Talk:Sydney Technical High School

discussion points, ideas and items for inclusion

All Old Boys worth their tie-tags ought to know and remember Mr Booth, former Science Head Teacher, Prefect Advisor and all round good guy (and train fanatic). Having been with the school for a four decades and influenced generations of students it seems logical that there should be more information about him here (currently there is none).

More recent students may remember Mr Quill, would it be inappropriate to include a short reference to the prohibited weapons list, specifically, the whip joke? Discuss. (1000 words, 15% of final mark)

On a more serious and related note, Mr Quill once gave a speech about the origis of the motto 'Manners Maketh Man', the Tech version of Triple M ought to be expanded out, or at least linked to the appropriate page. Manners, in the original sense of the word, meant more than simply etiquette and this should be explained.

Going back a bit further, I specifically recall listening to an Old Boy recall the stairs at the original Ultimo school building and how the floors and stairs were all wooden and very creaky (was there a reference to this in the old school song lyrics?). I believe it would be a good idea to try and gather more information to fill out the history section of this article while we still have access to invaluable living memories.

Also, having been in the SRC and Interact, but not having been a prefect (my therapist says I am getting over it) I'd like to see people who have been members of other student bodies about the school contribute information about them.

There appears to be no mention of the possibly unique scheduling structure of the Sydney Tech day, namely, the 4 75-minute periods that make up each day, which is a striking contrast to the period structure of other DET schools.

Another point of discussion is how much cultural information should be preserved in this article, I think that this article should do more than just provide information on what the school is. By providing information on the culture, humour and people of Sydney Tech we can help people appreciate what made Tech special (or different, at least). So lets write up and structure everything in an informative manner and then tell them what those things actually meant to techies.

Finally, SGGHS doesn't have an article on Wikipedia as of this time. I need say no more.

--I 16:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Semi-protection

This page will be temporarily semi-protected as a measure against the latest rounds of vanity appearing on this page. enochlau (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Why was it vanity or vandalism? someone was only trying to put up what they thought was a notable ex-student. Kevin Tay wasn't a fake person Steven Fitter 13:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact, my and others efforts were not vandalism. "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism". Steven Fitter 00:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to know whether this enoch person went through the proper channels to semiprotect this article. I can't find mention of it on the appropriate page. It's usually quite hard to have an article semiprotected (e.g., constant vandalism is usually a prerequisite, and I can't see that here). Tony 07:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"...this enoch person..." - is that how you address people in person? enochlau (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well no; I reserve that for people who appear to act unilaterally without discussion. Tony 12:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Be aware of civility, Tony. The above comment, as well as that struck below, hardly make for constructive discussion.--cj | talk 14:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

unreasonable reverts

I don't know what you're on about, but you should stop reverting the insertion of a link that adds significant value to the article. The pint-sized ego goes with being an administrator/janitor, does it? If you have objections, don't revert, please: discuss the issue HERE. Tony 07:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be removed and I think you should refrain from the personal attack. Personally I think the link to an official alumni organization is sufficient, such as old scholars, but an arbitrary website by an arbitrary year level is not.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? Tony 07:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it is on a par with every other year to have passed through STHS, and there is no scope for 150 sites for old boys from each year.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If the 150 links were all as informative and high quality as the 1984 one, we should be pleased to list them at the bottom. But there aren't 150 links, and there aren't 150 years of school history either—so what are you talking about? I presume that you're happy for the link to St George GHS to be removed, then. It's far less relevant than the link at issue. Any good reason for excluding it? Tony 08:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Precisely how does the link add "significant value" in the first place? --cj | talk 11:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Asked and answered. See numerous other submissions on this 'point'. --Andrew Jens

I think it's important that this be linked to from here: User_talk:Enochlau#Removal_of_Class_of_1984_external_link. See my comments about sock puppetry - it's getting ridiculous. Attacking people doesn't get you anywhere on Wikipedia, and really, it doesn't sway people to believe you. This link should be removed - the website basically amounts to a personal photo album.

Also: "I presume that you're happy for the link to St George GHS to be removed, then." - what link are you talking about? enochlau (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What is personal about an album that contains pictures of people who were at the school during that period? I'd have thought it was a way of bringing to life what is otherwise a pretty boring—not to mention extremely poorly written—article.

