Talk:St. Mark's College (University of Adelaide)/Archive 1

This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it.

Notable Alumni

Whoa! Lots of new additions to this section! Hey 143.216.49.250, any idea what year all those blokes were in college? If you can give me a roundabout date, I could check the college records and add some citations!--ABVS 05:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories: I made a new category for residential colleges of australian universities, then got a bit confused at the { {University of Adelaide colleges}} tag at the bottom of the page. is this already a category?? even if it is, i still think the residential colleges category should exist, and should link to the subcategories of individual unis' colleges.--User:Ryan Oceros 17:36, 2 November 2006

Committee Notability

I'm not sure the list of committee presidents satisfies Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. I reckon the entire Committee section should be replaced with a section talking about the governance of the college (committee + admin) rather than being primarily a list of recently graduated students with no real importance at all.--Yeti Hunter 00:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Prose is always preferable to lists anyway.--cj | talk 03:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References and Sources

This article does not cite any references or sources. For example, I have no proof any of the notable alumni actually attended this school or if they actually exist. If reliable sources are not provided for information in this article I will delete it. 14:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC).

Judging by your previous edits and new user status, you are obviously just a stirrer. Please refrain from adding blatant vandalism to wikipedia. ABVS1936 15:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the verifiability page. It says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." So please provide reliable references or sources for the information in the article or I will delete it. If the request for sources tag is removed again I will request arbitration. 15:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Username nought (talk • contribs)

Much of the material (eg, "early days" and "Buildings and grounds") is from "St Mark's College: The Buildings and Grounds" by Gavin Walkley, much of the remainder (governance, events, accommodation, etc) is from the college website. I suggest you check the stated sources before claiming unsourcedness (existence of word??). In fact, the only unsourced statements are the notable alumni, which can be easily ascertained by reading past copies of the college yearbook, available at the St Mark's College Library (and perhaps at the University as well?) Anyone still at college keen on asking JB where to find a complete list of past members?--Yeti Hunter 04:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to that, this page has previously been rated by an administrator (User:Cyberjunkie?) and was not tagged as unsourced. --Yeti Hunter 04:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was assessed by Peripitus. But that's quite beside the point – assessments and administrators have no bearing whether an article lacks sources or not. Ostensibly, this article is unsourced. If the Walkely book and college website are the reliable sources used to write this article, then per verifiability considerations, they ought to be noted or cited as such.--cj | talk 04:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the request for sources tag until the article has reliable sources cited. Please refer to the links in the previous post written by cj for guidance. Username nought 04:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CJ, correct me if I am wrong but if an article is sourced mainly from one or two single sources, its more appropriate to cite it once at the bottom of the article rather than many times within it, which can be messy and may mislead people to believe there are more sources than there actually are. I've gone and sourced many of the statements, but it almost looks ridiculous. Whats the WP policy on heavily used single sources?--Yeti Hunter 05:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is somewhat silly, but the Wikipedia preference is to footnote individual statements, even if to the same source multiple times. The most relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Citing sources. Also, it should be possible to refer to the relevant page when citing the Walkley book.--cj | talk 05:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Yeti Hunter 05:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style tag added because retrieval dates for website references need to be added. See citation and footnoting links inside citation style tag. Username nought 14:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I don't think this school is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Please read the Wikipedia guideline on notability, it says, "Within Wikipedia, Notability is an article inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability" and "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I had a quick look on the internet and was unable to find any sources like this for the school. If sources like this can't be found I suggest this article gets merged with the Adelaide University article. If articles aren't found within 2 weeks I will start the deletion process. Username nought 09:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok nought, this is ridiculous. 'I had a quick look on the internet and was unable to find any sources like this for the school' - you just refuted your own reason. If you only had a quick look, then you should not have nominated this page for Notability UNTIL you had a REAL look in sources other than the 'net. The internet is NOT the only reliable source - infact it is mostly unreliable. Have you looked in other media? I assume you haven't. I am trying hard to see your actions as good faith but it is difficult to see how they could be construed as 'good faith'. Have you perhaps looked with any depth at this article's contempories? For example Aquinas College, Adelaide, Flinders University Hall, St. Ann's College (University of Adelaide) or Lincoln College (University of Adelaide). They are ALL written in the same vein and have the same 'lack of notabilty', but more poigniantly do not have ANY references. So how about a fair suck of the sav? How about YOU try and improve the article you are going to nominate for deletion by trying to find some real sources, maybe in print or other tangible media, rather than just having a cursory look on the internet? ABVS1936 10:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is it you are worried about? If the article consisted entirely of a breif description of St Mark's being a college in Adelaide and a cute picture, I doubt there would be a problem. However, some people have taken the time to track down reliable sources of further information, and this irks you. So when your "lack of sources" attempt failed, it became "lack of notability". Give it a rest mate. You don't like St Mark's and thats fine, lot's of people don't (all people who've never lived there). But the college is notable enough for inclusion into wikipedia. The rest is just logical expansion of the article using reliable sources. --Yeti Hunter 11:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples from google you may have missed: http://www.adelaide.edu.au/accommodation/colleges/stmarks.html, http://www.cowangrant.org/stmarks.html, http://www.sacentral.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=48&area=2&c=48437, http://adelaide.heraldry.org.au/

