of Infobox Aust school has nothing to do with being nationalistic, it's a practical matter, caused by the simplicity of Infobox Aust school over Infobox school. This is why the TfD failed. There was/is a big push to use {{Infobox settlement}} for places and {{Infobox Australian place}} was nominated for deletion. It was kept because it suited our purposes better. Sometimes consistency can be a bad thing. When we use a "one size fits all" template, the issues of all the users have to be considered and that doesn't always happen. UK users complained that their needs weren't being addressed by the people pushing Infobox settlement. That's a bad thing. As for editors not being daunted by having to remove information from the infobox, sadly that's the case, but that doesn't make it right. Many editors simply copy and paste infoboxes which is the wrong thing to do. As somebody who has replaced hundreds of infoboxes I can tell you that's a real pain. Editors copy deprecated fields, miss fields that should be included and transfer errors from one article to another, when using a fresh copy of the template eliminates all that. Finally, using Infobox school instead of Infobox Aust school is not consensus, it's simply an error. There are likely many editors, especially inexperienced ones,[2] who don't realise that Australia has its own template[3] and, as I've already pointed out, an editor who started changing school articles to use Infobox school is what resulted in the TfD. We didn't pick up all of his changes.[4] --AussieLegend (talk) 07:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
IAP, though, was a case where the two choices were a well-designed, purpose-built, effective template which originated from a community effort versus a dog's breakfast which made vector calculus look easy by comparison and didn't even remotely meet the needs of the project. Aust school vs school is actually a case of two templates, one of which is essentially from what I can see a subset of the other and both work about the same so long as people don't get silly with the additional fields. I agree with the problems with a "one size fits all" approach, and have seen for myself in other areas some of the problems you describe with infobox usage, but I'm also aware with lack-of-maintenance issues in some templates and note the template's ad hoc, somewhat organic origins with a lot of borrowing from the generic. I should note that if this was a vote, my position is more "Neutral" than "Support" - I'm happy either way and am certainly not opposed to the original template staying if that was the end outcome, as it appears to do the job well. Orderinchaos 09:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm a bit more on the "oppose change" side at this point. However, if use of the fields in Infobox school was properly documented (is the "Chief custodian" the head cleaner or the General Assistant) so as to avoid any confusion, and we had an appropriate blank, perhaps along the lines of Template:Infobox hospital/doc, I might be swayed. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Noted. I'm sorry I haven't been able to do much here today (and tomorrow will be the same) but I'm sure we can come up with a solid guideline which improves on what we have now, which is a mish-mash of 4 different templates and interpretations of parameter meanings. –Moondyne 11:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I did notice there are fields in Infobox school that we should be using, such as "alt" and others that would be nice, such as "logo". --AussieLegend (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Issues with Infobox school[edit]

  • Aust school uses a field called "ranking". If there are any Australian schools that use this, conversion to Infobox school will result in "USNWR ranking" instead of "State ranking" being displayed.
  • Articles using Infobox Australia school private tend to use the "key_people" field to list key people, while Infobox school uses this to list the number of key people.
  • Infobox Australia school private has a field called "num_employ", which does not exist in Infobox school. The equivalent field is "employees". --AussieLegend (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that Australian schools should be ranked. Because there is no definitive way to rank them (HSC/VCE results? Merit list mentions? Median UAI? NAPLAN results on that website?)
I don't see key_people as useful at all.
I'm getting a sample blank together at the moment. I suggest, once everyone's happy with it, that we create a new section on the project page with a guide on how to create a new article for a school. -Danjel (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of personal opinions, the fields are used now so they have to be considered. If we intend moving to Infobox school we have to accept that people are going to use whatever valid fields in that template that they see fit. If people want to use "key_people", or any other field, they will. In order to ensure consistency across the project we have to provide guidance for all fields that may potentially be used, not just the fields that exist in Infobox Aust school and Infobox Australia school private. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Must admit I agree with Danjel re key people, but agree with AussieLegend that one can't just drop the field seeing as it's in use on many of the private school articles (it needs to be sorted out on a by-article basis). When we did the IAP conversion years ago (with a bot), some fields on custom templates did get lost and we got howls of protest from some quarters. Ranking probably should go the way of the dodo. Orderinchaos 09:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
As I've mentioned already, use of key_people in Infobox Australia school private is at odds with its use in Infobox school. Its use there seems to be mainly as one of many seemingly unnecessary fields and I agree it's better not to advocate its use as there are other fields that are better suited. I'm not advocating use of "ranking", I was simply pointing out the differences between the templates. If we use Infobox school it will be necessary to ensure that field is deleted from any article using it to avoid the issue I've identified.
I've had a look through numerous articles and I think I have identified all, or at least most of, the fields in {{Infobox school}} that could potentially be used. These are listed here. There are a few fields that I don't necessarily agree with, but they are mentioned in some articles so I feel we should at least provide guidance, even if we change the wording to say "Do not use in Australian articles". Again, this isn't advocating the blank containing all fields. We should probably provide something along the lines of Template:Infobox Australian place/Blank, where we provide examples for specific uses. Providing a blank with all potential fields serves a dual purpose. It both steers an editor to a version with all of the fields that may be applicable to Australia and steers them away from fields that aren't relevant at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
There's just two AU school articles which currently use ranking inside the infoboxes: Melbourne Grammar School and Penleigh and Essendon Grammar School and both refer to VCE ranks. If it must exist, this data would be better placed in prose. I take it that there's agreement that we drop use of the fees parameter, as was initially proposed here? –Moondyne 14:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed that it should go in prose, and it does for other articles (Ruse, SBHS, NSBHS, SGHS, NSGHS and BHHS mention in prose their achievement in the HSC)
Agree re: fees. I think I might have said that above.
I'll take a look through here in a minute. -Danjel (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I'm actually surprised that NSBHS and SBHS don't mention their ranks... -Danjel (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

