Talk:Christ Church Cathedral, Christchurch

message: I've had it suggested to me via email that the cathedral's spire was partly influenced by a church in north London, close to several other buildings which G.G. Scott worked on - All Saints Church, Whetstone, Barnet (see picture ). is this just idle thinking on my emailer's part, or is it possible? Grutness...wha? 00:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influenced by London church? 

message: I have a photo of the cathedral and will upload when things are more normal. Schwede66 02:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In the meantime, I've added a small number of external links to three photos of the damaged cathedral.  The aerial shot in particular provides some context, and I hope it's retained even after we have photos of the damage in the article.  The other two (one of which  is a legitimate copy of the infringing image that until recently was in the article) may be made extraneous if free images are added. TJRC (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth that image at Brisbane Times isn't legitimate either, @tesswollcock isn't the original phototographer and couldn't identify who was (I explored that in my attempts to make the earlier image legitimate)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.240.135 (talk) 09:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: photo

message: I feel in a state of frustration, amounting to despair over the extraordinary failure of the media to report the damage to the ChristChurch Cathedral accurately! 
It seems as if today's reporters are totally, completely and absolutely (any superlative you can think of) incapable of looking, seeing, assessing and stating facts! Given that it takes (in Australia and New Zealand) very high pass marks to study journalism at University, how can they be so utterly stupid and unreliable? If anyone out there can answer, please do! 
The problem lies in the use of the words "total", "absolute", "complete", "ruined", destroyed", "crushed" etc. Terms like "utterly destroyed" and "totally crushed" are being bandied about without any consideration of what these fairly simple second-grader terms actually mean, and what implications they may carry when a member of the public reads or hears them used inappropriately.
Examples 
* Early film footage of the earthquake, which I will locate and reference, came from a helicopter which flew directly over the cathedral, while two reporters described it, at least twice, as "totally destroyed". This is the cathedral they were talking about, not its spire, and they had the building, (or film of it), clearly in view while they were uttering these words. That is, clearly visible with its walls and 90% of its vast slate roof intact. They finished the video with "...well, the cathedral's gone....".  What sort of idiots could be employed by a news service to so grossly misinform their public? Anyone who heard the report on radio rather than seeing it, would gain a completely false impression. 
* Even the BBC can't get it right. BBC, ,  "First look inside collapsed Christchurch Cathedral", 22 February, 2001. Note that none of the exaggerated verbal reporting ("collapsed cathedral", "ruined cathedral", "total" and "whole side") is supported by the evidence of the film itself. It is clear from this film that the "whole side" (i.e. the north aisle) is not destroyed, just the section immediately adjacent the tower. 
* NINEMSN: "Bus totally crushed". It clearly wasn't, and although there were many casualties, people on the less damaged side of the bus were rescued.
And of course other news services have followed the lead. SENSATION wins over fact every time, particularly where headlines are concerned. 
What worries me is that if this sort of stupidity prevails in the professional reporting of something that is clearly visible, how can we, the public, possibly trust these stupid clowns to accurately inform the world over events that are politically sensitiive, and possibly imflammatory? Are the English language reporters who described recent events in Egypt and Tunisia more or less reliable? 
Amandajm (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The impression I got watching this footage and hearing the reporters talking was that the Cathedral, though not yet reduced to a heap of rubble, was damaged beyond repair, and would collapse of its own accord unless what remained was demolished. This certainly seems to be the understanding of everyone who has spoken about the condition of the Cathedral. Perhaps someone has suggested it can be repaired; if so, I haven't heard this. Not particularly sensationalistic. The cathedral has been effectively destroyed; it just hasn't fallen over yet. Important to remember that these remarks are made on the hoof in live broadcasts, not read out from a professionally edited news-script. Koro Neil (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, since I made the foregoing remark, there has been talk of restoration as a viable and desirable option. Koro Neil (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that if there's any way at all of restoring it, it'll become a high priority once the immediate aftermath is over, simply to help in the psychological healing/recovery of the city, as some form of symbol of the place's rebirth. And if it's not restorable, it may well become some form of memorial, similar to Coventry's cathedral. But it's all very early speculation at the moment. Even assessment of the building's long-term stability is a fairly low priority at the moment. Grutness...wha? 10:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Reporting

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on ChristChurch Cathedral, Christchurch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120422064629/http://www.restorechristchurchcathedral.co.nz:80/ to http://www.restorechristchurchcathedral.co.nz
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130209013027/http://christchurchcathedral.co.nz/News-Media/Features/Rebuild/Underway-at-Last to http://www.christchurchcathedral.co.nz/News-Media/Features/Rebuild/Underway-at-Last
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on ChristChurch Cathedral, 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:
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6DIkyHq5G?url=http://ecan.govt.nz/advice/emergencies-and-hazard/earthquakes/Documents/shaky_history.swf to http://ecan.govt.nz/advice/emergencies-and-hazard/earthquakes/Documents/shaky_history.swf
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6DIlNEo2i?url=http://news.anglican.ca/news/stories/2436 to http://news.anglican.ca/news/stories/2436
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article says it has two names: ChristChurch Cathedral and (rarely used) Cathedral Church of Christ. Is there info that could be included about why it has two names and when, how and why it acquired each of those two names, including the origins of the medial capitals in ChristChurch? Nurg (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The names of the cathedral 

message: Thanks for making article amendment suggestions at the Wikipedia:Help desk. I've amended the article (going into a bit more detail than what you suggested) and have added an external link to the Reinstatement Project website. Much has been made of the 50-page memorandum between the project partners. It seems that only a summary is published via the Reinstatement Project website. Any clue why the full version doesn't appear to be accessible? I mean, if somebody is really interested, surely they'd prefer to read the long version.
But anyway, should you have other suggestions, please post them here so that you don't trigger a WP:COI situation. Schwede66 01:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reinstatement 

message: No hurry, but next time a Wikimedian is in the Square with a camera, how about an snapping an up-to-date photo, since the big frame was taken down from the front. Thanks. Nurg (talk) 09:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Up-to-date photo 

message: @Schwede66
With reference (reverance?) to the above CamelCase discussion and a change I made on a related article, I made enquiries with the organisation itself and received a reply <quote>Your enquiry regarding the correct name of the Anglican Cathedral has reached my inbox.
 
The correct name is Christ Church Cathedral.  This is used in official documents i.e. Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Act 2017.
 
The camelCase ChristChurch Cathedral  was used for a number of years by Chapter as a marketing name on their logo etc.  They are now moving away from this and adding a space to make it two words.
</quote>
This is from the management of the entire diocese.
I rest my case, question welcome.121.98.30.202 (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I'll let the mentioned editor respond to this, but for now I'm marking this as answered due to this not being a protected page. GrayStorm(Talk|Contributions) 03:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Schwede66  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.30.202 (talk) 08:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Especially the title of the legislation. Next time I’m at my computer, I’ll search what The Press currently uses. Schwede66 08:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I forgot all about this. I've had a look at the last 15 or so stories that The Press has written. In prose and headings, they consistently use "Christ Church Cathedral". They sometimes insert videos (for example, I found this video inserted in three different articles and those mostly use the old camel-case in headings and captions. Overall, "Christ Church Cathedral" is now the dominant use and if someone proposed to move the article to that title, I'd support that. Obviously, we'd need to disambiguate and WP:NCNZ tells us that "Christ Church Cathedral, Christchurch" is what we would use (as opposed to parenthetical disambiguation). Schwede66 01:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a google scholar check of 'Christchurch cathedral, New Zealand' (45) v. 'Christ Church cathedral, New Zealand' (7). If people refer to the cathedral in Christchurch the 'Christchurch cathedral' is correct and doesn't contradict the cathedral's actual name. Therefore, shouldn't this discussion not be about the correct actual name of the cathedral, but whether it is referred to in common usage by its official name or by just 'the cathedral' (which happens to be in Christchurch). The Catholic cathedral, which isn't a cathedral anyway, is/was referred to by its common name rather than its official name, ie the 'Catholic cathedral, Christchurch' rather than 'Christchurch Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament'. I mean in the article itself, rather than the title. Is there a reason though, why the title could not be 'Christ Church cathedral, New Zealand' rather than 'Christ Church cathedral, Christchurch'. There is only one in NZ. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand)#Disambiguation of New Zealand place names #4 is the answer to your question, Roger. Schwede66 03:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Christ Church Cathedral, Nelson. Paora (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I forgot about Nelson. I think there being a problem if someone writes Christchurch cathedral as part of a general sentence and it's corrected to Christ Church cathedral. I think when I use the name I'm talking about the cathedral in Christchurch in Cathedral Sq, not Christchurch cathedral. I Do people ever call the one in Nelson, Nelson Cathedral? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change please. 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 11:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: ChristChurch Cathedral →  – There are several discussions and a (successful) past move request on this talk page about the correct article title. In the latest discussion, an IP editor has provided an explanation why we had previously used the camel case and that this is now a thing of the past. As is documented in that discussion, I've had a look what The Press (the largest South Island newspaper) is using as the common name and that is what is guiding this move request. And that leaves us with the subject of disambiguation, as it's not the only Christ Church Cathedral in New Zealand. What makes this even more complex is that the Christchurch cathedral has views about a magnitude higher than the Nelson cathedral. That said, it would seem silly to use "New Zealand" as the dab for the Christchurch cathedral when there's another one in the country, hence I've settled on "Christchurch" for the dab. Schwede66 08:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 20 May 2024 

message: Just come here to find out why the article was moved from its official name of ChristChurch Cathedral, as used by the Anglican Church (as seen, for example, on their Facebook page), Heritage New Zealand (as shown here), and the Christchurch City Council (e.g., here). I see now that there was a discussion about it, which was not widely advertised, given that there are only three !votes... Grutness...wha? 13:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: , are you implying that you don't have Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Article alerts on your watchlist? Editors interested in move requests should have a project's article alerts watchlisted as that is where these things get advertised. A low participation may simply be an indication that it was an uncontroversial request. Schwede66 19:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Amazing. I've been here god knows how many years and I never even about Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Article alerts! Thanks - I'll add it! Grutness...wha? 04:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad that I could be of help. :-) And according to your user page, you've been here since 2004. That's 20 years – a significant milestone. Schwede66 06:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move of article