The school does not receive significant coverage in the sources listed in the previous post and the sources are not reliable. I think sources need to have more editorial credibility to be considered reliable and the source needs to give more detail about the school to meet the significant coverage requirement of the notability guideline. For more detail please read the notability guideline and the reliable sources guideline. Also, please consider merging this article with the Adelaide University article. Username nought 13:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What, are you seriously saying that the University of Adelaide is not a reliable source? They are also independent; if you care to check the relevant source, you will find that the college is independent of the University. Observe, from the opening point of your much-loved notability guidelines: "Significant coverage means more than trivial, but less than exclusive". The remainder of the sites mention the college, either exclusively or in passing, but they do establish notability for a variety of reasons. Once notability is established, the size of the article is irrelevant, so long as reliable sources are used.--Yeti Hunter 13:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this statement

I think sources need to have more editorial credibility to be considered reliable

Unfortunately, it does not matter "what you think", the wiki guidelines have been followed. The websites listed verify the notability of the article and conform with the wiki guidelines re: notability. What else do you want? The references and external links certainly suffice. ABVS1936 14:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.adelaide.edu.au/accommodation/colleges/stmarks.html is an advertisement for the school, therefore it is not an independent source. http://www.cowangrant.org/stmarks.html is also an advertisement. The heraldry and sacentral sites only give trivial mentions of the school. Therefore, none of these links can be used as evidence of notability. I stand by my statement that none of them are reliable sources because they lack editorial integrity. In the WP guideline for reliable sources it says: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Now, I would consider a journal published by Adelaide University as a reliable source but an advertisement page for a boarding house is not. I am going to tag the article for notability again, please do not remove it until suitable sources to prove notability have been added to the article. Username nought 08:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I have again removed it. If you seriously doubt the notability of this article, you are free to nominate it for deletion. However, do not deface the article with an ugly tag when you are the only one with such doubts.--cj | talk 10:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, nought, you shoot yourself in the foot: said articles are ONLY included as external references/links. So, no point in talking about their reliability, as we are merely linking to other sources that mention them. Though they are notable, reliable and independant in their own rights. Oh, and neither article is an 'advertisement' for the College - one is an information page provided as a service by the University (it cannot be an advert as the Uni has no vested interest in promoting the College, as it runs its own accomodation in direct competition!), and the other is in much the same vein, information regarding scholarships that are available to people already attending or about to commence attdendance at the College. Please stop questioning the notability of an article that is clearly notable, NPOV, referenced and in every other way an acceptable, encyclopedic article. Cheers, ABVS1936 11:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would say Aquinas, but Aquinians generally have a healthy respect for sport, and hence wouldn't have a vendetta against the AUBC, AUFC or AUSA pages, then I would have assumed Lincoln, but no lincolnian is going to have a go at the legendary AB, and neither would St. Ann's, so I'm going with Flinders. Am I right, you clown?--Yeti Hunter 14:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Alumni refs

