Talk:Grade II* listed buildings in Greater Manchester

	Greater Manchester portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester 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.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Kearsley mill?[edit]

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/637997 Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] says Grade II, no star. Same on Images of England [2]. Mike Peel (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current status[edit]

Ok, it's nearly 3 months since this article was started, and it's shaping up nicely. Let's have a check up on progress. IoE lists here the numbers of Grade II* LBs in 2001; as editors who were involved in the Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester article discovered, the status of some buildings has since changed so the figures are a starting point rather than the final word. All the same, the 2001 figures are:

Bolton 16
Bury 7
Manchester 81
Oldham 8
Rochdale 21
Salford 14
Stockport 21
Tameside 19
Trafford 9
Wigan 29

How we're doing so far:

Bolton 10 (sorry Polishname, but that section isn't quite done yet)
Bury 8 (section complete, list can be seen here
Manchester 62
Oldham 11 (complete, list can be seen here)
Rochdale 1 (still a long way to go)
Salford 14 (complete, see list this)
Stockport 24 (complete, see list in this PDF)
Tameside 0
Trafford 11 (complete, see list in this PDF)
Wigan 0

So, we've finished 5 out of 10 sections, and Manchester provides it's own list that should help. The rest might prove more difficult, but we're doing well so far. With over 200 buildings to include, we've got 123, a good start. Nev1 (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must have done the something wrong in the advanced search. I put 'Bolton' as the postal town, 'Greater Manchester' and the county and 'Grade II*' as the building grade. I'll get back to work on it! —PolishName 19:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I just tried the advanced search without Greater Manchester as the county and my result was 16 buildings, not 10. These are all listed as being in Lancashire. Are they within Greater Manchester's boundaries or not? (As I'm not a local to Bolton I'm a little unsure of its border.) —PolishName 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bolton postal town probably won't cover the same area as the Bolton Met. borough; for example, Hale Barns is in Warrington. The search I'm using is ignoring the postal town and has Greater Manchester as the county. It seems to work :-) Nev1 (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tried searching again with your method and it looks like you're right. Thanks for help (and correction!!!) —PolishName 11:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dearden Fold farmhouse[edit]

I'm wondering why it was removed, IoE and Bury council both list it as Grade II*. Nev1 (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I put it into the Bolton section by accident. It's already in the Bury one so I just removed it from Bolton. —PolishName 17:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right, I hadn't noticed that it was in the Bolton section so I assumed it had been removed from the Bury section. Never mind. Nev1 (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements[edit]

OK, according to Nev1's previous calculations, we now have all listed buildings in Greater Manchester in this list! That means the figures are as follows:

Bolton 16
Bury 8
Manchester 81
Oldham 11
Rochdale 21
Salford 14
Stockport 24
Tameside 19
Trafford 11
Wigan 29

Giving us a total of 234! The boroughs marked in bold have been checked against their council's websites. The others have only been checked against Images of England. If the amount of buildings in Bolton, Manchester, Rochdale, Tameside and Wigan can be confirmed with with their councils, we should have the list finally completed. And what's to say this shouldn't go GA?! —PolishName 13:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that's it's a list ;-) We could push for FL, but I'd recommend looking over the debate that went on on whether the Grade I list should be featured. Even if it doesn't get official recognition, this is a great article and a phenomenal effort from both Polsihname and Pit-yacker, well done! Nev1 (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll go over the debate and see what needs doing. —PolishName 15:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a note that the PDF here (found by Polishname) lists Wigan as having 41 Grade II* buildings. Nev1 (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Winstanley Hall[edit]

I've got a little dilemma concerning Winstanley Hall:

Wigan council (here) lists nine grade II* buildings associated with the Hall:

Barn and attached stables
Cottage north of barn and attached stables
Gateway to E of northern stable block
Gateway to W of northern stable block
Screen wall from barn block to southern stables
Stable Block (to the north)
Stable Block (to the south)

Images of England seems to lump 1, 3, 4 and 5 together (here) as one building. IoE also lists number 2 with the 'Estate Office' (here) as one building and as grade II. Wigan MBC has both these buildings listed separately as grade II and II* respectively. The other two stable blocks don't seem to be on IoE at all, although they could be part of the 'extensions' to Winstanley Hall itself (here).

