User talk:Schwede66/Archive 4

NZ:FAQ listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect NZ:FAQ. Since you had some involvement with the NZ:FAQ redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NZ

Hi there. Thanks for the thanks. Equally Nvvchar and Rosiestep are responsible for the improvements. I am British and would "favour" British English but I've been so accustomed to writing in American english on here that I tend to naturally remove us from lots of the worlds like harbour and neighbour.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fix

Re:[1] – thanks so much! I make trivial mistakes far too often. :-) Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Großbottwar DYK review

Hi Schwede, thank you for your thorough review of Großbottwar, I apologise if I seemed annoyed in my response a couple of days ago. I was pushed for time and hassled when I responded and probably came across rather short!

I think I've now fixed the issues you've raised, and have responded at the nomination, [2]. Let me know if you think there's anything else that needs to be looked into before this can go through, and I'll do what I can.

No, I don't know German. I am studying it at the moment, but began fairly recently. I rely on Leo, Google Translate, my course books, and my Oxford German-English dictionary. My attempts at “translation” are rough and time-consuming, but I try to get it right. Anyway, sorry to disappoint, and sorry for you to have discovered my ignorance, ^^ Thank you for the kind offer of help, but I don’t like pestering people—maybe occasionally I’ll ping you, when I’m really stuck! Thanks, :) Maedin\^talk 12:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble. DYK review is complete now. Please don't hesitate to ask for help if it's useful. Schwede 66 14:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NZ by-elections

I'm happy to collaborate on these pages - I feel it will be a major work. The main list page (currently in my Sandbox) is probably the best starting point - once we have that fleshed out we can turn our attentions to the mass of redlinks. Fanx (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits (I think we had an edit conflict at one point). Today I have finished listing all by-elections in the pre-party era (redlink by-election, electorate name & by-election date) and I'm starting to fill out the [Incumbent] | [by-election reason] | [Winner] fields. I'm in no hurry to start on the Liberal party era (existing data was just a template/placeholder), but we need to ensure it is consistent with what we have so far (assuming what we have so far is the final shape). I intend to break the 1st column into two separate columns - [by-election, year] | [electorate name]. Since the pre-party era table is formatted differently, and it is getting rather large (35 KB with over 450 cells yet to be completed, plus refs) I wondered if we shouldn't split it into two pages - New Zealand by-elections, 1854–1890 and New Zealand by-elections, 1891–present. In any case, even temporarily moving one part to another sub-page will allow us to edit with less chance of conflicts. FanN | talk 10:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:New Zealand general election, 1871 FL

Hey, sorry it took so long to reply – I've been in the Bay of Islands for a while. First of all, I do not think that the election is a list, but an article, and thus should be nominated at WP:GAN. It is complex though, as besides the background, it is more of a list. I would suggest looking for some aftermath info, adding that and then sending it to WP:GAN. By the way, it also needs some attention in terms of MOS:LEAD, and names and dates should be sorted using {{sortname}} and {{dts}}, respectively. If you need and hand with anything I'm more than happy to help. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All right then. I'll look into it. Thanks for your valuable tips. Schwede 66 08:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Parnell Tunnel

Hello! Your submission of Parnell Tunnel at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 20:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Schwede66. You have new messages at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Vought_XSO2U.
Message added 02:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Schwede66. You have new messages at Mattlore's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK reviews

Hi there, it's been noted on the DYK page, but QPQ reviews aren't required when nominating an article that isn't a self-nom. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Hello, Schwede66. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It'll come handy for that article. Schwede 66 08:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Simpson

