Talk:Futuna Chapel

Untitled

Is this steet view any use? <iframe width="425" height="240" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="http://maps.google.co.nz/maps/sv?cbp=12,343.03513149715513,,0,5&cbll=-41.282106,174.738994&panoid=&v=1&hl=en&gl=nz"></iframe>
<a href="http://maps.google.co.nz/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=futuna+chapel&sll=-34.307144,174.375&sspn=118.912318,226.40625&ie=UTF8&ll=-34.307144,174.375&spn=90,-133.59375&t=k&layer=c&cbll=-41.282106,174.738994&panoid=9WvKzCN5DJHtlge6qmJ2OQ&cbp=12,343.03513149715513,,0,5&source=embed" style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">View Larger Map</a> —F^red11⁴ 03:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Most significant?

"It is generally regarded as the most significant New Zealand building of the twentieth century"? Big words... by whom is it so regarded? Is it more significant, say, than The Beehive, or Dunedin Railway Station, or even Auckland War Memorial Museum or the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa? I somehow doubt it. Grutness...wha? 02:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Futuna Chapel has received the highest award for architecture in NZ, twice. How would you regard a significant building in NZ? —F^red11⁴ 20:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly not denying that it is a significant building. I am, however, definitely questioning whether it can be described as the most significant. Dorling-Kindersley describe the Dunedin Railway Station as among the world's 200 "must-see" places. The chapel hasn't won the New Zealand Institute of Architects award twice - it won the annual award in 1968 and a different award (the 25th anniversary award) in 1986. Which goes to show that it was regarded by the NZIA as the most significant New Zealand building of the years 1961 to 1986, not that it is regarded as the most significant of the twentieth century. Major texts on the subject of New Zealand architecture such as Landmarks: Notable historic buildings of New Zealand (D.McGill) and 100 historic places in New Zealand (G. Mcleod) do not even mention the building. Even the submission to the Historic Places Trust Wellington City Council by the NZIA to have the building classified refer to it as "one of the most significant 20th century New Zealand buildings" rather than as "the most significant..." (see [1]). If the people who gave the award only describe it as "one of the most significant", then there is no indication that it should be described as "the most significant". Grutness...wha? 06:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the case can still be made for Futuna being the "most" significant. Just quoting a few big books, or some abreviated text from submissions to the city council is an unreasonable means to verify a significant building in NZ. There are many other books that show that it is the most significant. Here for example from a magazine of the historic places trust puts it like this: "Futuna Chapel, as it is widely known, is generally regarded as one of New Zealand's finest buildings." But your task is not to show how we might recognise the most significant building in NZ, but rather point out that it is not the most signficance and mearly holds significance. My point is that in the absence of any reasonable means to detirmine the most significant, we can recognise with enough effort Futuna Chapel as the most significant building in NZ. I agree that more evidence needs to come forward for that claim. —F^red11⁴ 20:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm... so you're saying that a magazine that calls it "one of New Zealand's finest buildings" means that it is the most significant of the century? Call me a sceptic if you like, but that's hardly compelling. Every source mentioned that refers to the building seems to refer to it as one of the most significant/most important/finest buildings. not one single source refers to it as the most significant/most important/finest building. It's pretty clear to me that if none of these sources refer to it in that way, it is not "generally regarded as the most significant". It doesn't even look as though it's even occasionally regarded as the most significant.

By the way, it is perhaps telling that the only website I have been able to find which suggests this building is "...arguably the most significant New Zealand building of the 20th Century" is the website of the architect, John Scott. Who would, of course, be totally unbiased, right?

All that I am saying is that the second sentence of the article should be amended slightly, from "It is generally regarded as the most significant..." to "It is generally regarded as one of the most significant...", with a citation to support that. No reliable citation has yet been found which shows it to be generally regarded as the most significant; several have that show it is regarded as one of the most significant. And if the New Zealand Institute of Architects, who gave the building those awards, say that the building is "one of" the country's finest buildings (as they do in one of the sources I gave above), surely we should do the same, rather than making the still totally unfounded suggestion that it is the most significant. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Futuna Chapel. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927004349/http://www.wellington.govt.nz/about/mayor/speeches/2006-08-07futuna.html to http://www.wellington.govt.nz/about/mayor/speeches/2006-08-07futuna.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)