discussion moved from User talk:Moondyne

G'day Moondyne, I've updated the blank for the Australian schools slightly, and replaced your's at: Template:Infobox_school/doc#Australia_school_example. Please take a look to see if I haven't done anything too incredibly stupid. :) -Danjel (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I noticed a few, eg. Penleigh and Essendon Grammar School have a motto and a slogan. Was this discussed previously? –Moondyne 02:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Bloody hells. Schools just have to be complicated, don't they? Umm. I have no idea how we're going to accomodate that one into either of the templates (well, at least doing it correctly). Maybe the only way to do it is to add a break in each line next to Motto. -Danjel (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't be a problem unless I'm missing something, there's separate {{{logo}}} and {{{motto}}} fields in Infobox school already. I think having both is quite common. I assume we can just add |slogan= into the example. –Moondyne 04:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Am I missing something here? Penleigh and Essendon Grammar School doesn't have a motto and a slogan, just two mottos, one for each campus. --05:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
yr right. I'm sure I saw it somewhere though. My bad - its Friday! –Moondyne 05:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Melbourne Grammar SchoolMoondyne 06:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that's a big deal. It's not of significance, probably changes with the principal's (or one of the admin. officers) whims and is just for advertising. I think it's not notable enough to include it in the infobox.
Does anyone mind if I get back to changing over? -Danjel (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
No argument here. –Moondyne 06:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I think we still need more discussion on the fields that are applicable and how they are used. The suggested blank doesn't take into account the fields as they are used, or the differences between states. For example, "years", not "grades" are used in New South Wales and I have some concerns about the way the informations is going to be presented. In the example below, despite the blank suggesting use of "|viceprincipal1-4=", "|viceprincipal=" is used with both names one line. While we can get away with that, we should be working on creating a consistent format for all articles, which has to be documented at {{Infobox school}} because that's where people get the blank from. This is why I documented all of the fields that seem applicable, and yet there have been no comments on that at all.[5] It's exceptionally bad practice to change articles without first agreeing on how to change them. The fact that {{Infobox Aust school}} was never documented is what has resulted in the myriad inconsistencies that exist in the articles now. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I think your blank is fine and am happy for it to be moved to Template:Infobox_school/doc. I've been referring to it a bit while converting AU schools with {{infobox secondary school}} to {{infobox school}} and have identified a lot of misused fields. I envisage that once we've got all articles onto a single template we can rescan with AWB to fix any bad parameters. –Moondyne 02:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

A second opinion?[edit]

A couple of stylistic points. AussieLegend should be doing this, but... Well I don't know why he isn't. There's some discussion on this point between he and I at User_talk:AussieLegend#Newcastle_High_School.

1) AussieLegend seems to believe that we should be adding a , into 4 digit numbers. This seems to contradict MOS:NUM#Delimiting_.28grouping_of_digits.29. For the sake of consistency, I suggest that we don't. There are far more schools with <1000 students, and having the comma in makes the schools with >1000 students look awkward. Thoughts?