So after pain-stakingly researching each and every one of the names added in the Notable Alumni section, I have referenced each name with the College's official Roll Book, started in 1925 and continuing to this day and containing each and every Collegian and Old Collegian's name and signiature, and can safely say that they ALL attended St. Mark's College. As such, I'm about to remove the citation tags from that section, and reference the entire section to the St Mark's College Roll. The book can be accessed by anyone if they care to take a trip to North Adelaide and ask the Master's permission, and I welcome them to do so! Please discuss here before re-adding the citation tags. Cheers, ABVS1936 04:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's original research and therefore cannot be used. If a reporter checked the roll and published that these people went to the school it would be ok. Username nought 08:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's a funny interpretation of original research, by which I mean incorrect. Insofar as the source exists and was consulted, no original research has taken place. It ought to be noted also that the guidelines do not prohibit the use of primary sources, especially for such basic cross-referencing as this. The trouble with primary sources only occurs when interpretations are made and that is not being done here.--cj | talk 09:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I aggree with that but the tags should still remain unless sources are cited for the information regarding who these people are. For example: Justice RG Matheson QC, Former Judge of the Supreme Court of South Australia. There is now evidence he attended the college but sources still need to be cited saying that he actually was a judge. Username nought 09:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming this RG Matheson is Roderick Grant Matheson, he is very much a former justice (search result). You're going overboard here with cite requests, although that's a problem you share with many others on Wikipedia lately. Not everything need be referenced; only things which are controversial. I mean, you're asking for a cite proving John Bannon was Premier? Come off it, please.--cj | talk 09:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From verifiability guideline: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." So everything does need to be referenced. You need to consider people who have never heard of John Bannon before, they need to be able to check a reliable source that actually says he was premier of SA. Username nought 10:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really are going overboard. Look at the sentence: "The present Master of the College is John Bannon, former Premier of South Australia". Both those links clearly state he was Premier and the later at least gives an external reference for all the Premiers. It is therefore already very easy for people to check whether he really was Premier. They just click on the links and follow through. --Bduke 10:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok for the students who have wiki links (like bannon) to not have cited sources on this article but the other students should have sources cited on this article to prove who they actually are. Username nought 11:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright nought, I'm not on my own computer at the moment, but as soon as I get back to my computer you'll have your references. By the time we're finished here, this page will be a Feature Article... ABVS1936 17:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We really should be thanking the bloke. Check out how much the article has improved in the last week.--Yeti Hunter 15:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Lusernamed nought is the Ali G of Wikipedia - keeping it real .I've added sources for most of the Alumni. I couldn't find the guy who worked at the Beeb, someone with more time and interest could probably look him up. Ozdaren 16:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that someone is notable alumni because they have a certain job is original research. Therefore if they are classed as notable alumni they should have their own WP article. Please create articles for the alumni that don't have one or cite a source that says the certain position they held/hold is in fact notable. If this doesn't happen in a week I will start to remove alumni. Username nought 09:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with UN here. I think a note on how to access the College Roll Book should also be added. I'm currently trying to work out the best way to do this. I'll get back to you. Toadtoad 10:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy: come to the College and I'd be glad to show you. Failing that, if I'm not here for instance, I know that any number of people here, whether they be students or admin or volunteers, would be equally happy to show you the college archives or any other piece of information relevant to the article, or wikipedia in general for that matter. Perhaps a browse through the Rare Book Cabinet in our 16,000+ (actually, I think it's more like 20,000 at the moment - will check) volume library would suffice? However, what I'm not happy to do is to sit here and transcribe the entire roll for you - I, and a few others, have already had enough of our time wasted by an individual or number of individuals who seem intent on getting this article removed from wikipedia. Put in a bit of effort yourself, have some good faith and research some sources in your time using your own effort and energy, and try and improve wikipedia for a change, rather than trying to pick apart by far the best article (and most notable article, I might add) in a bunch of crufty, un-NPOV, unindependant, unsourced, unverifyable works of (largely) fiction. Cheers, and ABVS1936 10:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and nought - claiming that someone has to have an article on wikipedia to be notable? Sounds a little like trying to cite wikipedia as a primary source, doesn't it? Just a note to Toad, at wikipedia you can't hide your actions. Cheers boys. ABVS1936 10:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the primary source comment, therefore please cite a source saying these people are in fact notable people. I have added tags, If sources aren't added in a week I will start deleting alumni. Username nought 10:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not place "Citation needed" tags on statements which are clearly adequately cited. Edits like this are blatant vandalism. --Yeti Hunter 11:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the place of editors to decide if a certain job makes someone notable or not. Please provide sources saying these people are notable people or sources that say that if someone holds the positions they hold/held makes them a notable person. Another option is to change the name of the section to "Alumni" but you'll need to create an article for each person. Username nought 11:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, sorry, that's exactly our job. The sources are all clear indications of notability. Do not start a silly edit war over this.--Yeti Hunter 11:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, it will be sufficient to just change the name of the section to "Alumni" and not create separate alumni articles. That way no uncited claims of notability are being made.Username nought 12:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nought, simply changing the name of the section to "Alumni" implys that the list of names included are the entire alumnus of the college. This is a contradiction as, stated in the second paragraph of the article, the old collegians society (i.e. alumni) of the college has about 3500 members. The fact that the term "Notable Alumni" was used refers to the notability of the alumni with reference to the subject matter, not their notability in their own right. Now, I'm not gona ask for arbitration in this matter, becuase I think we can sort this out like mature adults, and it's all just getting a little bit silly. So let's just leave it be, yeah? References to assert the notability of those listed will be added, and in most cases already have, so until then let's show some good faith. ABVS1936 12:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

