Talk:Wesley College, Melbourne

message: If you notice, most of the article is written like an ad. I have no doubt that "Notable Alumni and Staff" was most definitly written by the school. 58.106.97.236 tried to delete a whole section of the article, probably because it was the only part not written by the school. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Penguinboy (talk • contribs) 14:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a student of the school, you may be too close to the subject to be objective. The technology section that was deleted has several problems. Firstly much of it was non-notable. Many schools have integrated computers into the school. It would require something more, ie the first, or recognized as particularly innovative in approach, for this to be notable. Secondly it is entirely unsourced. This is particularly important in the section discussing the release of viruses and worms, which borders on libelous. Everything on Wikipedia should be sourced, and anything contentious must be. Unfortunately what you hear around the school yard does not count. --Michael Johnson 12:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll find that most of the edits on this page, excluding all of the vandalism, has been created by Students or Staff of Wesley College, Melbourne. I understand the WP rules, however, for a small article like this, does it really matter if the user is too close to the subject? Also, to Penguinboy, if you want to create a new section of the article, it really needs more content then a one line statement. --DogGunn 10:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Understanding the relevant guidelines then, you'll have a good appreciation for the dangers inherent in an article largely authored by insiders, and school articles are regrettably a major breeding ground for poor practices, usually associated with notability and verifiability. Murtoa 00:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wesley College might be editing the article to suit their own needs 

message: I edited this material to eliminate subjective and non-notable material.  Every private school in Australia has its own theatre productions, so material in this article should be restricted to notable features, such as awards won.  The list of productions is not-notable and description shouldn't contain editorial commentary as to the reputation of the respective companies. Murtoa 06:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added substantial material to this and other articles, and have absolutely no problem expanding this section with notable material, provided it is accompanied by references to reliable, preferably independent sources. Murtoa (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Performing Arts

message: I have reverted to a previous version after large amounts of editorial content were added, which has not been drawn from independent sources, which is not NPOV, and includes a great deal of school policy, values, vision etc which belongs only in school websites, history books, but not here.  Have then examined legitimate changes during the period that this extraneous material has been added. Murtoa 05:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of substantial material - not NPOV, editorial, advertorial 

message: Orginally on Wesley's Wikipedia page, the college enrolment claimed to be 2980 students. With further investigation. I have discovered that the person who calculated student population, didn't include the Elsterwick Campus (which is another 450 students!). (Glen Waverly Campus and St Kilda Rd campus student population together equals this figure, but not the Elstie campus!!!) 
Thus after counting the college rolls in the chronicle (yes, I'm procrastinating), there is a population of around 3448. 
Further, I have also discovered that Wesley is also the LARGEST school by enrolment, not the 2nd. Haileybury's wikipedia page claims to be the largest, but they have a population of 3,200 -wesley college has 3,450 - 3,500. Many past newspaper articles (the age - 2006) have claimed that wesley is the largest school in Victoria. 
If anybody has further information that condradicts these statements, please feel free to correct me! :) 
58.107.228.3 (talk)
Claim has since expanded to biggest in Australia, then biggest in Southern Hemisphere.  Either requires substantiation Murtoa (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wesley College enrollment figures 

message: Hi guys, I'm new to all this and i don't know how i should cite, but i have found the citations needed for the sustainability section. I'm still looking for the first citation but i have found the one needed for the second citation. It is "http://www.wesleycollege.net/resources/issue_101.pdf"      —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.216.22 (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Inserted ref and adjusted text Murtoa (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sustainability Section  

message: I have substantially expanded the History section (which was about two or three sentences previously).  I have largely drawn on the 2004 history of the school to source this.  Although the book was the result of a project initiated by the school, it has been written by an independent historian and in my view is a reasonably weighted treatment of the topic and not afraid to be critical where deemed necessary. This book also drew on previous histories such as that written by Blainey and others for the school's centenary. Murtoa (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: I have edited the recently expanded content on Houses, Pastoral Care and Facilities. In the case of Houses and Pastoral Care, the content added was largely not notable in that it would mirror what all schools similar to Wesley would have. I attempted to edit the content to increase its relevance and notability. In the case of facilities, I think the statistics on ovals etc is either incorrect or highly misleading in that it encompasses facilities used by Wesley that are not actually on Wesley campuses. Unless there is verification of these claims they shouldn't be on the page. I'm happy to debate and refine the content to improve the quality of the article. Murtoa (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Houses, pastoral care, facilities 

message: I thought the facilities by 58.175.154.98 and history section was excellent, keep up the good work. I will be reviewing this article next month so keep up the good work and lets see if I can rated as a GA and move up the importence scale to mid. Sheepunderscore (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The challenge is to maintain the encyclopaedic nature of the article (refer my additional comments above).  The facilities section in my view still remains quite voluminous and has too many elements which come across as not NPOV but more of a marketing flavour.  I think the size of this section needs to be of appropriate size with regards rest of article.  Info about the orchards at Glen Waverley have little to do with facilities, and other elements eg. darkrooms - are not notable, since they would be found at many similar schools.  They should not find their way into this article for sake of completeness, and are more appropriately referenced in a school website. Murtoa (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed 58.175.154.122 (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a comment that I would say there is still far too much content on facilities, sustainability and development. This isn't a collation of the school newsletter, so perhaps details on every project are unnecessary. The 'structure' section is either part of the lead or part of the 'campuses' section - it should not exist on its own. Also, a list of headmasters has questionable value, and the section on miscellaneous facts (motto, crest, etc.) need only be part of the infobox; if it doesn't fit there, delete it. I know I'm biased in saying the Caulfield Grammar School article is a good example, but there are not many examples of unimportant facts being included there. Harro5 09:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I largely agree with your comments.  I'm not sure I'd use the Caulfield Grammar School article as a model, as that appears to have other deficiencies, but certainly the areas you have highlighted - facilities, sustainability and development - remain flabby in the Wesley article.  The facilities part has been under challenge for a while, and there are editors from time to time who want more of a marketing flavour, which tends to blow out these areas.  Sustainability is a harder section since I believe Wesley's actions in this area are notable, but I guess ultimately if the claims aren't supported by good enough sources then they are under question.  Appreciate your recent edits.  Murtoa (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

text: *I have progressively slimmed down the sustainability and development sections and facilities generally, with an emphasis on notable elements that don't rely exclusively on sources from within the school.  I will also remove the symbols section, relocating the only referenced sections into History, although they may not stand up on notability grounds. Murtoa (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  General comments on quality 

message: The information provided on the campuses added is unsourced (“all my own work”), does not add information that is either relevant or notable, and contains editorial comment that is not written from a neutral point of view (“grand”, “innovative”, an “extension of home”, “latest facilities”, “quiet contemplation”) etc .  In my opinion the article should not contain information that could be written for any other major private school, is subjective, or promotional commentary more suited to a brochure advertising the school. Murtoa (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Campuses

message: I notice there's been some swapping between the well-recognised logo seen at every Wesley campus and in marketing material, versus the claimed "official" crest, which I must admit I've never seen anywhere but in this instance.  I would have thought the Wesley website might be a good reference point here, and unless I haven't looked far enough I can't see any instance of the "official" crest, but many instances of the logo.  The "official" crest appears no longer in regular or common use, and the image that should headline this article should help reinforce the current branding used by the school.  Therefore I strongly suggest that the logo be used in place of the "official" crest. Murtoa 13:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The official crest was actually found on the Wesley website. I think it should be used as this article exists for encyclopedic purposes not marketing purposes.Loopla 08:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that the article must use encyclopaedic and not promotional content.  The term "marketing logo" was being used here (and I didn't coin the term) to try to distinguish from the "crest" that has been displayed.  To be clear, I don't think the crest currently displayed is in common use at all (and I have trawled the Wesley website but regret I am having troubling finding it), whereas the other representation is almost ubiquitous.  On that basis I would change the image.  Murtoa 12:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The crest can be found a few times on the site (usually on official documentation), e.g. at http://www.wesleycollege.net/v3/app2/files/GE_App_form_2008.doc It is also used constantly by the Old Collegians.Loopla 15:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: They look pretty much the same crest except that the one currently in the article is a "one colour" execution versus the multicolour execution you have produced. Murtoa (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crest 

message: I hold an opinion that there are far too many images now in the article, and some are too trivial for inclusion. For example, the Clunes logo and principal's headshot. Wikipedia is not a directory or a substitute for a full school marketing handbook, and the focus is on information not promotion. Harro5 09:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Here are the problems which require attention before this article may be promoted to GA. These problems are mentioned in the Final GA Review by Brianboulton. Can editors who help resolve these problems please sign (with ~~~~), strike out and provide a short summary on the changes you have made, once you have completed an item of this list. Items may be added/adjusted at any time.
Earlier points not yet dealt with
*Explanation of the role or function of the "President" and Chairman". (They are only mentioned in the infobox, not in the article.) 1. removed Chairman from infobox Murtoa (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I question whether Arts and Sports are logical subsections of Facilities; I think the issue is there is little content in either and so look piecemeal in the context of the article.  Murtoa (talk) 06:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

text: *I have combined Performing Arts and Sports into a Student Life section and placed before Facilities. Sport section corrected and slightly expanded Murtoa (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

text: *This is difficult. There appear to be virtually no decent sources outside Wesley's. Have edited the Aust Certificate Education section to reflect that Wesley's work with ACER etc is very much an offshoot of the overall ACE initiative. The ACE is directed at establishing a uniform certificate across Australia. The Wesley initiative is around a specific version of it - the ACE - Vocational.  Have also eliminated highly internal sources such as letters to parents. Murtoa (talk) 04:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do List... 

