Talk:24 Sussex Drive

message: I've removed the portion of the article wherein it states that 24 Sussex is "also known as Gorffwysfa", as I simply don't believe that, in modern Canada, it is - while the article (and associated source) rightly note in the History section that the original builder named the house Gorffwysfa, it certainly isn't referred to by that name by anyone in Canadian society today. Indeed, a Google search for "Gorffwysfa" turns up extremely few results that have anything to do with 24 Sussex at all; and those few results that do discuss the house mostly note the name "Gorffwysfa" only as a historical curiosity, and not as a contemporary way to refer to it.
In other words, while the article should indeed note the name in the History section, to give background on the house, it seems a bit of a stretch to claim that 24 Sussex is "also known as" Gorffwysfa when, from all accounts, nobody has used that name for it in common parlance in a century. Andrew M (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It has not been called Gorffwysfa since it has been the PM's residence. And here is something useful too: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/24-sussex-the-place-where-no-one-knows-its-name-and-fewer-still-can-pronounce-it
... built Gorffwysfa in 1868.  After the Currier family sold the house in 1902, and it was expropriated by the Canadian government in the 1950s, it sat abandoned for years until it was fixed up as a state residence. “It was gutted, entirely,” she said. “And thus, it really wasn’t Gorffwysfa anymore, it was just 24 Sussex Drive.” Peter K Burian 03:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it was still in the lede when I read it this evening, so I have edited it to eliminate the ridiculous suggestion that 24 Sussex has ever been called Gorffwysfa since Prime Ministers have lived there. Peter K Burian 03:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

text: Another editor insists reverting it to indicate that the building is called Gorffwysfa. It is not. It has not been called that since the 1950s. No Government of Canada document calls it that. 99% of people living in Ottawa have never even heard of that name. If my revision keeps getting reverted, I will file for Wikipedia:Disupute Resolution.
I have not had my edits reverted nearly as often on a dozen other articles as on the one about 24 Sussex. I let it go when I was less experienced but now, I am more confident and will not accept my edits being reverted with no Edit summary or any well-reasoned explanation. I accepted that the name of the Prime Minister should not be in the lede. But I cannot accept an indication in an article about a building called something when that is not the case. Why mislead the public?  Peter K Burian 19:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

text: Government of Canada Publication:
<I> In 1868, ... he built a house near the forests and water that had made his fortune. He called the house Gorffwysfa, ... </I> After that mention of a historical name, the publication never once mentions that Welsh name.Peter K Burian 19:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit War? Gorffwysfa? 

message: I modified the lede to indicate that it is not under renovation, but that a plan needs to be developed before that can ever happen.
As of Sept. 2105, the NCC does not even have 24 Sussex on their priority list of work to be done to official residences. So, "they are working on a plan". I suppose they are waiting on the government to tell them it would be OK to spend $18 million. Or not. (This is a beauracratic nightmare as the following excerpt indicates.)  http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/ncc-seeks-advice-on-conserving-and-developing-official-residences: 
<I>"Aside from shoring up the escarpment behind 24 Sussex in 2013, there have been no major repairs in years to the crumbling property... In 2011, the NCC said 24 Sussex needed $10 million in repairs deemed urgent four years earlier. ... committee members made more than two dozen comments and suggestions. Among them:
*24 Sussex should have a 10-year plan for restoration and the plan should be referred to a parliamentary committee “where all parties are implicated.”
The perception that the rehabilitation of 24 Sussex is a political problem “should be corrected to an understanding that the real issues are of an architectural and heritage nature.”
*While 24 Sussex is being renovated, the prime minister and his family could stay in “appropriate temporary facilities” such as the NCC-owned Wright-Scott House in Gatineau or the French embassy just next door. (However, Stéphane Schorderet, press counsellor at the French embassy, said that idea is “just not possible” for space and security reasons as well as the fact the embassy is technically on French territory.)
*To show that 24 Sussex is not overly extravagant, it should be compared to the residences of other G7 leaders.
*Previous occupants should be invited to share their stories of 24 Sussex and describe their issues during their time in residence.
*The NCC should consider opening 24 Sussex to the public “to allow them to see first-hand what the issues are.”
*Consideration should be given to undertaking the rehabilitation of 24 Sussex through an architectural competition, to create a “prestigious project for Canadian architects.”
*The NCC should investigate opportunities to add 24 Sussex to other large government capital projects, such as the House of Commons restoration.
*The NCC should consider holding a public consultation on an official plan for 24 Sussex, be ready to execute it and be transparent about it.
*The project message should be more about making 24 Sussex comfortable and safe than architecturally better."</I> Wow, nobody will wade through this much beauracracy! (How Not To Get Anything Done). Peter K Burian 20:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clearing up the renovations versus planning stages bit. trackratte (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOT under renovations at all 

message: Well that would remove this topic (falling apart, what the committee recommended, what media guy and previous residents have said) from the pure Architecture portion of the article. Anyone not interested in the fact that the PM refused to move in because the building is a wreck, need not read that topic. He could then enjoy the historic aspects of the architecture. 
Since I am not feeling much objection to doing so, I will start the new section tomorrow, move current content into it, and add to it. (I'm sure we will then get disagreement about some of the content I added, but such is life.)
btw, why did I ever bother looking for 24 Sussex on Wikipedia? Only because I had read in the news that the PM refused to move in because it was falling apart. And I thought Wikipedia would have a nice summary as to why he could not move in; (because the newspaper did not provide any specifics) ... I was wrong; Wikipedia did not. (Only later was the media star interviewed and that made the newspapers.)  Peter K Burian 00:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, I don't think there is any objection to the fact that it is notable, I certainly think it is. So, thanks for taking the project on. And yes there will always be discussions on what the best balance is from an editorial point of view, and how to present facts in a neutral way based on high quality sources. Such is life as you say, but Wikipedia is made better for it. trackratte (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability of the renovations isn't the issue. It's WP:WEIGHT and WP:TRIVIA. Information on why Trudeau isn't in the house and the building being "a wreck" is already covered in the article. Any more and it will be too much. A full quarter of the article is dedicated to renovations past and future as it is. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

text: OK, fine, I will leave it as is.Peter K Burian 18:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: NO new section re: Condition and Renovations

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 24 Sussex Drive. 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://web.archive.org/web/20110609152332/http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/feature.asp?pageId=136 to http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/feature.asp?pageId=136
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609152240/http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/feature.asp?pageId=134 to http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/feature.asp?pageId=134
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) 05:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified