Jump to content

Talk:Birkenhead Public Library

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleBirkenhead Public Library was one of the Art and architecture good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 12, 2008Good article nomineeListed
March 22, 2012Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Rodents of Unusual Size

[edit]

Rodents of Unusual Size or Really Useful Sources not yet seen would include the following. Photos too would be interesting, the earlier the better. Please add to the list. OohAh (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1950-1989, 2000-2007, etc Birkenhead Library/ North Shore Libraries Annual Reports (ie other than 1990s).
  • 2004- Info detailing Birkenhead webpage development.
  • 2005. Library plan documents for version developed from 2004-. Actual building plan put out to public inspection. documents detailing timespan of that, public access, etc.
  • 2005. The June report declining Resource Consent. Also, details of events on how it came to that. There were, for eg, concerns raised at "the last two hearings." Which were when, and documented? (source quote: Reed, Kim. "Fears that council breaking own rules," North Shore Times, Jun 30, 2005, p1-2.)
  • 2005- Documents on Leisure Centre library. Eg fitout, & additions, such as banners, and what happened to other 40%-50% stock that could not be accommodated, etc.
  • 2006. Report by Peter Waterhouse, Value Solutions examining library project management. (Mentioned in: White, Jean. "Report criticises library process," North Shore Times, Mar 16, 2006, p. 3)
  • 2006 Waterhouse report is possibly the same "library report" which was "too long to photocopy and too big too email." (Willis, Liz. "Library project concerns raised," North Shore Times, May 4, 2006.)
  • 2007. Relocation report. detailing impact of relocation to Leisure Centre. (Mentioned in: Reed, Kim. "Library hit by more delays," North Shore Times, Mar 27, 2007, p.2)
  • 2007. June-ish. Environment Court documents: for, against, verdict. Including the letters with alternative solutions sent to the court (mentioned in: Reed, Kim. "Library decision waits on judge," North Shore Times, Jul 5, 2007, p5.)

Intro

[edit]

Currently working on the history section. Pbkh 20:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)< Finished history section. Completed bibliog. Tried to move footnotes to end of paragraphs cos they were giving me a headache. Pbkh 02:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done with minor edits on history section, more or less. Always one last footnote to check.. Pbkh 03:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article and image

[edit]

An impressive article, if on a rather specialised subject for it to be so long (but we want things like that here!). BTW: I have changed the link to the image back to the Commons version. Such images SHOULD be on Commons, and Commons IS a part of the larger Wikimedia project, just like Wikipedia. Cheers. Ingolfson 11:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - do you have a larger version of the image? If so, please upload it to Commons, uploading it OVER the small image. You do NOT have to use small images on Wikipedia - the thumbnail function shrinks it to an appropriate size. Thanks. Ingolfson 11:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thanks. Don't have larger image anymore; but will take another. And you're right about the article: it is rather long. It perhaps suffers from, what is the word, recentism. For what it's worth, I intend to separate the controversy over the new building into a separate section, and compress it; and write a much shorter history for the Modern Library sub-section. Pbkh 02:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote reduction

[edit]

By which I mean, I'm thinking about how the information therein can be better incorporated into the article proper. OohAh (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Done. Yeah, um, I didn't actually mean reductioninthenumber of footnotes.. so, done! OohAh (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration

[edit]

I've restored the lost content; it is not good practice to remove messages from talk pages; see WP:TALK. btw, love your ROUSs! Kauri Gumdigger (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, yeah i know, i know - i did have a logic though: 99% that old (pbkh) stuff was mine, personal involutions, so i knew that was excess baggage. Really want the Sources to be first thing people I see. Okay, and i didn't want to have to keep looking at what I had said I would do. OohAh (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't want to nag, just wondered where the text went. Didn't realise at first you and pbkh were the same. Btw, I find this page fascinating: what a specialist interest! Kauri Gumdigger (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Just letting you know i've shifted the 'sources' up to the top, so that they can be seen straight off. More useful that way. OohAh (talk) 06:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Footnoting style

[edit]

I've changed the few Refname tags back to Ref ones, for a number of reasons:

  • To maintain consistency of style.
  • Refname is spatially confusing when reading.
  • Refname is unhelpful and laborious when editing.
  • Refname is unwise when articles may split off.
  • Ref may lead to long lists; but so what, its hyperpaper.