Well I created that article off my own back, there was no previous. She has existed previously as an article with text copied from a fansite, she has had two seperate articles with no info, then when it did it was badly written and both times ended up being merged/redirected, but a admin merged the two together and moved it to Bobby Simpson. So technically I did expand the article from nothing.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 18:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason there is a page history is because I merged it after Rain created the article, effectively from nothing. The article was at a different location before, had no references, it was just unencyclopaedic, overly-detailed plot. I think this should be an exception for these reasons. It's not Rain's fault that I performed a history merge. Also, leaving Rain a comment in an archived talk page is a bit unfair. –anemone projectors– 19:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I suggest this should be discussed on the DYK nomination page. I was looking through the archives to see whether Raintheone had a number of DYK credits already; it was unintentional to post my message there. Apologies for that - my mistake. Schwede 66 19:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted my reply on the DYK page and expanded on it a bit. I guess no harm was done with the comment on the archive, and we all make mistakes sometimes. –anemone projectors– 19:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Schwede, I've expanded Bobby again, so that's twice. Does it meet the requirement now? :)RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 12:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of New Leinster Province for deletion

The article New Leinster Province is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Leinster Province until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

York Lions women's ice hockey

Hi there. Thank you very much for your assistance. I have followed your direction and used the template. In addition, I reviewed another article. If there are any issues, please do not hesitate to contact me.Maple Leaf (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MXR Dyna Comp

Hey Schwede, I responded at DYK. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Botany by-election, 2011

Hi Schwede, some of the parties in this election have unusual names, my computer wasn't hijacked. :) F (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you had me stumped by replacing the Greens with the Pirate Party in the election box. Sorry, mate. Had just reported you at WP:ANI, too, but reverted that. Schwede 66 02:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK template

Regarding this message you left at another user's talk page, I just wanted to clarify, the template is not required for DYK nominations. Most people do use it and it keeps things organized, but there's no requirement that it be used, and reviewers can't reject an otherwise eligible nomination because it doesn't use the template. Of course, if a user is unfamiliar with the DYK standards anyway (as this one appears to be), it's recommended that they use the template, as it helps them make sure they get everything in, but it's not required; in the future you can maybe say something more like "by the way, there is a template to make it easier for you to post nominations". rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. You may have misunderstood my intentions, as I certainly did not reject that nomination; in fact I encouraged Maple Leaf to renominate it, as that seemed much easier than trying to fix all the things that weren't right with the original nomination (it even used the image of another article with it). There were four or so days left at that point, and if the user hadn't got round to it, I would have renominated it myself (that was my plan, at least; I now see that it was too short to meet DYK requirements). Schwede 66 17:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I was not clear in my message to you. I didn't mean to say that I thought you were trying to reject the nomination. I just meant to clarify that there's no requirement about using the template, and to urge you to be careful not to accidentally give nominators that impression. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biography infobox

I presume you never found a solution for this [3] :-( Mattlore (talk) 04:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered on your talk page to keep things together. Schwede 66 04:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Schwede66. You have new messages at Mattlore's talk page.
Message added 04:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Multipl DYKs

I was not fully aware of this procedure for multiple DYKs. Thank you very much for telling me the correct procedure. I will follow it it for my future articles. Thanks for rescuing my credit for the two articles.--Nvvchar. 18:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Approval is not micro dependant on wording .... have a go Victuallers (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Schwede66. You have new messages at Adabow's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK nomination of Chairman of Committees

Hello! Your submission of Chairman of Committees at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 9:51am • 22:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Frederick Merriman meets new page criteria, however, Chairman of Committees does not meet 5x expansion criteria as the expansion was over 2 days. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 9:51am • 22:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for uploading your photos after the quake. I'm sure you must have plenty of other things to do. I hope you and your family are okay. --Avenue (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these are interesting times. Whilst our house is fine, it's a bit like a war zone, given that we live in the central city. Yesterday's dominant background noise was from demolition work. The house next to us will be pulled down next, neighbours on the other side are camping in their garden.

