Jump to content

Talk:Caulfield Grammar School

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleCaulfield Grammar School is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleCaulfield Grammar School has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 28, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
May 26, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 9, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
June 27, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
April 14, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
November 12, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
December 21, 2007Good article nomineeListed
April 19, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

Recognition

[edit]

Peer review

[edit]

This article has been subject to a peer review, and has subsequently been nominated for featured article status. Please feel free to comment on the peer review page if you still feel improvements can be made. Harro5 04:03, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Improvements

[edit]

I am currently adding extra content based on great advice and feedback from Ambi. Hopefully this will take the aticle one step closer to FA status. Harro5 10:40, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Ambi suggests to add info on the school uniform. This only adds to the list effect. Harro5 (talk · contribs)
I think it wouldn't be too hard to write this up in prose - you probably don't need everything (just the major points). Ambi 06:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, this is my first time on Wikipedia and I can't work out how to edit the page. I suggest you change the last paragraph in the 'Nanjing' section as you have factual errors. I used to work at the Nanjing campus in 2004 as a trainee. The students in 2001 did not graffiti the Great Wall - they graffitied the Ming Tombs in Nanjing. Also you link to the "ming dynasty tombs" page. This site is in beijing and students do not go there. Students go to the Ming Tombs in Nanjing. Would appreciate if you change this. Hoops 13:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi everyone. Well written article so congrats to everyone involved. A few suggestions though. Perhaps someone could add a photo of the Nanjing campus itself (like of the main gates, or the whole building from the road)? Also, I remember the groups going to China in 2003 had a major change of plans and went to Xian instead of Beijing and Shanghai because of the SARS crisis at the time. This news article http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/02/1048962815390.html says that "Caulfield Grammar principal Stephen Newton yesterday said the school's campus in Nanjing was not in an area where SARS had been reported but the 55 students there would return home early this weekend." Now I don't really remember that happening but maybe someone who was actually in one of the Yr9 China groups/Yr11 study tour/trainee in 2003 could write something about it in the Nanjing controversy section? Thanks.
  • WP:CONFLICT - Hi guys, if you have been a member of staff, a student or Alumni, you have a conflict of interest in regard to this article, please read this guideline. - Best regards Tambor de Tocino (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining FAC concerns

[edit]
  • average class sizes
  • more on school music program
  • house system (comment: isn't this a bit redundant?)
  • intake each year/waiting list size
  • mention of competitive public speaking (comment: CGS doesn't get heavily involved)
  • intra-school debating? (comment: in a word, no)
  • possibly not different enough from school website (comment: lots of extra info on extra-curricular, uniforms, etc.)
  • some disconnected sentences (comment: none evident)
  • verbose (ie. using too many words)
  • needs some condensing

Feel free to address any of these issues (particularly the last two) if you wish. Harro5 09:37, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • The struck out suggestions either do not apply or do not add to the article on CGS. Harro5 06:56, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • I addressed some wording concerns and checked for verbosity. I don't see anything that especially needs to be trimmed, but you're welcome to point something out, or trim it yourself. --Kerowyn 3 July 2005 01:13 (UTC)

This article has been greatly improved with the help of Kerowyn, Bishonen and Malathion, who have removed unnecessary sections, fixed language, and NPOVed the piece. Thanks to all these editors. Harro5 July 6, 2005 23:26 (UTC)

Old reviews

[edit]

Moving these templates here to leave FA at the top on its own.

So what?

[edit]

The intro should give more motivation for the article. My first reaction to this article was "why should I care?". After reading the article more thoroughly, it's obvious that the school is notable (their orchestra went on a world tour?) but this wasn't immediately obvious. Isomorphic 9 July 2005 16:08 (UTC)

It would be good if the page indicated how much subsidy the school recieves from State and Federal governments. Also, isn't Nick Cave one of the alumni?

