Talk:All Hallows' School

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

Possible copyright violation[edit]

An editor has inserted slabs of text taken straight from the school website. This is a possible violation of copyright and is not permitted - please see Wikipedia:Copyrights. This article will now need to go to be cleaned up - inconveniencing other editors. It is permissable, indeed encouraged, to source facts, but wholesale copying from websites is not allowed and must not be repeated. If you have any queries please leave them here and I will collect them. BlueValour 16:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger (September 2007)[edit]

I am going to propose a merger of the two daughter articles of this page into this page, the two articles are;

Please leave comments below:

  • Merge Both are non-notable Aquinas Cruft, which deserve a mention in the main article not as an article in itself. Twenty Years 12:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As above. However, I also feel that a significant amount of material from both articles will need to be removed in order to merge them. I particularly don't feel comfortable amount the photos of minors playing soccer (and there are WAY too many photos in this article already). Loopla 14:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment completely agree. When it is merged, most of it will be removed, as it is cruft. Twenty Years 15:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • RESULT WAS MERGE - two subarticles deleted Twenty Years 15:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aus B class assessment[edit]

After reading the article its still a b-class article, I removed the single sentence about the principal in the lead. I see some content concerns in the article;

Lead
peacock wording/advertising the school follows in the tradition of the
school mottos should be describe within the article,
the WP:LEAD is meant to be a summary of the article body
Article body
Alumni list, are all of these really notable, consider whether they meet the criteria for an individual article
Co-curriculum,list for what purpose
traditions, most dont appear to encyclopedic, but rather a student guide. Gnangarra 02:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed alumni[edit]

I have removed the following people from the list of alumni in the main article, as they are unreferenced and redlinked. If anyone finds a reliable ref for any of the below, proving their notability (some appear to be non-notable) and that they attended the school, please include them in the article:

Academia, science and education
Business, industry and commerce
  • Betty Byrne Ford, motor industry
  • Patrice Derrington, architecture and engineering
  • Catherine Donovan, public relations
  • Margaret MacDonald, civil engineering
  • Elizabeth Musgrave, architecture
  • Karen O'Rourke, workplace health and safety
  • Sarina Russo, business identity
  • Rhonda White, pharmacy industry
Media, arts and entertainment
Public administration, law and politics
Religion
  • Sister Kath Burke, SM Congregation Leader and Australian Institute Leader
  • Sister Denise Coghlan, Jesuit Refugee Services, Cambodia
  • Sister Catherine Courtney, SM Congregation Leader
  • Mother Mary Elizabeth Duncombe, SM Congregation Leader
  • Sister Regis Mary Dunne, Australian bioethicist
  • Sister Sandra Lupi, SM Congregation Leader
  • Sister Jean-Marie Mahoney, Roman Catholic nun, historian and author
  • Mother Marcella McCormick, SM Congregation Leader
  • Sister Mary Claver McDermott, instructor of foreign languages
Sport

Loopla (talk) 10:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of House System section[edit]

Epeefleche removed the house system section, because, it is asserted in his edit summary, a tag asking for citations had been up for a while. I get the impression that this is a driveby, because Special:Contributions/Epeefleche shows this activity occuring quickly over the last few minutes. Therefore, I've reverted it while we ascertain what exactly is the problem here.

The information, per WP:CHALLENGE, is not likely to be challenged. But I suppose it is here. But which bit? All of it? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 08:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a source ([1]), found in just under a minute of googling (good job, Epeefleche), but am I entering it into every single sentence? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 08:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is much in this article that is unsourced. And which has been tagged (and thus challenged) since 2010. Deletion of unsourced material is a challenge to it as well.It fails to meet wp:v. If it is not sourced, it is subject to removal. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material. I'm happy to wait a little while if anyone wants to provide RS sourcing. It fails wp:v.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting citations for the colour of the school's uniform seems indeed unnecessary drive-by tagging. There is much text in this article where encyclopedic relevance may well be questioned, but requesting citations for uncontroversial elements seems rather petty. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is, unfortunately, a pattern of behaviour for Epeefleche:
etc. They're outside my area of expertise, but I suspect that a source could be found for those articles too in the less than 30 seconds it took for me to find a source for this one. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per the policy of wp:v, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. The material in question was challenged and tagged well over two years ago. It has now been challenged yet again. Well over two years have elapsed, without wp:v being complied with. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. All the material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, must be verifiable. All material whose verifiability has been challenged must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The question is: are you challenging it because you genuinely believe that there is a question as to whether it is true or not? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't the question. But the answer to it is yes. The question is whether the material is uncited, tagged for over two years by at least two different editors, constitutes original research, and has not been shown to be verifiable by the person who has the burden of demonstrating it to be such. Even if something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The question, as made clear by wp:v, is whether this uncited 2-year-challenged material has been made verifiable by the addition of an inline ref. The answer, as of now, is no. --Epeefleche (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is the question. It seems to me that if you were prepared to expend the tiniest amount of effort required to find the sources, based on a belief that what you've "challenged" may well be true, then the removal of content wouldn't be necessary. WP:CHALLENGE states that, in relation to material that is unsourced "it is better to try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it" (emph. added). What you're doing is disruptive. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per the policy of wp:v, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've already said that above, and I've pointed out another part of the same policy which you are rather pointedly not following. You can't pick and choose which parts of the policy you like. It's disruptive. Stop. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 09:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Researching Notable Alumnae Section[edit]