message: This is in reply to the question at the help desk. The problems are there all right, both on Firefox and IE7. This is probably because of using too many images. I think what happens is, the section is shorter than all the images used there and the images stretch on to the next section. That's probably why the extra space and displacement of links occur. I'd suggest keeping only the important images as a thumbnail image next to the relevant section, and place the others in a gallery at the end of the article. Hope this helps. Cheers. Chamal  Talk 03:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image problem 

message: Hi all, just wondering if it is really necessary to merge the performing Arts and Sports with Facilities and if the facilities section should be renamed as some of the information isn't really a facility. Also is it necessary to explain the role of the college president as s/he is not really mentioned in the article besides the references to James Waugh, past president. if its necessary where should it be included???   
Sheepunderscore (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the concern over combining Arts/Sports/Facilities although I think there is still an issue with the length of the facilities section.  Suggest trim to genuinely notable elements. Murtoa (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: May I suggest separating the technology section and leave the sustainability section with the facilities. I also believe that the arts and sports sections should be left separate, and that the facilities section should be left alone until we hear back from the copyedit, which will point out things regarding the prose, etc. From: Sheepunderscore (talk) 08:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree, i reckon we should keep a couple of the images in the gallery and the ones that we have voted not important or any additional images should go to a wikimedia commons page.Sheepunderscore (talk) 05:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

text: *To clarify, my view is that we delete forever the ones that are unnecessary.  The ones that remain we either have on a gallery in the article, or as suggested by Harro5 link to a commons page. In response to my image-by-image comments above, you may like to suggest which ones you think should be retained.  Murtoa (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just letting everyone know, I have started a wikimedia commons page. I believe the pictures on the article (SKR, GW & E Campus shots, cigarette card photo and success has a purple lining photo) should stay in the article as it is, and we should remove the skr library photo, gw quadrangle photo, the clunes main street shop/classroom photo from the gallery. All suggestions welcomed.Sheepunderscore (talk) 07:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

text: *Given that what was left in the gallery was a small disjointed set of images, I have deleted the gallery in favour of all additional images being viewable in the Commons area. Murtoa (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions on GA Review suggestions 

message: I’ve been asked to look at the article again.  I don’t really have time for a full review before you renominate, but here are a few pointers as to how the article could be improved.
*Lead: 
** Don’t just say "Uniting Church, a Christian denomination", as that is pretty uninformative. Try: "Uniting Church in Australia, a union of non-conformist Christian denominations"
*** My view is that worth adding "in Australia", but that a greater explanation is unnecessary.  The UCA is Australia's 3rd largest denomination, there are over 40 UCA schools in Australia. An interested reader can always follow the link to find out more. Murtoa (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wesley College: remaining points for attention

message: The section proposed on 2008 results, which has been lifted from a school newsletter, is not notable.  Wesley's results, which are undoubtedly better than say a small regional high school, are not remarkable compared to say other APS schools.  "Performed well" is a relative term and although Wesley can be happy with its students' results, in my view they are not notable.  Also, as I tried to explain when I reverted the edit, the 2008 results are transient.  This content would no doubt be replaced in a year's time when the 2009 results come out.  Wikipedia is not a place for recent news that will pretty quickly not be news.  Nor is it a place for school marketing material. Happy to debate further. Murtoa (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe the primary purpose of school articles on Wikipedia is to provide a guide to prospective parents. Wesley can find paid channels to do that.  The fact that the reference provided from The Age newspaper was actually an advertisement from the school is indicative. The rest of the information provided was from the internal school newsletter and I would argue is not even particularly helpful given that the information was not comparative or benchmarked.  eg. All IB Diploma students was (sic) awarded with a diploma and has a Media (sic) ENTER score of 97.60 raises questions such as - how many students at Wesley undertook the IB diploma?  Is reaching the minimum level for being awarded an IB diploma a significant achievement?  Ultimately I believe the primary motivation for schools quoting these figures is promotional and not encyclopaedic - but keen to hear other views. As a point of reference, a quick scan showed that no other APS schools in Victoria have this kind of material on their respective Wiki pages. Murtoa (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

