Talk:James Ruse Agricultural High School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject Schools This article is related to WikiProject Schools, an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within Schools. Please rate the article.
Current Collaborations: McGill-Toolen Catholic High School - Newton North High School - Kennet Comprehensive School


Flag
Portal
 James Ruse Agricultural High School is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed by the Australia WikiProject.
This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney.
Assessment comments

This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Photographs

The photos currently up on the page have a problem with their copyright status (the uploader didn't tag them). If any ex-students (looks at Kewpid :P) have photos from their time at school and are willing to release them under the GFDL, then that would be great. Thanks. Enochlau 03:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm so stupid, I should've just looked at who uploaded them. Enochlau 03:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV/style

This page needs some serious work to bring it in line with an encyclopaedia article. At present much of it reads like a brochure for the school. The prefect section is almost sickening. --Daveb 09:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

No offence, but you seem to be very anti-Ruse. Is there a reason that you so vehemently oppose mentions of the school's good points? I think the article is quite NPOV. JSIN 08:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I am far from anti-JRAHS. I simply believe articles should be on encyclopaedic nature, and some of the previous wording did not reflect this nature requirement. This is not to say that and article shouldn't reflect good points about an institution, but rather that the article should do so as part of a detached analysis. --Daveb 09:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
With all due respect to Daveb... but, One must not critise the way an article is written. To be duly fair, it must be consider that this article would not even exist had it not been the efforts of certain students, past and present, in contributing to this article. . --SaleemH 22:14, 11 November 2005 (AEDST)
Why must one not critise the way an article is written? This is an open encyclopaedia, and constructive criticism leads to continual renewal and improvement. Of course the formation of this article has required to input of interested authors — as every article has — however this does not mean that the input should not be reviewed in the interests of making the article conform to the requirements of the encyclopaedic nature of the Wikipedia.
You state that "it present (sic) a slightly biased but true image of the school, and in this light can be considered to be an accurate presentation of the school, including its history". Firstly, my statement was dated in September: the article has undergone significant changes since then. Secondly, if the article is indeed "biased" as you state, then it is not presenting the detached, even-handed analysis required of an encyclopaedia.
Cheers, --Daveb 00:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
With reference to SaleemH's remark, I believe that criticism of the article is one of the ways by which Wikipedia is constantly improved. I'm sure that criticism of the article is not the same as criticism of the contributors. I, for one, am not personally offended by criticism of my contributions.JSIN 08:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UAI "information"

Kewpid,

You wrote: In 2004, the school achieved a median University Admission Index (UAI) of 99.5, and had 8 of the state's 21 UAI 100s [1].

The issue is: where did this data come from? UAIs are not released to schools (since ~1997), so the only way the school could have obtained data is from asking students to self-report. Unless the school can assure that it received results from all students, under-reporting is likely to have skewed results. Unless there is another source to verify this information, I suggest the article stick to published and verifiable data, such as numbers published in merit lists.

--Daveb 06:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

When students graduate, they receive a folder with a whole range of Board of Studies paraphernalia. Included is an envelope addressed to the school where they can write their UAI's and send it in. It's anonymous, so there's incentive to lie or not report. Also the school is given the HSC results of the students which it can use to produce very accurate UAI info anyway. Again, the school is unlikely to lie about its results. Kewpid 05:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The point remains that the school's claims are an educated guess (whether based on likely-incomplete self-reporting or extrapolation of HSC scores to UAI) and are not externally verifiable. This is not saying that are lying, rather that the mean-score claim is not based on reliable or verifiable publically available data. --Daveb 08:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I think I agree with Kewpid - JRAHS is a reputable school and I am sure it strives to ensure the highest possible accuracy of figures released to the public. JSIN 08:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I also believe it is a reputable institution, but we can not be sure that its data set is incompelete (e.g. I had a number of colleagues who said they refused to return their results in years gone by). The fact is that UAIs are not publically available any more, and that as such claims are based on self-reporting and are not verifiable. Again, this is an encyclopaedia and we therefore must stick to the verifiable facts. --Daveb 09:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps an agreement can be reached on this, whereby the article states that the UAI statistics are reported by the school, and not officially verified? This will further inform the reader, but also make him/her aware that while it is coming from a reputable institution, data may be incomplete.JSIN 10:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I have made an edit to this effect. I don't think discussion regarding the school being reputable is warranted though - there was no question of honesty, but rather one of verifiability and statistics (any undergrad level research-methods text will give you background on the issue of under-reporting of under-performance, if you're interested). --Daveb 10:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Just writing here because it fits the academic theme. JSIN, I agree with the removal of the line "This is no surprise really given that James Ruse is a selective school, and students must be in the top five percent of the state to gain admission." but to say it's untrue is a bit off the mark. Even a conservative estimate would suggest James Ruse cream off their students from the top five per cent. KRC, Sometime in November

