Talk:King Street, Bristol

Merger proposal

I suggest that the following articles be merged with this one, to create one decent article instead of 8 articles with around 3 lines each. Mark999 14:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The Grade II* ones are notable in their own right. If they are merged the Category:Grade II* listed buildings in Bristol will become less useful and informative. William Avery (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I also must express my disagreement with the proposed merges: nobody puts in doubt that Grade II* listed buildings are absolutely notable, and the fact they are short is only due that nobody has made much work on them; for example, Pevsner would certainly be of help and I have very little doubt that many other fully reliable works on Bristol's architecture can be found; and the same can be said often for many Grade II buildings: no 35 for example, is covered in Bristol, An Architectural History, Bristol in the 1850's, and probably also Pevsner and Bristol.--Aldux (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Since there is clearly no consensus regarding this merge, I'm going to undo the merge proposals.--Aldux (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I note that the articles on individual buildings were merged with this article and again reverted. Given the lack on consensus here I would suggest that they are left as separate articles at present in the hope that they are expanded - particularly the Grade II* listed buildings which are definitely notable in their own right. I will add a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bristol asking for more help from locals.— Rod ^talk 15:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Conversations post merge and revert

Hi Aldux. I was following up what appeared to be a sensible request to merge the stubs into one meaningful article where the buildings could be discussed in context, and the article built into something decent. I note that you have restored the stubs. I think that each of the buildings could develop into a decent stand alone article - though I don't see the value of a standalone at the moment as there is not yet enough information to justify a split per WP:summary style. My suggestion is that information on each building is developed enough for a building to become a section within the King Street, Bristol, and then, when that information is sufficently large enough to justify a standalone that would be the time to leave a summary in the parent article and split the building out into its own stand alone. This would be a win win situation. What do you think? (I note your comment above on how you use your talkpage - would you consider leaving me a message on my talkpage so I am alerted to your response.) Regards SilkTork *^YES! 13:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello ST. The idea of writing an article on King Street isn't in itself a bad one, far from it; an article that takes in consideration the historical development of the street and how its buildings were replaced and the economic and social role of the street through the street. Regarding the stubs, maybe the Grade II listed buildings could be redirected as they have in the listing a minor importance; but I feel that the Grade II* listed building articles, as they can easily be expanded and are part of a plan to provide articles to all Grade I and Grade II* listed buildings in Bristol. While you may find some of those at the moment too stubby, they already provide some basic information: an image of the building, the dates of construction, the style and the material with an infobox. Also, my experience is an article has more chances to be expanded from a stub than if it is merged.--Aldux (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying about Grade II* and above - though discretion is advised regarding going straight in with a stub as there are thousands of such gradings, and some are no more than lamp posts. I agree that such highly graded items, even lamp posts, should be mentioned in an encyclopedia of our type, though perhaps putting them into some sort of context (such as Grade II* listed lamp posts - I believe there are several such lamp posts) is more helpful and immediately obvious to a general reader than an isolated stub.

In my experience, when an article is an isolated stub it develops unevenly to the parent as people do not add information to both articles. The thrust of much of WP:Not is that a topic which has limited growth potential is not a likely contender for a standalone - either the topic should not be on Wikipedia, or it should be dealt with as part of a larger article. I think the developmental potential of King Street, Bristol is clear - I am more dubious about some of the individual buildings, even with a II* grading. I would prefer to see the growth occur in one place with all people likely to add to the article landing on the same spot. 16 King Street, Bristol is II* isn't it? I've just had a look and there's nothing obvious out there from which one could build more than a paragraph. Wouldn't a section within King Street, Bristol work? Regards SilkTork *^YES! 17:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind this, but I've contacted Rodw to invite him to provide an opinion, as he's propbably among the most knowledgeable editors on buildings in Bristol and Somerset.--Aldux (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Rodw. Me and SilkTork are having a chat regarding the merge or not of the listed buildings on King Street in Bristol. Since your knowledge of Bristol is far greater than mine, to use an euphemism, and you may be interested in the discussion, in the case you feel like dropping by the chat is at SilkTork's Talk Page. Cheers, Aldux (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Aldux, Thanks for the heads up on this - I had removed some of these from my watch list as I've been focusing on listed buildings in Somerset recently & my watchlist is just too massive. I would support the argument for separate articles for the buildings, particularly the GII* which are definitely notable. I've added a note on the talk page and on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bristol asking for help. I will try to do my bit in expanding them when I get some time.— Rod ^talk 16:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Rodw has left a note on Talk:King Street, Bristol. From now on I'd advise to centralize the discussion there.--Aldux (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Debate: Is a listed building notable enough for a stand alone article?

