Talk:Listed buildings in Runcorn (urban area)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured listListed buildings in Runcorn (urban area) is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 13, 2009Featured list candidatePromoted
June 11, 2009Good topic candidatePromoted
October 22, 2019Featured topic removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Featured list

List re-formatted - for FLC?[edit]

I have re-written and reformatted this list. It is a complete list of all the listed buildings in the urban part of the town. Each building has its date of construction, coordinates which (should) take you to the actual building, a short description, reference(s) and a photograph. The references include the relevant entry in Images of England, where one exists (otgherwise to the record held by the local authority) and, where there is significant history or technical details, to its source. All the photos are taken by me and they are in the public domain. Any advice on improvements to be made before submitting it for peer review, and then maybe as a FLC, would be appreciated. Thanks. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Grade II buildings are split into subsections dependant on location. The Grade I and II* ones aren't. That is all right, but I wonder whether it would be an idea to state the location in the text-box for each Grade I and Grade II*, using the terms used for the sub-sections in the Grade II part of the list?  DDStretch  (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few comments:

  • It might be an idea to include a column for the architect's name.
  • The descriptions get rather repetitive: "This ... This ... This ... A ... A ... This ...".
  • I prefer the text size in tables to be reduced a little, as in Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester.
  • Many of the buildings have no wikipedia article, which I think might be a problem at FLC.

--Malleus Fatuorum 19:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that IS a quick response. To reply:
DDS. I think most of the sites in Grade I and II* are self-evident - Halton Castle is in Halton, Norton Priory is in Norton, etc. I have added Runcorn to All Saints Church. The only other really "missing" one is the Tricorn which is now in an area of the new town called Palacefields - to add this would cause confusion because this area is not mentioned elsewhere (nor would I want to mention it). Do you think this is OK-enough? I did delete "ecclesiastical" because it makes the description rather clumsy and in the context it should be clear that it is an ecclesiastical parish (I do know you are having a difficult debate about parishes elsewhere).
Malleus. Thanks for the copy editing. Weston Old Hall and its barn are listed separately by English Heritage so I have amended the text in an attempt to clarify this. The problem is that the barn is virtually impossible to photograph separately from, or included with, the hall. And if I don't say something like I have said, someone will say that I can't count (ie 47 Grade II buildings).
To answer your specific comments:
  • The architect is known for very few of the buildings. Where he is, it is included in the description. To have a separate column would be to have a virtually empty column.
  • I too was concerned about the repetitiveness. But what to do? I think the only criterion for FLC not met in the list is maybe a professional standard of writing. This clearly has to apply to the lead. But can it apply to the descriptions which are by their nature repetitive. Can you make them any "better"? I wish I could. Ideas welcomed!
  • I agree; it was a bit overwhelming. I have reduced the text size and think it looks better - do you?
  • Not sure what we can do about this, other than to write a series of short (or very short) stubs, which will be of little real value. Perhaps we can leave this one to the assessors.

Any more comments are welcomed. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the smaller text looks better now. I always prefer the columns of tables in lists like this to be aligned, in other words to all share the same column widths. Like you, I'm not sure what can be done about the desciptions though ... --Malleus Fatuorum 21:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: First impression, the list looks good and I like that there's an image for each building.

  • It looks like about two thirds of the buildings don't have their own article. From experience that was a hurdle trying to promote Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester to FL, but all that was required was to create a handful of stubs. This case may be different as there's a description of each building, whereas the GM list lacked that.
  • The lead might need expanding, the first two paragraphs, explaining what LBs are and a bit about Runcorn, are good for background, but I think more needs to be said about the buildings themselves. For instance, I think it would be worth mentioning that the two Grade I buildings are the oldest in the town, and perhaps mentioning trends in the buildings (eg: was there a particular period when most of them were built).
  • It might be useful to have at least the date columns sortable (although circa dates would pose a problem).
  • I've noticed that you've used the Halton borough council website to ensure the list is up to date, that's always good, have any buildings been promoted to (or downgrade from) Grade I since 2001?
  • I'm not sure whether the Grade II section needs to be subdivided, but it does show that Norton and Weston and Weston Point have fewer Grade II LBs. That might be worth mentioning in the lead, with an explanation as possible. The article looks in good shape and would stand a decent chance at FLC. Nev1 (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Thanks for the useful comments - much appreciated. My replies are as follows:

  • I'll write a few more stubs.
  • I'll have a go at that.
  • Not sure if this would be practical; things "Early 18th century" and "Medieval" might spoil this. Nor am I sure that it wold add much value.
  • The Halton BC website is used as the reference for the two buildings which have been listed since 2001. (I have to confess that I was responsible for the Carnegie Library being listed, so I am pretty well up to date. I have nominated another building for listing and am awaiting the verdict from English Heritage.)
  • I don't think this would help much. It is a fairly short section; Weston has only one item; and the Tricorn building is not really classifiable (see above).
Cheers. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at the lead to address the concerns I mentioned in the FL application. It probably needs a quick sanity check to make sure I haven't changed the sense anywhere, or misapplied references.

