Talk:Albert Park tunnels

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


PLEASE NOTE: to all wiki-bots. I am in the process of finishing off this page and it is not being made any easier by people continually modifying the page and so preventing me from updating my edits. There are things in this article that do not apply directly to the tunnels, but that is intentional. My study of the tunnels has been a comparative one. Without providing the comparison, the importance cannot be governed. In time I intend to relieve the pressure of these comparisons with extra wiki articles, but for the time being I am forced to lean very heavily on them. (the Opera Ghost (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC))

Please read WP:OWN. The page is not "yours". The page does contain irrelevant material and far too many unreferenced statements. Unless your "study" has been previously published elsewhere, it constitutes Original research and is not permitted on Wikipedia. I have not edited the page and will give you a few days before revisiting the page to review it. dramatic (talk) 02:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Fully agree. Please ensure you are familiar with editing policies (especially WP:NOT#OR) so you can make constructive and appropriate additions to this important article. Also note the message below each edit window - "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly..., do not submit it." Goldfinger820 (talk) 04:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I did not say that the page was "mine" but merely stated that I was the one writing the page as I am the only person currently qualified to talk about the tunnels. The only other people who can talk about the tunnels are Paul Bourke, Peter Crossley (BSc), Simon Best (PhD), Rod Clough (PhD), Harry Allen (PhD) or Marianne Turner (PhD). There is quite a bit of original research included in this article, but they have been taken directly from the publications listed at the bottom of the page. I have pondered the issue of the "irrelevant material" although I fail to see how Goldfinger820 or Dramatic are qualified to say what is relevant and what isn't, but nevertheless, I shall move a lot of the material to a linked page. I have been advised that the page has not been written in an encyclopedic fashion, and I was instructed to follow the guidelines. I have re-read the guidelines and feel that I am following them strictly and as a result find that statement perplexing. (the Opera Ghost (talk) 09:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC))

Please also note: whoever it is who continually edits this page, they remove many of the links and references and then tag the page as un-linked and un-referenced. Please stop. You are vandalising this page. I have read widely on the topic and have included journal articles relating the the tunnels. If you can show that you have done better, then I would say you are qualified to announce what is relevant. This article has been written in close conjunction with the world-expert on these tunnels. (the Opera Ghost (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC))

  • Your phrase "whoever it is" may be symptomatic of your desire to publish an essay rather than help build an encyclopedia. You do not say "whoever it is", you click on the history and find out who it is! — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


I agree with the editors who have noted that this article is written as a personal essay. This is a viable topic for an article, but at present it is structured as an assessment of the site's heritage value, which both violates WP:OR and is an unsatisfactory focus for an encyclopedia. I would suggest that it be re-written so that it's a history of the tunnels. This re-write should exclude the text about the construction of the tunnels being driven by "paranoia" and "‘terror’" as this seems unjustified given that there was a reasonable chance that Auckland could have come under air attack during the War and building air raid shelters was a sensible precaution. Comparable shelters were built in Sydney and Melbourne and many other towns and cities in south-eastern Australia. Nick Dowling (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I used the words "terror" and "paranoia" for what I considered good reason. "Terror" because they same social changes were occuring in New Zealand during the war as were occuring in France following their civil war. "Paranoia" because this is not the first time that extensive fortifications were constructed in Auckland for a threat that was not likely to present itself and which had no intention to present itself. The one before this was the paranoia that Auckland was going to be invaded by the Russians following the development of a Pacific fleet in 1899. If you disagree, you are more than welcome to rewrite the article. It isn't my article, its just that the data currently available was written using the style of language that I use. (the Opera Ghost (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC))
To equate the Terror of revolutionary France and its social changes with life in 1940s Auckland and apprehension in the face of Japanese attack is beyond ridiculous. In terms of paranoia, you are completely wrong to liken WW2 to the Russian scare. The Japanese captured the "impregnable" fortress of Singapore in an early shock of the war that had a profound effect on us, it being the largest surrender of British-led military personnel in history. The Japanese got a lot closer to NZ than anyone else has (they bombed Darwin, attacked Sydney Harbour and reconnoitered NZ harbours) except for German raiders! They sank NZ shipping. See Axis naval activity in New Zealand waters. And we had previous experience of this in WW1. On that occasion we captured one crew who were imprisoned on Motuihe Island (note correct spelling).In the light of this, the construction of air raid shelters is a sensible precaution. Mhicaoidh (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
As noted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert park tunnels heritage values, much of this article's text (including the stuff about 'paranoia' and 'terror') appears to have been lifted from a journal article, which is available at [1]. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


The tunnels are notable enough to qualify for a Wikipedia entry. If they have any official "heritage" status such as the NZ equivalent of listed building or NRHP, then give details. But beyond that, say no more. You do not need to try to convince us of the importance of the tunnels.

They were built during the Second World War, that makes them an heritage site - that is implicit. It would be possible to write an excellent article on these tunnels without using the word "heritage" at all.

And if you are actually writing a proposal that the tunnels should be given a new, formal "heritage" designation, then you definitely should not be writing here: wikipedia is not a forum. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Ah, to contradict you for a moment, I would just like to point out that under New Zealand legislation (if you had bothered to look) the tunnels cannot be considered as "heritage" as they were built post-1900. This is why the only scholarly material to be written on the tunnels focusses on why the tunnels should be given a special kind of protection otherwise not available to them. Thank you for once again pointing out that Wikipedia is not a forum, but what I have done (as I will repeat again) is take the only research already done (as original research is cast aside by the administrators of Wikipedia) and available to the public and provide information to the public about the tunnel systems. I am sure that once/if other material is created and made available on the topic, then the article will suffer less of a heritage focus, but until then the world expert has only explored the tunnels in one dimension and any other experts in the field have taken a step back and only looked at the ways that the tunnels could be managed, and even this is a half paragraph in their reports. (the Opera Ghost (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC))
Opera/Angel, I suggest you bother to familiarise yourself with the legislation a little more thoroughly. In terms of national heritage status an application can be made to have any building or structure considered for listing at any time. See [2]. It used to be that a period of 30 years needed to elapse before consideration as a historic place, but that is no longer the case. The date 1900 you refer to probably refers to the fact that any pre 1900 site is automatically considered to be an archaeological site. In terms of local heritage status, I dont see why your essay references Council heritage assessments but fails to mention in the text the conclusion and current status? However as others have pointed out, these are side issues. Notability in terms of Wikipedia is another matter entirely, and these tunnels are certainly notable and deserving of an article, which incidentally needs to be formatted in the WP manner and may be edited by anyone. And please stop these references to "world expert" etc its getting embarrassing. Mhicaoidh (talk) 09:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Albert Park tunnels. 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.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)