2) AussieLegend also seems to believe that putting an interpretation of the motto into the infobox is acceptable, as he has done with Newcastle HS, in which he has added an interpretation to a translation from Latin of remis velisque (remis means oar, velis means sail). I disagree. There are as many interpretations of the meaning of my old school's motto as there are stars in the sky. Adding them in would seem to invite controversy. See [[6]]. -Danjel (talk) 12:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

1)As I have pointed out to you on my talkpage, it is quite appropriate to include a comma because it's Australian practice to delimit numbers in this way when there are four or more digits to the left of the decimal point. In fact it's quite common all over the world to do this. It most certainly does not contradict MOS:NUM#Delimiting (grouping of digits), which says "Numbers with four digits to the left of the decimal point may or may not be delimited (e.g. 1250 or 1,250)." MOS:NUM#Delimiting (grouping of digits) actually requires delimiting for numbers with more than four digits so it's entirely consistent to include a comma. Your argument that inclusion makes it inconsistent does not make sense, since the enrolments of different schools aren't shown on the same page. How standard practice looks "awkward" is beyond me.
2)Also as I have pointed out to you on my talkpage, it is not an interpretation, it is a translation of the motto. I even included a citation, which you inappropriately removed, twice now.[7][8] Since you provided no justification for removing the citations, it appears that you're deliberately being disruptive to make a point so I've marked both of your removals as vandalism and warned you on your talk page. There is simply no excuse for removing the citations. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
1) You missed the "may not" there. There are many many schools without commas in their enrolment numbers because they are below 1000, as I stated above. A consistent approach would leave them out.
2) Remis means oar, Velis means Sail. So what you're doing is laying on a second layer of interpretation, no matter where you got it from.
Good faith edits are not vandalism. Requesting that you participate in discussion before reverting is not vandalism. -Danjel (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Re 1, AussieLegend's actually right here. If it's a list and you right-justify, you get rid of the problem anyway. Orderinchaos 15:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Blank[edit]

<!-- Fill in the below, providing as much detail as you can. If a field is marked "Optional", then 
     you can leave it to be filled in later.
     This is the minimum for a good page, so please try to fill in as much as you can.
     There are (many) other parts to this template which can be used also. View the whole template
     at "". -->

{{Infobox school
|name                   = <!-- MANDATORY: The full name for the school -->
|image                  = <!-- OPTIONAL : Use the school's logo as a preference, or a photo taken
                                          of the school's facade -->
|alt                    = <!-- OPTIONAL : IF image PROVIDED; Provide a short caption for the
                                          image -->
|caption                = <!-- OPTIONAL : IF image PROVIDED; Provide a short caption for the
                                          image -->
|motto                  = <!-- OPTIONAL : Provide the school's motto, if from a different language
                                          use (replacing ?? with the language code):
                                          {{lang-??|TEXT GOES HERE}} -->
|motto_translation      = <!-- OPTIONAL : Provide a translation of the above Motto -->
|city                   = <!-- MANDATORY: [[SUBURB]] -->
|state                  = <!-- MANDATORY: [[STATE]] -->
|country                = [[Australia]]
|coordinates            = <!-- OPTIONAL : Provide the longitude and latitude coordinates for the
                                          school -->
|schooltype             = <!-- MANDATORY: [[Public school (government funded)|Public]] -OR-
                                          [[Private School|Private]],
                                          [[Selective school|Selective]] -OR-
                                          [[Comprehensive School|Comprehensive]],
                                          [[Single-sex school|Single-sex]] -OR-
                                          [[Coeducational]], [[Primary School]] -OR-
                                          [[Secondary School]] -->
|religious_affiliation  = <!-- OPTIONAL : State the school's religious affiliation -->
|established            = <!-- OPTIONAL : State the year in which the school was established -->
|principal              = <!-- MANDATORY: State the name of the principal of the school
                                          NOTE: Do not use title, ie, Mr., Mrs., etc. -->
|viceprincipal          = <!-- OPTIONAL : State the name/s of the Vice/Deputy Principal/s of the
                                          school NOTE: Do not use title, ie, Mr., Mrs., etc. -->
|viceprincipal_label    = <!-- OPTIONAL : Use with above when needing to use the term "Deputy
                                          Principal" -->
|asst principal         = <!-- OPTIONAL : (If one assistant principal) State the name of the
                                          Assistant Principal of the school NOTE: Do not use
                                          title, ie, Mr., Mrs., etc. -->
|assistant_principals   = <!-- OPTIONAL : (If more than one assistant principal) State the names
                                          of the Assistant Principals of the school NOTE: Do not
                                          use title, ie, Mr., Mrs., etc. -->
|teaching_staff         = <!-- OPTIONAL : State the number of staff -->
|grades                 = <!-- MANDATORY: Usually K-2, K-6, K-7, 7-12 or 11-12 -->
|enrolment              = <!-- OPTIONAL : State approximate number of students, (using a tilde
                                          to represent an approximate number, ie, ~999) -->
|enrolment_as_of        = <!-- OPTIONAL : Provide the year of the enrolment number you've provided                                  above and reference with <ref> -->
|campus type            = <!-- OPTIONAL : Indicate if the school is [[Urban]], [[Suburban]] or
                                         [[Rural]] -->
|colours                = <!-- OPTIONAL : State school colours, using words, then <br>then
                                         {{colorbox|#xxyyzz}} -->
|website                = <!-- MANDATORY: Provide the school's website address -->

