Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 04:31, 30 January 2008.

Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester

This article seems to meet the FL criteria. Certainly as good as, if not better than Grade I listed buildings in Bristol (in my humble opinion). I can't see any issues here. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments by Crzycheetah

~~Oppose~~Neutral ~~I don't think it meets the 1(a) criterion. Too many red linked and unlinked items in this list. By the way, the refs column should not be sortable~~.--Crzy cheetah 08:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The refs columns isn't sortable. Do you mean the grid ref column? Having that sortable allows readers to see which structures are close to each other, but if there's an established convention that it shouldn't be sortable then of course we'll have to make it unsortable. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is fine with the refs columns, I must've mixed up this list with another one I was looking at.--Crzy cheetah 23:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, there is one more comment, there are several footnotes in the table that when clicked go to the Notes section where one can read the actual note. The problem is that there are several "A", "B' even "D" footnotes throughout the list while there's only one link per each footnote in the notes section. It's hard for me to explain this problem clearer. You may look at the List of Governors of Colorado to see that there are as many links in the notes section as there are footnotes in the table. This is not the case here. --Crzy cheetah 21:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I think that you are confusing footnotes with referencing. The "footnotes" in the example you quote are in fact citations. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not confusing anything this time. I just have a hard time explaining my concern. *takes deep breath* Ok, do you see the reference #1(Manchester City Council) in this list that has "a" and "b" parts? I want footnotes such as "A" to have 1,2,3,4, etc parts because there are many "A" footnotes throughout the list. OR take "D" footnote, for example, you have it next to St Mark's Church, Worsley as well as next to St Anne's Church, Haughton Green, but the letter "D" in the "Notes" section takes the reader to the Church of St Peter, Churchgate's row. I want that the "Notes" section to have links to St Mark's Church, Worsley and St Anne's Church, Haughton Green's rows. Hope I explained this better, now.--Crzy cheetah 22:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to understand too. If I think I understand what I think you mean, then this wouldn't work or make sense!... we must have crossed wires. Perhaps you can make the edit for us? If the consensus is against it, we can always revert. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I did some edits, but there are so many of them that have to be done. I'll try to do more later on, if you guys still have trouble doing it.--Crzy cheetah 22:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doing it is very easy. It's the purpose of doing it that's difficult to understand. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't think this is the right way to take the notes. I don't think I've ever seen this done before. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the citation are done this way(automatically, of course), why the notes should be different? It's easier for the reader to read the note and in one click get back to where he/she's been. --Crzy cheetah 20:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I understand the point that you're making now, but the implementation you suggest is not consistent with either the rest of the Notes section, or the way that the feature works in the References section. Is this your only remaining opposition to this article's FL listing? If so, then may I propose an alternative, more consistent solution? Or would I be wasting my time? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that I didn't do the rest of the notes and that's why it's not consistent, right? Yes, this is my only concern. I am open to suggestions. I'd like to see your solution. --Crzy cheetah 23:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is to use a visually consistent style of formatting throughout the article, as I have now done. Failing that, to fix the old style referencing templates like {{ref label}} and {note label}} to be consistent with the current referencing style. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(←)That's the worst solution, IMO. Notes should be differentiated from the references. Now, it's impossible to know where the notes are and where the citations are when reading this article.--Crzy cheetah 20:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bad solution, it's simply one you have a personal dislike for. It is quite common in articles to mix notes and references, and I see nothing wrong with it. But c'est la vie. You stick to using an incompatible mixture of the old and new citation templates if it makes you happy. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure that this process of FL nomination is bring any constructive feedback or benefits for the article. I can point to much weaker lists that have FL status. Some of the reasons for opposition are not solid or based on any convention. I'm happy with the current system, though was with the previous system. The "a, b, c, 1, 2, 3" system was somewhat pointless and in my point of view, the worst "solution" to a problem that doesn't really exist. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current way of footnoting (combining notes and references) makes it hard for me to navigate this list; therefore, I believe it fails 1(f) criterion of WP:WIAFL that states "lists should be Well-constructed". I think it will benefit this list if the notes and references are separated.--Crzy cheetah 00:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a common practice across wikipedia. I haven't seen any complaints about this before and I have taken quite a few articles through FAC and FLC as well as reviewed quite a few articles at FAC. It is also a common academic practice. The point of footnotes is to provide further information, be it citations for verification or details not appropriate for the main text (or list, in this case). I don't see how this referencing system impedes navigation of the list. Awadewit

