From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Anglican Church Grammar School is within the scope of 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.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Brisbane.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Australia.
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.

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.	Schools Portal
Low	This article has been rated as Low-Importance within Schools.
Assessment: Hello all, and thank you for contributing to this school article. I'm part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Assessment team, and I'm reviewing this page. I'm currently giving it a grade of Start on the Wikipedia 1.0 Assessment Scale and an importance of Low on this importance scale. For information on improving this article, please visit the WikiProject Schools Project Page. My reasoning is as follows: No useful references. Needs some trimming and cleanup. Adam McCormick 06:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abbreviations

User:220.245.180.132, Can you explain what these abbreviations stand for? Otherwise, I feel they should be left out of the article. Cnwb 12:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the unexplained abbreviations you keep adding; please discuss these changes on this talk page. Cnwb 22:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking

User:L00ser I see no reason for you to edit the Anglican Church Grammar School site with inappropiate information that has no factual basis whatsover. I would like to put foward a ban on L00ser editing any site as he has blatently disregarded the rules and continues to vandalise the Anglican Church Grammar School site.

[edit] Third Opinion(s)

agreed, the 'controvesy' and 'student organisations' sections are a little biased, but they should NOT be delteted. feel free to edit. as an uninvolved aprty, it is obvious to me that these should remain.

By not posting here, User:220.245.180.132 has essentially pleaded no contest... The abbreviations should left out as they are rather abtruse. Be forewarned, Cnwb, the man we are dealing with here has a bit of a history. If he persists in this without explaining himself, take this to a higher level. Cheers, All.- Thesocialistesq 05:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Getting rid of the student bodies section

That is a terrible idea. They represent the students at Churchie and remain in those positions for a whole year. Their roles give them the right to be up there.

You made my point for me. They are there for a year, while Wikipedia is to remain timeless. Their role is that of a high school or middle school level student officer. That gives them notability to be included on school publications but absolutely no one has a "right" to be on Wikipedia. I have deleted the student names from this section. They should not be replaced until a full accounting has been given of the notability of the students named Pikachu, Yu-gi-oh, and Zoomer One. On a more serious note, please look at the article on Stuyvesant, which is a featured article. There is no listing of current students elected to student body positions. There are no high quality articles that have this. This is also not a problem. If you feel that their election gives them notability, please keep in mind that even people elected to positions in a city level government aren't considered notable by the standards at WP:BIO.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 06:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha, the funny thing is that you take this so seriously hahaha. Mate, you need to find yourself a girl.

The sad thing is that you fail to understand that Wikipedia is not a free webhost for you to feel good about yourself. If you want to list the house captains and annually elected student officers you are free to do so on your own bandwidth. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is the largest encyclopedia in history. It is truly insignificant who was the house captain in any given year. I am removing references to individual non-notable students one more time. If they are replaced I will file a request for comment regarding this issue. I am certain that consensus would fall on the side of not including officers' names. Adding them back in would be seen as vandalism and would be a blockable offense as it would be going against consensus. As many people editing this article are probably doing so from school, this would lead to the school being blocked from editing. That would be unfortunate.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 05:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

oooooo big man, if u find that sad, then ur a bit sad urself, there are many people our school, and thus many computers at many homes, thousands, ill always win

I advise you pay attention to where you are. This is not a playground; it is an encyclopedia. If you wish to play games that you can "win", I'm sure your grammar school's playground can accommodate you. You and your friends can't "win" here any more than I or the hundreds of thousands of other editors can "win." The community and the end users "win" by having encyclopedic content. We "win" by providing that. Your edits are moving the article further from the goal, thereby losing. Please join our winning team or stop playing games.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 14:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha ummmmm hate to tell you big fella but our grammar school doesn't have a playground. you should get your story straight, first you say no one can "win" and then you tell me to join your "winning team", nice one...... ...... ..... ehem ..... ..... anyway its obvious you dont really no wat ur talkin about, oh well, makes it easier for me to WIN. Oh and by the way, I'm not "playing", if you think this is "playing" perhaps you should go to your local playground and partake in your "playing" there.... but thanks for the heads up big fella

Uh, okay. Luna Santin 21:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

shutup

Hi! It's me again. Please respect our civility policy.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 17:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zoomers

I was wondering what the concensus is on including a reference to this nickname for Churchie students is. It is a term that to my knowledge is commonly used amongst Brisbane students and by that measure should be included. If included it certainly should be made clear that the origin is apocraphyl and it's usage degogratry. 194.105.170.60 13:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Nah, i dont think you should put zoomers in, its definiatly not for an encycoldidia (or however you spell it) lol

Not mentioning that churchie boys are called zoomers is like not mentioning hitler was a nazi.

the term zoomer comes from an incident that apparently happened when a kid was dared to have sex with the head masters dog and hence did so, and the dogs name was zoomer.

EDIT"

The dogs name was not zoomer, the guy who did it was not popular and this was the nickname given to him by other students,

that student commited suicide and let us respect him by not using it derogaratorily.

[edit] Sex Abuse

Have added the Kevin Lynch saga in. Its in St. Pauls and Grammar's page, it should be here too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kiran90 (talk • contribs) .

I think you forgot to copy the verification links across. I reverted your addition because of this. Ansell 10:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I can understand the comments of the school webmaster on the sexual abuse section and the school not wanting it to appear. On the other hand, it is an important part of history for survivors which should not be ignored. From the perspective of an encyclopaedia, I suspect a paper encyclopedia editor would be more interested in balance than inclusion of relatively small and controversial facts. Why doesn't the perpetrator have a Wikipedia entry??? No doubt all encyclopedia topics have controversial areas. Can they be dealt with in a consistent way? --Blouis79 13:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

We aren't interested in being balanced or necessarily fair. We certainly aren't trying to emulate FOX News. (For those readers unfamiliar with American media that was a political jab at FOX's ironic slogan.) What we strive for on Wikipdia is neutrality. The reason for there not being an entry is that no one has written it yet. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 15:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

ummmmmm wavegetarian or wateva ur name is, stop being a bitch, get a job, and for the love of god get a girl friend, end communication —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.45.174.3 (talk • contribs) 10:39, March 16, 2007 (UTC).

Please do not resort to argumentum ad personam and ad hominem circumstantiae. They are very poor rhetorical strategies, inherently logical fallacies, and are against one of our most basic policies. I have multiple jobs along with being a full time student and a Wikipedia administrator. I have some girl friends, but as I am no longer a child most of my friends are adults. If you were meaning to imply that I am having trouble finding a girlfriend, I'm in a committed long term relationship. As you have run out of just about any argument short of calling Godwin's Law into play, can we get back to writing an encyclopedia now? Thanks. Oh, one last thing: Ending communication is bad because then we can't determine consensus and support the free and open flow of information. —WAvegetarian (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

haha, WAvegetarian, dont take it seriously. that comment made by the unsigned user is a typical Australian Churchie "student" response: short, primitive and lacking in any form of logic or sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.157.77 (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stage Crew

The comment blow was removed from the wiki article, it was written by an ex stage crew member is true, the students in stage crew are not recognized for their work. And neither does the school administration notice the hours put in by the stage crew members. Personally i agree with the above comment and so do some other stage crew members.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.42.225 (talk • contribs) 11:35, July 25, 2007 (UTC)

I felt that the stage crew section was written by a bitter exmember who was very upset by the lack of recognition for his work: here is the section I removed "After most events that occur during the school year that the Stage Crew boys are involved in takes away a lot of their spare time. This is because something that might only run for an hour will take hours and hours to set and pack up. For plays, the hours involve setting up, rehearsals, the performance and finally the pack up. For a dance, the hours would involve setting up, which takes a year 10 roughly 35 hours each with the time increasing as you go up the grades, driving the dance and finally bumping out that night. After a school dance that finishes at around 10:30pm, the stage crew boys are there until the early hours of the morning and leave the school at about 3:30 or sometimes 4:00 on sunday mornings.

Although stage crew is the main force behind most of the things that happen in the school that involve their equipment, there is a poor stigma about them. Not too many of the boys in the churchie community actually respect the stage crew community. Most boys see stage crew as a waste of time that they get out of class for and don no work whatsoever. However, these boys have never participated in stage crew and have no idea of what goes on behind the scenes of everything that happens at the school. " —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.244.146.142 (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

A lot of text about the Stage Crew, including names of boys who hold leadership positions, and some POV wording about them being underappreciated and hard-working, is repeatedly being inserted in the article. That sort of thing is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article, for obvious reasons. It may or may not be true about the stage crew being unrecognized, but that's not encyclopedic information. Please do not insert it again. (Comment posted here since the person or people who insert the same text log in from different IPs each time) --Bonadea 11:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strong and Donaldson boarding houses

I was in Strong House from 1996 to 2001. If this page is intended to reflect the full history of Churchie, then I feel that it should also include the two boarding houses (Strong and Donaldson) that was merged down with Gerald and Goodwin. I would write this section myself, however, I don't have the full references and the story behind why the two boarding houses was cut down.

[edit] Fire

Is there a link to an article about the fire with exact details? I found some on The Courier Mail and Brisbane Times but none mentioned the building the fire was in. According to The Courier Mail, the fire was at 4:30PM, not 5:00PM. If it is indeed 5pm then please feel free to change it back to the correct time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.71.163 (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Student body entry

I fail to see what the fuss is about. This item simply describes the methods by which the student body is formally organised.

The section beginning Boys in year 8 is of a different nature, as it describes certain policies of the school in relation to its pupils. It would be better to expand and clarify this section, and break it out as a separate item. Chasnor15 (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)