...and a filled in example:

Completed and displayed:

<!-- Fill in the below, providing as much detail as you can. If a field is marked "Optional", then you can leave it to be filled in later. -->
<!-- This is the minimum for a good page, so please try to fill in as much as you can. -->
<!-- There are (many) other parts to this template which can be used also. View the whole template at "". -->

{{Infobox school
| name                = North Sydney Boys High School
| image               = Example.svg
| imagesize           = 190px
| alt                 = North Sydney Boys' High School Crest
| motto               = {{lang-la|Vincit qui se vincit}}
| motto_translation   = "He conquers who conquers himself"
| slogan              = "To higher things"
| song                = "That Which You Do, Do Well"
| city                = [[Crows Nest, New South Wales|Crows Nest]]
| state               = [[New South Wales]]
| country             = [[Australia]] {{flagicon|Australia}}
| coordinates         = {{coord|33|49|46|S|151|12|27|E|display=inline,title}}
| schooltype          = [[Public school (government funded)|Public]], [[Selective school|Selective]], [[Single-sex school|Single-sex]] [[Secondary School]]
| established         = 1912<ref name="NSBHS">{{cite web|url =|title =North Sydney Boys High School|work = A Selective School of Excellence|publisher = North Sydney Boys High School|accessdate = 2009-12-17|}}</ref> 
| principal           = Robyn Hughes
| viceprincipal_label = Deputy Principals
| viceprincipal       = Jo O'Brien and<br>Daniel Ovens
| teaching staff      = ~56
| grades              = 7-12
| enrolment           = ~928<ref name=SchoolLocator>{{cite web |url= |title=North Sydney Boys High School |accessdate=2010-12-10 |work=School Locator |publisher=NSW Public Schools}}</ref>
| campus type         = [[Suburban area|Suburban]]
| colours             = Bismark, Coral & Gold<br>{{color box|#800000}} {{color box|#FF7F50}} {{color box|#FFD700}}
| website             = []

12:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC) - Made some changes to the layout of the blank. Thoughts? -Danjel (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought - would it not be better to recommend <br /> instead of <br> as a line break in this example as it's XHTML compliant. TBH I haven't checked wikipedia for any coding complience but would seem to me to be a better practice .. JustOneNonly (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward[edit]

Which blank are we going to use? User:AussieLegend/Project 01 or the section above? I don't see it matters too much but am inclined towards Aussie's as it seems to be more broad. We can always cull parameters later if they're found to be not in use. If we can resolve this minor issue we can get into the conversions. –Moondyne 08:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going for the one above. To start with we want to define a minimum standard, and Aussielegend's contains quite a few that aren't necessary in some cases (school song, while interesting, shouldn't be a priority until we get everything else going) and shouldn't be included in others (revenue should /not/ be included in an Australian school infobox as the calculation is likely to be very subjective).
Once we have a minimum standard, then we can work in the broader ones that might be interesting for others to include. -Danjel (talk) 08:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd missed revenue and agree it should not be used. –Moondyne 09:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
We already have a minimum standard, which are the fields that were already in the existing infoboxes that are being replaced. What we need to do, or rather don't because I've already done it, is look to see how the fields in {{Infobox school}} fulfil the roles of the fields in those infoboxes and how the same fields may differ in the way that they're specified in Infobox school and their actual use in our articles. Moondyne and I have both found inconsistencies there. Then we need to see what extra fields in Infobox school might apply to our purpose. Again, already done. The next step is to eliminate any fields that we don't think we should be using and add any that I may have missed. At that point we can start to change infoboxes. The reason for using a blank with all the fields is that it's easier to prune unnecessary fields than to go back and add missing fields later. All infoboxes have "unnecessary" fields and they aren't a bad thing because they encourage editors to find content for them and, hopefully, expand the article accordingly. The fields that are in my "blank" are all fields that were in the existing templates or which, based on an examination of several articles could apply to Australian schools. "|revenue=" is in {{Infobox Australia school private}} and was included for that reason. I'm not a fan of it though and agree we should probably dump it. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
What you are suggesting overcomplicates the use of and the change to the infobox. If we really want to see what every field does, we can see the existing information at Template:Infobox_school/doc.
In any case, you're insisting that we adhere to your views on how to move forward when you don't even agree with what we're doing. I'm unconvinced. My perspective, above, hasn't changed. -Danjel (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't overcomplicate anything because the main changes that are being carried out now are changing "Infobox Aust school" to read "Infobox school" and a few cosmetic changes. Very few extra fields are being added. The purpose of the blank is future guidance, as well as providing a consistent format for any changes that are made during the present conversion. My blank doesn't contain all of the fields in {{Infobox school}} and several of the descriptions have been modified to suit Australian school use. As I've already pointed out above, providing a blank with all potential fields serves a dual purpose. It both steers an editor to a version with all of the fields that may be applicable to Australia and steers them away from fields that aren't relevant at all. An abbreviated blank may result in editors adding fields that we've agreed should not be included, such as revenue and ranking. Your blank is not entirely consistent with Infobox school and you haven't taken into account differences between the states, such as using years instead of grades. As for me insisting, are you not doing that yourself by modifying articles based on your blank and making your own decisions as to what should or should not be included, rather than simply converting the content? That's what got us into the WP:LAME edit war. Interestingly, above you criticised my blank for using "school song" and that just happens to be a field in your blank, but that's just a side issue. --12:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah, true. Thanks for catching that. Will be fixed in a sec. As for "my" blank. It's not mine, even if you apparently declare ownership of your's. It's not mine because others have edited and improved "mine". But this is the point of this whole stupid situation, isn't it? It's your's vs. "mine".
Again, and to everyone else who's reading. The point is not to create a massive unwieldy blank with everything that can be in it, in it. The purpose is to create a minimum from which people can improve if they like. A good page should, minimally, contain the blank above. -Danjel (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
"As for "my" blank. It's not mine, even if you apparently declare ownership of your's." - Oh please, now you're really being silly. You referred to "Aussielegend's (blank)" in the post I replied to. You're the one who implied ownership. You can't criticise people for following your lead. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Is that a response to the fact that you're being disruptive here or not? I mean your whole involvement with this situation started because I updated the infobox on an article which you WP:OWN so hard that you insist that it be as inconsistent with the rest of the site as possible.
I'm done with you. With your smug sense of superiority you haven't contributed anything here besides nitpicking and constant negativity. There's no point accommodating and playing along with someone who makes WP:AGF so bloody arduous. Reply if you like, but I won't be acknowledging your posts henceforth. -Danjel (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Top Victorian Schools[edit]

