Talk:St Michael's Grammar School

Proposed move

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. -- from St Michael's Grammar School to St. Michael's Grammar School

• Support move to St. Michael's Grammar School. James F. (talk) 00:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The school's webpage consistently uses "St Michael's". Presumably the anons who created it here knew what they were doing. –Hajor 16:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Opppose. I have verified Hajor's statement above. (different vote on WP:RM removed by me) Superm401 | Talk 01:05, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

What makes you think "Saint" is shortened to "St."? I always thought the distinction was between "St." for "Street" and "St" for "Saint" (with the latter complying with the rule that you don't put a full stop after an abbrevation which merely misses out middle letters). Proteus (Talk) 22:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's "St. James's", "St. James's Park", "St. James's Palace", "The Court of St. James", and "St. James's Park tube station", to name but one example in its various forms. This is from, variously, the A-Z, the official name of the Royal Park, the standard form of the Palace and of the Court, and the official name (on all signage and so on) of the station.

The idea that "St." means "Street" whereas "St" means "Saint", is in fact wrong; "St." means both, ambiguously.

James F. (talk) 19:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• OPPOSE. The marketing department has ensured "St Michael's" does not use '.' after St -- This is part of the 'new direction' . All marketing material, as well as the web site follow this convention. (added by User:JmPEPLB)

--> this is in addition to the constant use of lowercasing throughout publicity also, so very postmodern (added by User:203.61.102.208)

• I think it's appropriate to go with whatever the school itself uses as standard, in this case "St". Also, there is no universal law anyway - "St" and "St." are both used interchangeably for both "Street" and "Saint". This is one area of language that's never going to be neat and tidy. sjorford →•← 13:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First, there is a discussion about "St" vs "St." at Talk:St Michael's Grammar School.

Second, is "St Michael[[%92]]s" really the proper name? I would have thought that an apostrophe (') should be used between "Michael" and "s", not the single quote.-- Austrian 12:49, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

There are a number of statements in this article that are not fact, rather students toying around. Said statements have had dubious added at their conclusion.

Referencing Issues

• There were no articles in September 2000-04 in relation to a 'drug scandal' at St Michael's. <-- the aforementioned incident relating to the 'drug scandal' in question occured in 1998. Around the same time a CABLE TELEVISION commercial was produced.
• Evidence such as 'school diary' elements should be re-written in proper prose. At the present time they appear to be opinionated and tend to poke fun at the institution.
• I have referenced specific lines which have issues with [[Patent Nonsense]

Dispute 2

I really do not see why people consistently try to dispute things placed on this site by students of St. Michael's, especially in relation to the new uniform, marketing, and the comment of a former staff member. It must be noted that the truth (what Wikipedia is supposed to show) is found in neiter marketing drivel nor in a glossy prospectus, but in reality. I can vouch for the fact that what is being said could be applied to many other independent schools in Victoria and at least in some is a major topic for conversation within the school. If this site was to only show the official line given by those in power (whether in a organisation or in a country) it would claim that the Nazis did great things to improve the lives of the people of Germany, and that the Zimbabwe government's policy of demolishing people's houses is to reduce poverty. This is a serious issue - both the students and staff of a school know far better as to what the school is like than some marketing guru who sits in an office all day getting paid a good salary to write nice things about the school. There is much more truth in this article than in most others about Victorian schools. Vox latina (talk · contribs)

I've moved these comments down the bottom to address them properly (please sign comments with tildes in future). Your argument rings fairly hollow. Not only is there no proof that these anons attend St Michaels or are speaking for a majority of students or staff. The "comment" from a "former staff member" is not referenced, is one person's view, and was put in the worst place possible within the article. The recent edits inserted by anons aim to attack St Michaels, with an example being the offensive caption twice inserted under the lead picture, or to push political POV - linking to an article about a property dispute with the Salvation Army. Your ramblings about Nazis are nonsense, and quite frankly this article is looking to provide some info about the school's history and initiatives, not an "Insider tells all!" account of the dark side of the school. Harro5 01:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Good God, are you so single minded that you are infact not just unwilling but unable to consider others arguments? Since when was 'proof' required as to whether someone has the authority to comment on something, would it help your comprehension of such a thing if we said we were? The comment from a staff member is quite legitimate and if you actually attended the institute in question you would understand how this is so. Vox latinas comments about the nazis are quite relevant and props to Vox for making them. Quite frankly, you aren't the one who wrote the majority of this article and we would kindly request that you stop trying to presuppose what the information that is trying to be conveyed should be. Try to keep your nose in your own affairs before you come off as ignorant to those who know better