I have a few central city scenes on the storage card of my PDA that I can get to once email works again. Schwede 66 18:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christchurch heritage buildings

Thanks for that, I was wondering what had happened to some of the buildings I have visited in the past, and figured others would be too so that got me started. I'll make a start on Victoria Clock Tower. I have looked through your recent post-earthquake uploads, an amazing photographic record. I can't begin to imagine what it's like to live there at the moment. Stay safe.--Melburnian (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what the state of the clock tower is. I try and go to have a look tomorrow, as I live within the cordon. Schwede 66 04:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't go anywhere hazardous to find out! Melburnian (talk) 05:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For your info, we got reasonably close to the clock tower the other day and upon inspection of the photos, the base of the tower appears to have moved at about head height. So it's sitting there quite happily, but displaced by a few centimetres. We'll see what happens. Schwede 66 17:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Canterbury Provincial Council Buildings

Hello! Your submission of Canterbury Provincial Council Buildings at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Styx Creek

Hi, I just went to Styx Creek planning to PROD it for being non-notable and only existing because to the three Styx Rivers in New Zealand, but I see that it has some interesting history and might be worth keeping. Do you have a source for that information? dramatic (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, there was an article Styx River (New Zealand) that listed all four of them, and my involvement was to split them into separate articles. The info was already in that article when I first touched it. So no, I don't have a source for that info. But if you go through the revision history of that article, you should be able to find who added that detail. I hope this helps. Schwede 66 07:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, it was an anon :-( dramatic (talk) 02:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Lyttelton Timeball Station

Hello! Your submission of Lyttelton Timeball Station at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dravecky (talk) 08:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Rolleston Statue

Hello! Your submission of Rolleston Statue at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Thelmadatter (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict

Schwede, in no way did I mean to remove your comments. The edit conflict page still confuses me, and I'm never sure what I'm supposed to do. Very sorry for stepping on your comment. I'll take a closer look next time. The Interior (Talk) 01:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alt hook

Thanks again for the review of the slow loris hook. I've made a slight alteration to the lead as an alt hook. Do you mind taking one more look? Sorry for the extra hassle. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

La Famia

Since you are 'on the ground', could you take a look at Radio La Famia and Gary's Breakfast Show? Both have been primarily edited by two SPAs, and when googling La Famia I came across a huge amount of self-promotional material. The only RS coverage I found was this really disparaging piece in the Press business section [4], but that doesn't mention the radio station. Both my PRODs were removed. dramatic (talk) 02:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I don't really listed to the radio, so I wouldn't consider myself being 'on the ground' in this case. I've dealt with Gary's Breakfast Show and tagged it as an advert. I'll give them a week and if it doesn't improve, I'll put it up for AfD. Can you deal with Radio La Famia? I don't want to have to read up on notability for radio stations. Schwede 66 17:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment of Tennis NZ

Hello Schwede66, I observed that you reassessed Tennis NZ as low importance article for WP NZ and gave a reason that as it has low importance for WP Tennis than why it should get mid importance for WP NZ, but I don't think its a valid reason as most of the tennis governing bodies' articles are made/standardized by me and as I'm the member of WP Tennis, so I assess them with low importance. But as this article is about the national body of NZ, so it must get at least mid importance (like New Zealand Rugby Union, which is also a national body and rated as high importance). I'm not judging you decision but as you're the member of WP NZ, so you shouldn't assess articles (under the scope of your project) on the basis of others. Thanks Bill william compton^Talk 03:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in responding. Ok, I was guided in my reassessment by the WP tennis importance rating, but there's also another reason for this. A rule of thumb is to have 60% of all articles as low priority, as per this advice. Yes, it's the governing body, but tennis as a sport isn't that important in this country. So would this article sit in the top 40% NZ articles in terms of importance (in which case, it would have at least mid importance) or in the bottom 60%? In my opinion, it sits in the bottom 60%. That said, I won't die in the ditch if you (or anybody else, for that matter) disagreed with me, and I also don't mind if anybody reverts this importance assessment. Schwede 66 05:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was in impression that tennis is one of the most popular sports in NZ (as according to this article), and being such a big body of tennis in whole NZ, it should get mid-importance. Well i won't revert this edit as this is my habit that i never touch other WP's assessments, thanks for giving your time. Bill william compton^Talk 14:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, given the high participation rates that come from SPARC, you are right that it deserves mid importance. Thanks for being persistent! I've changed it again. Schwede 66 18:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DNZB 1940