44 refs and counting, well over half of them now NOT the St Mark's website! Good work boys and girls! Just think, we never would have gotten this far if not for Nought.--Yeti Hunter 12:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But how do you decide which alumni is notable and which is not. This decision is original research. I had a look at some of the featured university pages and some of them use "Alumni" as the title for their equivalent sections. Please feel free to take this to arbitration. Username nought 14:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nought, what are you talking about? I also had a look at some of the featured education articles (bear in mind that St Mark's College is not a university, as it seems you have suggested by linking to featured UNIVERSITY pages). And, you were right. Some of them do just have an 'alumni' section. Some, but NOT MOST. Most of them (eg, Alpha Phi Alpha, Hopkins School, Stuyvesant High School, Texas A&M University and University of Michigan all use the word 'notable'. AND, moreover, the articles that have an 'alumni' section, not a 'notable alumni' section, actually have a couple of paragraphs each on alumni in general (eg Cornell University, Duke University, Ohio Wesleyan University. So your edit makes absolutely no sense. As such, I have reverted it.

Now I'm all for consistency, and thanks to your senseless edit, through looking at these featured articles I have discovered that most of them actually link to a second page which lists the establishment's alumni (eg List of Cornell University people, List of Alpha Phi Alpha brothers and List of Stuyvesant High School people. So, Nought, do you think we should create a second Mark's-related page? To establish consistency I guess we'd call it "List of St Mark's Alumni". By your logic, this seems a pretty swell idea, wouldn't you say? Ryan Oceros 17:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability post AfD

I remain appalled that before the Notable Alumni section, none of the references in this article are from sources independent of the College. This reeks of WP:Schoolcruft to me (and, from the AfD, others). If only those associated with the college care enough to write about it then really, what makes anyone think the Governance (which is identical to the governance of any other on-campus accomodation), "Social scene, sports and traditions", or even most of what appears in "Accommodation" is encyclopedic?

Hint: If any section deserves a Primary Sources tag then question why it's there, or look to fix the issue through adding independent references (that is, ones which withstand challenge at an AfD). Ga rr ie 00:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about references 2, 4, 5, 6, 12, 26 and 29? The only reason that there are so many references from the college website is due to the insistence that individual claims be cited. Be appalled if you must, but perhaps check that your claim is accurate first, and also consider being constructive and seeking independent sources on your own. Be assured, we're onto it.--Yeti Hunter 00:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Yeti, the only reason there are so many references that come from the college is that a trolling campaign was waged against the article. Very few articles on W/P have this many sources or citations. AND by the way I have nothing to do with the college. Ozdaren 02:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garrie, here you can find all the information relevant to the sources that have been cited to in this article that are "self published". Information taken from those "self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves" so long as they meet the criteria set out on that page. So be appalled all you like, but note that it is acceptable under those circumstances, and I would say especially so if the information can't be found elsewhere (correct me if I'm wrong, but that is the way I'm reading that Guideline). ABVS1936 10:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accommodation

I have added a citation tag for this statement: "All first year students ("freshers") are allocated single rooms, located on 7 halls or "floors"; 3 in Newland Building[7], 3 in Memorial[8] and one in Hawker Annexe.[9]" None of the current sources mention anything about the room allocations of first year students. Could someone please find an appropriate source or reword the statement. Username nought 08:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this pointless tag as it is implied in the references. You can clearly see that there are 3, 3 and 1 floors respectively, and the use of the word "undergraduate" in the text implies that first years would live there. Each other section of the referenced material states that the other buildings only house senior students, i.e. not first-years/freshers. I can't understand your referencing either, nought, as it only serves to clutter the edit window, so unless this was for some strange reason your intention, please revert it to the way it was, or explain your actions here or on my talk page. ABVS1936 11:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woo hoo, he's back! The article shall improve some more! I think the referencing is fine, it makes for a more informative notes section at the bottom.--Yeti Hunter 11:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I don't agree. It adds nothing what-so-ever to the references section, it merely serves to clutter the edit box for no real reason - it adds nothing to the text in the reference section. It's ridiculous. ABVS1936 11:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ABVS1936, none of the current sources for the statement mention that only senior students live in the other buildings. Please cite the sources that mention this for this statement so readers can verify that all the first year students live in these buildings. Username nought 08:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nought, I think that you'll find, if you actually read the referenced links that the New Cain/Able link does mention senior students living in said buildings. I'll give you Hawker House, as it doesn't particularly mention Seniors in their own right, it just strongly implys that only Seniors live in the "19th Century spaciousness and relative quietness" of Hawker House, atributes that most would assume that Seniors prefer and Freshers detest. I mean seriously mate, unless you or someone else is using this wikipedia article as a primary source for their own research, is this pedantic time wasteing really necessary? There are hundreds, neigh, thousands of other unreferenced, unencyclopedic, unverifyable and unnotable articles on wikipedia that would benefit much more from our combined wasted time on the St. Mark's article, wouldn't you agree? ABVS1936 04:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nought, in relation to your 'citation needed' tags regarding the number of students living in the college and the presence of both dormitory and apartment accomodation, please adhere to the wikipedia guidelines and have a look for the citations yourself.