Which do I list separately and which do I not??—PolishName 12:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go with the list from Wigan and list them all separately. There was a similar issue with Dunham Massey Hall as I think three were listed Grade I, but they are all separate buildings. If I didn't consider Wigan council a reliable source I'd say stick to IoE, but the council have to maintain a register of Listed Buildings for the purposes of planning permission etc. Nev1 (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry it took me awhile to get back, I've been on holiday for a few weeks. Whilst I'm here, would it be possible if you could try and dig up some references to Bolton and Rochdale's councils? I can't seem to find any anywhere. Cheers. —PolishName 18:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly I've tried, I can't find anything on their websites. I'm considering e-mailing them to see if they have something stashed away. Nev1 (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well. Just finished the Wigan list, so unless we have any luck with the councils ourselves we'll just have Manchester to reference and check! —PolishName 19:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember looking when we were working on the grade I list. Rochdale is open about it, "A statutory list of Rochdale's listed buildings is available at the Planning and Regulation Services Offices, and can be viewed via prior appointment.", see here. As I recall, Bolton didn't have anything online; I checked-and lo and behold here Mr Stephen (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one Mr Stephen. It might be worth emailing Rochdale MBC and asking them if they could give us a list of any buildings upgraded/downgraded since 2001. Any thoughts? —PolishName 20:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great news. Nev1 (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA?[edit]

As far as I can see, all the boroughs have been checked with their respective councils except Rochdale which provides no information on its listed buildings. If no more buildings need adding and/or removing, the current list would give us a total of 238 structures.

My question is, therefore, does this article qualify for WP:FAC?

I reckon it complies with the featured list criteria, I suppose the only way to find out is to propose it at WP:FLC. Take it away. Nev1 (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure about the ordering of the photographs? I'm thinking something with more regional prominence (say, Manchester Central Library) should take the first spot IMHO. I think we could extend the images further down too with more examples. Also the lead may need a quick copyedit ("There are many Grade II* listed buildings" strikes me as an example of redundancy which reviewers might pick up on). --Jza84 | Talk 23:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It'd need to be all blue linked for any chance of success at FLC. Rudget (logs) 09:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Rudget's right, it needs a few more blue links; the Grade I page certainly did. I'll try and boost the lead up a bit and re-arrange the photos. —PolishName 14:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At risk register[edit]

There are 24 II* buildings and 1 I building listed as 'at risk' on the English Heritage site here (click county:GM to find them). I think it's well worth adding this information to the article, anyone agree? Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it would be worth it. But where? We can't really create a new column that will only be used for 24 out of 200+ buildings we have. —PolishName 20:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be worth creating a seperate article listing those? Mike Peel (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like Mike's suggestion a lot, another list seems the right way to go to me. Nev1 (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here, here. Listed buildings at risk in Greater Manchester or At risk listed buildings in Greater Manchester?—PolishName 15:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first one, it just sounds better. Nev1 (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also like the first one; the second looks disjointed. It's curious that there are no Grade II listed buildings that are "at risk" in Greater Manchester. Mike Peel (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed, but you're right. If I had to hazard a guess it might be because Grade II buildings are lower priority and so are more likely to drop off the register. How about Buildings at risk in Greater Manchester, because buildings can be on the register without being listed if they're Scheduled Monuments. Nev1 (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that make it too generic, though? Lots of buildings could be viewed as being "at risk" without actually being on the "at Risk" register. Buildings listed as At Risk in Greater Manchester might work, but could then cause confusion... Mike Peel (talk) 08:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, let's stick to Listed buildings at risk in Greater Manchester, anything else would probably be too long winded. Nev1 (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wythenshawe Bus Garage[edit]

Want to add this to the Manchester list as it was Grade II* listed in 2001. But I managed to mangle the entire list so reversed my edit. Can someone manage it. All the details are at the Wythenshawe Bus Garage entry, to which I shall add a picture later today. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Just needs a ref after the coords :-)J3Mrs (talk) 10:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks indeed. KJP1 (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New format[edit]

The list will be excellent, as with Grade I and with Wales. But has no one got a clever tool that can retain the links to individual pages when the transfer is made, or do we need to do them manually again? KJP1 (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St Benedict's church, Ardwick[edit]

St Benedict's is now a climbing centre, I believe. Is the type column for current use or past?Plucas58 (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Grade II* listed buildings in Greater Manchester. 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) 21:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grade II* listed buildings in Greater Manchester. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100418101721/http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=2133903 to http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=2133903

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) 15:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]