It's untrue because there's no policy that only those in the top five percent (of what?!) can gain admission. I daresay that there would have been cases that someone who is not in the top five percent (of whatever) has gained entry. Entry into a selective school is not based on percentile rankings. It is a much more complicated system. Here is a link, should you be interested. http://www.schools.nsw.edu.au/learning/k-6assessments/selectiveschools.php Although it has been proven that JRAHS's mean for various achievements is quite high, it would be POV to categorically state that one must be in the top 5% to be offered a spot.

More importantly, the top 5% claim is unverified and does not have a place in an encyclopaedia. JSIN 12:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

JSIN, It's not a "policy" to choose the top 5% of academic achievers, but it's a reality of the selection system. Despite other criteria, selection to James Ruse comes down to results of the Selective High Schools Test (which is the reason coaching schools train kids in taking these tests). 13,000 people try out for selective schools. It's safe to say that these are above average academic achievers, that's why they're encouraged to try out. James Ruse is by far the most popular school to try out for, but let's pretend only a quarter of people (3,250) have it as their first choice. From that group, James Ruse gets the best performing 120 people. That's around the top 4% of an already above average sample group. That said, I agree that it doesn't have place in an encyclopedia. KRC, late in November

Figures were published in the SMH earlier this year, that first-choice applications for JRAHS had decreased, and that it was only third on the list (from memory). The figure was definitely below 1000. Much of your reasoning is speculation and is not based on fact.JSIN 06:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

JSIN, I know it's specualtion, which is why I agreed it doesn't belong in the article, but I've got no doubt it's true. Anyone who works in the education system (excepting Michael Quinlan, and fellow boosters for Ruse) could tell you that James Ruse's results only reflects the students they recieve. KRC, Sometime in 2005

This is a simple issue: if there is an externally verifiable reference available (read: a DOSE or BOS document or similar) to support the assertion then it could be included; if not leave it out as it is mere speculation. Cheers, --Daveb 08:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Non-denominational

Non-denominational means not affiliated to any particular denomination. This by no means implies that a non-denominational group may not hold to a particular belief. The fact that a belief held by a group is contrary to the beliefs of any particular denomination is also irrelevant. So having "Protestant beliefs", in particular sola scripture is not inconsistent with being non-denominational. Not recognising the Roman Catholic Church as the true church/faith is definitely not inconsistent with being non-denominational. In fact, to recognise it would be inconsistent with being non-denominational. It is good to make clear what the teachings in ISCF are, and that people disagree with them, but not to misunderstand their claim. JPD 09:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you think it is reasonable to refer to their doctrine of sola scriptura and their rejection of the Roman Catholic Church as part of the point that they have Protestant beliefs?JSIN 12:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

It would not be unreasonable, but it seems a bit unnecessary. Anyone who understands what sola scriptura refers to would most likely know that was the sort of Protestant belief referred to. In English, it might be more useful. I am not sure that rejection of the RCC is relevant unless they go around actively denouncing it, rather than simply not accepting it's teachings. Rather than describing what the group rejects, it might be worth noting that ISCFs were started by Scripture Union. Assuming that this particular group is still connected with SU, that could be mentioned. JPD 09:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I am not aware that the JRAHS I.S.C.F. is affiliated with SU and this is the first time I have ever heard it mentioned. Alright, I think the reference to rejection of RCC can go, but I think the mention of having Protestant beliefs and the doctrine of sola scriptura should be included.

[edit] Religious affiliation

How can this be a public school, yet have a Christian religious affiliation? Ambi 13:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The two are not mutually exclusive. It is probably one of the most virulently evangelical Christian schools out there. Kewpid 08:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The school has no religious affiliation, at least not at the present. Although there is the ISCF, membership is at a minority of the school population and there is some disagreement with ISC F-ing beliefs and the organisation itself, especially amongst Catholics and atheists. My personal opinion is to take anything the ISC F-ers tell you with a pinch of salt. I would never entrust my religious education in the hands of a group of power-tripping holier-than-thou year 11s (Yes, I am Catholic, and I find their anti-homosexual stance offensive).JSIN 08:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I ask that people, who share my views that ISCF is stupid, keep their POV comments away from the article.JSIN 10:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
It is time we finished the debate over the ISCF section. Do we need to place the comments about ISCF being disliked by students? Is anyone going to want this POV statement in an encyclopedia? I going to wait a week before repeating my edit of the ISCF section. --GeneralBenKenobi 11:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Addendum: Also, I would like to point out to JSIN that the section you have added has not been thoroughly researched. You didn't go to the Boy-Girl relationships lessons of ISCF did you? It does not encourage break-ups, only to contemplate relationships and see if you want to remain with the person you are with. --GeneralBenKenobi 11:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I have heard from more than one person, that they preached that since these relationships involve lust, couples should break up and reserve their love for marriage. I believe current text is NPOV, as it states both sides of the story, saying that it is "generally well-liked". Also, these are very clearly marked as views of some students.JSIN 11:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Apart from ISCF, there is also FOCUS, and JIFFY... I'm not in any of those groups, so my knowledge is limited, can someone else (hint, james) add something to the article about them? I wouldn't trust myself to write about those groups ;) Even though there are now 3 religious groups, the number of people attending isn't as high as people would imagine, and a lot of people go to ISCF for the stamp! --Hobowu 13:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a feeling that FOCUS and JIFFY are offshoots of ISCF. Thank God you're not in any of those groups, my dear friend. Anyway, it would be hard to include more info, please see WP:VERIFY. JSIN 06:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The details of any student club is non-encyclopaedic, unless the club is truly notable outside of the school(s) in some way. Would you like to read about the Beijing No. 3 Middle School Chinese chess club, and the minutiae of its weekly lunchtime contests, as well as its views on Boy-Girl relationships? Not really right? --Sumple (Talk) 12:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] School song: Green and Gold?

Since when was the school song called Green and Gold? I asked Mr Ballantyne (science teacher, ex student's might remember him) and he said that it was just called the school song. Also, in the 2005 JR student diaries, the title of the song is just "School Song". Spik3balloon 3 July 2005 09:40 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware it is untitled. Kewpid 5 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)
I believe it is untitled also. JSIN 08:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I do recall on assembly programmes the name of the School Song being recorded as "In Pursuit of Excellence". Unfortunately I do not currently possess a copy of said programme, but I will post again once I have obtained a copy. Choccie 09:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The Presentation Night 2005 Programme has the title of the school song as "Gesta non verba".JSIN 09:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I.S.C.F

Daveb, you deleted very large chunks of information from the I.S.C.F. section. What justification do you have for this? I don't mean the silly things that some people have added, but the informative and factual things, like the issuance of a stamp and an overview of what they preach. "it is questionable whether there should be more than a cursory mention of this activity" There is no reason why additional information should not be included. I don't think this indiscriminate and hasty removal of content is beneficial to the article at all. I'll re-add the I.S.C.F. information (excluding the non-denominational issue above) in two days if no-one objects.JSIN 12:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

JSIN,
Mate, this is (supposedly) an encyclopaedia article. When editing an article, one must ask oneself "What information are people seeking when they look up James Ruse Agricultural High School in this encyclopaedia?".
I doubt people are looking for information about the ins and outs of one student group, or why people join or don't join it. This isn't encyclopaedic information; this is petty schoolboy level bantering. It may seem important within the small world of being a school kid, but it really isn't important at all in the big wide world (which is where our readers are from). Keep things in perspective; some articles sections on economies or governance of whole nations take up less space.
It is suffice to mention that the group exists and a brief mention of what it does.
I will reinstate my edits. If you can come up with a convincing reason as to why a general reader would be even moderately interested in more than a mention of the groups existance I suggest forming up a new article.
Cheers, --Daveb 11:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC).
Is your patronising attitude really needed? I acknowledge that content about the preachings of I.S.C.F. may be controversial, and can easily be POV if the composer is not careful. Simply because other comparable articles have smaller sections, it does not mean this article should be restricted by anything other than relevance. This is not a paper encyclopaedia, where space is limited. For meantime, I believe the stamp issue is important enough to be included in the article. For your information, I was not the editor who inserted that information. However, I think, as it is a major incentive for attendance, it warrants inclusion. I will reinstate the paragraph about the stamp if no-one objects within two days.JSIN 14:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
My response was not intended to be patronising, but merely to state bluntly the way things are. The simple reality is that the "information" regarding this matter was not encyclopaedic (paper or otherwise); this is clearly not information the general readership are likely to seek nor care about. I stand by my previous comment that it reads as petty schoolboy level bantering, and object to any reinstatement on the grounds that it is patently non-encyclopaedic in nature. Cheers, --Daveb 12:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This whole article

The length of this whole article is absurd. It's longer than the Sydney University one, for crying out loud. Who cares what variety of corn is grown? Perhaps you should add the hobbies of the principal, and say what game the students play at lunchtime to keep amused. The whole thing starts to read like a brochure for the school. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.48.97.130 (talk • contribs) 15 November 2005.

It is in my opinion that this article is of a reasonable length. As Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia, I see no reason to restrict our wealth of knowledge, as long as it is relevant to the article. The variety of corn grown is important, since JRAHS is an agricultural high school and runs agricultural enterprises. If you feel that the Sydney University article is too short, then may I respectfully suggest that you go about improving it and adding more information, instead of criticising other articles that are both detailed and relevant.JSIN 08:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I could write a detailed response, but Daveb's answer above suits the purpose pretty well, so read that again. KRC 25 November

KRC, to which of Daveb's comments are you referring? As far as I know, he has made no answer to what 203.48.97.130 has written. I should be grateful if you could tell us. By the way, you can sign with your name, date and time by using four tildes (~). JSIN 12:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

JSIN, I was referring to Daveb's point in the ISCF section that you seem to have trouble working out what's encyclopaedic. Thanks for explaining how to sign the date. KRC November


[edit] History

Why is James Ruse's current ethnic make-up and its recent HSC results under "History." This clearly isn't history.

Yeah, I think we need a new section for these things. I added the ethnic background information to History because similar types of information were there. You can sign your posts on the talk page if you wish, it makes it much easier to keep track of the discussion.JSIN 12:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

With the events in Sydney over the past week, you'd think we should try to downplay the significance of ethnicity. I am removing that statistics mumbo jumbo section altogether. Beyond that, entry to the school is based on an entrance exam, so the demographic make-up of the school is the result of the free-market, and not some conspiracy against white kids. Grow up 203.48.97.130 Kewpid 03:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The percentage of a school population with a NESB is an important demographical statistic and is reported in each school's annual report. The race riots should not and do not affect this article in any way. I will revert to my last version.JSIN 06:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact is, James Ruse isn't very ethnically diverse at all - and the statistics included here back that up. It's got nothing to do with alleging a conspiracy against white kids. It's just a fact. Aside from that, the sentence is badly written and it has nothing to do with "History" KRC 15 December 2005

Can the statistics just be left there without a preceding sentence saying whether they imply diversity or not? Since you people can't agree, I think it's better to just leave it to the reader to decide. -- KittySaturn 12:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll put that statistic in. JSIN 11:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Co-curricular activities

I am concerned that this article's section on co-curricular activities violates Wikipedia:Verifiability. This stuff just isn't verifiable unless there are official pages on the school website that discuss such activities to the level of detail covered here. It seems to have been reported first-hand from the experiences of a former student, which then also violates Wikipedia:No original research. Sorry if I sound like I'm bashing the article with a bunch of rules, but it does look out of place and I think most of the section should go. Enochlau 14:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The school website has a link to this WP article, which is called "an informative report on our school" [2]. I'm not saying this makes the content any more or less verifiable. Much information, for example, about co-curricular activities and academic success, is included in the school's annual report, a copy of which was given to each student (and I lost mine). JSIN 11:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, it's been a while since I browsed to the JR website, and it looks... omg, horrible. No, I don't think it makes it verifiable, although the school in a sense approves of the content. If it's verifiable, it should have been published somewhere else apart from here first. enochlau (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Got my hands on a copy of the school's 2005 Annual Report which claims to be "the result of a rigorous school self-evaluation process and is a balanced and genuine account of the school's achievements and areas for development". Will be using it to source info. JSIN 09:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UAI Scoring

