Talk:Talbot Hobbs

Effect of the redevelopment plans
Should the proposed relocation of the Talbot Hobbs memorial – a part of the proposed 2012 waterfront development – be included in the Memorial section of the Talbot Hobbs article. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think that it's appropriate yet to list what might happen to the memorial when the foreshore is redeveloped. Hence my edits. Perhaps when it's actually been moved, we might mention it. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The sourcing I used is from the original release of the plan in 2009 there's nothing recent about it, it show the memorial in situe with the plams removed on the islet. Its also one of the few existing key points on drawing to which people can relate thephysical, the others being the Train Station, Bell tower. Add to that the change will also alter the way in which the memorial will be utilised compared to past uses, I agree that it shouldnt have significant commentary but it worth noting that its going to be altered. Gnangarra 10:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, so the plans aren't recent, but I still do not believe that this paragraph is appropriate because it breaches the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL. The memorial hasn't moved yet. Even if the move were on the current plans (the article refers to "Initial ...sketches", and the reference doesn't mention the memorial at all), and we were absolutely certain that it was going to move, it would not be appropriate to include the move until after it had happened. If you can produce some references that demonstrate controversy about moving the memorial in particular (not just the redevelopment plan), then such controversy would be notable enough to include in the article, but otherwise I don't believe the proposed move belongs here. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * lets start with Wikilawyering which is what you are doing as you shift from one policy to another looking to further your arguement, add tags that are refutted this been what the fourth set of tags you've added, your WP:POINT has been made, you dont like people recording that the changes are taking place. Since you now chose WP:CRYSTAL lets quote it ...the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. The redevelopment already has an article see, its invoked major protests, its in the media almost everyday, its had petitions tabled in parliament. There is absolutely no doubt that the redevelopment is of sufficiently wide interest.. Gnangarra 14:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The changes are not "taking place" (present tense) - the location change is planned and is proposed to take place in the future.
 * The "subject matter" (to which your quote from WP:CRYSTAL refers) is the relocation of the memorial, not the entire redevelopment. I doubt that moving the memorial will rate an article of its own. Yes the relocation would rate a brief mention if / after it occurs, but I don't think it is sufficiently notable to mention before it occurs. (It appears to me that WP:CRYSTAL is written more about articles than paragraphs within an article, but the spirit is "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable" - and the movement of the memorial itself is not notable.)
 * The foreshore development has an article, attracts protests, gets media coverage - but the memorial is one minor part of that redevelopment, and (so far as I know) the memorial's relocation has not attracted any specific controversy or coverage. I do not think it appropriate to mention the proposed move in the article of every object that will move - only those that are particularly notable.
 * I've raised an RFC, so let's see if other editors have an opinion on the matter. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Include - It's appropriate to mention the planned relocation since reliable sources attest to it, and it is not purely speculative. WP:CRYSTAL says "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." FurrySings (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Remember to distinguish between the redevelopment of the foreshore and the relocation of the memorial. The latter does not (yet) have a reference (see this edit and its comment), nor does there appear to be any discussion or argument about the memorial itself. Mitch Ames (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Look at the last of this webpage. The proposed moving of the memorial is mentioned briefly and why there is resistance to such a move. With a little reworking of the information this citation may prove helpful. drs (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've updated the article to reflect what the reference says - that the memorial is expected to be moved. I still disagree with the inclusion of that paragraph, because I still see no evidence of significant controversy or media coverage about the relocation of the memorial. This new ref implies that the move is a bad idea:


 * but makes no statement or claim that there is any controversy, or that anybody else is complaining about the move, or that there is any media coverage about the relocation of the memorial. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That new sentence looks fine to me, although it may be helpful to add where the statue is planned to be relocated to (if that is known). I don't think WP:CRYSTAL really comes into it as the sentence is not saying anything about whether or not the relocation will actually takes place, its simply stating the verifiable fact that published plans exist. If the plans do not specify where the memorial will be relocated *to*, then speculation about that issue should be avoided. If there is no verifiable substantive controversy about the movement of the memorial itself (as opposed to the wider redevelopment) then clearly the article should not include any mention of such controversy, and limit itself to a factual description of the published plans as far as they relate to the memorial. Thom2002 (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

1903
little bit on Hobbs Gnangarra 05:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Talbot Hobbs. 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/20050620085145/http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-leaders/ww1/hobbs.htm to http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-leaders/ww1/hobbs.htm

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) 02:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)