  • Elizabeth Alexander
No immediately verifiable source. As I cannot access "Sydney Morning herald" article cited in her WP bio, I could not in good conscience cite it here. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thea Astley
Source at her WP bio is deadlinked, and I have tagged it. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done by Bilby
  • Fran Bailey
Primary sourcing states "All Hallows College" which is actually in Dublin. Probably true but not verifiable from my attempt. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done by Bilby
  • Sarah Crane
WP bio statement is also unsourced. I gave up after about 4 pages of google entries and tagged at that article. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ellen Fanning
Same as Sarah Crane. No source, googling didn't help. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done by Michael Bednarek ClaudeReigns (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diane Fingleton
Sourced per University of Queensland. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Teresa Gambaro
Sourced per Liberal Party of Australia. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Miranda Kerr
Sourced per WP bio's citation, verified. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elissia Canham
Unsourced, googling did not verify. Is she even notable? ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tracey Wickham
Sourced per Daily Telegraph. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zelle Hodge
Googled, no verifiable source. Tagged WP bio. Notable? ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ernestine Hill
Googled, no verifiable source. Not living, however, so BLP does not apply. Tagged WP bio. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done, by Bilby
  • Verity Barton
Verified and sourced per WP bio. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These listings, where unsourced, do not conform to WP:BLP with the exception of Ernestine Hill, deceased. This includes Elizabeth Alexander, Thea Astley, Sarah Crane, Ellen Fanning, Elissia Canham and Zelle Hodge. 24 hours given to correct. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wot? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A more specific question may be in order. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, "huh"? What is the above? Why are you posting here, with "24 hours given to correct"? This is, presumably, a WP:DEADLINE? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BLP Policy states: "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Would you rather I remove now? ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't keep up feeding my daughter and having this conversation in two places. So, moved from my talkpage:

I have researched the Notable Alumnae section and have been unable to find sourcing for certain alumnae, but sourced references there and at the appropriate WP bio where possible. Please source or remove per WP:BLP. You may find my notes at Talk:All Hallows' School helpful. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

 Why is this my job? With a 24 hour WP:DEADLINE? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

  BLP letter states remove immediately. I am being generous. It seems like you are into the topic, and I want to give you a chance to help the section conform to policy. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

   I'm not connected to the school and I don't care all that much. Perhaps you should raise this at WP:EIA or WP:WPSCH?
   In regards to WP:BLP, is it contentious that certain individuals go to the school? Or are you looking for {{cn}}? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Is the information wikt:contentious? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has been contested, so yes. Please provide sourcing, if you can. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I get the impression that you're being WP:POINTy. That last "if you can" makes it sound like you have a white cat in your lap! But, whatever. If you've done a decent search (which you've obviously done) and couldn't find anything, I don't think I'm going to find anything either. Why not just be WP:BOLD and remove the mentions? If someone comes back here later and sees the above, I'm sure that they can add the names back in. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 08:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More to do[edit]

These are the alumnae still without sourcing, two of which need new articles:

Try not to beat up the girls who edit the girls' school articles next time, mmmkay? ClaudeReigns (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Army in World War 2 occupying their main building[edit]

I was relocating a sentence about the American Army occuping the school's main building in WW2 (it was in an inappropriate section) with a view to expanding on it. However, I cannot find any mention of this fact anywhere (school's web site, newspaper search, Google search). What I can find is:

  • the American Army occupied Somerville House "SOMERVILLE HOUSE IN HANDS OF ARMY". The Courier-Mail (Brisbane, Qld. : 1933 - 1954). Brisbane, Qld.: National Library of Australia. 28 January 1942. p. 1. Retrieved 24 December 2013.
  • a photo of the American Army marching past All Hallow's
    1942 Parade - gun carriage

I dug through the history of the article and it's an IP edit that added the information. In the absence of any supporting information (and I would have expected to find some), I think there's a confusion between All Hallow's and Somerville House here and have removed the sentence in the All Hallow's article. Happy to see it reinstated if anyone can find any supporting evidence. Kerry (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on All Hallows' 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 12:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on All Hallows' 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:All_Hallows%27_School&oldid=1204712376"