Re George Armstrong (New Zealand politician) I object to you apparently removing my reference to the (2-volume) 1940 A Dictionary of New Zealand Biography ed. by Guy Scholefield, claiming “no such bio exists” – any decent library (eg Wellington) will have a copy! Keith Sinclair cited it to Muldoon when urging the project which became the 1990s multivolume version, saying there were some errors in the 1940 version as he had written most of it himself (ref Sinclair’s autobiography“Halfway round the Harbour”). It was published for the centennial by the Dept of Internal Affairs. See refs to the 1940 DNZB in Scholefield’s own biographical entry: Scholefield bio WPL listing Hugo999 (talk) 09:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I use "quake brain" as an excuse for my slip up. Schwede 66 00:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English Gothic architecture

Would you please redo your edits. You buried a number of vandalistic edits. Good practice to check the history first, regardless of how tiresome it is to always have to be on guard against stupid people.... Amandajm (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK King Cross

Hi! I've noted your message on my talk page today and responded to the info at the DYK entry. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help at DYK

I've done the stuff you requested. Pitke (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christchurch Buildings

Kennst du die Arbeitsliste unter de:Benutzer:Matthiasb/Historic Places in Christchurch? --91.17.147.10 (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hochinteressant. Danke. Schwede 66 17:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake category

Not bad... 31 articles in half an hour :) Grutness...wha? 06:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

...for tidying up my talk page :) Looks like an anon was unhappy that I'd blocked them for vandalism... Grutness...wha? 23:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for IceMole

Hi Schwede, This is with respect to IceMole DYK which you had brought back from prep to main page. I have addressed two sets of concerns of User:Gerda Arendt which she has acknowledged. Now she has stated on the DYK that she does not feel confident about the English language and would prefer someone else to vet and pass it. May I request you to do the needful? AshLin (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll try to have a look at it tonight (i.e. in half a day's time). Have got to get my own DYK ready right now. Having said that, English is not my first language either, but I shall have a look. Schwede 66 18:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A gentle reminder. AshLin (talk) 07:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phew, that was hard work, but it's done now. Schwede 66 20:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate the effort! :) AshLin (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IceMole really reads better now! Thanks. AshLin (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar on the DYK talk page. Much appreciated. Schwede 66 18:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Arthur Dudley Dobson

Hello! Your submission of Arthur Dudley Dobson at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Der yck C. 22:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say, congratulations that it made the front page :) Der yck C. 20:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it's not too hard to achieve that. It's DYK #89 for me. Schwede 66 21:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julien Hoffman and Julien Hoffmann

No worries, Schwede! It's all fine now. One more thing... I love New Zealand, having visited it in 2002. If you'd like to collaborate on any NZ articles, particularly those that are dyk nom-worthy, just let me know. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have this little project of writing articles on Christchurch heritage buildings. Much fell over in the recent earthquake and I thought wouldn't it be good to take photos whilst things are still standing? So I've been collecting and shooting photos ever since, and have written quite a few articles already. Are you keen to collaborate on buildings? We could start with the three noteworthy buildings and one monument in Cathedral Square that haven't got an article yet. Schwede 66 19:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Post Office, Christchurch

Absolutely. How about if I start the article Chief Post Office (Christchurch)? I found some info on it, so it seems easy enough. I notice there's a redlink for Chief Post Office, Christchurch but that doesn't seem to match up with the naming convention of other post offices in Category:Post office buildings, i.e. Central Post Office Building (Jerusalem), General Post Office (Dublin), Old City Hall (Omaha). Your thoughts? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And we can always re-name it later if there's a particular NZ building naming convention that supports calling it something else. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You will find that most of the redlinks were put in by me, and they are based on the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand). The chief post office will be a very easy one, as it sits so prominently in the Square and is a beautiful building. Lots of good photos of it, too. The NZHPT entry should be quite detailed. Go for it! I'll join in tomorrow.