According to the Estimated total of ERI funding 2000 Caulfield Grammar School received: $2,134,444 and the Estimated total of ERI funding 2004 $6,573,791. This is Commonwealth (federal) funding.
Source: AUSTRALIAN EDUCATION UNION SUBMISSION TO TH SENATE INQUIRY INTO COMMONWEALTH FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS. [www.aeufederal.org.au/Publications/statgransub.pdf]
Its SES is 115 if that's relevant and the percentage of AGSRC (Average Government Schools Recurrent Costing: a measure that costs the schools) funding is 32.5%. That means 67.5% is State funding, I think.
Hope these figures are helpful.
And Mick Harvey was a student at Caulfield Grammar too.

--EuropracBHIT 06:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I'll be VERY surprised if 67.5% of any private school's funding is state funding. It'd be more like 6.75% I think, but I've done no research... Teddybearspicnic 26/2/06.

shameless promotion?

[edit]

It reads like a shameless ad promoting the school, definitely not as an encyclopedia article; one such example:

"Caulfield achieves highly in statewide rankings of schools offering the VCE, and the annual Dux of the School often achieves an ENTER ranking of 99.95 (the highest possible ranking, placing the student in approximately the top 20 students in the state)"

Um, The Age releases school VCE results annually, and Caulfield is regularly one of the top schools in the state. In the past three years, two CGS students achieved 99.95. What part of this isn't factual? Harro5 00:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It may be factual, but it does smack of being a shameless advertisement because you can make the same statement about practically every top Grammar school in Melbourne. How about putting some information in this article that (A) is interesting and (B) distinguishes this private school school markedly from other top Grammar schools. Most of the rest of the info in this article satisfies (B) but not (A).

Why is it called Caulfield?

[edit]

I can find no mention of why it's called "Caulfield Grammar School". This strikes me as unusual since, I would imagine, every student in the place can probably tell me who/what/where Caulfield is and why I should care about him/her/it. I'm curious for obvious reasons -- EmmetCaulfield 20:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • When the school was founded, it's first campus was in Caulfield, Victoria (now it's part of St Kilda East, Victoria). Harro5 21:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the time the school was founded the "regional" names in the area were far less fixed than they were, say, in the first half of the twentieth century, when "Caulfield" was the name of a Victorian city. The first site of the school, according to its prospectus, was "near Elsternwick Station" (Webber, 1981, p.16), perhaps 2 kilometres from its present campus on Glen Eira Road. According to the advertisement that Davies lodged in The Argus in April 1881, "Caulfield Grammar School" is "adjoining Elsternwick Station" and is "easily accessible by rail" (Webber, 1981, p.16). Given (a) that the general Elsternwick area (named after the house "Elsternwick") had no schools in 1881, but St.Kilda had more than 30, and Brighton had 22, and (b) Elsternwick was more of a general name for that district near to the house "Elsternwick" (as was "Rippon Lea"), and the name came into prominence only because of the Elsternwick railway station (also with the Ripponlea railway station) and the name "Caulfield" was far more of a geographically precise sort of name, and (c) Davies was strongly supported by the vicar of St. Mary's, Caulfield (in Glen Eira Road), it would make a lot of commercial sense to call it Caulfield Grammar School. Also, the School's postal address has always been a P.O. Box at the Elsternwick Post Office. (Old Grammarian) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.6.28 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 10 June 2006
    • That would be a nice addition to the history section of the article, especially since you've got sources for it. The other history question I keep wondering about is "what possessed Caulfield to open a campus in Nanjing?" It's noteworthy enough that the PM remarked on it, surely there must be a documented reason. RossPatterson 20:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the naming: I've added a sentence in this edit on the naming, having taken the key points from your statements above (the stuff on Elsternwick seems to confuse the issue) and focused on the connections to Caulfield the area. Hopefully this works, but please feel more than welcome to edit the passage if you can improve on it. Harro5 23:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Why Nanjing?

[edit]

Move to here to separate from "Why Caulfield?"

