Talk:E. Mahoney and Son

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Assessment

The article is based on a single source. With more sources, it could easily be brought to C class. Schwede 66 03:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Both father and son are certainly notable by themselves, so there is no reason why they need to have a combined article. Schwede 66 03:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requester asked to make split Op47 (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They worked together in the same firm and, sometimes on the same buildings (eg St Patrick's Cathedral, Auckland. They are given a joint biography in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Hillary Reid in "Historic Buildings of New Zealand: North Island, Cassell New Zealand, 1975 generally deals with them separately and mostly in relation to different buildings. Thomas seems to have been more of an ecclesiastical architect than Edward. I have no preference either way really.Rick570 (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus for split. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move to E. Mahoney and Son

While looking into sources for the background to this split request I noticed that what is notable is the business the father and son formed. The article already mentions the company, and that other members of the family worked in the company. I think it would be appropriate to change the article title to E. Mahoney and Son and edit the article so it is about the architectural company, the buildings they designed, and the individual members of the company - Edward Mahoney, Thomas Mahoney and Robert Mahoney. If the sections on any one of these architects becomes so large it dominates the article, that would be the time to split it out into a standalone article per WP:Article size and WP:Summary style. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source: The Churches of E. Mahoney & Son, 1858-1919. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/2m26/mahoney-edward. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MER-C 11:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]