What is the source for this? There's some older urls in the comments but it needs to be both visible and current. –Moondyne 04:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Even with that, it hardly seems to be the sort of content one would expect in a transcluded article. Orderinchaos 15:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Since we've decided to eliminate rankings anyway this seems unnecessary and inconsistent. Looks like a TfD candidate to me. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
TfD at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_15. –Moondyne 08:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


User:Moondyne/Australia schools templates is updated. –Moondyne 01:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Canning Vale College
just a point of interest I see the template uses Deputy and Vice Principles options but some WA high schools are using the title Associate Principleeg. Gnangarra 16:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Moondyne's going to know more... But I'd suggest that the term is likely similar to Head Teacher in use over here in the East to define teachers in charge of specific portfolios and/or faculties. For example, most NSW schools have a Head Teacher - Welfare, and Head Teacher - Administration, just like we have Head Teacher - Science. I don't think that these people are significant enough to warrant mention in the infobox. -Danjel (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
|viceprincipal_label can be used to modify the template as required. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
There's also Junior, Middle and Senior Principals, as well as Directors (WTF?). I've been using |viceprincipal_label mostly, which works fine. Agree we don't need any more fileds. Too many as it is. –Moondyne 23:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah my alma mater had an "Executive Director" (who was the principal) and two "Principals" (who were vice principals). On the up side, my alma mater doesn't have an article - there's no way it'd be notable. Orderinchaos 12:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


As discussed, a draft Wikipedia:WikiProject Education in Australia/Guideline is available for development and expansion. –Moondyne 04:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello there, and Happy New year from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools.
New Australian school articles are now arriving quite frequently and are some of the most difficult to keep track of. At WP:WPSCH the replacement for AlertBot is now up and running with the school project as one of the prototypes. Over the past weeks the WP:WPSCH pages have been re formatted and tidied up, especially some aspects being split off into sub pages because the main page was getting too long. Do please take a moment to check it out, and you may find that you can avoid some unnecessary duplication.
It may be a very good idea to place plenty of links to WP:WPSCH especially, WP:WPSCH/AG which we've smartened up and made more readable. Do check out also the use of school infoboxes which has been standardised for quite a long time to make it easier for page creators and the regulars at the school project. :Don't hesitate to modigy these or to contact the schools project if you feel the available fields on the two Australian boxes do not address today's needs - these are fixes that can easily be made. Also, you might wish to consider placing the generic Australia project template on the talk pages of Australian schools - this is particularly important for you to be able to use bot and category tracking for various purposes.
There is going to be a major campaign to clean up school articles during 2011, stay tuned, and if you are not already a member of the Schools project, do consider joining and seeing where you can help. More news later! Kind regards, and all the best for 2011. --Kudpung (talk) 06:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC) (on behalf of WikiProject Schools.)

