Talk:List of historic places in Christchurch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject New Zealand (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Historic sites (Rated List-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Missing photos[edit]

The tables below outline which photos are missing. The first table shows existing listings that still exist; it's sorted by suburb, as that makes it easier to go and target an area. The second table shows those items that have been demolished after the earthquakes. If you can help with taking photos for the former, or have old photos of the latter, please leave a message here. Schwede66 09:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Existing heritage buildings[edit]

Category # Name Address Suburb
II 3282 Christ's College open air classrooms 33 Rolleston Avenue Christchurch Central City
II 3280 Christ's College School House 33 Rolleston Avenue Christchurch Central City
II 4913 Condells House (Former) 33 Rolleston Avenue, Christs College Christchurch Central City
II 7223 Halswell Quarry Stone House and Garden Kennedys Bush Road Halswell
II 1789 Lansdowne Stables Old Tai Tapu Road Halswell
II 3109 Glenmore House 6 Pear Tree Lane Hillsborough
II 3709 House at 9 Aynsley Terrace 9 Aynsley Terrace Hillsborough
II 1900 Long Cottage 157 Papanui Road Merivale
II 7322 House at 14 Fleming Street 14 Fleming Street North Beach
II 3730 Springbank, Christchurch 290 Riverlaw Terrace Opawa
II 5330 The Tea House, Christchurch 171 Racecourse Road Sockburn
II 3719 House at 52 Longfellow Street 52 Longfellow Street St Martins
II 1882 House at 61 Tennyson Street 61 Tennyson Street Sydenham

Demolished heritage buildings[edit]

Category Name Address Suburb
II Cottage and former shop at 387 Selwyn Street 387 Selwyn Street Addington
II Christ's College Classrooms 1915–21 33 Rolleston Ave Christchurch Central City
II Fleming House, Wesley Lodge Eventide Home 138-148 Park Terrace Christchurch Central City
II McKellar House, Wesley Lodge Eventide Home 138-148 Park Terrace Christchurch Central City
II House at 17 Rossall Street 17 Rossall Street Fendalton
II House (former Daresbury Stables) 7 Daresbury Lane Fendalton
II Cottage at 232 Opawa Road[1] 232 Opawa Road Opawa
II House at 88 Brockworth Place 88 Brockworth Place (#7285, apparently relocated to Ferrymead Park) Riccarton
II House at 82 Springfield Road[2] 82 Springfield Road St Albans
II Elizabeth House, Christchurch[3] 6 Circuit Street Strowan
II Leinster Restaurant Building (Former Dwelling) [Relocated] 158 Leinster Road Strowan

Commonscat tagging[edit]

It's the first time I've seen this many in any WP article and done in such a fashion, and I tend to think that this is a bit excessive. Most of the places already have article links, and there are commonscat tags within the majority of the target articles to obviate the need to link to a sister project in this overarching way. I would suggest that the entire column be removed; I think it would be infinitely preferable to organise the commons categorisation for these images, and create a single commonscat tag for all historic places in Xch . Cheers, --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Yes, the list article uses a lot of Commonscat links. I've developed it from this draft list that I found on the German Wikipedia (another editor drew my attention to it). I can't see anything being wrong with it, other than perhaps the Commons logo being displayed on every line. Maybe we could have a Commons template that doesn't show the logo for this article. Either way, I can't see anything being wrong with this article being structured around Commons categories, and those who know what is happening with heritage buildings in Christchurch will readily understand why. It's very hard to keep up with developments following the earthquakes, with listed buildings being pulled down left right and centre. By my estimate, we will loose a third to half of all the listed buildings, but that's just an educated guess at this point, because nobody knows anything for sure. Now that we have the Commons categories, it's a useful tool of keeping track of what has been pulled down, as one can take a photo of the empty site, or note it is the listing description. I'll plan to add the building status to this list article itself, but it will take much more research, as I have so far focussed on collecting photos of when everything was still standing.
When you say "most of the places already have article links", then you must be looking at something different to what I'm looking at, as the vast majority are redlinks, and many entries are unlinked, as they wouldn't meet notability requirements. Counting the relevant articles in the categories (i.e. only those within the geographic area of Christchurch), I get 31 Category I and 18 Category II heritage listings that have articles, i.e. a sum of 49. We have 313 listed buildings plus 7 listed areas, which adds up to 320 items in the article lists in total. 49 out of 320 could hardly be described as "most of the places", can it?
As far as organising commons categories themselves go, that should of course happen on Commons. We started reorganising heritage listings on WP first, and once that was agreed on and implemented, I moved the discussion to Commons and did the equivalent thing there. Schwede66 02:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Looks like I am not the only editor who did not agree with the large number of Commons category templates. Having a Commons category for the parent category at the bottom of the page and having the the individual categories in the individual articles is a more seemly and elegant way of linking WP and Commons. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
To me the question is - who are we writing this article for? If we are writing this for other Wikipedians, then the suggested approach is probably ok. We Wikipedians know what commons categories are when we find them at the bottom of an article. We would also be clever enough to look for specific images in sub-categories. Would you expect the same level of knowledge from a random visitor to these pages? Probably not. So why would we use an approach with lots of commons categories here when that is otherwise uncommon? Well, clearly because there is a rather special case with heritage buildings in Christchurch; they are currently disappearing at a frightening rate. Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that the commons categories get quite a rate of click through by those who want to see whether there's something else that can be found out about the current state of a building? I would think that this is one of the more important functions that this article can fulfil at the current time.
I've previously suggested that maybe we'll develop a new commons category template that does not incorporate the logo (maybe a simplified version of the Commons category-inline template), so that the functionality is maintained without the logo being such a dominant feature, but I haven't gone ahead with this as I didn't receive any feedback. I'd really value if you could offer some thoughts on this, Alan. Schwede66 10:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Mystery building[edit]

The owner of this photo suggested that the building was in Charleston, South Carolina in the U.S. based on the last name, Haddrell, which is well-known in Charleston. That is wrong for sure, but a little sleuthing has led me to think it might have been in Christchurch. I can't find any contact for any local preservation groups to check with, so I thought I would share it here in hopes that someone associated with maintaining this page might recognize it.

Armstrongs Building in the 1920s, with the Market Hotel to the far left
Victoria Square, 1910 - the Market Hotel is beyond the Queen Victoria Statue
@ProfReader: Correct. It was located in Colombo Street opposite what is now know as Victoria Square but Market Place in the early years of colonial settlement. The Market Hotel was immediately north of Armstrongs Building and can be seen in the photo to the right. Henry Haddrell was the proprietor for many years; he died in 1898. Have looked up the building's fate in the 2014 Victoria Square book and the Market Hotel, and the adjacent Federal Hotel, were demolished in 1972 to make room for a hotel built especially for the 1974 British Commonwealth Games. Schwede66 19:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@Schwede66: Thanks!ProfReader (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of historic places in 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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)