Talk:Grade I listed buildings in Lancashire

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites 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.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Lancashire and Cumbria Mid‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria 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.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the 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.

Merger proposal[edit]

List of Grade I listed buildings in Lancashire and Listed Buildings in Lancashire seem to cover largely the same content therefore I suggest they should be merged.— Rod ^talk 18:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies I didn't spot the original article. The problem with merging is that the Grade I page is complete (give or take the odd recent upgrade which my current trawl will fix) and part of a countrywide list of Grade Is. Could I suggest a link to the Grade I page from the more general page. Some of the pics could go over too. I expect to expand the Grade I page to featured list standard, e.g. Grade I listed buildings in Bristol in due course.Major-General Clanger (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also oppose such a merge. There are other such lists which have reached Featured status (List of Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester, for example) and there's no reason why this list can't do likewise. On the contrary, there do not seem to be other lists of listed buildings that encompass a whole county. A complete list of listed buildings in Lancashire would be vast, and would probably be better broken up by town or by district. Small-town hero (talk) 09:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article revamp[edit]

I've been working on revamping this list to include images, coordinates, references and short descriptions of each of the buildings, along the lines of some recent featured lists on listed buildings. Does anyone have any objection to me moving this work into the article? It's not currently online, but I could put it in a sandbox for a preview if anyone wants.--Beloved Freak 20:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a definite step up. Go ahead and update the list. How many Grade I listed buildings are there? Nev1 (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

70-something.--Beloved Freak 20:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've made the changes. It still needs a lot of work, but it's a start. I've been looking at some other articles like Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester and I'm aware that this is a bit different, more along the lines of Peter I. Vardy's (and others) recent work on listed buildings. I'm honestly not sure which I think works best here. I think the advantage with this way is that there is room for a bit of blurb about each building, but I suppose that might look cluttered to some. I'd be happy to work on changing it further if people think it's not quite right.--Beloved Freak 11:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The variety in the format of lists just goes to show that there's more than one way to skin a cat. Having worked on the GM list, I think Peter's format is actually better, although the GM list does its job and still IMO deserves FL status. Returning to the subject of this list, it's certainly a good start. What do you think about grouping the buildings by borough? Nev1 (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like they were previously? I think that could work. A few only have one or two buildings. Do you think that matters?--Beloved Freak 12:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be ok, but it's up to you. In the list of Scheduled Monuments in Greater Manchester some boroughs don't have any entries at all, but it still helped with navigation which is the point of dividing it. For example, the list of castles in Cheshire isn't long enough for it to be worthwhile creating subsections. Nev1 (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New layout[edit]

As part of the UK's participation in Wiki Loves Monuments in September, lists of Grade I and Grade II* listed buildings are being given a new format. To cut a long story short, I've done the heavy lifting for Lancashire and it can be seen in my sandbox. I've tried to ensure nothing is lost, and if there are no objections I'd like to copy it over to this article. User:Belovedfreak, who did the intial hard work on this list nearly three years ago hasn't edited since late June, but I'll leave a note on their talk page. Nev1 (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMO you have to do something about the column widths with the exception of the hyndburn table the notes field is far too narrow. I don't see why list entry in NHLE is given a separate column and isn't that used as a footnote ref instead. NtheP (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No objections from me, it looks good. :) I agree the notes section could be tweaked a bit, and the Blackpool Tower info seems to have been lost in translation. --Beloved Freak 17:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Beloved freak, glad to know you got my message. I've fixed the Blackpool Tower description, a slip of the keyboard on my part. Likewise in one other case.

The list entry number is used when the file is uploaded to Commons, so moving it into the notes section might work aesthetically but I think it might not work with processing images. I'm not sure if there's an alternative. Similarly, I'm not sure whether columns widths can be forced in templates. I talked to User:KTC about it, and the concern was that the results might vary depending on what browser people use. Nev1 (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Personally I think the layout is pretty poor and not thought out fully but if it's what consensus has been reached upon then I'm not going to argue a lost cause. NtheP (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ordinates for Whalley Abbey[edit]

The grid reference for Whalley Abbey in this list geolocates to a private house in Clitheroe, not to the abbey, and doesn't even match the also incorrect grid reference in the Whalley Abbey article itself, but I don't feel comfortable enough with the template to change it myself. 2A00:23C7:DC0C:A101:E441:83A4:1B15:77F2 (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]