Primary Schools and School Regions[edit]

I can't remember when it happened (and I honestly don't care all that much as it wasn't notable), but when Greenwich Public School was deleted for favour of redirecting to Greenwich_Public_School#Education, I think that we exposed a flaw in the way that Australian school articles are organised.

When non-notable Australian primary schools are deleted, a redirect is put up that sends people to the locality, irrespective of any mention of educational facilities in that locality. This is of no value to people who are interested in schools. On the other hand, when primary schools in other countries are deleted, a redirect is put to the relevant school district (or what have you), for example Green_Timbers_Elementary_School, a primary school in School District 36 Surrey. This satisfies people's interest, I feel, better than telling that Greenwich Public School is situated in a lovely leafy harbourside suburb which we can tell you all about.

We don't have districts here in Australia. In NSW, the DET is organised by Regions and Networks, for example, the Sydney Region [[9]], which has several networks, including Port Jackson [[10]], Georges River [[11]] and the enigmatically named "Network 8" [[12]].

Catholic Schools in NSW are organised in a vaguely similar fashion. There's the Sydney Diocese Schools [[13]], the Broken Bay Diocese Schools [[14]], Parramatta Diocese Schools [[15]] (which, incidentally, already seems to have a page at Catholic_Education_in_the_Diocese_of_Parramatta) and so on.

I imagine that other states have similar organisational structures in their public and Catholic schools.

Would it be better to have articles on these, and to redirect non-notable primary schools there than to their locality? -danjel (talk to me) 04:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that we don't have school districts in the sense that the US does. Here they're an administrative convenience that can be, and often are, blatted away and replaced with the stroke of a pen. For example here in WA, there's been no less than 16 systems of districts since World War II, 6 of them just in the last 20 years, rather than something with an enduring and institutional quality. Orderinchaos 05:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
6 times in 20 years (i.e., a change every approximately every 3⅓ years - electoral cycle?) won't create all that heavy a load in terms of ensuring continuity on wikipedia. I don't think we need to include history of the districts/regions/etc., which could prove problematic, just a rundown and a list like with School District 36 Surrey.
The regions in NSW haven't changed all that much (at least in living memory). So perhaps this is just a NSW only thing. What about others? -danjel (talk to me) 05:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Bad idea. School districts in Australia are not something of any notability outside the respective Department of Education; no one's ever heard of them and no one gives a stuff. It's a poor solution; that time would be better spent sourcing school articles to make bloody sure they hold up if the Phillistines come looking for trouble. Rebecca (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Most Primary Schools are never going to be notable enough to justify their own pages, no matter how much time is spent sourcing them, but a treatment of them within a whole region may be a better way to go. The example I gave above of Greenwich Public School is a good example of what would happen if someone were actually looking for info on that school - they get nothing, not even anything vaguely related to the topic of their search.
From Wikipedia:WPSCH/AG#N:

In practice articles that are about an elementary or middle school (or equivalent) will normally be merged into the school district article they are associated with, or locality article (such as a village or town) if this is not available.

The current response to this is inadequate (linking back to locality), but a region article would provide the opportunity for a reader to get pertinent information. -danjel (talk to me) 09:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd rather see a proper education section in the town article. Rebecca (talk) 09:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm. Yeah that's the alternative. But I think then that:
  1. we might be crowding out the actual geographic detail from locality information;
  2. there'll be more articles that school oriented editors (such as myself) have to keep an eye on for vandalism (and vandalism is a real issue for all schools);
  3. there are some things about different regions which are kind of special and this would provide opportunities to include them, such as with the George's River Network's cross-school G&T program or Network 8/Port Jackson's maGneT G&T/Aboriginal/Music program which are notable in that they affect many (primary) schools, but which aren't worthy of mention on a locality page.
I've started work in my userspace on Sydney Region as a test case. I'll show everyone once I'm happy with it. -danjel (talk to me) 10:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Editors only need to read the guidlelines in the parent project to see that it has long been accepted site-wide that apart from very exceptional circumstances, primary schools are not considered notable, and that the practice is to redirect primary schools to either the article about the school district (in the USA), or to the page about the school's locality. Most school page creators are SPA and don't appear to follow guidelines very closely, if at all. Regular janitors at WP:WPSCH take care to create an Education section in the locality page if there is not one already, and merge any useful details. Larger, well written articles about towns are more likely to make it to GA or FA than a bunch or perma stubs about any kind of school.Kudpung (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but if it's not notable, it shouldn't be there. Duh!-- (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Not so. The notability guideline is about whether an article should exist on the topic, not about a mention of the topic in another article. Primary schools should be mentioned in the appropriate article on the town they are in, but not in any detail. I have now fixed the Greenwich Public School article which correctly redirects to a new "Education" section. I thought a separate section was needed as John Howard's kids went to this school and that is worth mentioning.--Bduke (Discussion) 21:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Missing infoboxes[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Education in Australia/Missing infoboxes is a list of primary and secondary schools in Australia without a {{infobox school}}. –Moondyne 11:53 pm, 5 January 2011, last Wednesday (5 days ago) (UTC+8)

Second Pair of Eyes on User:Danjel/Rose Bay Secondary College[edit]

Could I ask someone to have a quick look over on User:Danjel/Rose Bay Secondary College, a draft that I've been working on to replace the stub at Rose Bay Secondary College.