text: The myschool site provides a number of data points across three junior year levels (but doesn't carry any info around ENTER scores ).  Allied with the controversy around what constitutes a "similar" school, I think it would be quite unwise and unhelpful to selectively supplant myschool info to this article.  Regarding the desire expressed above to provide a "guide to prospective parents", the Government has provided the myschool site with that exact intention, so I don't see a role for the wiki article in being a halfway house. Murtoa (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 2008 results

message: In the list of headmasters there is reference to Sir Frank Goldstraw. I wonder if the author of the article would be kind enough to cite any reference to the headmaster Frank Goldstraw receiving a knighthood. I have been unable to find any reference to any Goldstraw receiving a knighthood in the official gazettes and I am not aware of this man ever using such a title.
Thank you for your kind assistance.
Martin Goldstraw  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.78.116 (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sir (?) Frank Goldstraw 

message: In the "Overview and Structure" section, Wesley speaks of an "Open Entry" policy. This assertion is somewhat in doubt. It is "open" in that there is no academic testing. But in an effort to achieve gender balance across the student population, the school presently admits female students in preference to males and has achieved an VCAT Ruling Granting Equal Opportunity Exemption in this regard. The result is male students can only be offered places after female students have accepted available places at the College. This isn't "open" in the sense of being readily accessible for male students. StephenSmith (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: agree with this and have adjusted accordingly. Murtoa (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Open" entry policy 

message: User 122.107.142.251 has not welcomed my removal in the main overview of the reference to the 2001 Sun-Herald "ranking" of the top ten Australian school for boys, based on the number of male alumni mentioned in "Who's Who in Australia".  My reasons for viewing this as not being worthy of reference in the article are:
1. I believe that the Sun-Herald article refers to research undertaken in 1988 by Peel and McCalman.  It quotes McCalman in the article.  Thus I don't believe that research undertaken 22 years ago is nearly as relevant now.
2. Wesley has been a co-ed school for 32 years now, so the concept of "sixth best boys school" seems rather obtuse and irrelevant.
3. The only "bias" I am showing is wanting to improve the quality of the article.  I note that this 1988 survey has appeared on some other articles, and I recently made a comment on the Scotch College, Melbourne article in similar vein.
On balance, I propose that this reference, slightly edited to reflect the ranking wasn't by Sun-Herald and probably wasn't done in 2001, be moved to the part of the article that refers to alumni. For the reasons above I don't consider it should be in the leading piece of the article. Happy to hear other views. Murtoa (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "2001" "Sun-Herald" report 

message: User 122.107.142.251 has not welcomed my removal of the number of subjects offered in VCE, IB etc.  The quoted numbers neither match the source provided (which appears out of date anyway), nor the numbers provided by Wesley in its curriculum guide.  And herein lies the problem - there is (unsurprisingly) no consistency between the two senior school campuses - St Kilda Rd offers 44 VCE and 22 IB subjects; Glen Waverley 39 and 24 (and from personal experience IB subjects are subject to minimum numbers before they are offered). Of course the number will change every year and as per current article they are out of date. Are the numbers notable?  I don't think so - they are what you would expect from a school of Wesley's scale.  I'm not sure what's "biased" about this viewpoint.  I detect a sense that I'm perhaps downplaying Wesley's credentials; this is not the intention, however, to support the quality of the article I don't believe it should be unnecessarily promoting the school's virtues. Murtoa (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies for my level of activity with this article.  However, I'm acutely aware that this article is similar to many private school articles in that it is prone to many (usually) well-meaning contributions that tend to veer in one of two directions - trivial or non-notable info that is dear to ex-students or others close to the school (refer to WP:SCHOOLCRUFT for some examples common across all school articles), or information that is best suited to marketing documents authored by the school itself.  I'd encourage you to read some of the feedback when this article was a candidate for Good Article status as it became clear through that exercise that the quantity of information often compromised quality. In the case of curriculum information, I am guided by an assessment of whether this information is truly notable, or is it information that you would expect of similar schools?  In the case of Wesley, you would expect it to offer a lot of subjects driven purely by the size of the school.  Is there something unique about Wesley's curriculum that would distinguish it from similar Melbourne private schools like Carey or Caulfield?  I don't think so, but I would welcome other opinions.  There is also a practical concern as pointed out above, as Wesley's multiple campuses make it difficult to define these statistics. Murtoa (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of subjects offered 

message: An image used in this article, File:LA Adamson.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:LA Adamson.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Wesley College (Victoria). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080610080708/http://www.wesleycollege.net:80/awOffer.cfm to http://www.wesleycollege.net/awOffer.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified