This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Christ Church Cathedral, Christchurch article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 20 May 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from ChristChurch Cathedral to Christ Church Cathedral, Christchurch. The result of the discussion was moved. |
I've had it suggested to me via email that the cathedral's spire was partly influenced by a church in north London, close to several other buildings which G.G. Scott worked on - All Saints Church, Whetstone, Barnet (see picture [1]). is this just idle thinking on my emailer's part, or is it possible? Grutness... wha? 00:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I have a photo of the cathedral and will upload when things are more normal. Schwede 66 02:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I feel in a state of frustration, amounting to despair over the extraordinary failure of the media to report the damage to the ChristChurch Cathedral accurately!
It seems as if today's reporters are totally, completely and absolutely (any superlative you can think of) incapable of looking, seeing, assessing and stating facts! Given that it takes (in Australia and New Zealand) very high pass marks to study journalism at University, how can they be so utterly stupid and unreliable? If anyone out there can answer, please do!
The problem lies in the use of the words "total", "absolute", "complete", "ruined", destroyed", "crushed" etc. Terms like "utterly destroyed" and "totally crushed" are being bandied about without any consideration of what these fairly simple second-grader terms actually mean, and what implications they may carry when a member of the public reads or hears them used inappropriately.
Examples
And of course other news services have followed the lead. SENSATION wins over fact every time, particularly where headlines are concerned.
What worries me is that if this sort of stupidity prevails in the professional reporting of something that is clearly visible, how can we, the public, possibly trust these stupid clowns to accurately inform the world over events that are politically sensitiive, and possibly imflammatory? Are the English language reporters who described recent events in Egypt and Tunisia more or less reliable?
Amandajm ( talk) 04:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Guideline for Talk pages: This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
I am not unsympathetic to the frustrations expressed above by Amandajm. I would suggest that the contributions under the heading "Reporting" fit the description of "general discussion" and I invite Amandajm to delete the whole section including this response. In saying this I am not agreeing or disagreeing with what he or she says. It simply does not seem to be suggesting improvement to the WP article. Spathaky ( talk) 14:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I support the main point being made by Amandajm, in that there is / was a lot of inaccurate and contradictory reporting on the earthquakes and the Cathedral, for whatever reason (and I don't disagree with the reasons given). Given the importance of this to the subject of the article (the Cathedral has a demolition order and ceases to exist if it goes through), then the accuracy of sources is critically important to the accuracy of this article. In this case it should be possible to demonstrate these contradictions, quite how this would normally be done here I don't know, just giving my vote of support for it being probably as real as s/he says, especially as the facts are coming out now. -- Adx ( talk) 09:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Is it a dumb question to ask whether the camel case is correct when this is their official logo?
Is the name of the cathedral properly spelled Christchurch, like the town, or ChristChurch with the interior "C" capitalized? The article distractingly switches back and forth between the two, and as a non-resident I'm hesitant to make a correction — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.189.92.98 ( talk) 03:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
ChristChurch Cathedral, Christchurch. 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on ChristChurch Cathedral, Christchurch. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
ChristChurch Cathedral, Christchurch →
ChristChurch Cathedral – Per
WP:SMALLDETAILS and
WP:PRECISION the base name already redirects here and none of the other churches listed at
Christ Church Cathedral appear to use "ChristChurch Cathedral" (with no space), they all use "Christ Church Cathedral" (with a space). If not "ChristChurch Cathedral" could be retargeted to the DAB page.
Crouch, Swale (
talk)
19:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The article says it has two names: ChristChurch Cathedral and (rarely used) Cathedral Church of Christ. Is there info that could be included about why it has two names and when, how and why it acquired each of those two names, including the origins of the medial capitals in ChristChurch? Nurg ( talk) 21:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Berrygirl1972: Thanks for making article amendment suggestions at the Wikipedia:Help desk. I've amended the article (going into a bit more detail than what you suggested) and have added an external link to the Reinstatement Project website. Much has been made of the 50-page memorandum between the project partners. It seems that only a summary is published via the Reinstatement Project website. Any clue why the full version doesn't appear to be accessible? I mean, if somebody is really interested, surely they'd prefer to read the long version.
But anyway, should you have other suggestions, please post them here so that you don't trigger a WP:COI situation. Schwede 66 01:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much. The full Joint Venture Agreement isn't available publicly because it is commercial in confidence, which is pretty normal. Thanks Schwede66 Berrygirl1972 ( talk) 01:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
No hurry, but next time a Wikimedian is in the Square with a camera, how about an snapping an up-to-date photo, since the big frame was taken down from the front. Thanks. Nurg ( talk) 09:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
ChristChurch Cathedral has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
@ Schwede 66 With reference (reverance?) to the above CamelCase discussion and a change I made on a related article, I made enquiries with the organisation itself and received a reply <quote>Your enquiry regarding the correct name of the Anglican Cathedral has reached my inbox.
The correct name is Christ Church Cathedral. This is used in official documents i.e. Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Act 2017.
The camelCase ChristChurch Cathedral was used for a number of years by Chapter as a marketing name on their logo etc. They are now moving away from this and adding a space to make it two words. </quote> This is from the management of the entire diocese. I rest my case, question welcome. 121.98.30.202 ( talk) 21:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal ( talk) 11:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
ChristChurch Cathedral → Christ Church Cathedral, Christchurch – There are several discussions and a (successful) past move request on this talk page about the correct article title. In the latest discussion, an IP editor has provided an explanation why we had previously used the camel case and that this is now a thing of the past. As is documented in that discussion, I've had a look what The Press (the largest South Island newspaper) is using as the common name and that is what is guiding this move request. And that leaves us with the subject of disambiguation, as it's not the only Christ Church Cathedral in New Zealand. What makes this even more complex is that the Christchurch cathedral has views about a magnitude higher than the Nelson cathedral. That said, it would seem silly to use "New Zealand" as the dab for the Christchurch cathedral when there's another one in the country, hence I've settled on "Christchurch" for the dab. Schwede 66 08:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Just come here to find out why the article was moved from its official name of ChristChurch Cathedral, as used by the Anglican Church (as seen, for example, on their Facebook page), Heritage New Zealand (as shown here), and the Christchurch City Council (e.g., here). I see now that there was a discussion about it, which was not widely advertised, given that there are only three !votes... Grutness... wha? 13:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Christ Church Cathedral, Christchurch article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 20 May 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from ChristChurch Cathedral to Christ Church Cathedral, Christchurch. The result of the discussion was moved. |
I've had it suggested to me via email that the cathedral's spire was partly influenced by a church in north London, close to several other buildings which G.G. Scott worked on - All Saints Church, Whetstone, Barnet (see picture [1]). is this just idle thinking on my emailer's part, or is it possible? Grutness... wha? 00:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I have a photo of the cathedral and will upload when things are more normal. Schwede 66 02:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I feel in a state of frustration, amounting to despair over the extraordinary failure of the media to report the damage to the ChristChurch Cathedral accurately!
It seems as if today's reporters are totally, completely and absolutely (any superlative you can think of) incapable of looking, seeing, assessing and stating facts! Given that it takes (in Australia and New Zealand) very high pass marks to study journalism at University, how can they be so utterly stupid and unreliable? If anyone out there can answer, please do!
The problem lies in the use of the words "total", "absolute", "complete", "ruined", destroyed", "crushed" etc. Terms like "utterly destroyed" and "totally crushed" are being bandied about without any consideration of what these fairly simple second-grader terms actually mean, and what implications they may carry when a member of the public reads or hears them used inappropriately.
Examples
And of course other news services have followed the lead. SENSATION wins over fact every time, particularly where headlines are concerned.
What worries me is that if this sort of stupidity prevails in the professional reporting of something that is clearly visible, how can we, the public, possibly trust these stupid clowns to accurately inform the world over events that are politically sensitiive, and possibly imflammatory? Are the English language reporters who described recent events in Egypt and Tunisia more or less reliable?
Amandajm ( talk) 04:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Guideline for Talk pages: This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
I am not unsympathetic to the frustrations expressed above by Amandajm. I would suggest that the contributions under the heading "Reporting" fit the description of "general discussion" and I invite Amandajm to delete the whole section including this response. In saying this I am not agreeing or disagreeing with what he or she says. It simply does not seem to be suggesting improvement to the WP article. Spathaky ( talk) 14:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I support the main point being made by Amandajm, in that there is / was a lot of inaccurate and contradictory reporting on the earthquakes and the Cathedral, for whatever reason (and I don't disagree with the reasons given). Given the importance of this to the subject of the article (the Cathedral has a demolition order and ceases to exist if it goes through), then the accuracy of sources is critically important to the accuracy of this article. In this case it should be possible to demonstrate these contradictions, quite how this would normally be done here I don't know, just giving my vote of support for it being probably as real as s/he says, especially as the facts are coming out now. -- Adx ( talk) 09:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Is it a dumb question to ask whether the camel case is correct when this is their official logo?
Is the name of the cathedral properly spelled Christchurch, like the town, or ChristChurch with the interior "C" capitalized? The article distractingly switches back and forth between the two, and as a non-resident I'm hesitant to make a correction — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.189.92.98 ( talk) 03:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
ChristChurch Cathedral, Christchurch. 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on ChristChurch Cathedral, Christchurch. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
ChristChurch Cathedral, Christchurch →
ChristChurch Cathedral – Per
WP:SMALLDETAILS and
WP:PRECISION the base name already redirects here and none of the other churches listed at
Christ Church Cathedral appear to use "ChristChurch Cathedral" (with no space), they all use "Christ Church Cathedral" (with a space). If not "ChristChurch Cathedral" could be retargeted to the DAB page.
Crouch, Swale (
talk)
19:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The article says it has two names: ChristChurch Cathedral and (rarely used) Cathedral Church of Christ. Is there info that could be included about why it has two names and when, how and why it acquired each of those two names, including the origins of the medial capitals in ChristChurch? Nurg ( talk) 21:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Berrygirl1972: Thanks for making article amendment suggestions at the Wikipedia:Help desk. I've amended the article (going into a bit more detail than what you suggested) and have added an external link to the Reinstatement Project website. Much has been made of the 50-page memorandum between the project partners. It seems that only a summary is published via the Reinstatement Project website. Any clue why the full version doesn't appear to be accessible? I mean, if somebody is really interested, surely they'd prefer to read the long version.
But anyway, should you have other suggestions, please post them here so that you don't trigger a WP:COI situation. Schwede 66 01:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much. The full Joint Venture Agreement isn't available publicly because it is commercial in confidence, which is pretty normal. Thanks Schwede66 Berrygirl1972 ( talk) 01:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
No hurry, but next time a Wikimedian is in the Square with a camera, how about an snapping an up-to-date photo, since the big frame was taken down from the front. Thanks. Nurg ( talk) 09:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
ChristChurch Cathedral has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
@ Schwede 66 With reference (reverance?) to the above CamelCase discussion and a change I made on a related article, I made enquiries with the organisation itself and received a reply <quote>Your enquiry regarding the correct name of the Anglican Cathedral has reached my inbox.
The correct name is Christ Church Cathedral. This is used in official documents i.e. Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Act 2017.
The camelCase ChristChurch Cathedral was used for a number of years by Chapter as a marketing name on their logo etc. They are now moving away from this and adding a space to make it two words. </quote> This is from the management of the entire diocese. I rest my case, question welcome. 121.98.30.202 ( talk) 21:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal ( talk) 11:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
ChristChurch Cathedral → Christ Church Cathedral, Christchurch – There are several discussions and a (successful) past move request on this talk page about the correct article title. In the latest discussion, an IP editor has provided an explanation why we had previously used the camel case and that this is now a thing of the past. As is documented in that discussion, I've had a look what The Press (the largest South Island newspaper) is using as the common name and that is what is guiding this move request. And that leaves us with the subject of disambiguation, as it's not the only Christ Church Cathedral in New Zealand. What makes this even more complex is that the Christchurch cathedral has views about a magnitude higher than the Nelson cathedral. That said, it would seem silly to use "New Zealand" as the dab for the Christchurch cathedral when there's another one in the country, hence I've settled on "Christchurch" for the dab. Schwede 66 08:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Just come here to find out why the article was moved from its official name of ChristChurch Cathedral, as used by the Anglican Church (as seen, for example, on their Facebook page), Heritage New Zealand (as shown here), and the Christchurch City Council (e.g., here). I see now that there was a discussion about it, which was not widely advertised, given that there are only three !votes... Grutness... wha? 13:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)