~~Oppose~~. In addition to the above (almost half the links are red), the lead does not, in my opinion, adequately summarise the list (criteria 2a). Of nine place headings, only Manchester is mentioned; Oldham is mentioned, although it does not appear anywhere on the list. There is an enormous white space at the head of the page (see 1f). There are also a lot of embedded external links to map sources for national grid refs. These print out in full. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the lead a little to hopefully better summarise the list.
Do you mean the white space created by the table of contents? Surely the toc is necessary for 1f), in that it makes the list "easy to navigate"? It can be hidden in any event. Is there an established convention that lists ought not to contain a toc?--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, I meant the white space to the left of the twelve images before the lead begins. This only seems to manifest itself in 800x600 pixel resolution (my work computer) though. 1024x768 looks fine. Chrisieboy (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. I'll see what can be about about that. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Tested at 800x600 and should be OK at any scree resolution now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oldham appears in the lead to assert the distinction it has no Grade I listed buildings. Oldham won't have a section; the article is about Grade I listed buildings.... -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note that all of Chrisieboy's concerns have been addressed, and that he was invited to confirm or deny that here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry not to have replied sooner. This has certainly improved, although I note you have not addressed my comments on embedded external links. Are these really useful? They print out in full and somewhat spoil the layout. Chrisieboy (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I may be misunderstanding you here, but what do you mean by "print out in full"? Do you mean printed on paper? Or are you talking about the little external link icon? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I mean when printed on paper. Chrisieboy (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, at last I understand. Is it a requirement for featured lists that they can be printed on paper? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the link to Google Maps etc. is worth it! I am now happy to lend my support. In my view this is a credit to all concerned. Chrisieboy (talk) 02:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose ~~unnecessary use of colored headers,~~ I'm dubious about the necessity of subdivision, and you have wrapped the entire article inside a table because you were unable to properly distribute the images throughout to avoid link bunching (I assume, the table is still preposterous). On the other end, I really like the lead. Circeus (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When is there ever a necessary use of coloured headers? From a techinical perspective it is necessary to wrap the entire aticle inside a table to achieve the desired layout consistently at all screen resolutions, as the thumbnails occupy a fixed number of pixels. Is there some rule against using a screen resolution independent layout? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might also be worth pointing out here that the entire article is not wrapped inside a table, only those parts of it where the intention is to safely and consistently display a ribbon of pictures down the right hand side of the screen. If safety and consistency are "preposterous", well, the lunatics really have taken over the asylum. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that pointing to relevant MOS pages would help here. Without them it's hard to decipher if these are personal preferences with which your opposing the article(!) -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The strong oppose doesn't seem to have a basis here. That the table is "preposterous" - what does this mean? How do we act upon this? When does a table become preposterous?... Also, "Dubious" subdivision? The division is clear; according to administrative areas. How does this harm the article? -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the tables make the list more navigable. Although tables have their problems, I cannot think of a better layout for this page myself. Awadewit | talk 05:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Support - looks pretty good, but in addition to seconding concerns about the non-standard header colour, I've got a few suggestions.

Would an "architect" column be useful? See, for instance, listed buildings in Sheffield - in many other ways inferior, but the architect column adds useful additional information.

It's a not a bad idea, but there are many of the buildings for which the architect is unknow, ie: the medieval buildings. Nev1 (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why "In spite of Greater Manchester's Roman and medieval heritage, most of its listed buildings date from the Victorian and Edwardian periods"? It's not in spite of its Roman and mediaeval heritage, which is nothing out of the ordinary for a county, despite containing some superb Grade I buildings of these eras. The reason is simply that Manchester was a world-leading industrial city during the Victorian era.
For the introduction, is there anything interesting to say about any particular listings? I would expect that, for instance the listing of the railway bridge over the River Irwell would have attracted significant coverage, and perhaps some debate - perhaps also some of the listings from the 1970s.
Finally, on my rather low-resolution set-up, the fixed percentage width of the columns leads the grid reference external link icon to overlap the start of the ref(s) column. Could the grid ref column either be made a touch wider, or become a fixed width column, or have the column widths not set at all? Any of these should solve this glitch. Warofdreams talk 20:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the column widths weren't set at all, then the columns wouldn't line up between tables, just like the Sheffield list you pointed out, which would look kinda scruffy I think. The %age size of the grid ref column could probably be increased a fraction to solve the problem with low resolution screens though.

I don't understand your comment about "non-standard header colour". Can you point me towards the standard please?