I worked closely with RBSC for quite a few years until earlier this year, so I want to be careful that I haven't tripped over any WP:COI issues. I'm also trying not to include any information that will require references that I simply don't have.

If suggestions could be made at User talk:Danjel/Rose Bay Secondary College, I'd appreciate it. Cheers. -danjel (talk to me) 06:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Insert Subject Here - education in Australia[edit]

G'day Everyone,

Had an interesting discussion with User:Orderinchaos at Talk:Merewether High School, and while he and I (still) disagree on my proposed compromise position, we're both not 100% on linking to subjects in curriculum sections at schools. Comments are welcome there, by the way.

I am suggesting that Curriculum sections should link to articles describing how particular subjects are taught in Australia, similar to Mathematics education in Australia (which needs some improvement). Would anyone like to workshop on getting these articles together?

I think that only the overall curriculum areas should have articles... Physics, Chemistry, Geology and Marine Science would go under science. So these would be the articles I would suggest:

I'm keen to start on Science... Anyone else (i.e., from another state) want to work together on a draft? ˜danjel[ talk | contribs ] 11:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a great idea, and I'm happy to work on Mathematics (initially from a WA perspective) and help with Science and Social Sciences, which reflects my teaching preference. I'd add geography and change PE to "Health and physical education in Australia". (Only NSW uses PDHPE, but other states all regard the in-class health education and the out-of-class PE as linked.) Orderinchaos 23:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I've started a draft at User:Danjel/Mathematics_education_in_Australia, and I'm happy for anyone to be involved. Science and Languages are more my area, but I'll do them next.
I've changed the title for the Phys. Ed. one. I don't think just "health" covers it as NSW and Vic. (at least) both incorporate a lot of welfare issues into their teaching in this area as well (e.g. child protection issues). ˜danjel[ talk | contribs ] 02:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
It is actually called "Health and Physical Education" in every state except NSW (PDHPE) and TAS (Health and Wellbeing). I didn't know this until I started looking just then. As such it seems to make more sense to change it to the most-used name. Orderinchaos 04:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Scandal at Yeshivah College, Australia[edit]

G'day All,

I've removed a couple of paragraphs from this article, (diff: [16]) because it seemed like we were starting to tip over and into a bit of scandalmongery for the sake of scandalmongery.

I was hoping that anyone else would like to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Yeshivah_College,_Australia#Sexual_Abuse_Section... ˜danjel[ talk | contribs ] 00:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge Sydney Girls High School and SGHS Rowing Club[edit]

I've just completed a merge from SGHS Rowing Club to Sydney Girls High School. Can someone do me a favour and check over and see that I've copied over the important stuff, etc. etc. Cheers. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Overzealous removal of information from Newman College, Perth - House System information[edit]

I've started a discussion on what I feel is the overzealous removal of information regarding the house system at Talk:Newman_College,_Perth#Regarding the removal of guilds/factions (diff) and would like others to comment if possible. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Mass push on schools at AfD[edit]

G'day All,

For those who aren't yet aware, there is a mass push on deleting school articles at the moment, including Australian school articles. It's being led by a few editors who really aren't putting a lot of diligence into ensuring that what they're putting to AfD are truly non-notable.

I'd be really keen for everyone to keep a close eye on WP:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Schools. Please keep reminding people at AfD that nonnotable schools are redirected/merged into their locality articles (and that this actually has to happen, it hasn't, on a couple of occasions). Cheers. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month[edit]

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Education in Australia will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in Australian education. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Opinions on: External Link for Camberwell Grammar School's House Portal[edit]

Dear followers, I would appreciate more opinions on this issue (found here: C.G.S Talk - Clifford Portal) regarding the inclusion of the link to The Clifford Portal. There is a headlock in this extensive discussion as to whether to include this link, as there are no information on the School article's page about the vital Housing System. Background knowledge: The Official Clifford Portal provides history/info about houses at CGS. Leechyeah (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Opinions sought at RfD related to this project: Super Tafe[edit]

