Talk:St George Girls High School

Motto

Isn't Dieu et Droit both Latin and French? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.235.186.101 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 24 September 2005

Hi, please use ~~~~ to sign your comments on talk pages.
No, it isn't. See also wiktionary:god and wiktionary:God (although that does not prove anything, of course). Ok, the word et is both French and Latin, that much is true. --Aleph4 15:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

We were told it is both, but in our school, we were taught that the motto is meant to be in latin, pronounced latin, and it wasn't meant to suggest that our LOTE prefered French over the other languages available at the school. Necie B 10:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The school motto section elaborates on what languages are offered at the school. This is irrelevant. Should it be removed? Hippi ippi 11:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The school motto is French. Trust me, I'm a Latin student. We were taught in year 7 LOTE (at StGGHS) that it was French. Not a meld of both. French. Dieu is not Latin. Droit is not Latin. If you don't believe me, check out an online Latin dictionary i.e. William Whitaker's Words. If the motto were Latin, it would be Deus et Rectus, or something to that effect. The motto is French.

School Uniform

Isn't the school uniform and the paragraph on socks a bit irrelevent? 58.178.65.190 16:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Socks is irrelevent. I will delete it. -hippi ippi 07:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Haha trust me it's not irrelevant at the school. You can receive detention for not wearing the correct socks.

---

Welcome to the dark side. (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stgeorgegirls'logo.jpg

Image:Stgeorgegirls'logo.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 11:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

HSC Results section

This section looks like an advertisement of the school's reputation. WP:NOT#SOAP Methinks it stands for deletion. Ong elvin 09:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It also occurs to me that listing recent (and only the good) HSC results goes against WP:NPOV. If you list the full results (ie, use band distribution so that people can see the full range of results) then it wouldn't go against WP:NPOV. Also, simply being true and independently verifiable does not make it encyclopaedic. And as I stated just above, it is a form of self-promotion of SGGHS, which is also against WP:NOT#SOAP. Ong elvin 07:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

you should take a look at tech's boastful article--Welcome to the dark side. (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Mock Assembly.

I think it's irrelevant. "The grade is given full artistic license to this annual event, from the script-writing process, casting, directing, and acting." That is not one bit true. Well, it's half true. But anyway, the Mock Assembly is not even an official event. — *Hippi ippi 00:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is true.--Welcome to the dark side. (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

School Hymn + Alumni

Two issues here: first, I don't think the school hymn is necessary as it is rarely used (and most of the students have never even heard of it). I'm removing it. Secondly, while I have cleaned up the alumni section by finding a source, I cannot help but wonder if the people cited are "important enough" to be mentioned. They may have a sentimental value to the school, however, most of them are red-linked. Thanks--Welcome to the dark side. (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the song also, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#School songs.2C school hymns and fight songs. As far as alumni, you are right- the guideline is more strict than "sentimental value to the school"; you did a great job finding basic sources, with alumni, several things are needed. First, the alumni needs to be tied to the school, and then if they don't have an article of their own (ie their name is red), the guidelines for notability need to be established with reliable and verifiable sources- in other words, more than something from the school or alumni association. tedder (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'm not really sure what to do about the 3 red-links. Angelspitseems to have its own page and they seem to have been going on for a long time...that makes her kind of notable? Well she is notable in Australia and New Zealand. I'm not sure so I'll let you do as you wish with the red-links.--Welcome to the dark side. (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(deindenting) She's certainly "kind of" notable. Here are the options, along with my opinion of why one is a better option than the other.

• Create articles for Amelia Tan, Tanya Blencowe, etc and establish their notability. In Tan's case, that means following WP:MUSIC, which seems possible. Once those are done, all that needs to be done here is to establish that she went to the school (easy).
• Establish notability here. That means meeting WP:MUSIC/WP:BIO with reliable sources as refs, and also show they went to school here.

I'm a big fan of the first option. It means the notability of the individual can be debated on their own page, not here. However, both are valid options.

Just making a guess, it seems that notability of Amelia Tan is possible, maybe even likely. Establishing notability of Tanya Blencowe and Moya Sayer-Jones seems more difficult. But if there are reliable sources to meet WP:GNG (and WP:BIO), great! Otherwise, the names should be removed until sources are found. Cheers, tedder (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

New History section

I think we need a new history section. Let's beat tech. Can someone please do some research and find out about the school's roots - it's almost 100 years old there must be some history to it. We don't want to live in the depths of anonymity forever do we?--Welcome to the dark side. (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)