Talk:Birkenhead Public Library

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Birkenhead Public Library is currently a good article nominee. Anyone who has not contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article, as outlined on the nominations page.

Reviewers: To start the review process, follow this link to create a dedicated subpage for the review. (If you have already done this, and the template has not changed, try purging this talk page.)

Date: 05:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Flag Birkenhead Public Library is part of WikiProject New Zealand, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Rodents of Unusual Size

Rodents of Unusual Size or Really Useful Sources not yet seen would include the following. Photos too would be interesting, the earlier the better. Please add to the list. OohAh (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

  • 1950-1989, 2000-2007, etc Birkenhead Library/ North Shore Libraries Annual Reports (ie other than 1990s).
  • 2004- Info detailing Birkenhead webpage development.
  • 2005. Library plan documents for version developed from 2004-. Actual building plan put out to public inspection. documents detailing timespan of that, public access, etc.
  • 2005. The June report declining Resource Consent. Also, details of events on how it came to that. There were, for eg, concerns raised at "the last two hearings." Which were when, and documented? (source quote: Reed, Kim. "Fears that council breaking own rules," North Shore Times, Jun 30, 2005, p1-2.)
  • 2005- Documents on Leisure Centre library. Eg fitout, & additions, such as banners, and what happened to other 40%-50% stock that could not be accommodated, etc.
  • 2006. Report by Peter Waterhouse, Value Solutions examining library project management. (Mentioned in: White, Jean. "Report criticises library process," North Shore Times, Mar 16, 2006, p. 3)
  • 2006 Waterhouse report is possibly the same "library report" which was "too long to photocopy and too big too email." (Willis, Liz. "Library project concerns raised," North Shore Times, May 4, 2006.)
  • 2007. Relocation report. detailing impact of relocation to Leisure Centre. (Mentioned in: Reed, Kim. "Library hit by more delays," North Shore Times, Mar 27, 2007, p.2)
  • 2007. June-ish. Environment Court documents: for, against, verdict. Including the letters with alternative solutions sent to the court (mentioned in: Reed, Kim. "Library decision waits on judge," North Shore Times, Jul 5, 2007, p5.)

[edit] Intro

Currently working on the history section. Pbkh 20:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)< Finished history section. Completed bibliog. Tried to move footnotes to end of paragraphs cos they were giving me a headache. Pbkh 02:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Done with minor edits on history section, more or less. Always one last footnote to check.. Pbkh 03:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article and image

An impressive article, if on a rather specialised subject for it to be so long (but we want things like that here!). BTW: I have changed the link to the image back to the Commons version. Such images SHOULD be on Commons, and Commons IS a part of the larger Wikimedia project, just like Wikipedia. Cheers. Ingolfson 11:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW - do you have a larger version of the image? If so, please upload it to Commons, uploading it OVER the small image. You do NOT have to use small images on Wikipedia - the thumbnail function shrinks it to an appropriate size. Thanks. Ingolfson 11:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the thanks. Don't have larger image anymore; but will take another. And you're right about the article: it is rather long. It perhaps suffers from, what is the word, recentism. For what it's worth, I intend to separate the controversy over the new building into a separate section, and compress it; and write a much shorter history for the Modern Library sub-section. Pbkh 02:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Footnote reduction

By which I mean, I'm thinking about how the information therein can be better incorporated into the article proper. OohAh (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Done. Yeah, um, I didn't actually mean reductioninthenumber of footnotes.. so, done! OohAh (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Restoration

I've restored the lost content; it is not good practice to remove messages from talk pages; see WP:TALK. btw, love your ROUSs! Kauri Gumdigger (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, yeah i know, i know - i did have a logic though: 99% that old (pbkh) stuff was mine, personal involutions, so i knew that was excess baggage. Really want the Sources to be first thing people I see. Okay, and i didn't want to have to keep looking at what I had said I would do. OohAh (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't want to nag, just wondered where the text went. Didn't realise at first you and pbkh were the same. Btw, I find this page fascinating: what a specialist interest! Kauri Gumdigger (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
No worries. Just letting you know i've shifted the 'sources' up to the top, so that they can be seen straight off. More useful that way. OohAh (talk) 06:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Footnoting style

I've changed the few Refname tags back to Ref ones, for a number of reasons:

  • To maintain consistency of style.
  • Refname is spatially confusing when reading.
  • Refname is unhelpful and laborious when editing.
  • Refname is unwise when articles may split off.
  • Ref may lead to long lists; but so what, its hyperpaper.

OohAh (talk) 04:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Have you thought of GA?

I have this page on my watchlist, since I find it very interesting. Have you ever thought of nominating it for Good Article Status? From what I have seen, it would pass the criteria. It would raise the profile of the page, and provide some recognition for your hard work! Just a thought... Kauri Gumdigger (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

hiya - sorry for not replying sooner, been away. At this stage, I'm not too bothered by the lowness of the profile of this article. It's there, people interested will find it. Though maybe GAS is a good idea - when i get all the referencing errors out. if! OohAh (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference consolidation

Some issues encountered consolidating the references:

  • North Shore Times/Advertiser, May 27, 1959, p. 3. - two references appear to be the same, one called "Times", one "Advertiser", combined
  • Annual report from Jun 13 1951 p 5, two references labeled "Birkenhead Public Library", two "Birkenead Library" => all to "Birkenhead Library" to go with majority of other references.
  • Quote from Jun 13 1951 p 5 could probably be consolidated to above, left alone
  • Unsure if following is same ref, same for p 8, both left alone:
    • Graham Rata (1992) Birkenhead Library: A history Birkenhead: North Shore Libraries p 5
    • Graham Rata Birkenhead library: a history Birkenhead: Birkenhead Council p 5
  • Assumed to be the same:
    • Grant Kirsten Library construction in the doldrums The Aucklander Aug 23 2006 p 5
    • Grant Kirsten Library reconstruction in the doldrums The Aucklander Aug 23 2006 p 5
  • Three references from North Shore Times Advertiser, May 28, 2002, p. 28. The 2nd appears to be in error, either the title or the date is wrong (same title appears Jun 10 2003 p1). All left alone
    • Le Bas Natalie Manager supports new library for Birkenhead North Shore Times Advertiser Mar 28 2002 p 28;
    • Library list of woes make sad reading North Shore Times Advertiser May 28 2002 p 28
    • Manager supports new library for Birkenhead North Shore Times Advertiser Mar 28 2002 p 28

XLerate (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


Okay, these were all deliberate mistakes, well spotted. :) Sorry for not replying sooner, ive been on holiday and didnt have access to computers. I will recheck those things and add fuller reply then. Thanks a lot for the consolidation, very impressive. OohAh (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


Hmmm.. i've just noticed what "consolidation" means in practice - you've used refname tags. Please see my comment on footnoting style above which i made a few months ago. To reiterate, I appreciate why you've done what you did, but i find refname tags utterly confusing. This may make me a little stoopid, but i think it not unreasonable that this article be allowed to continue with the style variant which I have established. I think you'll find that it still meets wikipedia's standards. So, im going to have to undo your edit, and i'm sorry about this as you've done a lot of work; however i will make sure and go through and check the specific points you listed. OohAh (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

done, corrected inconsistencies. thanks again. OohAh (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback, glad the effort wasn't entirely in vain! I understand about the undo - I only spotted the note here about not using ref name tags when finishing up. XLerate (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)