Talk:Te Rewa Rewa Bridge

A fact from Te Rewa Rewa Bridge appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 September 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Te Rewa Rewa Bridge (pictured) in New Plymouth, New Zealand, is located on the site of one of the Musket Wars battles?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/September.

Wikipedia

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This 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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bridges and Tunnels Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels 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.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

DYK

I've nominated this article for DYK. Schwede 66 20:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Alpha Kenny Body'

The bridge is part of the northern extension to the coastal walkway, connecting New Plymouth with Bell Block. It's blue and white and it is build by a person called Alpha Kenny Body.

Actually, this 'Alpha Kenny Body' person reads "I'll f*ck anybody".

(Just in case you hadn't noticed.)

Wouldn't be surprised if this "person" shows up elsewhere too.

--Piant1963 (talk) 09:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Hi there Ardlussa and Pakaraki, there's no point going back and forth, reverting each other's edits. I wrote the words that Ardlussa is not happy with, and Pakaraki is restoring this, as it's what it says in the quoted reference. If that is apparently not quite correct, would you mind providing a source that supports your assertion, Ardlussa? I see that you are new to Wikipedia (and I welcome you to the WP family!) and if you don't know how to format your source, just provide it here on the talk page and we'll work it into the article. Schwede 66 20:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Schwede66 and Pakaraki, I am Peter Mulqueen designer of Te Rewa Rewa Bridge. I edited the article as you are incorrectly quoting me from the e.nz magazine. The original touch lightly quote was from New Plymouth District Council. The source article states that I understood this.

"Designer, Peter Mulqueen MIPENZ, of Novare, says he wanted the design to honour the site, without usurping the meanings it holds for local iwi. He understood the bridge should “touch lightly” on the Rewa Rewa side out of respect for the deceased and this, along with other design considerations, ruled out visually heavier, cable stay and angular truss structures, as they would tell a different story. “I wanted this to be a New Zealand and a Taranaki bridge with a harmonious and dignified character”, Mr Mulqueen says."

Also the consortium was not led by Whitaker Civil as it also states in the e.nz magazine "New Plymouth District Council (NPDC)was the client; Whitaker Civil Engineering(WCE), Novare Design Ltd and Apex Consultants Ltd (now CPG Consultants)won the bid in February 2008."

Regards (Ardlussa (talk) 04:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

It's great to have you commenting here.

I've edited the section about the design to say this: 'is quoted as saying he understood that the bridge should "touch lightly" on the Rewa Rewa side of the river, in order to honour the deceased.' Is this nearer to what it says in the source?

Regarding the exact phrasing of what is said about the consortium; the NPDC website does indeed state that Whitaker Civil Engineering "led" the consortium. Does anyone object to the idea of "leadership" being removed, assuming the e.nz magazine doesn't say that? (One is an offline source and one is a source closely related to the subject of the article.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, welcome to Wikipedia, Peter. Thank you for your input.

Regarding the consortium, given that NPDC is the client, and NPDC's website states that Whitaker Civil led the consortium, it seemed rather compelling that this was the situation. Also, the Daily News states Whitaker was lead contractor. Certainly, it would be quite a departure from available evidence for Wikipedia to reorder the consortium members and put another party in front. --Pakaraki (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see that there's a bit of discussion about a new bridge. If things aren't quite right, Peter, then it would be best if you stated some sources (or one source) that give the correct situation. As I said above, if you don't know how to format sources, just put them here on the talk page and somebody will look after it. Unfortunately, being the person who's being quoted and saying that it's not right is, by itself, not good enough. Seems crazy, but that's how WP works. I once asked somebody about their nationality, as there were different countries shown in the English and Dutch WPs, and the subject's answer wasn't accepted as a source, but dismissed as original research. Having strict rules that sometimes sound draconian must work, given that WP somehow managed to become what it is these days, even if it doesn't appear to make much sense (as perhaps is the case here). But let's not forget, what's been built is a fabulous bridge, and that's the most important thing. Well done, Peter, for your involvement. Schwede 66 00:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not having access to the e.nz magazine, I don't think there is a problem with accepting what Peter says the source says, the source does indeed say. On the subject of the consortium composition and leadership, as suggested above, I have left the order of contractors as it is (with Whitaker first), but removed the concept of "led by" which in my view doesn't really add much other than (apparently) being a point of contention. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]