Talk:ChristChurch Cathedral

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Influenced by London church?[edit]

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 [1]). is this just idle thinking on my emailer's part, or is it possible? Grutness...wha? 00:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

photo[edit]

I have a photo of the cathedral and will upload when things are more normal. Schwede66 02:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 [2] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Reporting[edit]

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, [3], "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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]

Guideline for Talk pages: This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

I am not unsympathetic to the frustrations expressed above by Amandajm. I would suggest that the contributions under the heading "Reporting" fit the description of "general discussion" and I invite Amandajm to delete the whole section including this response. In saying this I am not agreeing or disagreeing with what he or she says. It simply does not seem to be suggesting improvement to the WP article. Spathaky (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support the main point being made by Amandajm, in that there is / was a lot of inaccurate and contradictory reporting on the earthquakes and the Cathedral, for whatever reason (and I don't disagree with the reasons given). Given the importance of this to the subject of the article (the Cathedral has a demolition order and ceases to exist if it goes through), then the accuracy of sources is critically important to the accuracy of this article. In this case it should be possible to demonstrate these contradictions, quite how this would normally be done here I don't know, just giving my vote of support for it being probably as real as s/he says, especially as the facts are coming out now. --Adx (talk) 09:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CamelCase in cathedral name?[edit]

Is it a dumb question to ask whether the camel case is correct when this is their official logo?

Is the name of the cathedral properly spelled Christchurch, like the town, or ChristChurch with the interior "C" capitalized? The article distractingly switches back and forth between the two, and as a non-resident I'm hesitant to make a correction — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.189.92.98 (talk) 03:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The camel case is the correct spelling for ChristChurch Cathedral. If it's not right everywhere in the article, your help with tidying it up would be appreciated. Schwede66 03:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is an old thread, but the spelling seems so unusual it should be remarked on in the article. I can't imagine it was originally spelled "ChristChurch" when the cathedral was first built. When and why was the strange spelling adopted? To me it seems glaringly odd. -- 118.90.37.127 (talk) 06:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it wasn't. It's some modern nonsense from the NonChristian Church. Reliable sources refer to it as Christchurch Cathedral, so I will be fixing the article over the next couple days. 222.155.201.232 (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "NonChristian Church"; do you by chance refer to the Anglican Diocese of Christchurch? I'm asking because they use this logo. Schwede66 06:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure you quote those reliable sources. peterl (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is this actually correct? Most sources I'm seeing are Christ Church Cathedral or Christchurch Cathedral: http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/business/the-rebuild/90422346/christchurch-cathedral-decision-imminent-but-could-change-in-an-instant, http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/92420053/anglicans-lobbied-council-for-streamlined-christ-church-cathedral-demolition-planning-rules, http://restorechristchurchcathedral.co.nz/. 人族 (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is correct. The first link given includes text "The ChristChurch Cathedral has been sitting derelict in the city centre for six years.". The second link exclusively uses "Christ Church Cathedral", although there are other organisations including "Christchurch City Council" and "Great Christchurch Buildings Trust". The first two links are a major NZ newspaper, but can't be viewed as authoritative as the Church itself. The third link does case it "Restore Christchurch Cathedral". But that's the name of that group, which is not the church itself. At the Church's website http://www.cardboardcathedral.org.nz it clearly says "ChristChurch Cathedral is slightly different".
peterl (talk) 10:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on ChristChurch Cathedral, Christchurch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 April 2019[edit]

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 section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