Instead of fussing around semiprotecting and reverting, why don't you concentrate on improving the prose? Tony 13:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The effort being put into blowing this issue out of proportion could have equally been spent on improving the article. I'd note that the insertion of the link was reverted only once. Moreover, semi-protection never came into play with regards to this issue – Enochlau protected the article in late May on a separate matter.--cj | talk 14:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The supporter(s) of this link seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is (see User_talk:Enochlau#Removal_of_Class_of_1984_external_link): in that he(they) seem to think that Wikipedia is like a collection of personal webpages, where the alumni of a school (for example) are free to add whatever material they do, provided they don't violate certain rules. Just like you can put anything on your own Geocities page provided it doesn't have pr0n or other forbidden content.

In fact, Wikipedia is nothing like that: it's an encyclopedia! which means contents have to matter to the wider reading public, *not* whoever happens to be associated with the contents of the article. --Sumple (Talk) 23:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The people arguing in favour of the link have a vested interest in its inclusion, therefore they are not objective when considering what a random reader wants and expects from a high school article in WP. If Wikipedia was a Cabinet or company boardroom or a juror in a court case those people would have excused themselves from the discussion due to a conflict of interest. The class of 1984 website is fun, but only of interest to someone who went to the school. Anyone interested in stuff like that can find it from a search engine, although they probably would not know it existed in the first place unless a link was provided from a source such as WP. However the schools website can always link to the page in question negating any possible gross benefit to society. I am in favour of removing the link, but have no actual arguments to support my case, apart from the groundwork above. That said, having followed the discussion the arguments against inclusion so far have been much stronger than the arguments for inclusion. The onus of good argument falls on people in favour of inclusion and not on the people in favour of removal, that should be an obvious point. If you have a contentious sentence in Wikipedia you need to back it up with a source to assert its noteworthiness, here to assert the noteworthiness of a link good arguments are required in discussion. Grumpyyoungman01 00:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I cannot believe you just wrote: "The people arguing in favour of the link have a vested interest in its inclusion, therefore they are not objective when considering what a random reader wants and expects ...". You've just invalidated the justification for anyone ever entering anything into Wikipedia. Unless you're somehow considering all those authors who randomly want to make changes to sites they have no interest in at all? I'd say it would be absolutely necessary to have a 'vested interest' in order to make a worthwhile contribution. No doubt you've just read Douglas Adams' concept: "the only person who should be allowed to rule the universe is the person who doesn't want to".

Can you guys just get off this "random reader" once and for all. Please repeat after me: "the readers that get to the Sydney Technical High School site are not 'random'". They have obviously got there after a relevant search or link. Please give those readers the benefit of the doubt that they are intelligent enough to figure out which external links they might want to click. Please stop thinking like robots or you'll turn Wikipedia into the Encycopedia Britannica. It can be at least that, but can also be a whole lot more.--Andrew Jens

To those people who didn't even go to STHS and want to prohibit linking to our reunion website (which has historical and contemporary information in the form of text and photos) can you also please remove the link from this page....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/508th_Parachute_Infantry_Regiment

to this page....

http://www.508pir.org/

as it sends the user to the historical and contemporary information dealing with the people who participated in the regiment. According to your ealier arguments, nobody is interested in that. And please do it for all similar pages throughout Wikipedia. If you choose not to remove it, can you please detail the difference between linking to an external site for the members of a regiment and linking to the external site for the members of a school. I see no difference, though no doubt you'll use some form of sophistry to justify yourselves. Captain Ploppy. (Don't know what that other junk is after your names! What's UTC?) -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captain Ploppy (talk • contribs) .

The fundamental difference is that http://www.508pir.org/ is the homepage of the 508th regiment, as it says on the front page. By contrast, the 1984 alumni page is an alumni page. We already have an external link to the school site.

And again, the Wikipedia article is not your (or your school's) private webpage. Whether contents deserve to be on it is the judgment of all editors and readers, NOT that of the school's alumni and their friends. --Sumple (Talk) 04:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You dill, there's no fundamental difference. I knew you'd say that. How about we chuck "official" on the alumni homepage. And don't kid yourself that up to the editors and readers, it's up to a small bunch of goggle-eyed, clique of nobodys with no life. Why would anyone become an editor for Wikipedia???? Don't you have anything better to do? Ban me if you like, only joined today, won't be joining to contribute. Couldn't give a toss. Oh and you'll probably delete this, the creatively-challenged and boring are pretty predictable. Captain Ploppy. Posted sometime Posted someplace. For sad, sad people.