Also, I couldn't agree more, ABVS. Nought, if you'd care to take a look here, you'll notice that references only need to be added when material is challenged or likely to be challenged. Now, I know you might say that you're challenging the fact that St Mark's has both dormitory and apartment style accomodation, however you are the only one purporting to challenge this fact, and in essence you are not really challenging it, you are just saying you are. You have no reasonable basis for this challenge. In fact, you have no reasonable bases for 'challenging' many of the facts for which you have requested citation. In summary, please refrain from adding 'citation needed' tags before having a look for a source yourself, considering whether the fact might actually be a controversial one, and also considering whether there might, as ABVS has suggested, be more controversial articles in greater need of your undying and undoubtably well-meaning dedication to referencing. Ryan Oceros 04:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current sources listed (sources 9, 10, 11) for that statement do not mention or imply anything about where senior students live so please cite these statements you and ABVS1936 have mentioned. If the sources are listed elsewhere in the article they still need to be cited for this statement otherwise people won't be able to work out all the first year students only live in these buildings. I've looked for articles that prove the statement but I haven't been able to find enough evidence that proves all first year students live in those three buildings. I don't understand your problem with me adding citation tags, the sources provided do not support the statements made, simple as that. I'm happy to edit the statements so they agree with the sources provided if the regular editor give me the ok. I tried once but it got reverted immediately, so that's why I've gone with the tags.Username nought 06:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, sources 9, 10 and 11 make statements towards the location of first years in the respective buildings. Sources 12 and 13, however, state that: "Hawker House provides accommodation for 14 undergraduates and graduates who still prize it for its 19th Century spaciousness and relative quietness on the fringe of the College campus" and "40% of the rooms are grouped in 2, 3 or 4 bedroom flats with lounge and bathroom facilities. The College has 37 apartments... New students have rooms allocated to them, whilst returning students may apply for specific rooms or shared apartments", respectively. Now, if you cannot garner that "only senior students live in the other buildings" from the cited sources, then let us help you out: they do, and you can call me Susan if "people" can't work that out for themselves. If they really want to work it out, you can bet they will. I mean the connection is fairly obvious if you actually read the paragraph as a paragraph and not just a set of disjointed facts, am I right? Just try reading it through without paying attention to the references until the end of the paragraph - makes perfect sense now, doesn't it (not a question, you'll notice). Perhaps if you cared a little more for the quality and accuracy of the information presented in wikipedia, and a little less about this silly edit war, then perhaps we could make some real progress on this article and others in the process, instead of constantly patrolling the History and Talk pages for it. And the world would be a happier and better place for all. ABVS1936 07:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE - Doesn't matter anyway, I've reworded it and now it works fine. Cheers, ABVS1936 07:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms

ABVS1936, could you please add the source that has the college motto in it for the infobox. Because not many people speak Latin a source should be provided for the translation as well. I understand that it may be in other sources listed in the article but they need to be recited after the motto so people can verify that actually is the motto. Username nought 09:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we make wikipedia foolproof, they will only develop a better fool...--Yeti Hunter 09:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - the St Marks College homepage might be a good place to start - on the left, slightly below the title bar.--Yeti Hunter 09:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second sentence.--Yeti Hunter 09:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for you, nought, I will. Even though any layman can see that it is plastered on every single referenced page. They have, indeed, developed a "better" fool. ABVS1936 09:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nought, since you have conveniently ignored my last comment, here it is again, for your convenience:

"Nought, if you'd care to take a look here, you'll notice that references only need to be added when material is challenged or likely to be challenged. Now, I know you might say that you're challenging the fact that St Mark's has both dormitory and apartment style accomodation, however you are the only one purporting to challenge this fact, and in essence you are not really challenging it, you are just saying you are. You have no reasonable basis for this challenge. In fact, you have no reasonable bases for 'challenging' many of the facts for which you have requested citation. In summary, please refrain from adding 'citation needed' tags before having a look for a source yourself, considering whether the fact might actually be a controversial one, and also considering whether there might, as ABVS has suggested, be more controversial articles in greater need of your undying and undoubtably well-meaning dedication to referencing."

Ryan Oceros 15:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Oceros, that style guideline you provided says, "The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue." I totally understand why it is more important to cite sources for this kind of material (challenged or likely to be challenged material) but that does not mean it is not important to cite all material and the verifiability policy says as much. The verifiability policy says, "Articles should only contain material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed." Username nought 02:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nought, let's have another look at that quote you've taken, but this time I'll choose which part should be in bold: "Articles should only contain material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed." So you've shot yourself in the foot there, as you still haven't mentioned any kind of reasonable basis for challenging the material.