My preference is to aim for C class (or better) if that's straightforward enough. Schwede 66 19:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

C class should be easy enough for this one. I think there's a good start for today; more tomorrow. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Fudai, Iwate

Hello Schwede66, thank you for your comments on my DYK nomination. I have addressed both concerns and believe that the article is now much improved. If you have a moment, please re-evaluate the nom with these updates. Thanks! Cmprince (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New New Zealand images?

Wikipedia:New articles (New Zealand) obviously specifies new "articles" but couldn't new images be added to it as well? Or should a dedicated page be created? I uploaded an image of the new New Zealand Defence Service Medal to Commons today, but am not sure how to alert kiwi users that it is available if someone wants to use it. (Incidentally, I have asked for the file name to be amended to the actual name of the medal, the New Zealand Defence Service Medal. I left the word "Service" off which might cause confusion in the future). Moriori (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting thought. I'm not sure how this could be made to work, though. Firstly, the WP:NNZ system is broken, as the bot that compiles the new articles died a wee while ago. It never picked up articles first created in userspace, which is why at some point I started adding my articles manually. Apart from me, I think there's one other editor who bothers to do this manually, but all other new articles now go undetected.

The Article Alert bot, on the other hand, is working again. Maybe we could talk them into incorporating the functionality of the new article bot into their one. But coming back to the photos, I'm not sure how that would help, as photos are generally uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. I for one uploads tons of stuff (I spend more time on Commons than on Wikipedia at the moment). I wouldn't be interested in an additional manual step of adding this to some new content page. But if it could be automated somehow, that would be great. Is there an equivalent to the Article Alert bot? Schwede 66 00:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cranmer Centre

Hi Schwede, I've started this one and it'll be nice to work with you on it. I'll be back to it tomorrow. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's ready for dyk nom, but it would benefit from an infobox, and some talkpage wikiprojects. No worries if you're working on other things. Is there a citation for the demolition? --Rosiestep (talk) 05:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. The old girls had a meeting a few weeks back to say goodbye to the building. I'll dig it out (I've kept the papers if it's not online. And I can take a photo of the empty site, which can be the cite. I can look after DYK. Thx heaps. Schwede 66 06:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nom has been done. Schwede 66 20:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for handling the nom. The article looks great; the photos of course make it 'pop'. So sad, though, that it's been demolished. It's really great working with you, Schwede. Let's do another -- you pick. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should do something that's less demoralising. The Citizens' War Memorial seems to be standing strong and it's hugely photogenic, and I've managed to collect a few nice shots, so I'd suggest that one. After that, I have to slow down somewhat. We are going overseas and I should help with organising the itinerary... Schwede 66 21:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the updated hook for the DYK. Looks much better. The article is a sickener to read though; you don't want to belittle the loss of life, but when we lose iconic and important buildings, it feels like losing identity. An important article. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts and kind words, FruitMonkey. The bad news is that there will be many more of those sad articles to come. The talk is that of the 3,000 buildings in the central city, about 900 will have to come down. In some blocks, every single building is down or will have been pulled down eventually (see for example Colombo Street, and that's also an example of loss of life). Already, I stand in front of building gaps and can't remember what used to be there. Hence, I thought it's important to record what we have or had. I'm spending a lot of time on flickr looking for good photos and talking people into releasing them with a suitable licence. What would be great is for others to chip in and write some of the articles; I have an endless list of suggestions. I'm very grateful to Rosiestep, who's doing a great job doing just that. Schwede 66 18:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have started the Citizens' War Memorial article. Schwede 66 01:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aghast that ~900 will have to come down... beyond sad. Being a Californian, I'm no stranger to earthquakes, but your area has had more than its share of tragedy in the recent past. I think chronicling every building we can is important including photos of before/after, too... "a picture is worth a 1000 words". I will definitely work on Citizens' War Memorial later today and I'll see what I can do with Wm Trethewey. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done with my edits to Citizens' War Memorial. Do you want to nom it? --Rosiestep (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]