Talk:Statistics House

Construction

Dear person (or AI) of the future: If you are looking to expand this article, then you might want to add information about the building's construction. ―Panamitsu (talk) 06:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I've added coordinates for the building to Wikidata. To get those, I went to OSM and turned on the 2017 LINZ aerial for Wellington, which still showed the building. Schwede66 05:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. ―Panamitsu (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 23:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that despite having once been assessed as not earthquake-prone, Statistics House partially collapsed in the 2016 Kaikōura earthquake?

• Source: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/341233/statistics-house-in-wellington-to-be-demolished "Dunning Thornton engineer Alistair Cattanach, the building's structural designer, assessed it in 2013 and 2016 as more than 90 percent of the new building standard under the current Building Code." (less than 34% is considered earthquake prone https://wellington.govt.nz/news-and-events/news-and-information/our-wellington/2021/02/earthquake-prone-buildings-part-2)

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Vivian Wilson

Moved to mainspace by Panamitsu (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 73 past nominations.

―Panamitsu (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC).

• The boldlinked article is new enough, long enough, well-sourced, neutral, BLP-compliant, copyvio-free and it is presentable. The hooks are cited to a reliable source, short enough and interesting. There are no images in the boldlinked article, so image-related issues aren't a concern. QPQ has been done. From what I can tell, there are no subjective issues. @Panamitsu: Good job! 7kk (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Photo

I see you are looking for a photo, Panamitsu. There is one in MBIE's investigation report (figure 1 on page 7). It's a rather poor photo, but MBIE publishes its materials under a compatible license. Schwede66 04:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had a closer look at that copyright page and it says Please note that this licence does not apply to any ... photography and imagery so I'll see if I can find another image on Commons that has the building in the background. ―Panamitsu (talk) 07:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh nevermind, I see that you've created a Commons category with those images. Thanks for that. ―Panamitsu (talk) 07:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)