OohAh (talk) 04:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you thought of GA?

[edit]

I have this page on my watchlist, since I find it very interesting. Have you ever thought of nominating it for Good Article Status? From what I have seen, it would pass the criteria. It would raise the profile of the page, and provide some recognition for your hard work! Just a thought... Kauri Gumdigger (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hiya - sorry for not replying sooner, been away. At this stage, I'm not too bothered by the lowness of the profile of this article. It's there, people interested will find it. Though maybe GAS is a good idea - when i get all the referencing errors out. if! OohAh (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference consolidation

[edit]

Some issues encountered consolidating the references:

  • North Shore Times/Advertiser, May 27, 1959, p. 3. - two references appear to be the same, one called "Times", one "Advertiser", combined
  • Annual report from Jun 13 1951 p 5, two references labeled "Birkenhead Public Library", two "Birkenead Library" => all to "Birkenhead Library" to go with majority of other references.
  • Quote from Jun 13 1951 p 5 could probably be consolidated to above, left alone
  • Unsure if following is same ref, same for p 8, both left alone:
    • Graham Rata (1992) Birkenhead Library: A history Birkenhead: North Shore Libraries p 5
    • Graham Rata Birkenhead library: a history Birkenhead: Birkenhead Council p 5
  • Assumed to be the same:
    • Grant Kirsten Library construction in the doldrums The Aucklander Aug 23 2006 p 5
    • Grant Kirsten Library reconstruction in the doldrums The Aucklander Aug 23 2006 p 5
  • Three references from North Shore Times Advertiser, May 28, 2002, p. 28. The 2nd appears to be in error, either the title or the date is wrong (same title appears Jun 10 2003 p1). All left alone
    • Le Bas Natalie Manager supports new library for Birkenhead North Shore Times Advertiser Mar 28 2002 p 28;
    • Library list of woes make sad reading North Shore Times Advertiser May 28 2002 p 28
    • Manager supports new library for Birkenhead North Shore Times Advertiser Mar 28 2002 p 28

XLerate (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Okay, these were all deliberate mistakes, well spotted. :) Sorry for not replying sooner, ive been on holiday and didnt have access to computers. I will recheck those things and add fuller reply then. Thanks a lot for the consolidation, very impressive. OohAh (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hmmm.. i've just noticed what "consolidation" means in practice - you've used refname tags. Please see my comment on footnoting style above which i made a few months ago. To reiterate, I appreciate why you've done what you did, but i find refname tags utterly confusing. This may make me a little stoopid, but i think it not unreasonable that this article be allowed to continue with the style variant which I have established. I think you'll find that it still meets wikipedia's standards. So, im going to have to undo your edit, and i'm sorry about this as you've done a lot of work; however i will make sure and go through and check the specific points you listed. OohAh (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done, corrected inconsistencies. thanks again. OohAh (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the positive feedback, glad the effort wasn't entirely in vain! I understand about the undo - I only spotted the note here about not using ref name tags when finishing up. XLerate (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting off sections

[edit]

Splitters! Yes, I have split off the building controversy section. Maybe need to do others too, tho those "autogen" refnote mangles put me off a bit.OohAh (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, it was worth a try. Apparently its preferrable that the long section on the building controversy not be splitoff into a separate article. So i have restored it. OohAh (talk) 06:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the split off article remained. So I deleted it and redirected it here. DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Birkenhead Public Library. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • 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) 03:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Birkenhead Public Library. 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).

  • 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) 22:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Birkenhead_Public_Library&oldid=1206308449"