If an architect column was introduced then it would have to be at the expense of one of the other columns, and it would frequently be empty, as Nev1 pointed out. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A wider column should solve the issue; incidentally, the column widths don't have to be set to line up the columns - see list of UK by-elections for an example.

That article contains only one table though. This one has nine tables, one after the other. The only way to make the columns line up is to specify a column size. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True; there are some advantages to using a single table, but that would remove the possibility of making it sortable. Warofdreams talk 11:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:When to use tables suggests standardisation on class=wikitable wherever possible, and that class uses #f2f2f2 for its headers. Using a different colour implies that some additional information is being carried, as in (for example) the Template:S-start/doc series. Additionally, the darker the background colour, the more difficult it is for users with impaired sight to read the headers.

While I've not investigated, it would appear likely that architects could be identified for more than half the buildings listed. Is that enough to make it worthwhile? I don't know, it's an idea which could be discussed on the talk page. If it would prove informative, then some reformatting to widen the table would be a better option than removing any existing columns. Warofdreams talk 22:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, an update: the "in spite of" comment has been reworked and the column header colours and column widths have been addressed. The possibility of an architect column is under discussion, and its possible adoption is not a condition for my support - so I'm now happy to give that. I'm still hopeful that there may be some more information to add to the intro and if anyone could find a way of lining columns up while not having to use fixed widths, that'd be great. Warofdreams talk 11:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After this discussion, we decided to keep the percentage widths in the tables in Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft, which became a WP:FL. Awadewit | talk 05:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning towards~~ support This article is most definitely useful, in the sense that it brings together a list of articles in a coherent and interesting way; it is comprehensive as far as I am aware; it cites each entry using standard citation styles (WP:CITE); it is uncontroversial and stable; and it is well-constructed. It also has appropriate images and adheres to the MOS. The only improvements I can see that could be made are in the lead:

Although Greater Manchester has Roman and medieval heritage, most of its listed buildings date from the Victorian and Edwardian periods, and in particular the time of the Industrial Revolution. - Why mention the Roman and medieval heritage if the buildings from that period are not significant for this list?
Greater Manchester has been described as "one of the classic areas of industrial and urban growth in Britain, the result of a combination of forces that came together in the 18th and 19th centuries: a phenomenal rise in population, the appearance of the specialist industrial town, a transport revolution, and weak local lordship" - Could we say described by who? Scholars, I hope?

This already has a reference to bolster it (a book published by the Association for Industrial Archaeology), is it necessary to mention who said it in the text? Nev1 (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds a good idea to me; it makes quite a difference that this is from an authoritative source on the subject, rather than being the opinion of an individual or a municipal publication. Warofdreams talk 18:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Grade I listed buildings in each borough are shown separately. - "shown" or "listed"?
Manchester, the world's first industrialised city[6] and "the best Victorian city in England" - What does this quote really mean?
~~Could the editors highlight a few of the most interesting buildings in the lead?~~

This is an excellent addition - very interesting facts! Awadewit | talk 01:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have confidence that I will be able to support this list after a few clarifications and expansions are made to the lead. Awadewit | talk 05:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some good suggestions, for which thanks. I think that they're all dealt with now apart from bolstering the reference you mentioned, which I'll leave for Nev1 to deal with. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've adjusted the sentence to make it clear that it's scholarly etc, I think it's enough, but please see for yourself. Nev1 (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is, and I am happy to support this article now. Thanks for implementing the changes so swiftly! Awadewit | talk 01:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments and Questions~~ Support I think this is a useful way of bringing together these buildings, and I will probably be able to support soon, but a couple of comments and questions:

I would agree with a couple of minor comments about the lead (eg I can't see the point of the Roman mention)
The display is fine on my screen at various resolutions
I'm not very familiar with the area but the ability to sort by location doesn't really help me to envisage which buildings are close to each other - but the grid refs do - deep breath - would a map showing the location of the buildings be possible?
I'm not sure what the date of listing adds - these are often an accident of history & depend on whether the building was included in Pevsners books which were used as the original text for many of the listings.

I agree, it may be a bit of a hassle to remove the column and ensure all the tables stay the right size, but I don't think the date listed column is necessary. Nev1 (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any ideas what to replace it with, if it were to be done? It gives us some extra space that we may as well use. The architect has previously been suggested. Nev1 (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find the difference & distinction between Manchester & Greater Manchester a little confusing & may need further guidance - related to this I note this list has template {{Greater Manchester}} while Architecture of Manchester has {{Manchester}} & I wonder why?

