Talk:Port Chalmers Maritime Museum

I was not aware this article existed when creating Port Chalmers Post Office. I don't believe the museum is independently notable from the post office and qualifies for a standalone article. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• I'd have said it the other way round. The museum is the premier maritime museum in the South Island and is thus a notable structure. Part of it was once the Port Chalmers Post Office, so it would make sense to merge the Post Office article in here (thanks for making that article, BTW - it was on my to-do list to add details about the P.O. structure in here). Grutness...wha? 02:26, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  When I was making the article I only found a single source that provided significant coverage of the museum compared to several sources for the post office. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:22, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  Only a single source? Was it this one? Or this one? Or this one? How about this one? Or maybe this one? Grutness...wha? 03:03, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  Are you seriously suggesting that Wanderboat AI is a reliable source...? Traumnovelle (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry that that one slipped in - but there are plenty of sources. When I started this article I assessed whether the article would be better at a page for the post office or a page for the museum, and it was pretty clear - especially given local knowledge - that it's rarely known nowadays as the old post office. Port Chalmans (Port Chalmerns? I've never seen it written down!) for the most part ignore its former usage, and certainly the museum is the far better known name for the site. Most top ghits for "Port Chalmers Post Office" are on pages talking primarily about the museum, or mention it being a post office in brackets after listing its current use. "Port Chalmers Maritime Museum" -wiki -facebook gets three times as many ghits as "Port Chalmers Post Office" -wiki -facebook. Add in "Port Chalmers Museum" -wiki -facebook, and you've got seven times as many. In any case, it may be that the post office building has the HNZ classification, but many articles on WP for historic buildings use different names to those on the HNZ index, and that building is today part of a much larger complex, one which, as I pointed out, is significant. Grutness...wha? 11:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  Your other sources are an advertisement, a blog, the Port Otago website, and the only reliable source is pretty routine reporting on the Port Otago redevelopment with just some quotes from museum people. Google Hits are not a reliable indicator of notability because they do not tell you whether the sources are any good or not. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  They're still widely used on WP for judging such matters. In any case, local information is far more telling. If it's known throughout Port Chalmers, Dunedin, and the rest of the local community primarily as a museum, then it should definitely be at the museum page. Similarly, since the old PO building is today part of a larger significant complex, then that complex is the more appropriate site for the page. Grutness...wha? 22:52, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  No, reliable sources are used for all of such matters, and reliable sources provide significant coverage of the post office. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  Erm, no. Most common usage is frequently used for dealing with cases where two possible titles could potentially used for the same article. Reliable sources can help decide on the title of an article when they overwhelmingly favour one title over the other and when there are no reasons for specifically using one title, cetainly, but in this case there are specific reasons for using the museum title, as previously mentioned. Standard procedure, and has been for at least the 20 years I've been editing here, if not longer. That's why, for example, Consultancy House is listed at that title, with a redirect from "MFL Mutual Fund Building", rather than vice versa - the building is known locally (and has been for years) as Consultancy House, irrespective of the original name, the name most widely found in reliable sources, or the name by which the building is registered with HNZ. And, as mentioned before, the museum complex includes both the former post office and numerous other buildings. It makes far more sense to have the article at the museum title and explain about part of the complex being a historic former post office than have the article at the former post office title and explain about adjoining buildings being part of the museum, and thereby needing to go off on a tangent about buildings which are not the former post office. An article about a known museum building, for the sake of naturalness, should be at the title of the museum. This is also the form of the building's name which is most well-known. Naturalness and recognisability are two of the main criteria of article naming. BTW, since you didn't like the earlier sources I grabbed, try these: 1, 2. There are plenty of them out there. Grutness...wha? 13:50, 20 February 2026 (UTC)