Jump to content

Talk:Chester Hill High School

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

Incident

[edit]

WP:NOT#NEWS is very clear. We don't report incidents simply because you found it in a web search. Schools all around the world have dangerous incidents every day yet don't get reported in Wikipedia. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is sourced and relevant; it goes to the security of the school and should stay. TerriersFan (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simply being sourced doesn't make it notable enough for inclusion. If this incident was widely reported by various media sources, it may be worthy but it is likely a journalist just got a police report and produced a very short news article. Does it follow that every similar incident eg crime, train delay, shop opening, big storm, flood etc. etc. must be reported on every school or suburb article in Wikipedia? the answer is clearly no. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We must agree to differ; in my view it is worthwhile including; in yours it is not. Some floods, crimes, storms etc are worth recording and some are not. As I say above, this is because it goes to the security of the school. TerriersFan (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument was that it was sourced. Given that from my own search it was only reported in 1 media article (the one you found), I'm not sure if the incident is noteworthy, larger more dangerous incidents such as stabbings/assaults happen weekly in schools in Sydney. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of an article on the school, this is an incident worth recording because of the broader security implications. The fact that there are more serious incidents happening elsewhere is not relevant. They should be considered on their own merits. TerriersFan (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incident worth recording? As I said if it was widely reported by various sources (which it isn't), yes, but the cited article itself is short and probably based on a police media report. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that gang activity and another molotov cocktail incident were reported in the area in 2002. [1] I should think that there should be more coverage of the security of the school. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That article says the victim was from Chester Hill High school but the incident is part of a crime problem involving many schools in the area. I'm not sure whether or not this has to be specifically mentioned in this article as this may be WP:UNDUE. Michellecrisp (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not add it to the article for mostly that reason but my point is that school security is almost certainly an issue. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HSC achievement list

[edit]

This is something we don't normally put on school articles? otherwise James Ruse Agricultural High School and Sydney Grammar School would be full of these. Michellecrisp (talk) 11:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In establishing the notability of the school, academic achievements of its students is surely an indicator. Other, more prestigious schools may not need to rely on this minutiae to confirm notability. WWGB (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But someone coming 8th in Mathematics in Practice?? that's hardly notable. that subject is the lowest level maths you can do for the HSC and not accepted for TAFE or university entrance. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coming 8th out of 3778 students is worthy of note. Mathematics in Practice (MIP) was a Category B course for university entrance purposes; two units of Category B courses are eligible for inclusion in determining university entrance [2]. MIP was discontinued in 2000. WWGB (talk) 02:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine to me in the context of this article - what may or may not be suitable for other schools pages is irrelevant. TerriersFan (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coming 8th of 3778 is like coming 8th in a D or E class of school year. Consider the fact that at least 40,000 students attempted a much higher and difficult level of maths in the same year doing 3778 students 2Unit, 3Unit and 4Unit maths, 8th of 3778 is not notable at all, coming 200th in 4unit or 3 unit is a far superior academic performance. We don't need to list Mathematics in Practice for this reason. Michellecrisp (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed that you have the time to analyse something so trivial. TerriersFan (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not trivial at all, since WWGB found the website of student numbers enrolled in year 12 maths course, this took me literally 5 minutes to analyse. I've put up a case for non inclusion of Maths in Practice, please respond to my argument rather than resorting to flippant personal remarks. Thanks. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My remark was not intended to be flippant; merely to express my view that I don't think that it is important whether or not this item is included though I think that Rhett Butler expressed it more cogently. TerriersFan (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually tend to agree. As an educator myself working with kids outside the school system, coming 8th in a subject where anyone really at your level of competition is doing a harder subject (and probably way down the list for that) is certainly commendable at a personal level and a tribute to the student's hard work, but has nothing whatsoever to do with notability of the school. As a 14-year-old I was coming 1st or 2nd in almost every *state-level* (or within state at national level) competition I entered in Maths and Science but it would not have made my 300-student (K-10 private) school any more notable. Orderinchaos 01:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't think that this is the point. Subjects need to meet WP:N and this one does, as you acknowledge yourself. However, not every piece of information in an article needs to contribute towards notability. Once notability has been established then sourced, informative details can be included. For example, take a look at most any city article - you will find descriptions of parks, libraries and all sorts of other details many of which are not independently notable nor do they contribute to the notability of the city. If we were to restrict the content of pages to those matters that contribute to notability, most would be boring, barren articles. TerriersFan (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well my point is whilst there is some notability for other high achievers (not that I totally agree), 8th in mathematics in practice is much much less notable. Because if this is notable for inclusion then it follows anyone achieving higher in maths should be listed as well. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah; I agree that if there are higher achievers within a particular school that they should also be listed. But higher achievers in other schools need not be because whether they are worth mentioning depends on the article in question. This is where we differ; you regularly say that if X is included in the page on School A then X+ should be included in an article on School B. I happen not to agree; there are guidelines as to what should be in pages but not absolute standards, other than they be reliably sourced, don't breach BLP, etc. The content of any particular page is, in the end, down to the editors of that page with the talk page being the final determinant. TerriersFan (talk) 03:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed this section as it doesn't seem compliant with WP:BLP to name these people. To quote from this policy Take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger. In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, discuss the issue on the article's talk page. As naming these people adds no value to the article their right to privacy takes precedence. If this section is judged to be worth including, it should be written as a description of the school's HSC results rather than a list of the names of particularly successful students - this would be more meaningful and have no privacy issues. If you don't agree with me, please discuss why the names need to be in the article before re-adding them. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly fussed whether the names appear or not (though they are on other public websites for the same achievements). If editors are to consider the notability of the article, however, it is fair that the achievements be part of that consideration. For that reason, I have added the list of achievements without names. WWGB (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, but I'm not sure what the results of searching the board of studies database adds to the article. Due to its nature, students from every school in the state will be in that Government website. Nick Dowling (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the changes. however, I still don't agree that 8th in maths in practice has to be included. it does a disservice to those who achieved an academically superiour result in a higher level of maths. coming 8th in maths in practice is a bit like coming 30,000 in the 40,000 odd students in the state that attempted maths that year. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

[edit]

I have assessed this article as C / Low. This is almost B class but I would say it needs a bit more content in the added sections if possible, some alumni could be added if they exist. School clearly has quite a bit of media coverage particularly over security, but I am not quite convinced it is beyond low importance at present. Camaron2 | Chris (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chester Hill High School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chester Hill High School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chester Hill High School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chester_Hill_High_School&oldid=1200830358"