Hi Enochlau. I read your comment about my post on User_talk:Enochlau#Removal_of_Class_of_1984_external_link. You are correct, this is the first time I've contributed to Wikipedia. However, that doesn't invalidate my comment, and I am surprised an admin with such experience as yourself would so quickly jump to the unfounded conclusion that I was a sock puppet. As I wrote before, you seem to have a basic misunderstanding about the site whose link was reverted by you. The site isn't simply a "home page" for the students of a particular year. It's a comprehensive database that contains information from almost a decade's worth of school experience. The site is detailed, well organised, and of interest to a much wider audience than a simple "home page" would be. The site includes information on teachers, information on major school events, and information scanned from an extensive range of school publications. All these are of interest to any student, past or present, of STHS. Rather than making false accusations about sock puppetry, please take the time to look at the site. The important matter is whether the site would be of interest to a visitor to the STHS wiki page, and after visiting the site I'm sure only pride would prevent you from agreeing that the answer to that question is an unqualified "yes". Winterelf 01:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a sentence regarding a car being drowned in the pool during the 1990s although it was reverted out, why? I feel this piece of trivia is useful and adds to the article. I attended the school from 92 to 97 so I know first hand that there was a car in the pool for some time. comment was added by Toe2toe

I think you've hit the nail on the head. It's trivia. A whole bunch of trivia does not make an encyclopedia article. enochlau (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Enoch. It is a piece of trivia, and very much so. We should aim to add serious information to the article, rather than overload with anecodtes and pranks.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What about the part about the back oval referring to the "Curry League"?? Surely this is regarded as trivia as well, if not bordering on racism. Toe2toe

Thanks for pointing it out. I have removed that too.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Child labor, brick wall

Could an Old boy please add some information about the construction on that magnificent brick wall as featured in the photograph? Grumpyyoungman01 01:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

valid semiprotections?

Enochlau, you haven't yet specified the reasons for your unilateral action in semiprotecting this article. I note that this has occurred more than once.

Did you go through the correct channels? Please provide a link so that we can inspect them; I can't locate reference to this article on the protection page, either current or archived.

We need to know that you're not abusing the correct processes of WP.

Tony 03:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I did notice that you temporarily addressed Enoch as "echidna" - please desist, editing WP is a privilege not a right. If you abuse it by attacking other contributors they will be withdrawn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, get a life, dude. It was a mistake, which I corrected. Chill out. Tony 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? I noticed on cj's page as well. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC).

In case you haven't noticed, the semi-protection rationale has been stated above. enochlau (talk) 05:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What, "latest rounds of vanity"? No, I mean the stated criterion. Was the semiprotection listed properly at the time? I tried to have an article that was being vandalised daily semiprotected, and was refused ("not frequent enough" was the response). I'd like to see the process: please provide a link. Tony 06:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Alumni link

There's been alot of arguing about the addition and removal of the link to that alumni page, I thought that instead of saying why it shouldn't be added, I would say a little bit about what the link would need to be in order for its inclusion to be justified. I think there are a range of situations in which an external link to an alumni organisation would be justified:

• If the organisation was the school's official alumni organisation (which in this case, is actually this site);
• If the organisation had done something notable on their own, other than simply existing as a group of alumni;
• If any of the "famous alumni" listed were an active part of that organisation.

There may of course be other, similar reasons.

Of course, if there is verifiable information on the site, then that should be incorporated in the article, but in that case it should be linked to as a reference and not as an external link, and the link should go directly to the page that the information is on, and not to the home page. --bainer (talk) 09:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Bainer, for a voice of reason in this debate. Thank you also for your civility, which has been disappointingly lacking from the administrator who reverted the link. In my opinion, we should examine the Wikipedia policy for external links. I'll examine two sections of this policy in detail: What should be linked to and Links to normally avoid. That's not to say the other sections of the policy don't apply. They do, but these two sections are the heart of what should be deemed an appropriate external link.