  • The other history question I keep wondering about is "what possessed Caulfield to open a campus in Nanjing?" It's noteworthy enough that the PM remarked on it, surely there must be a documented reason. RossPatterson 20:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On Nanjing: I think the reasoning comes down to the competition between independent schools in Australia and their wanting to be seen as the most innovative or having some special feature. Of course, the more detailed answer would point to Caulfield's teaching of the Chinese language, it's history of leading in Australia with off-campus learning (eg. Yarra Junction country centre), and also on a larger scale the growing importance of Asia/China to Australia which began in the 1990s and has continued. These were all likely important influences, but I couldn't really give a definitive answer as the campus opened when I was in primary school. I'll have a look to see what I can find, but the school regularly mentions this idea of "being a leader in innovation" when it talks of Nanjing. For example, this line in the vision statement: "innovative learning experiences that foster the skills, values and attitudes needed in the active pursuit of a sustainable global future." So, that's my thoughts. I'll see what official reasoning I can find, but I'd start with reading the interview here with Stephen Newton (at the bottom) as he explains some of the reasoning. I'll try to put it in prose later. Harro5 23:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC) (BTW. The PM would likely have commented based on the fact that this was the first such venture by an Australian school, making it noteworthy enough for him to pay attention.[reply]
      • On Nanjing: Whilst the marketing angle may well have something to do with the actual decision to open up a campus at Nanjing -- so that the school could once more say (as with Yarra Junction) "CGS was the first school in Australia to . . ." -- there may be a more interesting explanation. From the time of the first headmaster Davies (who died in Korea, working as a missionary, post-CGS) the school had always had a strong connection with the Church Missionary Society, and the students had always supported that missionary effort through what was known as the "missionary collection". Apparently, the "missionary collection" was abandoned some time in the 1970s (Webber, 1981, p.199). Barnett the second headmaster became, himself, post-CGS, a missionary to China; and the school, as a community, always had strong links with China. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, there was an enormous "flood" of long-term-resident-in-China missionaries into Australia. These were fluent speakers of Mandarin or Cantonese or Hokkien or Hakka, and were either returning to Australia, or taking refuge in Australia, as a consequence of their expulsion by the new Communist regime in China; including, for example, R.H. Mathews, the eminent Chinese scholar and brilliant lexicographer (of Mathews' Chinese-English dictionary fame), who lived in Elsternwick. These missionaries would often talk about the wonderful Chinese writing system, quirks of Chinese language, unusual customs, etc., etc. Nobody who attended CGS at the time could ever forget the intense W.T. Simpkin (who taught 1952-1960) with his constant "When I was in China . . ." and all of his anecdotes about Chinese life, Chinese culture, and his stories about the kind and gentle nature of the majority of Chinese people. Given the historical connections of CGS with China (especially through supplying Old Grammarians as missionaries to China, CGS students supporting missionaries in China, and CGS itself providing sanctuary for missionaries from China), and, in particular, the fact that many of those on the School Council, etc. (who would make the decision to turn the face of the school towards things Chinese) would have been deeply affected by their earlier interactions with the Chinese-missionary-orientations of the school since its foundation. This influence upon those decision makers would have been greatly compounded by the enormous impact of the very substantial influx of the expelled missionaries into the Melbourne Christian community would have had upon their understanding of the world in general. And, it is my argument that the influence of these missionary refugees was significantly amplified by the fact that, so many of them, such as Simpkin, were very obviously far more at home in China, speaking Chinese, and eating Chinese food, than they were in Melbourne in the early 1950s. My point is this, many of those who made the decision to turn CGS towards Chinese language, Chinese culture and, eventually towards having physical classrooms on Chinese soil, would have been strongly influence by the things that I have described; and, to me, at least, when I first heard of Mandarin being taught, and a Nanjing campus being proposed, the first thing that I thought of was that CGS was doing nothing more than seamlessly extending its already considerable intellectual, cultural and physical links with China and the Chinese, and the very, very last thing I thought of (and it was only reading your comments above that I realized that such a case could be argued) was that CGS had done it for a marketing reason. Upon reflection, you may well be 100% correct; but, I suppose that my argument is now far more one of explaining why the decision to go to China (rather than, say, either India or Japan) was so relatively easy to make for a School Council, the members of which, because of their extended connexions with CGS, had become so "China-aware" (if not actively "Sinophilic") in a far more substantial and visceral way than might, at first sight, be apparent. Anyway, that's my suggestion to you, and I hope that it might help unravel the mystery for you (Old Grammarian)
Some basic context (1) Australians engaged with China in the late 70's, when these decisions were being considered. (2) Caufield Grammer has for the last 40 years at least been as far to the edge of "alternative" education theory as a top-level main-stream school can go.
Caufield Grammer was always going to want to set up a branch somewhere outside Australia: the time was right both for China and for the school. It is difficult to imagine another country (foreign, useful, and not a common vacation spot) more suited to their educational ethos.
Personally, I was never a supporter of their educational philosophy, but it's impossible to consider the school without acknowledging the effect that it has on their program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.162.148 (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Davies & Davies

[edit]

Given that Caulfield Grammar School’s founder was one Joseph Henry Davies, and that he employed his two brothers and sister, and that Davies is not a common name in Melbourne's history, I feel that it is most important for this article to explicitly state whether or not the Victorian Cabinet minister, Sir John Davies, (Valentine's Mansion, Malvern Grammar School) was related in any way to the CGS Davies family.

Thus, it would either say ". . . and in 1924 moved into the Valentine's Mansion, formerly the home of Sir John Davies, a Victorian Cabinet minister, and the ( nephew/cousin/son, etc.) of Joseph Henry Davies. . ." or ". . . and in 1924 moved into the Valentine's Mansion, formerly the home of Sir John Davies (not a relative of the school’s founder), a Victorian Cabinet minister."

Hope this information is easy to trace, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.6.28 (talk • contribs)

  • That's a great point, and I think the answer might be implicit in that it is never mentioned in a history of Caulfield that Sir John Davies was a relation. If he were, that would likely be pointed out. Of course, speculation isn't good in a Wikipedia article, but I have a booklet from CGS about the Malvern Campus/Valentine's history (the info from it is found in the third paragraph under history), and a relationship between the two men is never mentioned. Sir John was a wealthy British man, and John Henry was a poor minister looking to employ his siblings; again a highly speculative guess would say that it is unlikely one side of an old British establishment family would be so much poorer. But I think the answer lies in the Lives of Valentines booklet not mentioning a connection. Thanks for your invaluable input. Harro5 23:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

School song & war cry

[edit]

On the basis of St. Kevin's College, Melbourne's display of their "College War Cry", their "School Song", a description of the heraldic constituents of their school crest, and their house names, would any of that sort of stuff further embellish this site. For example, the School Song plus Mrs. Archer's music might be published on the site in the form of a pdf?

I earnestly beg you, however, if you are going to publish the CGS war-cry, that you please avoid publishing the "meet them, beat them, treat them all the same, Caul-field Gram-mar is the name!" version that was once imposed upon the school by Stan Kurrle (Old Grammarian)

Sport

[edit]

Under the sub-category of sport, I believe that it is essential to stress that one of the massive changes to CGS when it moved from AGS (of Victoria) into APS (of Victoria) was the introduction of foreign-to-traditional-CGS sports such as rowing. As I recall, one of the major reasons for entering the APS was to have a much higher level of overall competition in Aussie Rules and cricket. I also recall, that the APS made a number of very strong sports-based conditions (including the introduction of rowing) upon the entry of CGS. It seems important to include that stuff, because it represented a very, very important change to the (then prevailing) CGS culture. I'm sure that Horrie Webber's book and Ian Wilkinson's book will support this and, also, provide lots more detail. Finally, it was very definitely my impression at the time, that the move into the APS was far more sports related than it was status related. (Old Grammarian)

IP

[edit]

Thought I'd say, Caufield Campus' IP address is 203.94.129.158. I should know, I go to this school. --AAA! 10:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • At least we from Wheelers Hill can spell "address" ...

