Talk:University of Otago Registry Building

Merge
The University of Otago Clocktower complex article is a good one (it would be, given the primary author), but covers the same building as this article. I believe that the correct name of the building is the Registry Building, though I am willing toi bow to othersd' wisdom if that is not the case. Wherever the article ends up, title wise, it should, In my opinion, be one article, not two. Grutness...wha?  06:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Grutness,

It seemed to me it would be better to have this one as an account of the complex and a separate one on the Clocktower Building which is the most prominent of the group. I think it deserves its own article.

The matter of the name is a bit messy. When I was young it was simply called "The Registry" although that name really only applied to its north end as the Oliver lecture rooms were still in use. Later, I think when those were remodelled or when the whole building was given over to administration people called it the "Registry Building". Since then and anyway now it is called by some the "Clocktower Building" which from memory is how it appears in some of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust literature about it."Clock Tower Block" was also used by the NZHPT in the 1980s. I'm not too concerned what name is used for it here although I'm not eager to have to change all the uses in this and other articles.

I will have another look at the article which is specifically on this building. It spills over to talk about some of the others in the complex, which all helps to blur what is already a very blurry picture. But my thought was to clean it up, focus it specifically on the single structure with the clock tower and go into the matter of the two schemes for it: Bury's and Anscombe's. I think it would be interesting and the building is significant enough and well enough known to warrant the attention.

I've just put in an article on Bury as it seemed to me that was a useful indeed necessary way of backstopping this one and the more specific one. Somebody has suggested putting pictures into the one about the complex. I had thought I might do that but it will take time. First I will have to go and get some photos taken.

Thanks for taking an interest and your kind remarks.

Regards,

Peter Entwisle

Umm. I've just had another look at this one. In fact as designed by Bury it was symmetrical - there's a coloured xerox of the original design on display just now in the Archway. It was Anscombe who introduced the asymmetry. As I said above comparing the two conceptions is really quite interesting.

Peter Entwisle

Dear Grutness,

I see you've had quite a hand in producing this article. I still feel it would be better to have this one on this building as well as the one on the complex.

I notice some things about this which might immediately be revised.

Anscombe's first name is "Edmund" not "Edward". There's an extensive article about him already and by fixing the name and cross referencing it some useful connections might be made.

It is referred to somewhere as a "University of New Zealand" building. That's a bit misleading. The University of New Zealand never really had a building of its own. The whole point of that institution was that it was an examining body only, not a research or teaching one, unlike its constituent institutions. One of those was the University of Otago, at that time the only other institution called a university in New Zealand. Canterbury for example was a "University College". At the time the Clocktower Building was erected that was how things stood. I think the reference in the article is a bit misleading because it makes it sound as though this structure was the home of the University of New Zealand - which it wasn't. I think it should be changed to "University of Otago" or anyway something else.

The description of the relationship of this building to Glasgow University's Scott building I see has been modified and is correct as it stands. But there's a bit more one can say about it and there is a very handy comparison of the two by John Stacpoole in 1976 which is probably worth quoting.

I was going to make the changes about Anscombe and the University of New Zealand but don't want to significantly remodel your and others' work unless you are happy about it remaining as a stand alone article and being developed as such.

Regards,

Peter Entwisle


 * Dear Peter, if you believe the articles can work well as separate articles, then I've no objection to them remaining as such - I was primarily concerned that you may not haver known about the Registry Building article when you began the Clocktower complex one. Feel free to make any changes to the articles you see fit to improve them. By the way, please also remember that it's easier and better to sign your comments on talk pages by using four tildes ~ rather than by physically typing your name - it automatically adds your user name, a link to your user page, and the date and time. Grutness...wha?  23:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Grutness,

Thanks for your generous thought about the Registry Building article. I very much would like to add some stuff to it and as I said think it's worth having both articles. When I started the one about the complex I was thinking of interpolating it into the article on the University of Otago, which is why it had no introduction when I first put it in. As I was writing it I thought it might be better as a stand alone article because it was getting a bit long and also because it is primarily about architecture - Gothic Revival architecture - and more tangetially about the university. I mean people interested in architecture might find it more readily as a stand alone article than as a section in an article about the university. As I was working on it I came across the article about the Registry Building (Clocktower Building) and thought "Ah, I could put this here." But then I thought "No, that building by itself is so important, so well-known and has quite a complicated history that it would be better if it had an article all to itself". I think now I have seen it before when looking for something else and in a hurry. I'm not sure if I was aware of your role in constructing it. I also noticed yesterday a lovely photo of the archway interpolated into the complex article. Did you do that? Whoever did it's a wonderful addition and very much appreciated by me. I could sit and look at if for a long time. I had it sitting open on the chair beside me for several hours last night. I am very grateful to whomever put it there. Of course, it would be nice to have some more.

I keep forgetting about the tildes but will put them in now while I remember them. 202.154.152.55 (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)] Thanks for reminding me.

Regards,

Peter Entwisle  202.154.152.55 (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)] See, I've put them in again.

PE


 * Hm... there seems to be something odd about what is linked when you sign that way... I suspect it's because you're not logged in at the moment. Grutness...wha?  06:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right. It is a bit odd. Perhaps I wasn't logged in. For a long time I seem to have been automatically logged in but today I wasn't. I had to log in specially. But I am now so if I put them in perhaps it'll work. Peter Entwisle (talk) 07:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)]

I see there's another photo in the article - of Marama Hall. Did you put that there? It's a great addition.

I'm getting some things together for enlarging the article on the Clocktower Building. Meanwhile I've put in some stuff I had about the buildings at Knox College.

Peter Peter Entwisle (talk) 07:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)]

The signature is still strange but I think I know what it is. Try this: Peter Entwisle (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Peter Entwisle