While I am not at St Michael's and indeed can not prove that the people who have edited this page are from St Michaels's I can state that there is a signifant questioning within at least some schools of them being marketed in a way more fitting a multi-national corporation trying to sell a product than a supposedly non-profit organisation. While I do not think the captions are wholly appropriate, I believe it even more inappropriate to fully censor the views of others who would appear to be from inside the school. I believe it would be more appropriate to outline what the school's marketing claims, but then raise the issue that this is disputed and state alternate views. Vox latina (talk · contribs)

Harro, go back to Caufield and let the Michaeleans have their encyclopedia entry spill forth its truthful bounty, as you've admitted, you weren't there, you don't know, while some of us were and some of us do.

I'm thinking that a better idea might be to drop a line to the St Michael's school head, and let him know badly behaved some yobs claiming to be his students are, and how it reflects badly on the school.

If you would like we can give you a picture of a few of us wearing uniform, bareing our arses to the camera brandishing a note with your name on it...Also 'yobs'? I don't like your tone, infact, that could even be a personal attack...

• Are you threatening me?

And while you're yammering about "truthful bounty", might I refer you to Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which are official Wikipedia policies? I'm sure that none of your teachers would accept "because I said so" and "it's my opinion" as acceptable references for any of your papers, and we don't accept that standard here either.

If you care to contribute "truthful bounty" to Wikipedia, there are plenty of places that could use it (actual "truthful bounty", mind you, not juvenile games) outside the tiny corners of your personal universe. Africa and South America badly underrepresented here, and the US and UK badly overrepresented. Make use of your library and do some good. --Calton | Talk 07:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• If someone can write a decent paragraph about the school becoming more like a business, without linking to racketeering or saying students are "playing bitch to the man", then maybe this could be up for discussion. At the moment, you are all just vandals who are more stubborn than most in that you actually seem to care about spreading your attacks further than just a moment of joking. Harro5 07:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Yes- and you're a nosy little cunt who writes essays lauding his school. Maybe they'll give you a job as a sports-coach or something. They've definately got those at SMGS.

Everything on Wikipedia has to be verifiable. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Alrighty, because you DON'T believe it...

The new building IS referred to as "Community of the Sisters of the Church Learning Centre (or colloqually known as 'Nun Shack')," I suggest you inspect the giant plaque on it if you don't believe me.

"St Michael's has a highly dedicated marketing team comprising five full-time personnel, whose responsibility is public relations with the general community, and gaining the school siginificant media exposure. St Michael's has thus shifted from an unknown girls grammar school in St Kilda to a streamlined 'educational village', promoting their co-educational and diverse nature. In a recent interview, the Head of the School was quoted as attempting to compare the acceptance of advertising in other private-sector entities (a supermarket was the given example) as opposed to in a traditional private-school" - I have no idea why you wiped that either replacing it with old, outdated information...(they've since rehired!)

The 'secret' details of the new uniform WERE released early on bulletins scattered around the school, the word 'Кaмрад' was written in the bottom left hand corner.

Also, at the OFFICIAL new building openiing, conducted at the start of the fourth quarter (which was slightly over 3 months behind schedule) A barrage of leaflets fluttered down from a second story window onto the official party.

LASTLY, our quote is attributable to the Late Mick Scully, rest his soul.

Feel free to replace 'racketeering' with 'profiteering' which may be more accurate, since the redesign of the uniform has made it all but impossible to source components from elsewhere...

Now Harro, in addition to the above offer, does the fact that we know the intimate details of the running of the school not convince you that we are quite qualified to comment on it, at least moreso than you, attending a different institution and all...

• I just wanted to add that if any user who is able to get to the school wants to take a look through to verify anything of what has been written, tours usually begin Friday at 9am and are conducted weekly. The touring guides are themselves students, plucked out of classes to service every sick aspect of your touring needs.

^^ 26 Chapel Street St. Kilda...Be There or Be Square... Just get off at Windsor Station.

The the anon above - firstly please sign you posts with four tilds ~~~~. Knowing intimate details about the school does not convince me that you are qualified. Please read Tony's comment above. Everything you add has to be verifiable. This is wikipedia policy and it is not negotiable. By verifiable I mean that someone like me, who knows nothing of your school, can check the facts for myself. This means they have to be written down, in a book, a newspaper, the school website (maybe), a respected website (not a blog) etc. Insider information cannot go into wikipdia articles Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Lets see,

1: Are you trying to quibble over the actual name of the building?

2: By the same token, get Harro to prove he attends Caufield, I've already stated that Im at St Michaels and have no idea what more you could want to prove it.

3: http://www.theage.com.au/news/general/the-hard-sell/2005/09/21/1126982119129.html "At St Michael's Grammar School in St Kilda, a team of five works in the marketing and community relations division..." Go fish.

4: If you go wading through the various internal news bulletins, editions of the school newsletter or whatever it is floating around on the website, you'll find the discrepancy mentioned in the opening dates.

5: As for the quote, you can ask the man who said it yourself, but I don't think he'll be able to answer you.

Enjoy, oh uhh 210.49.170.242 05:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

1) Nope.

2) No one needs prove anything. Did you read what I wrote? Verifyable means that I can find it out.

3)Thank you I'll check it out.

4)OK

5) Again you need to read what I wrote about verifiabilty. Anything not written down somewhere doesn't go in. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 06:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Alrighty then, by point 2 I was merely referring to qualification to comment. Thats all for the meanwhile 210.49.170.242 07:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Principals

This section needs explaining. How could there have been a principal and headmistress at the same time? What happened after 1972? Could someone please briefly define the different roles mentioned, and maybe this list should separate people when it leaves holes in the timeline. Harro5 07:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

No need to explain. The school was headed by the Community of the Sister's of the Church (which had you read the article would have been made very clear). Until their decision to step back as administrators, they were involved in the pastoral care and boarding house elements of the school. From 1937 the Headmistress position was created to create a stronger academic administration, however the "Principal [Sister]" position obviously remained.

Harro, you do not need to understand every little concept for it to exist on a Wiki page. Please move on from your obsession with taking shots. We understand that you have a personal hatred for St Michael's and everything surrounding it. However, it would be good if you could keep that on the sporting field as we all know Wiki is not the place for it. Anonymous, 13 November 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.48.90 (talk • contribs)

On the contrary, I think any reader of Wikipedia should be able to understand the information in articles. If something is ambiguous, then it needs to be explained. Cnwb 07:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree with you completely. However, Harro5 did not read the content and is taking the first opportunity to take a direct shot at the page details. Please see his comments page as a number of registered users are making complaints about his attitudes in relation to the schools portal and his condemnation of anything which is not directly written by him. 220.253.48.90 12:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Excess of media links

Does the article really need links to 38 different mentions of the school in the media? Cnwb 08:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, excess media links have been culled. Mac Bandit 09:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Help Needed for Flagship Programs

I cannot add subject matter regarding exchanges to Japan, Germany, or France. If people who have been on these exchanges could please add this content. Beyondcapricorn 04:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Macbandit we're looking at you...Comradeash 05:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Done and done... Mac Bandit 12:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevance

I've done some fairly major editing and taken out a few sections that are basically irrelevant to the purpose of the article. If anybody wants to learn the words to the school song, or win a red pocket, they should probably be visiting the official site or organising a tour (they're fairly easy to come by...) I'm not trying enforce my dogma into Wikipedia, but I think it's fair enough that some stuff can be omitted from the article without causing too much of a crisis. egocentre 11:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

In the context of the school, whats there at the moment is all pretty relevant. Comradeash 11:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, http://en.wikipedia.org is not the school. It's an encyclopedia. Though I won't re-revert without consensus, I do agree some of the content is more than a little self important.jfg284 11:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Well Im glad we've established its comprehensive! Comradeash 11:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

My point is (as well as egocentre's from what i can gather) is that there's stuff on this page which has no business being here. There's no need for it, its unencyclopediac, its non notable, and wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. They may be important in context of the school, but they aren't in context of an encyclopedia.jfg284 13:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Lol yeah, I'll concede the school song/hymn's prescence is a bit rich. I think the small section on the houses at the least should stay though.Comradeash 14:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey guys, do you mind if I voice a few suggestions? No, I won't force them on you :p. Good to see you're all working well together to improve the article, but it needs to maintain encyclopedic value. One issue is that there are a lot of irrelevant photos creeping in. A guy eating a burger? A fishing trip and people on the beach? Yes, these events did take place in the context of school trips, but hardly show readers the educational value behind the programs. Surely the aim of a biology trip isn't to go snorkeling? Anyway, another thing, the use of 'quotations' around some words should probably stop too. It makes it seem like the information is purely hearsay, and some of it is (eg. "In 2005, Kilburn house were widely regarded as the 'winners' with their medley..." - why do people want to read this?) I'm sure yu can see what is useful and what isn't, but also have a read of WP:BEEFSTEW, the Wikibible on school articles. We want good info, but don't want to know every detail of school life (eg. During the last exchange the following locations were visited by students including Tokyo Disneyland for one day, where many students contracted Laryngitis from being exposed to torrential rain. What does this tell us about St Michaels?) Anyway, this is the sort of stuff I can help you with - trimming the article back to possibly prepare it for peer review and a trip to featured article candidacy. Let's make this a keeper! Harro5 00:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, the point of the biology trip IS in fact to go snorkelling. That is why they go to the Barrier Reef. Beyondcapricorn 12:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • He does still have a point. There's a lot of stuff in here that a.) isnt exactly verifiable, as i mentioned earlier and b.) doesn't add much to the article. That laryngitis example is a good one, but its not the only one.jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 13:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Beyondcapricorn, this version of the article is an improved and less POV cleanup of the old and swollen version which you have reverted to. You must understand that this is an encyclopedia, and we cannot accept adding every little detail about school trips and the like. Please work from the current version I have restored, and I will help you to ensure it stays on task and becomes what we are looking for, but be mindful that I know the community will approve of the version I have edited and will want to see this maintained. Add only what is factual, useful, can be proven, and is directly relevant to the school itself. Advertising-style snapshots and exchange itineraries do not fit such a criteria. Thanks. Harro5 03:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• No offence man, but obviously integrity doesn't rank highly on your list of important things in life. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say about 3 weeks ago that you weren't going to hassle us about this article, and let us sort it out? Yeah, that's right, soemthing about you not wanting to have anything to do with this article anymore? Food for thought Tom. Beyondcapricorn 13:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I must say that I agree with Harro on this. It's much better to have a leaner, more readable version. The information contained in the larger version would be of interest only to those contemplating enrolling at St Michael's, and that information could be obtained from their website (or from the Marketing Team they're so proud of). Cnwb 23:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

School Fees

The school fees need clarification. It says $16,500 a year, but for what year level is this? The fee varies depending on the year level, with the lowest fees generally being the lower year levels, and the highest fee obviously being year 12. Davez621 04:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, Year 11 fees are higher than Year 12 fees due to the removal of the Exodus (outdoor education) program from Year 12. 202.7.176.130 16:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• • no all you need to say is the K price then the Y12 Price (ie $10,000-$16,500)

]ACG[ Dickie