I think we have enough interested people to start a discussion on this, and perhaps call in others via {{cent}} if it gets interesting. If we put aside the question of the individual articles for now, and just consider if by default a listed building is notable enough to justify a stand alone article, and if so at what grading would that apply?

Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board/Listed buildings suggests that "we should have articles on all grade I listed buildings (although some can at least start in groups - see for example Bedford Square where there are technically several listings, or Highgate Cemetery where different parts are listed differently - no need to split right now." Which sounds like a sensible approach. Start at the highest grade, and even then deal in groups where appropriate, and only split out when there's enough material.

Wikipedia:Places of local interest suggests "that if enough attributable information exists about the subject to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article. If some source material is available, but is insufficient for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the subject under the article for its parent locality." Which again sounds like sensible advice.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Places suggests that "Attractions and landmarks are potentially acceptable", which means that the outcomes in AFD discussions have not been conclusive. Some landmarks have been kept and some have been deleted - purely on merit. Which tends to fall back on the notability guidelines.

Wikipedia:Notability (buildings, structures, and landmarks) is a recent attempt to put forward a guideline that failed. However, interesting to note that it says :"Historical buildings and structures, whether or not they are listed on a government registry, generally are not notable simply because they are considered historical."

Wikipedia:Notability (architecture) is an older attempt at the same thing. This one says "An architecture article is definitely notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:- ... Buildings on the upper scale of a historic register. eg. Grade II* Listed buildings or National Historic Landmarks".

Wikipedia:Notability could indicate that a listed building is notable, if English Heritage are regarded as a reliable source (which I think they would be), and if listing with a simple paragraph is considered significant.

WP:Not has some things to say about directory type articles, and Wikipedia being a repository of images and source files. A careful reading of that policy will reveal a long standing desire for stand alone articles to either be more than stubs, or to have the potential for growth.

This is a starting point for discussion. SilkTork *^YES! 18:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for selecting those - can I add Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic sites where a lot of work has gone into creating templates, infoboxes etc for listed buildings - where the discussions have included attempts to standardise articles & comparisons with NRHP in the USA. My understanding of notability is about other reputable organisations providing enough reliable sources to information about the topic.— Rod ^talk 18:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the English Heritage website: "Grade I buildings are of exceptional interest, sometimes considered to be internationally important." "Grade II* buildings are particularly important buildings of more than special interest." "Grade II buildings are nationally important and of special interest." (My italics) I would (and have done so) use these criteria to support an argument that ALL buildings listed by EH are sufficiently notable to merit an article on WP, if an editor wishes to write one. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what Peter I. Vardy says above. All listed buildings are notable and are covered in third part reliable sources, ie: the Images of England website. Nev1 (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no dispute about writing an article, and nor would anyone else. I think however, as the links above indicate, there is some question about how substantive the topic is for a stand alone article. An article suggests something more than a picture and a sentence. Indeed, something more than a paragraph. A paragraph is a section in an article. And when reading that paragraph, clicking on a link which provides no further information is not helpful to anyone.

So I think we need to focus down on just how substantial something needs to be before it can be considered notable. Does mention on a list really make something notable enough for an encyclopedia article is the question here. This lamp post (among others) is Grade II*. I feel it would be inappropriate to have an article on a lamp post. However, it could be feasible to group all the listed lamp posts together in one article to make something substantive.

I think that a source such as English Heritage finding certain buildings of exceptional interest is indicative enough that we should deal with such buildings in an encyclopedia. I think that's a given. The question is how we should deal with the buildings. And I'm not so sure we have a consensus on that. If there's a way of dealing with a topic so that an article can be brought to GA or FA status that should be explored. And that may best be done when dealing with small topics in a group (such as the King Street buildings in the King Street article). This saves a lot of repeated information, concentrates one article on saying meaningful stuff, and means the information is developed uniformly in one place. SilkTork *^YES! 00:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The question really is not just about UK Listed Buildings - it does expand out to all the Heritage registers. SilkTork *^YES! 00:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If I may jump in, I am a member of WP:HSITES and WP:NRHP, both of which cover officially designated structures. There has been quite a lot of discussion recently at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut and some other places (though I can't think of any specific examples) about the notability of NRHP districts when compared to their parent cities, towns, or villages. I believe any conclusion that is agreed upon here (or at another centralized location where all the people discussing this can contribute) should be extended to all the heritage registers. That said, here is my view.

I do think that Listed buildings are notable in their own right simply for being listed on the register. This notability, however, does not always translate into the need for the site's own article. If there aren't at least 3-4 reliable sources with information (other than information from the register) about the topic, I don't think it should have its own article. Normally my cutoff is DYK length(ish). If an article can get close to 1500 characters (there is some grey area), more times than not, the site deserves its own article. If, however, there is no way the article will ever reach this length, it should not have an article. If all you can come up with (using the NRHP as an example) is "Historic House is a house in Anycity, Anystate, USA. It was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1975." I don't think that article should exist. At most, it should be included in a list article or a quasi-list article.

A few very small articles that I have created are Meridian Baptist Seminary, Stuckey's Bridge, and McLemore Cemetery. Honestly, these articles probably will never be expanded to be much longer than their current state, but I still support letting them stay as individual articles. A different example would be Historic districts in Meridian, Mississippi. Each district mentioned in the article is listed on the NRHP individually, but having an article for each would be unintuitive in my opinion. Since there is a common link between all of them (they are all districts, and they are all in the same city), I combined them all into one article to keep as much information in one place as possible and make it easier for the reader to see the information in context. Each section has a redirect from an article with the name of the district (i.e. East End Historic District (Meridian, Mississippi) redirects to Historic districts in Meridian, Mississippi#East End Historic District), so if someone is looking through the list of NRHP sites in the city, there are individual links to each district. Each of the districts is certainly notable, but spreading the information out over nine different articles would make the reader work too much in my opinion. Keeping as much information in one place as possible is key in my opinion. If one of the sections in the Historic districts article grew long enough to shorten it with WP:Summary Style, that district could have its own article, but just because one of the districts has its own article doesn't mean all nine of them need their own articles.