What should be linked to
1. Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one.	Site does not qualify.
2. Sites that have been used as references in the creation of an article should be linked to in a references section, not in external links. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources.	Not applicable.
3. An article about a book, a musical score, a webcomic, a web site, or some other media, should link to the actual book, musical score, etc. if possible.	Not applicable.
4. On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view – in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.)	Not applicable.
5. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.	Site qualifies. The material on the site in question is neutral, accurate, and extensive. The level of detail is such that it is inappropriate to include the information directly into the Wikipedia article.
6. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews.	Site does not qualify.
Links to normally avoid
1. Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)	Does not apply to the site, since it provides information tracable to school publications.
2. In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.	Does not apply to the site, since it contains information that is far more detailed than ever likely to be incorporated into Wikipedia.
3. Links that are added to promote a site. See External link spamming.	Does not apply to the site, since it serves only to provide information.
4. Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.	Does not apply to the site.
5. Sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.	Does not apply to the site.
6. Sites that require payment to view the relevant content.	Does not apply to the site.
7. Sites that are inaccessible to a significant proportion of the online community (for example, sites that only work with a specific brand of browser).	Does not apply to the site.
8. Sites that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content unless (1) it is the official site of the subject of the article, (2) the article is about those media, or (3) the site is being cited as a reference.	Does not apply to the site.
9. Foreign-language sites, unless it is the official site of the subject of the article or it contains visual aids such as maps, diagrams, or tables. (See WP:MOS-L for further information on this guideline.)	Does not apply to the site.
10. Bookstore sites, instead use the "ISBN" linking format which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.	Does not apply to the site.
11. A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article.	Does not apply to the site. (I am not actually involved with the site).
12. Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard.	Does not apply to the site.

So, on the basis of this analysis, I come to the conclusion that the external link to the site satisfies all Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. I see no justification for removing the link. Winterelf 12:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please clarify, in relation to part 2 point 1, what you mean by "Does not apply to the site, since it provides information tracable to school publications.". Does the site only contain information from school publications, and no original research? Is such information not available on the school's official site, or the alumni association's official site?

In addition, the neutrality policy would suggest that whether the link is added or not should be decided by neutral editors who are not direct participants of, or affiliated with, the site concerned.

Also, the 1984 alumni page does not appear to be linked from the official alumni association site. --Sumple (Talk) 12:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sumple. Thanks for your comments. I think we're making progress!

With respect to tracable/original research, let me first examine Wikipedia itself as an example. Wikipedia itself cannot guarantee that all information in the database is verifiable. It is Wikipedia policy that the database should not contain original research. However, it is clear that some articles may still do so. It is also clear that some other pages of Wikipedia (eg: talk pages, user pages) almost definitely contain original research (ie: unverifiable claims). So, the presence or absence of original research is not the real issue. The issue is whether there is a clear distinction between verifiable information and original research. Using Wikipedia as an example again, it is clear that information contained in user or talk pages may not satisfy Wikipedia's own policy regarding verifiability, and therefore any reader will not give such information as much credence as information contained on well-reviewed article pages. In the case of the site in question, I believe that it contains both tracable information (eg: scans from school publications) and attributed opinion (eg: personal anecdotes, etc), and that there is a clear distinction between the two.

With repsect to the availability of the information, I believe that, no, the information is not available anywhere else.

With respect to neutrality, I agree with you completely. On this point, I would like to point out that Wikipedia policy for neutrality would imply that the decision to include or exclude a link should be done on a case-by-case basis, by objectively evaluating the worth of each link. The exclusion of a link simply because it is an "alumni" link is, in itself, biased. The assessment should be based on the content of the site. With regard to the site itself, I think it is clear that it is an "alumni" site, and therefore any visitor would expect and understand that information is presented from an alumnus POV. That is to say, the school publications mentioned earlier are unlikely to be completely neutral in terms of their assessment or presentation of the school, since they are likely to portray the school in a good light, in order to keep the parents happy. Similarly, recollections gathered on the site are personal opinion, and necessarily do not have a "neutral" POV.

With repect to a cross-link from any other site, I do not think this is relevant. There many be any number of reasons why two websites are not cross-linked, and this does not change the worth of the information contained on the site. The Wikipedia policy has no such requirement for cross-linking. Once again, we must be careful to objectively assess the worth of the site, rather than allowing our thinking to be biased by preconceptions of what an "alumni" site might or should be. Winterelf 00:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the Fort Street Triads are at it again —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.244.102.174 (talk • contribs) .

Is that an allegation of organized criminal activity on the part of Enoch and Sumple???Blnguyen | rant-line 05:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ad hominem comes into my mind. enochlau (talk) 05:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Winterelf, having examined the website in more detail, here are my concerns:

1. From the point of view of Wikipedia-relevance, the website seems to be in two parts: photos to do with the school, which can be encyclopaedic, and photos to do specifically with the "class of 1984" and their activities, which would not appear to be encyclopaedic (except maybe in a very remote sense of having sociological value with regard to 1980s society).

2. The section which may have value is very small compared to the section which does not have value (in the encyclopaedic sense). In fact, the website information claims that its contents are "relevant to Sydney Technical High School students who attended: year 7 in 1979, and/or year 8 in 1980, and/or year 9 in 1981, and/or year 10 in 1982, and/or year 11 in 1983, and/or year 12 in 1984."

3. A casual reader who enters that website will (rightly) feel that the website is designed by and/or for former students. This is especialy so because of the scrolling marquee right on the front page about reunions.

So, basically, my concern is that, while there is encyclopaedic information on this website, the larger part of the website is devoted to the fond (personal) memories of the alumni concerned, and a photographic record of their activities - material which is not really encyclopaedic. Any website would have some relevant information. Does this site have enough to qualify as a relevant external link? --Sumple (Talk) 09:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, if there is verifiable information on the site, then that should be incorporated in the article, but in that case it should be linked to as a reference and not as an external link, and the link should go directly to the page that the information is on, and not to the home page. --bainer (talk) 09:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a reasoanble approach. For the record, this link is this: http://sths84.aus.cc/ enochlau (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, please stop adding the link. If you even took notice of the discussion here, you would have seen that the link is unwanted. We will now work to seeing what contents of the site can be included directly in the article. enochlau (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

In particular, you should not add that link, as you are the webmaster of the site [1] - see above for Winterelf's table on what links you cannot add. enochlau (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Value of the 84 link

I read with interest the discussion about the removal of a link to the class of '84 website from the WP articla on Sydney Technical High School. First let me declare my interest as Senior Prefect 1984. The desire to remove the link seems to stem from the claim that it is "unencyclopedic", and could only have interest to those of us who attended at that time. Jens suggests that it should stay as it doesn't contravene any WP rules and in no way affects the flow of the WP article. An apparently neutral contributor to this page felt that the onus should be on those who wish to include it to extol its virtues, but also that (despite the frayed tempers and regrettable incivilities) they currently had the stronger arguments.

Having recently studied the 84 site, I would like to speak in favour of its re-inclusion: There is an impressive array of verifiable information about the school and its history which is in now way specific to the class of 84. In five minutes I viewed a photo of the Sir Charles Kingsford Smith Memorial (which resides in the auditorium foyer), letters from two Australian Prime Ministers (Sir Robert Menzies and John Gorton), an article from former School Captain and Olympic swimmer John Konrads (not from anywhere near 1984), a photograph of the very first teachers of the school in 1911, a list of every teacher who had ever worked at the school up until 1985 (including positions held). The accuracy of these are all verifiable from the school journals and the newletter "Tech Talk". I could see none of this information in 30 minutes of searching the official school website (which is linked to the WP article). I'm sure that there is much more that I didn't have time to look at, but I want to show that the Jens link is much more than a collection of 1984 memorabilia. My view is that the link stands out because it such a detailed piece of work in a narrow field of interest. I'd like to be able to have this level of detail available in any search, as long as it doesn't get in the way of more general searches.

With respect to the Neutral Point Of View policy, I would think that links such as the official Sydney Tech school website have a bigger problem here than the 84 link, as the school site has an ongoing mission to promote the school, trumpeting it's highs and sweeping its lows under the carpet. As a school teacher myself, I place a great value on the impression of the students as to the quality of a school. Since no-one has felt the need even to warn against propaganda from the official school site, I think that it is quite inconsistent to completely remove all mention of an alternative site that has much work that is verifiable, contains many images of general historical value which are not included on the school site, and is written from a NPOV. Granted the site also contains much that would normally be of interest to a select few; I don't know whether this make the link unencyclopedic - I would like to hear the view of others, and think it reasonable that Tech High boys (I was never called a "Techie" - perhaps I should edit the WP article?) should declare their hand.

Rhysw 05:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I must say I have previously experienced enochlau's propensity to remove/add semi protection willy nilly without consultation or proper discussion. I genuinely (but admittedly mistakenly) tried to update the STHS page with what I thought was a notable person. Enochlau decided to semi-protect without consultation. I fear that he rules Wikipedia to his own personal preferences and agenda rather than the consensus approach that is central to Wikipedia. 203.3.197.249 07:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned over there, I've realized that I should have provided a link to the Mediation Cabal, and in particular to the case discussion page on this issue. Luna Santin 08:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, the page in question is now reached by the following link: sths84.reminisced.com. 140.168.69.129 (talk) 06:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How to ensure precise information on Sydney Tech High

I have noticed many people editing this the Sydney Technical High School article, and getting all the information wrong. why not use a reliable source of information, a student or teacher, as they will know exactly what is happening in Sydney Tech. If any editing is done, make sure you have check that the information is corrected by a student or teacher of Sydney Tech, like me Efansay 10:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That's all nice and good but to be even better, everything should be referenced: WP:VERIFY. enochlau (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What if there isn't a published source, even if the information is valid. Efansay ^talk 10:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Strike that. I forgot about the school's website itself.Efansay ^talk 10:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Paintball Competition

Hey fellas, I just graduated last year from Tech. Just thought I should post up that at the end of the year we have a 20 v 20 paintball match against Homebush Boys and we won't let you down.