ChristChurch Cathedral, Christchurch → ChristChurch Cathedral – Per WP:SMALLDETAILS and WP:PRECISION the base name already redirects here and none of the other churches listed at Christ Church Cathedral appear to use "ChristChurch Cathedral" (with no space), they all use "Christ Church Cathedral" (with a space). If not "ChristChurch Cathedral" could be retargeted to the DAB page. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as indeed this makes sense. Add the appropriate hatnote and it's all under control. This may also help with the ongoing attempts of dropping the camel case from the prose (which, admittedly, has slowed down since I added the hidden note to the text). Once this one is done we should turn our attention to Te Papa... Schwede66 18:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The hatnote already exists, all we will need to do is change {{redirect}} to {{about}}
  • Oppose. Just looks like a mistake. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems to be an objection to their real-world choice of spelling.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Necrothesp: I assume SMcCandlish's assessment of your objection is accurate. If so, it would be more helpful if you could comment on the issues that are of relevance to Wikipedia, where WP policies and guidelines are referred to. Schwede66 01:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it isn't accurate at all, so you assume wrong. What I mean is, it looks like a mistake even if it isn't, so the proposed move is of no benefit, since the city name helps to clarify that it is not a mistake. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    But the city is both unnecessary disambiguation and tautological. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not actually tautological (ChristChurch Church would be tautological in this context, but this isn't) and I don't believe it's unnecessary as I've stated above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not a total tautology but its a partial one, juts like the fact that we moved Lincoln, Lincolnshire to Lincoln, England which requires disambiguation, ChristChurch Cathedral doesn't appear to need disambiguation. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but it's not a tautology at all. A simple repeated word is not a tautology. A tautology is "saying the same thing twice". This does not do that. The first part refers to a building, the second to a city. They do not refer to the same entity; that would be a tautology. "Lincoln, Lincolnshire" is a (sort of) tautology because Lincolnshire's name basically means "County of Lincoln", so we would be saying "Lincoln in the County of Lincoln", which is called the County of Lincoln because it is the area surrounding Lincoln! In this instance, the city was called Christchurch after the Oxford college and the cathedral was built in it later. The dedication of the cathedral was presumably chosen because of the name of the city it's in, but this is not a tautology. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see the difference, saying that ChristChurch Cathedral is in Christchurch is arguably more repeated than saying Lincoln is in the County of Lincoln. I don't see what which was named after which changes this even if the name of the cathedral and city were unrelated unlike Lincoln. But in any case that seems to be moot since disambiguation doesn't appear to be needed anyway. Alternatively we could disambiguate as ChristChurch Cathedral, New Zealand or ChristChurch Cathedral, Canterbury. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Because a tautology does not just mean repeated! Lincolnshire means the county centred on the city of Lincoln (the archaic formal name is in fact the County of Lincoln). So the concept of Lincoln being in it is already in the name. Therefore the information has been repeated if we say Lincoln, Lincolnshire. That's a tautology. ChristChurch Cathedral, however, does not mean the cathedral in Christchurch! It's just a dedication. There are many cathedrals with the dedication of Christ Church. The fact it's called Christ Church does not in any way mean it's in Christ Church, any more than a church dedicated to St Stephen would automatically be in a place called St Stephen(s). That is therefore not a tautology. If we referred to Lincoln Cathedral, Lincoln, however, that would be a tautology, since it's known as Lincoln Cathedral because it's in Lincoln. I would also say it was moot, but mean something entirely different! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The exact spelling "ChristChurch" is odd enough to be positively identifying.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. WP:PRECISION: "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." It is silly having a redirect from a sufficiently precise title, ChristChurch Cathedral, to an unnecessarily precise (and longer) one. See also WP:CRITERIA: "The title [should be] no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects" and WP:PLACEDAB: "If a place is the primary topic for the title that is most appropriate by these naming conventions, then its article should carry that name without disambiguation tag". Opera hat (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:CONCISE. ChristChurch Cathedral has redirected here since 2011 with no apparent problems. This is a simple redirect reversal. Station1 (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The names of the cathedral[edit]

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)[reply]

Reinstatement[edit]

@Berrygirl1972: 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)[reply]

Thank you so much. The full Joint Venture Agreement isn't available publicly because it is commercial in confidence, which is pretty normal. Thanks Schwede66 Berrygirl1972 (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Up-to-date photo[edit]

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)[reply]

Name change please.[edit]

@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)[reply]

 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)[reply]
@Schwede66 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.30.202 (talk) 08:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ChristChurch_Cathedral&oldid=1219023689"