Talk:Grade I listed buildings in Monmouthshire

Format

I think the new tabular format for this, and the other Listed Buildings in Wales entries, is very good. But I think it has two significant weaknesses. Firstly, we've lost the links from the list pages to the individual buildings themselves. Secondly, the entries appear in the order of their HB number rather than alphabetically. Thus Llanvihangel Court, and the Stables at Llanvihangel Court appear almost at opposite ends of the table. Moreover, I do not think the HB categorisations are at all well known. Looking at the entry on Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester, User:Nev1 has adopted a similar tabular format but has retained the links to individual entries and the alphabetic format, both of which I think make the list , and its individual entries, much more accesible.

I'd appreciate other views. KJP1 (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right we do need links. I've started adding a couple, but I think we'll need editors to add them by hand (the same with images). User:KTC might be able to correct me if I'm wrong. The initial sorting isn't so important in my view as the tables are sortable, but is at least easier to sort out, so I don't see any reason not to shuffle around the contents. Nev1 (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

You've made a superb start. I'll head off and do the links on Grade II* this weekend. KJP1 (talk) 05:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that would be a tremendous help. I'll be going through a few of the Welsh lists adding in links and photos. Nev1 (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Have begun the, rather laborious, task of trying to link the Grade II* listings to their individual pages. Not easy, as the names of many, as taken from the HB lists, don't match their Wikipedia entries. Have to say, I continue to dislike the use of the HB numbering. Firstly, as indicated, they don't always match; secondly, they lead to multiple listings, e.g. Castle Terrace, Chepstow, was listed fourteen times; thirdly, as mentioned previously, they split clearly related buildings, e.g. Llanvihangel Court and its stables,; fourthly, they even split single buildings, e.g. Piercefiield House had separate three entries; fifthly, there are multiple entries generated by the HB numbering that don't even say what they are, just appearing as blank in the title column; and lastly, the ordering ceases to be alphabetic. None of this helps to make the list accessible. KJP1 (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

There are 17 entries that have HB numbers but don't have so much as a title. So I'm stumped as to how to identify them. I've checked the CADW website but can find no mention of this categorisation, let alone a list. Thoughts? KJP1 (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The blank ones are often houses, which can be identify by their number and street address. I'll go though and add those. -- KTC (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

And done for all (Grade II*) lists. -- KTC (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

If anyone wants specific information or clarification on any of the sites in Monmouthshire, I'm happy to help - live locally, have sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I do like the tabular format in principle, but have some comments. BTW, I'm new to Wikipedia as an editor, but am a long time user.

• I struggle with the HB CADW number. I've found it impossible to get to any information outside Wikipedia with it. This is unlike the number that is used in Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester, by User:Nev1 which links to the English Heritage records for the site. I think CADW are way behind here in releasing their information and making it publicly available.
• Ordering of the table is important - the auto-generated maps in Google and Bing use the initial order in the page rather than any re-ordering done be the reader. Also, encyclopaedic knowledge such as in wikipedia is essentially alphabetic in the ordering of things, so I think the order of the table should be driven by the contents of the first column - this seems to me to be the order that most readers would find comfortable.
• Order of columns in the table - I think I'd like to see the first three columns to be "Name", "Image", and "Brief Description" (more in this in next bullet). I think these are probably the most generalized information that help the reader decide which listed building they'd like to learn more about. "Name", "Brief Description", and then "Image" would work just as well.
• "Brief Description" - I have been looking at List of Scheduled Monuments in Monmouthshire and the fifth column "Details" - gives a sentence or two saying what the monument is.

Hope this is helpful. I'm trying to do some edits on the pages for listed buildings (and monuments) in Torfaen, but will try to do some work on the Monmouthshire pages after. Hoping to do a photo trip to SE Wales soon to add some photos.

Some more general points on lists and things:

• there seem to be lots of these sorts of lists in Wikipedia, not just listed buildings and monuments, but castles, sites of special scientific interest, churches, ruins etc. Does anyone know if there is a discussion group about tools used to generate these lists? Also anything on tools used within the lists (like the autogenerated maps), and any style discussion on ordering of tables and their contents?
• For example, the Scheduled Monuments pages could usefully include the box for creating maps in Google and Bing.
• Also the Scheduled Monuments pages include a nice summary map near the bottom which could be usefully added to the Listed Buildings pages.
• When you print a Scheduled Monuments page the paper layout is pretty good. When you print a Listed Buildings page the layout isn't great - some URLs in Grid Ref and Image are expanded making their columns very wide.

Definitely think there is room for some cross-pollination and standardization in these areas. --Robevans123 (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, my replies to your points are below.

• There might be somewhere we can link to, User:KTC might know of it but I can't think of the site off the top of my head. There is a place to add a url.
• Sorting the table alphabetically is easy enough and that's what I've done.
• I don't think the order of the columns can be changed, at least not for one list, as they're generated by a template used by a few dozen pages. It might be worth asking this question in a central location (such as the Welsh Wikipedian's noticeboard) to see if there's agreement to do this.
• A 'notes' column can be switched on if people think it's worthwhile. A short description is very useful IMO.
• I don't think there is a discussion group about the tools that I know of. As far as I know editors see what works on other lists and emulate them. There is, however, a mailing list for the people organising Wiki Loves Monuments where the tools could be mentioned.
• Good point. I think some of the scheduled monuments lists do use the tools, but I don't think it's uniform (until recently, it wasn't uniform for listed buildings).
• Hmm I'm not quite sure how to get round the printing issue, which is a shame because it would be nice for people to be able to print off the list and take it round with them.

Nev1 (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• As far as I'm aware, CADW does not provide a unique URL to a page providing information on individual listed building. It is possible to provide a URL linking to other site such as britishlistedbuildings.co.uk, but that will have to be done manually. -- KTC (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Importance of the article

I'm not at all sure I would agree with the assessment of this article as being of "Low" importance to the Wikipedia Wales Project. Low Importance articles are defined as being of "little importance to th(e) project, but cover(ing) a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia." I think a list of the most important buildings in one of Wales's counties counts as more than an "obscure piece of trivia". I would actually rate it High, based on a criterion of "fairly important, covering a general area of knowledge." Looking at a small sample of articles currently rated of High importance, I find Arthur Gould, a 19th century rugby player, Castell Coch, a single Grade 1 Listed Building, Diana, Princess of Wales, ?? and Gavin & Stacey. Something not quite right on the calibrations? Thoughts? KJP1 (talk) 06:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Have changed the Wales: Project Importance Rating to High - "The article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge." I think this better reflects the importance of the article to an understanding of Wales than the original Low. Others may disagree, in which case let's discuss it here. KJP1 (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tintern Abbey and Courtyard.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)