I've also copy edited the main table very quickly. A remaining problem with this section is the tenses -- it uses "was built in brown brick" fairly consistently, where much of the rest of the text uses "is constructed in sandstone". I still don't understand the logic of the default ordering system. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thanks for the sterling work you have done on this. A few points:
  • Somewhere I was told that bolding was not necessary in lists (can't find it now) so I removed what had been there.
  • No, the bolding is distracting, and should not be done. Please note that the MOS says that article titles need should not be bolded when the title is not repeated verbatim; in addition, linked text should not be bolded. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Need not" =/= "should not", but I won't reinsert. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhere (again can't find it) someone changed the tense, in places, from present to past. I prefer present. Pevsner uses present (but he wrote in note form which isn't allowed in WP). If a building is still standing, surely it IS built in sandstone (or whatever).
  • I agree present should be used, but "is built in" doesn't sound right. I think I used "is in" or we could change them all to is "constructed in". Espresso Addict (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed them to "in" - that's how Pevsner does it too. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "villages" is not quite right; Higher Runcorn consisted of half-a-dozen houses. OK if I change this to "settlements"?
  • "Amalgamated" does not really ring true; it suggests some form of agreement in the process. The reality was that they were "swallowed up" by the growth of urban development. Something like "the outlying settlements/communities were absorbed by...." maybe.
  • I played about with this bit a lot, trying to avoid describing in detail either the geography or the history of Runcorn, but I agree "were absorbed by" would be better if you could find a simple phrasing. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that it works grammatically -- see what you think of my version. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no real logic in the default ordering - should there be (not everyone thinks there should be)? If so, I would go for date order within the grades. Geographical ordering does not make sense, as you have discovered. When this is settled, the numerical ordering of the references can be dealt with.
  • The default order needs to have a clear "logic" which isn't necessarily logical, if you see what I mean. Grade > date > alphabetical by name (col 1) would work for me. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 31 Main Street needs moving. Also "early 18th century" could probably do with moving before dates after 1750 &c&c. (Do you want me to move them or you? I'm worried about table rows getting lost if we edit conflict.) Otherwise, looking good! Espresso Addict (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The amendment of the sentence in the lead reads well - thanks. I was not sure how to order precise and vague dates, so I opted for precise first each century, then the rest. I should be v. happy for you to reorder as you suggest; partly because I am suffering from an unstable broadband connection, which is driving me MAD. Will have to change my provider - they've been messing about with no improvement for 2 weeks. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will do. Editing at the moment is a pain as Wikipedia servers seem to be under strain and the unsubdivided page is huge -- doing it with a dodgy connection sounds like a nightmare! Espresso Addict (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, sorry, could you (or someone else) fix this? I've tried several times to move rows and I just bugger up the table formatting and can't seem to work out why. Sorry! Espresso Addict (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

notability of listed buildings[edit]

  • The discussion on the notability of listed buildings has been interesting. If a building is listed, surely that gives it notability, and therefore it passes the first test for inclusion as a WP article. That does not say that there should be articles for all Grade II listed buildings. But if an article is written for any purpose (other than advertising) it should IMO be exempt from speedy deletion.
Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the AfD only after it was closed. Offhand I think there could be a wikipedia article about each and every listed building. In my view the key arguments that eventually seemed to prevail in numerous AfD's about U.S. NRHP sites were that the NRHP-listed sites met wikipedia notability for two main reasons: 1) they had been deemed notable by the U.S. government agencies involved (because they met stated NRHP-listing criteria of some combo of architectural grounds, association with historical persons, etc.), and 2) there exist NRHP nomination documents which could be obtained which would provide verifiability. For most NRHP sites, such documents are not on-line, but for all sites could be obtained from the U.S. government for no cost, to be sent by postal mail. The main wp:NRHP project page provides info on obtaining on-line documents available for some. Even if the specific reasons for NRHP-listing of a given site were not yet stated in the wikipedia article, and even if the specific NRHP nomination document was not yet obtained and used to form a proper reference in the article, it could be assured that reasons and documents exist and could be later obtained. There used to be a lot of AfD's about NRHP sites but they are rare now and are speedily closed in favor of keep. By the way, is there a corresponding process that would work to obtain official nomination or inventory documents about the Listed buildings? doncram (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I agree that there could (but not necessarily should) be an article for any listed building. The usual source for information about listed buildings is Images of England, which was produced by English Heritage (to use it you have to register, but it's free). This was the result of a project carried out in 2000–01 and it has almost accurate information about almost all the listed buildings in existence at the time. More buildings have been listed since, and these are not included; it's good but not absolutely authoritative. Many local authorities have produced their own information in various forms; those for Halton Borough (of which Runcorn is a part) produce leaflets which are available online (see External links in the list). I hope that helps. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree any UK listed building of any grade meets verifiability criteria; even if it's not included at Images of England, the relevant council offices should be able to provide information, though I don't believe they will usually supply it by post. There are additionally privacy concerns, however -- most grade II listed buildings are private dwellings and some owners object to internet articles especially those which include photographs. The IoE database requires registration and is not searchable externally via Google &c, so inclusion here does substantially increase the exposure of the information, even if it derives from an already online source. For example, I've had long discussions with property owners who objected to my photographing their house (from the public highway) and I know that the UK Geograph project has had numerous objections to their low-resolution photos of private houses.
This is probably something that should be addressed centrally, though I'm not sure which project/noticeboard would be the best forum. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List name[edit]

Is there any particular reason why the article is called Listed buildings in Runcorn, Cheshire rather just than Listed buildings in Runcorn? Nev1 (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's just that I created it when I was very young and even more ignorant about WP matters than I am now. Time for a move? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the article as (I think) there's only one settlement called Runcorn in the UK, the only country to use have "listed buildings". Nev1 (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, not the only country to have listed buildings. See table of historic site registers at wp:HSITES. But, yes, probably only combo of "listed buildings" + "Runcorn". doncram (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Listed buildings in Runcorn (urban area). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Listed_buildings_in_Runcorn_(urban_area)&oldid=1208505081"