Hi, could someone dig up a reference for the claim that the median UAI for JR was 99.5? That seems awfully awfully high. I think either this is OR or just too much self-selection to mean anythign useful. (but yes, I agree with the thrust, JR rules academically....) novacatz 07:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That would be impossible actually, since UAIs are not made public. It'll have to come from an internal school news report, and those are inherently unreliable... enochlau (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. This issue has been discussed previously: see above. I say delete it as unverifiable. --Daveb 09:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. enochlau (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
At the end of year 12, they tell students to tell the school their UAI once they know it, if you wanted to know :-) Unreliable when not every student would do so. -- KittySaturn 06:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The problems with using such "data" have been discussed above. You are correct in stating that the voluntary (and probably not verified) self-reporting is likely to be unreliable. --Daveb 13:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that what we had before - the reported UAI with further information about how it is derived, should stay. JSIN 11:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm open to persuasion, but I think that dodgy data should not be published on Wikipedia even if accompanied by a disclaimer due to the potential to mislead. In any case, Novacatz, I found the reference: http://jamesruse.nsw.edu.au/Student%20Achievements/default.html. enochlau (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Found external reference concerning UAI from SMH website: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/only-race-that-matters-is-the-rush-to-the-top/2005/11/25/1132703380790.html tankman 15:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up

If it's alright with everyone else, I'm going to run a chainsaw through this article and try and clean it up. When I expanded it I didn't realise it would become this bloated. The extra-curricular activities section is particularly indulgent. Kewpid 04:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I fully support The War Against Excessive School Pages. As I noted above, I think the key point is that everything written down should be able to meet Wikipedia:Verifiability, so it should be all stuff found on the school website or in a book on the history of the school, as we've been doing at Fort Street High School. enochlau (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I think this cleanup is excessive. Much of the information removed is verifiable through year books and other school publications. The section about the JR Award can largely be sourced from student diaries, and I would like to hear why the bulk of it has been removed. SRC info is available on the JRAHS website. JSIN 10:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I think Kewpid went a little over the top but I'd agree in principle with what he's doing. Remember that verifiability is concerned with reporting facts that have been recorded in reputable publications. I mean, it used to include gems like:
"There is also a barbecue for students at the end of each term, and a Houseparty late in term 4. I.S.C.F."
and
"The James Ruse Chess Club is managed annually by a group of 3 to 4 Senior students. The club organises a small tournament every school term of 10 weeks, whereby students are encouraged to participate to improve their chess ability." (emphasis mine)
That's the kind of stuff that I want to see gotten rid of, because it's practically unproveable. I'm not sure what kind of yearbook you're referring to, but if it's the Year 12 Yearbooks written by students then I'd say they don't really count. If it's the annual school publication vetted by the school, then possibly, but articles should really contain material that anyone can get at from the Internet or by going to a library for books and newspapers. enochlau (talk) 12:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the Ag bit should be cleaned up a bit, it's all cluttered with excess information.

[edit] James Ruse category

Who would be interested in a "James Ruse Student" category and/or a user page box for that category? Secondly, if anyone were interested, who would be able to create a category? --General_Kenobi 10:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be great if someone could make one. Thanks for bringing up this idea, Ben. I'm not familiar with making userboxes, but I'm sure heaps of people are. JSIN 10:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I'd be careful about userboxes these days. People are far more vigilent in deleting the things if they think they're useless and don't contribute to the workings of the encyclopedia. enochlau (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Aargh userbox nazis! They deleted the templates for coalition and Liberal userboxes... and the userbox userbox too... :( Now I'll have to edit my userpage. JSIN 11:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates. enochlau (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Here ya go. See Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education/Australia. Blair25 17:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC+10)

[edit] Infobox

I think in this case Template:Infobox School2 is better than Template:Secondary school simply because it has a few differnt and extra features that make it superior- such as having extra categories for different principal types rather than having to shove 'Deputy Principals' to the bottom of the infobox. --tankman 15:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Lead section

The lead section is too long. It is not consistent with WP:MOS. Some of what is in the lead section should be moved to other sections. Garrie 12:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

As indicated above - with no requests to defer I have moved some paragraphs out of the lead section. The lead section is still a little bit long but can't be so easily reduced with simple cut and paste... I would probably be seen as a bit heavy handed if I wielded the axe ruthelessly on the first and second paragraphs... Garrie 06:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikification / linking

This article includes reference to many Sydney suburbs, it would be great if one of the regular contributors here wikified some of these. Also - as a contributor for WP:Sydney with an interest in transport - are any of the roads mentioned worthy of an article? Try looking at Category:Streets in Sydney and see if the roads mentioned can at least result in an equivalent article.

It would be good for the WP if this article - which is quite extensive - linked to a proportionally large number of other articles.

Garrie 03:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

done. the suburbs at least anyway. --tankman 14:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/m/Talk%7EJames_Ruse_Agricultural_High_School_bb02.html"