Talk:National War Memorial (New Zealand)

message: :Image:New Zealand War Memorial.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:New Zealand War Memorial.jpg

message: Most of this article is copied wholesale off the war memorial website  203.211.68.246 (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I've attempted to add citations but in the process found that a lot of this page is directly plagiarised from the Ministry of Culture and Heritage website. I've rewritten some sections. Cloventt (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

text: After investigating, I've found that the content of the Ministry of Culture and Heritage website is licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution-Noncommercial Licence. It might be enough to just add a footnote mentioning that portions of this page are attributed to Manatū Taonga. Cloventt (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Together with User:Wainuiomartian, we have commenced improvements to this article, starting with new content about the extensive works on seismic strengthening and the long periods of closure of the building. I have noted that there are some sections in this article flagged by the Earwigs Copyvio Tool that are copied from the Ministry for Culture and Heritage website.  I think that we should probably rewrite these sections, but what is the policy when the source text is licensed with a Creative Commons licence, see: . I would also like your comment on the proposed split, described further down the talk page. Shall we just go ahead ? Marshelec (talk) 07:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The non-commercial part of the license is incompatible with WP's requirements. I have no view on the split. Schwede66 08:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagarism 

message: Don't know why the article is in the category :Category:Art and cultural repatriation (?) Hugo999 (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of New Zealand Tomb of the Unknown Warrior, but it's better left to that article, which has it, so I have removed it from this one. Nurg (talk) 09:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repatriation? 

message: The article currently lacks any significant coverage of the on-going issues about the earthquake strength of the carillon tower and the long periods that the building has been closed to the public. This topic was in the news today: . There are many news items on this topic over the past few years. Is anyone interested in creating a new section or sub-section ? I can put this on my to-do list but it will be a while before I can get to it. Marshelec (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I can do thatWainuiomartian (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

text: @Marshelec   I'm thinking that the section on earthquake strengthening should include both carillon and Hall of Memories as they are connected to each other. So far I've focussed on the carillon but perhaps should move the section to its own paragraph heading under Hall of Memories, then add more on work on Hall of Memories?  Wainuiomartian (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. I suggest that "Earthquake strengthening and closures" is moved to a new top level Heading, and placed below Hall of Memories. Also, there is a need for a new paragraph of 2 or 3 sentences in the lead, summarising all this. The works and closures are worth covering in the lead, because this nationally important buildings has been closed (and will remain closed) for such a long time. Marshelec (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earthquake strengthening of carillon tower 

message: Looking at the Ministry for Culture and Heritage website: , they show the National War Memorial and the Pukeahu Park as separate entities (they were developed at different times, and have different histories). This existing article is not overly long at present, so possibly this suggestion is premature, but there could be merit in having two separate articles: one for the National War Memorial, and one for Pukeahu Park, with appropriate inter-linkages. The benefit would be a clear focus for each article, and they would be shorter and easier to read. Marshelec (talk) 08:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, an article in today's Stuff about the War Memorial states that it consists of carillion, Hall of Memories, steps, unknown warrior. The article also calls it the Pukeahu National War Memorial. I'm not sure that that is its name?Wainuiomartian (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looking at this source:  it appears that Pukeahu is a name that is associated with the wider area. For Wikipedia purposes, I don't think there is sufficient evidence at present that Pukeahu has become the predominant usage when describing the National War Memorial (although I have seen some usage in RNZ and Stuff articles).  I note that even Heritage New Zealand, in its call for submissions about the planned new recognition of the National War Memorial as a National Historic Landmark, does not include Pukeahu in the name. Therefore, at present, the name of the article should stay as it is. I also note that in the document linked above, there is a Te Reo name (a translation) for National War Memorial: Te Maharatanga Pakanga o te Motu.  I note that this does not include the word Pukeahu.  However, the park to the north is consistently called Pukeahu. If we go ahead with the proposed split, the name Pukeahu can be in the title of the new article about the park, and in time, if the predominant usage in news items etc for the War Memorial itself shifts to Pukeahu National War Memorial, then that article can be moved. Marshelec (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking further into this, Pukeahu National War Memorial Park already exists as a redirect page, so if we want to split content, the proposed target page already exists. Marshelec (talk) 07:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.Wainuiomartian (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible split 

message: I would like to put the History section before the sections on the carillon and Hall of Memories, and possibly change its name to something like 'Background' or 'Planning', then reorganise the text as some of it would flow better if it was under the specific sections for carillon and Hall of Memories. Wainuiomartian (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section - needs reorganising