I believe the same principle should be adopted throughout all the heritage registers – and even to all of Wikipedia itself. "Keep as much information in one place as possible, creating new articles only when necessary due to an abundance of information." Sounds like a WP:MOS addition to me. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>To re-localise this discussion. In Bristol there are 100 Grade I buildings. Undoubtedly a number of these should have articles, however some need to be grouped together , i.e. the 10 buildings and sundial at Blaise Hamlet, or Portland Square, or the brewhouse, loggia and echo at Kings Weston House. The city council says that there are 500 Grade II* buildings - is anyone seriopusly suggesting creating artcuiles for all of these? Or the remaining 3,900 Grade II buildings? It seems eminently sensible to keep these buildings in articles relating to the street or neighbourhood. Bristol City Council Listed buildings. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this discusion is developing along sensible lines. My comment above was supposed to make the point that if I write an article about a listed building, I would not expect it to be challenged as "not notable", for the reasons given above. But that does not mean that all listed buildings merit articles; that would be silly. For example to write an article on the Grade II listed telephone kiosk in List of listed buildings in Runcorn (rural area) would not be sensible, but if sufficient material is available there is no reason why worthwhile articles should not be written about, say, the Sessions House or the swing bridge (both listed Grade II). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Many Grade II listed buildings are almost always notable: say, churches, bridges, stately houses, mills; but for example most houses aren't notable. For example, I've lived for a time when I was in England in a listed building, but on now accounts it would be notable enough to have an article. But the case regarding the Grade II* houses on King Street is quite different: not finding sources on the web doesn't mean there aren't sources, as it is pretty well known that you have to use books mostly to find good sources on historical buildings; or at least, this is what I noted regarding Suffolk and Norfolk.--Aldux (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Aldux's comment on finding sources is true. Even though internet research is getting better all the time (GoogleBooks is great), some topics don't lend themselves to the internet as readily as others. However, for questions of article potential one can get a rough impression of how likely it is that an article will develop beyond a paragraph by doing an internet search. If nothing much turns up during the search, then it might be a common sense approach to put (or keep) the topic material in a parent article rather than stepping out to a standalone. If later research reveals some substantial material, then the topic can be broken out in summary style. This is all about doing the common sense thing, and not potentially disappointing readers who click through from a parent article to the standalone to find it consists of little more than a sentence and an image. Dudemanfellabra's "Keep as much information in one place as possible, creating new articles only when necessary due to an abundance of information" makes sense as a standing guideline to all Wikipedia guidelines. I think it has always been implied in Wikipedia:Summary style - this section: WP:AVOIDSPLIT has some comments, though more related to notability than substantial content. This - Wikipedia:Splitting - is interesting with a guideline on article size. It suggests that articles with less than 30,000 characters need not be split, while articles with less than 1,000 characters (about 165 words) should be merged into another article. That, as well as the DYK guideline of 1,500 characters (about 250 words), and the implications of a close reading of WP:Not and WP:Stub does indicate that there is a feel on Wikipedia that very short articles which do not have an obvious potential to grow are probably best not being created. SilkTork *^YES! 18:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

By saying "best not created", I don't mean that the information should not be on Wikipedia - but that it should be placed in the most appropriate article rather than in a standalone. SilkTork *^YES! 18:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand the discussion about parent articles & splitting into "stand alones" however many of these articles have been created as a result of lists eg List of Grade I listed buildings in Bristol, Grade II* listed buildings in Bristol & Grade II listed buildings in Bristol & the recommendation (at FL at least) is that stubs are better than red links - you can't get FL is more than 10%ish of links are red. Also how do we define which is the correct "parent article" in this case King Street, Bristol is fairly clear but some of them may also fit in other articles eg Buildings and architecture of Bristol & there are plenty of more complex examples.— Rod ^talk 19:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

My example above, Historic districts in Meridian, MS, contains districts that are linked to individually on National Register of Historic Places listings in Lauderdale County, Mississippi. The individual links from the list-article are just redirects to that section in the historic districts article. The list still contains blue links, but they just all point to the same article. The same could be done for all the listed buildings on King Street, and for many other circumstances. Unfortunately, there isn't really a formula for how to combine articles.. it's just a case-by-case thing. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Also from the American perspective, what makes a listed building wikipedia-notable? It needs to be both the fundamental importance of the building, and also the availability of reliable source material to develop the article. For U.S. NRHP-listed places, the availability on-line or free-by-request printed copies of very extensive NRHP application documents was key to estabilishing the wikipedia-notability of individual NRHP places generally. About these listed buildings, is there an official report available? I sort of have the impression that documents are not always available, so then the wikipedia-notability should arguably be on a case-by-case basis to be proven only by finding and using reliable sources. doncram (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(od) Generally speaking, Grade I and Grade II* listed buildings would have sufficient notability on their own to support an article (buildings, not gravestones, walls, lampposts etc). Grade II and Grade III (historic) listed buildings should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Mjroots (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on King Street, Bristol. 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/20070930020208/http://www.bristol.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=1157007 to http://www.bristol.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=1157007
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071112100748/http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/details/default.aspx?id=379857 to http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/details/default.aspx?id=379857
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012140237/http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/details/default.aspx?id=379882 to http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/details/default.aspx?id=379882
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071113143748/http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/details/default.aspx?id=379866 to http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/details/default.aspx?id=379866
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121020214816/http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/details/default.aspx?id=379869 to http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/details/default.aspx?id=379869
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013164435/http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/details/default.aspx?id=379881 to http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/details/default.aspx?id=379881

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 08:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)