Oh and.. Does anyone here work for an accounting or Investment banking firm? I'm looking for a job. :P

If your competitors get to me first you;ll be sorry.

Principals and Deputies

Just a note that the school has a new principal, Mrs Lyons, as of term 3. This means that the deputies return to Mr Dando and Mr McNaught. I shall be making the change now, just for reference. ☺Efansay^T/_C☺ 01:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SydTech.JPG

Image:SydTech.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

there are a lot of NPOV issues. e.g."ranks consistently high in the hsc". i've removed this--Welcome to the dark side. (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Article cleanup as per WP:WPSCH/AG

I'll come back to this from time to time to list my cleanups and the reasons why
FACILITIES
As much as Wikipedia appreciates your despair at your unsuccessful swimming pool, this information is unnecessary. The swimming pool is gone, therefore no longer part of the facilities. Similarly, a 'quadrangle' is kind of a standard in every school and is thus not counted as a facility either.
EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

• Prefect and Executive positions are mentioned later in the article - and besides, they are not extra-curricular
• School intranet team is gone - you cannot postpone the deletion of material until the material's truth comes back. If it comes back, you can put it on here
• All schools have a peer support program
• "*Writers in Residence - A ten week course, held annually, in which a professional writer helps to hone students' writing skills, temporarily cancelled due to lack of participants." - self-explanatory
• everyone has the ANU maths day
  

SPORTS
no need to divide up into season, time of week, time of day etc.
PREFECTS
removed when the prefects have tea and inner etc. - self explanatory
SRC
every school has an SRC so please do not detail the voting process or the number of students etc.
--Welcome to the dark side. (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I Think you'll find buddy there is still a pool, which is in the school grounds and it is not gone and therefore it is a facilities. Ill leave it at that actually :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.180.107 (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

From the previous information on the article, it was implied that there was no swimming pool. However, if you want to edit the article to include this information, you may - on one condition. Cite a source. I'll leave it at that.--Welcome to the dark side. (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The school pool was actually recently filled and covered with turf. It's finally gone after falling into disuse for several years. It should also be worth noting that the school's Centenary is this year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubik's Maniac (talk • contribs) 14:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Alumnus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Warren Daly does not have an English Wikipedia article to show his individual notability. He is a member of the notable group Daly-Wilson Big Band but that is not sufficient. Meters (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Meters (talk) with all respect, I feel this point is both pedantic and incorrect. He is not merely a "member" of the notable group Daly-Wilson Big Band as you've said above. He is one of the two founders, as the article shows, and most importantly the group is named after him, being named after its two founders, plus his name comes first (admittedly that could be incidental for alphabetical reasons, but still his name is 50% of the notable group's name). I aver this confers the notability of the individual way above being a mere "member" of a notable group. Can we have a third or more voice on this please, as I am just repeating what I said in edit summaries and so is Meters (talk).Walton22 (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Needs to have his own article to be considered notable. Adding him as alumni with primary sources doesn't cut it. LibStar (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

LibStar (talk) I really don't think a Wikipedia article is the only litmus test of notability for inclusion on a list of notable alumni! It is merely incidental that nobody has written an article about him yet. He qualifies for one as per WP:NOTABLE. He has received an Order of Australia Award "For service to music as band leader and drummer", see 1991_Queen's_Birthday_Honours_(Australia)#General_Division_4. I will add his name to the alumni list again, but this time appending this post-nominal and its citation, which I think ends the discussion.Walton22 (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll also put it on my to-do list to create the missing and needed article Warren Daly. It would be unassailable under WP:NOTABLE Walton22 (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Yet another reversion I see. Ok, guys, I'll write the article Warren Daly then add him back to the alumni list. Since the only objection here turns on the current lack of his own WP article (when clearly the subject qualifies for BLP!) the need for consensus here will then be obviated when the article appears.Walton22 (talk) 02:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll close this discussion as Warren Daly does now have an English Wikipedia article to show his individual notability. Walton22 (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.