Archivist

[edit]

Any chance of giving the new archivist a mention (and, as well, should her email address be included?)

...?

[edit]

What's up with this edit? --A Bothan Spy 00:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA: On Hold

[edit]

This looks like a pretty solid article -- there are just a few things that need addressing:

  • 'Middle School structure" has no inline citations. Is this information covered by the general citations?
  • Again, citations in "School uniform" and "Alumni"? Confirmed?
  • Take care of the {{fact}} in "The Arts" section.

The article obviously doesn't read like blatant POV, so I'm not suspicious of the factual accuracy of the information provided. However, without inline citations, I as a reader am unable to tell whether any particular fact is verified or not. I see five general citations down at the bottom; ideally, those should be accompanied by <ref> notes with the specific page cited from those volumes.

Here are two other thoughts I had that won't stop me from promoting the GA, but about which you should think if you're looking ahead to another FAC.

  • "The school amalgamated with..." -- is this a proper use of "amalgamated"? It sounds odd, but I'm no expert (nor a speaker of Australian English). It just jumped out at me and was repeated several times, so just make sure it's good word choice.
  • There seems to be some confusion of topics for discussion in the "History" segment. Discussing the Yarra Junction and Nanjing campuses is fine in History if it discusses how they were acquired and established (it does). However, it seems like those are springboard topics to discussing the programs at those campuses today, which would be better treated under "Academics." I'm looking particularly at the sentence beginning with "At the Nanjing Campus, Year 9 students.."

Drop me a line when you've addressed or explained my concerns. Dylan (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will start to address these things; thanks for your comments. Any ideas on what of Nanjing and Yarra Junction should stay in history and what should be moved? Also, amalgamate seems to be the right word based on dictionary definition. Will look at the other things now. Harro5 02:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA: pass

[edit]

Sorry I wasn't able to help more, I've been tied up with other things today. Moot point, because you've done a fine job of addressing my concerns. Nice work! If you use inline citations a bit more, this won't be far from being reinstated as an FA. Dylan (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Quality

[edit]

Hi all,

Just wanted to hear other people's opinion on the academics section. To me i think its unnecessary, requires more citations, advertisement like and I don't think its suitable for wikipedia. Furthermore a lot of the history section is not really wikipedia material. I'm happy to discuss.

Article Quality

[edit]

Hi all,

Just wanted to hear other people's opinion on the academics section. To me i think its unnecessary, requires more citations, advertisement like and I don't think its suitable for wikipedia. Furthermore a lot of the history section is not really wikipedia material. I'm happy to discuss.

Richozen (talk) 11:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Caulfield Grammar 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 21:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Caulfield Grammar 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 03:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Caulfield Grammar 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 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Caulfield Grammar 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 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Caulfield Grammar 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) 20:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Caulfield Grammar 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) 13:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 25 external links on Caulfield Grammar 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) 10:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up, structuring chronologically, removing unverifiable claims

[edit]

Hi, I've been going through this article and there was a litany of really obvious issues with chronology WP:VERIFY, WP:RELIABLE, WP:BOOSTER, WP:NEUTRAL and WP:DUE, several claims with no relevance to the article at all were included, lots of un-cited claims, piles of undue detail, non-neutal language and lots of boosterisms. I've tidied up the obvious problems...and I've been very generous in leaving the lions share of claims cited to WP:PRIMARY sources which really don't belong on Wikipedia either, if we were to stick to the rules, but I don't want to gut the article and believe we can find reliable third party sources to back those claims. Someone has done a very thorough job at some point, but it's been filled out with unverifiable claims and trivia. This article needs a heap of work and based on all the boosterisms and non-neutral language I'd urge Caulfield Grammar staff, students and Alumni editing this article to read this guideline and declare their WP:CONFLICT as is required. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caulfield_Grammar_School&oldid=1206581438"