I'm sure most of these are because of my ignorance about the area rather than any conflicts with MOS etc & can easily be resolved & then I would be able to support (& I may change Grade I listed buildings in Bristol to follow this example once resolved).— Rod ^talk 09:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful feedback. The column for date of listing has been changed to architect, in line with a prevous suggestion, and the lead reworked to (hopefully) take care of Awadewit's concerns. The map will have to be a longer term project though I'm afraid. The Manchester/Greater Manchester distinction is potentially confusing, I agree, because the county has the same name as the city, but the city is just one of the boroughs within the county of Greater Manchester. Somewhat similar to London and the City of London. Any suggestions you have to make the difference clearer would be gratefully received. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done to the team for responding to comments. I've now changed my comment to support. I think my confusion was not helped by travelling to a meeting which the agenda said was in Machester to arrive to be told by locals in no uncertain terms that we were in the City of Salford not Manchester. I won't make that mistake again.— Rod ^talk 08:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may be allowed to summarise the position so far, it appears that this list has 4 supporters (5 if the nominator is included) and 2 opposers. The opposition appears to hinge around two outstanding points:

Using tables to format the layout is "preposterous".
The standard referencing system makes navigating the list difficult.

I think it is clear that both of those objections are without merit. So in lieu of any further actionable objections, is it not time now to close this nomination? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ I changed my previous vote to neutral, since I realize that it may be a matter of taste. BUT, right now, I notice that the notes in the references are not sourced. For example, the "A tower was added to the building in 1995" statement is unsourced. How can one be sure that it was added in 1995 and not in some other year? There are no general references to check, so statements like that are left unsourced. I counted 5 unsourced statements. --Crzy cheetah 07:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The references column provides all the information given in the table and the notes on a building. If this is not sufficient, could you please suggest a way of integrating the notes and the references. Nev1 (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The note at #11, "Sometimes known as OSGB36...", is well sourced with 2 references. I'd like to see the same way of referencing at notes #15, 31, 42, 44, and 68.--Crzy cheetah 22:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that shouldn't be too hard, apart from #15, it's just a matter of duplicating sources. The complicated part is #15, the note saying this building was listed after 2001. Would it be enough to double up with the IoE ref or would it need the other ref giving it's current status? I still think this is too much hassle as the ref column covers everything, ie: those links are the source for the name, when it was completed, the architect, where it is, and any notes. Nev1 (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the refs for "Parish Church of St Peter" (#16 and 17) and none of them prove that it was upgraded to Grade I after February 2001, as the #15 note states. --Crzy cheetah 00:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's elementry, my dear Crzycheetah.You are correct the sources do not explicitly state that the buildings have been upgrade, howver throughsimple deduction it can be proven. Our starting point is ref #16, from the Image of England website, accurate as of February 2001, claiming the church is II*. This is juxtaposed by ref #17, dating from late 2007 and published by Bolton MBC - a fairly reliable source. At first glance these sources may appear to contradict each other as the source from Bolton MBC claims the church is Grade I. Almost but not quite: in the intervening period, the church must have been upgraded. And so the case is proven and this is repeated for all the other buildings upgraded since 2001.

It is unlikely that a source can be unearthed for each building explicitly stating that it has been upgraded since 2001. So, what do you suggest should be done? I think the current system works fine. Nev1 (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying it's elementary, yet it took you one paragraph to explain. I think note #15 should be expanded to point out that it's an assumption due to contradicting information from two reliable sources. --Crzy cheetah 01:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, a whole paragraph, and yet you still failed to understand. The information is not contradictory, and there are no assumptions being made. The Images of England site quite clearly states that information listed there has not been updated since 2001. The Bolton MBC site quite clearly states that St Peters is Grade I listed as at 2007. What's the assumption? In what way is the information contradictory? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually notice that it's hard for you to understand what assumption means! I see one reference that states it's grade I, then there's another reference that states it's grade II. I hope you understand that those refs contradict each other. Nowhere it states that those buildings were upgraded, so you are making an assumption that it actually was upgraded based on those contradictory reports. By saying that "one site was not updated since 2001; thus,the information stated there is not true anymore" is an assumption.--Crzy cheetah 05:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise. I don't agree with your reasoning, but I ought not to have made the personal remark that I did. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the note, please see if it meets your requirements. Nev1 (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nev1. It wasn't difficult, was it? As soon as you provide references along with the other 4 notes I previously mentioned, I'll remove my objection. I also just re-read that you said it wouldn't be hard to do, so, good luck!--Crzy cheetah 21:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about that, done. Nev1 (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for your "good-faith effort".--Crzy cheetah 22:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.