The redirects Super Tafe and Super tafe, which currently point at a specific Australian university, are currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 May 17. It has been suggested there that there should be some content about the concept/term on Wikipedia, but the opinions of those knowledgeable about tertiary education in Australia would be particularly useful. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The term TAFE refers to technical and further education institutions [17], the Super TAFE reference is a derogatory reference to a University with the intention of indicating the university is not a real university (better than a training college, not good enough to be a university). Usually used to disparage a university because the person using the term feels the university doesn't have the same credibility as other (usually older) universities in the same Australian State/Territory. The university the terms refers to will change dependent on the state the person referring to the 'Super TAFE' comes from, so it should not be specific to any university as is currently the case.princesstachana (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Continuing self-promotion of the University of the Sunshine Coast[edit]

The University of the Sunshine Coast (together with its previous VC/President) has been given a rosy write-up by . . . an employee of the University of the Sunshine Coast. Perhaps some disinterested people here could keep their eyes on this article, whose spam-encrusting has been going on for years. -- Hoary (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Lists of duxes in articles?[edit]

The flashpoint article is Ulladulla High School.

One user keeps inserting a list of recent duxes at the school. The duxes and their ATAR/UAI scores are sourced. However, none of the duxes are individually notable; i.e., they'd all be redlinks if the names were linked.

I can maybe see noting that one of them got a 99.3 on their ATAR/UAI, but a list of all the names going back to 2004 seems a bit excessive. Not only is undue weight a concern, but because the people aren't otherwise notable, it could be a privacy issue.

Is there any reason to keep this list in the article, or should it be struck? Since that other user has refused to discuss that matter at the article's talk page, I'm seeking input from the project. —C.Fred (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I am concerned it is a privacy issue and that the students mentioned are not notable in their own right. References are all from the local newspaper, rather than any other paper of note. Perhaps to avoid undue weight then a list of students expelled should also be incuded! Gillyweed (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Current Notability guide is biased towards private schools[edit]

Hi, there has been a deletion of primary schools which means that independent schools are nearly always notable and public or catholic schools are not. Partly this is because the private/independent often contains secondary schools, but it seems biased

For victoria,_Australia the figures are group notable not percentage not notable gov prim Total 281 231 45% gov sec Total 190 27 12% cath Total 88 52 37% greek Total 2 0 0% islam Total 8 0 0% ind Total 113 5 4% oth Total 1 1 50% Grand Total 683 316 32%

Wakelamp (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Very good point. What can we do about it? Gillyweed (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest that as the school system is very different from the US we do not base our notability criteria on theirs. We do not have elementary schools feeding into only certain high schools. Instead students can go to any school after primary Wakelamp (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
have pushed it up to — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakelamp (talkcontribs) 15:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Education in Australia at Wikimania 2014[edit]

Project Leaflet WikiProject Medicine back and front v1.png

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention[edit]

This is a notice about Category:Education in Australia articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiConfererence Australia 2015 - Save the date 3-5 October 2015[edit]

Our first Australian conference for Wikipedians/Wikimedians will be held 3-5 October 2015. Organised by Wikimedia Australia, there will be a 2-day conference (Saturday 3 October and Sunday 4 October) with an optional 3rd day (Monday 5 October) for specialist topics (unconference discussions, training sessions, etc). The venue is the State Library of Queensland in Brisbane. So put those dates in your diary! Note: Monday is a public holiday is some states but not others. Read about it here: WikiConference Australia 2015

As part of that page, there are now sections for you to:

  • indicate your interest in possibly attending the conference (this is not a binding commitment, of course)
  • add suggestions for topics to include in the conference: what you would like to hear/discuss (again, there is no commit to you presenting/organising that topic, although it’s great if you are willing to do so), or indicate your enthusiasm for any existing topic on the list by adding a note of support underneath it

It would really help our planning if you could let us know about possible attendance and the kind of topics that would make you want to come. If you don’t want to express your views on-wiki, please email me at or

We are hoping to have travel subsidies available to assist active Australasian Wikipedians to attend the conference, although we are not currently in a position to provide details, but be assured we are doing everything we can to make it possible for active Australian Wikipedians to come to the conference. Kerry (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Folks, just letting you know we will not be proceeding with Wikiconference Australia 2015 originally proposed for 3-5 October 2015. Thanks to those of you who expressed your support. You are free to attend the football finals instead :-) Kerry (talk) 07:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Ballarat Grammar School[edit]

needs some sources pronto. I have protected it as there is edit warring but should be sourceable really...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft:La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science[edit]

Hi, I've started a draft on the La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science (loosely based on the format of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Bio21 pages for research institutes in Melbourne). If you happen to have a moment, feel free to check it. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 08:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Don College rating[edit]

Can someone look over the page to see if we have bumped up the rating from the start-class that it currently is. Matt294069 is coming 00:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Schools notability RfC[edit]

An RfC that is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on secondary school notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)