Now I'll concede that they've said "The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue." So why don't you heed this advice, and find some references for controversial articles. After all, this is, as you have said, especially important. Always a pleasure, Nought. Ryan Oceros 07:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if I challenge the material or not. The policy says, "Articles should only contain material that has been published by reliable sources." So if I find statements that are not backed up by reliable sources I will continue to tag them. Username nought 09:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles should indeed only contain material that has been published by a reliable source. HOWEVER, whether there is any need to pedantically cite these sources is another issue altogether, and is dealt with here. It says "attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." So, I'm sure that you'll agree, while there is a policy to suggest that there needs to be a reliable basis for the content (as I'm sure there is for this article, thanks in part to your valuable motivation), it only needs to be cited (or otherwise provided) if the material is challenged or likely to be challenged. If it would put your mind at ease, I could have a look at some featured articles and find other such unsourced, uncontroversial claims, which might prove that your well meaning efforts - as helpful as I'm sure you believe them to be - are unnecessary, and would be put to better use on other articles.Ryan Oceros 21:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that editors have only used material that has come from reliable sources, it shouldn't be an issue to provide the source if I tag something for verification. Anyway, it improves the article and it says as much in the style guideline you provided: "Model articles provide general references that support all the content while giving inline citations for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged." Username nought 10:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why then do you insist on inline citation for every single discrete fact mentioned, regardless of whether it is controversial? Like the fact that students attend a number of institutions, like the college motto (even in latin, which is in clear view in the image an inch above!), like the fact that Administration handles cooking and admissions and such, like the fact that Marksenfest happens every year? Of course everything needs to be referenced. It is. Walkley, Kerr and StMarksCollege.com.au handle most of that. They don't need scores of individual citations. Why don't you lavish comparable attention on your own college's page? It's in pretty poor shape in comparison at the moment.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeti Hunter (talk • contribs)

The only source listed in the references section is Walkley, so if I read a statement that isn't covered by Walkley or an inline citation, I tag it. Feel free to list sources in the references section however I personally think inline citations increase the quality of the article because they allow readers to dirctly verify statements instead of having to bug editors where to find the information in the books/websites. Username nought 12:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Women at St Marks

On Dit (volume 59 number 2, March 11 1991, page 9) has women entering St Marks in 1982. The article is titled Primitive Practices at St Marks and is an exposé on the more misogynistic practices employed by the men of the college in 1991. Can this be used as a references for the date of women commencing at Marks? Ozdaren 05:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that was fairly reliable, and I'm sure that, as the article itself is berating St. Mark's, no one else would object... And if they really wanted to, the article could surely still be accessed in the Adelaide Uni archives somewhere. ABVS1936 08:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theres a great On Dit from the late 70s blasting StM for the Steeplechase, and theres a picture of the then Master firing a shotgun to start it! I can just imagine the bleating of the bleeding hearts.--Yeti Hunter 08:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that actually, I'd wager that JB probably has a copy, coz I reckon that's where I've read it. Will drop a word next time I see him. In the mean time, add that reference if you have it, Daren. YH, Steeplechase I'm happy to say will be returning to its former glory next semester, with yours truly at the helm - maybe we can get some media coverage and include that. ABVS1936 08:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference done. I actually have a hard copy at home. I didn't even know there was a St Marks reference in there. The article was written by a feminist writer. I came across it by accident today. Copies of On Dit can be viewed in the Barr Smith. Ozdaren 11:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marksenfest

If anyone can find a reference for the Marksenfest citations in old papers etc please add them. I'm certain we get Gig Guide listings in both Rip It Up and the 'Tiser, and I know we had a few mentions on Triple J prior to and during the day of the 2005 'Fest. We can then confirm it as an annual event, and confirm that Evermore, a notable band, performed. Gurge07...(fingers crossed) ABVS1936 08:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The On Dit article mentions college female office bearers who are chosen at the first College Club meeting of the year. In 1991 there was a Hangover Chief (female responsible for the coffee at any time of night or day), Quartermistress (female condom dispenser) and College Dry-Cleaner (female whose duty it was to take and return dry cleaning). It also mentions college traditions including: Ponding, Alpine day (utlising the services of the gas truck) and Fresher's welcome.Ozdaren 12:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think 1991 was the year of the first Marksenfest, though I am not certain. It would be unlikely to be well known back then. More recent On Dits should certainly have mentions of it, but it would be better to find a reference from The Jays.--Yeti Hunter 23:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love the Indiana reference there, Daren. Philacoat, "a tall, chiseled redheaded Australian" - long live the rusties! Fantastic! ABVS1936 01:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:St. Mark's College (University of Adelaide)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

B class - for the subject matter seems to cover most bases so is better than a start class.--Peripitus 21:22, 25 March 2007 (ACST)

Last edited at 02:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)