Talk:Listed buildings in Liverpool

First comments

Why is this page a stub?!?! Its one of the longest pages on wikipedia.

---

1. This page missing confirmation of copyright. The content appears to be taken directly from the Liverpool City Council webpage referred to at the bottom of the page.

2. The page could usefully be broken down by area and by category. A short description of especially the grade one buildings would be good, with pictures to make the article more interesting.

3. I would suggest breaking up the page into seperate pages for e.g. city centre, Allerton, etc.

4. I'm not sure how frequently this page is monitored. If the original contributors can confirm that they have the right to use the council document referred to, that would be useful. As the link is given, does this huge list serve a purpose? If not, I will undertake radical surgery! Dooley 10:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

This is an old discussion, but in answer to the question, one purpose served here is to give links to other pages on WP. And no, breaking the list up would be counter-productive; it's far easier to find things this way. Swanny18 (talk) 10:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Lewis's

Wasnt Lewis's Department Store (40 Ranelagh Street to 4 Reneshaw)listed. There may be other updates that need to be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.19.56 (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ordinary (at best)

Sorry, but this is very ordinary. Namely:

• Information is hard to use (could be in sortable tables)
• Horribly over-linking (why are the dates linked for goodness sake?)
• Pictures should be removed. It's a list page—save the pictures for the articles on individual buildings
• Confusing: what does the date actually mean? (Slightly rhetorical, but why should I have to try and work it out?)
• Confusing: what is the "II" marker doing? Is it a separator? Why is there sometimes only "I"? (Okay, I eventually figured out that it means "Grade"—but why should I have to struggle to figure that out?)
• Confusing: what does the odd "*" mean?
• If we're not going to do anything except repeat a list, the "List of Listed Buildings (79 pages, PDF)" link is probably sufficient. At least that pdf provides contextual information.
• (Probably) too long

I'm happy to work on things (as long as there is consensus, and that the vast majority of the links are agreed to be removed).  HWV258  07:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Changes required would include putting dates in dd mmm yyyy format (consensus format for United Kingdom), made bold and then separated by a ndash so that it is easily distinguished from the numbers in addresses. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Agreed, the data is messy now, and I believe it would benefit from being in a table, then we would not need to make the dates bold nor blue colour. Furthermore, one would not know of the specific listing unless one looked hard - in other words, it is not immediately apparent that a building is Grade I or Grade II listed Ohconfucius (talk) 07:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • See List of listed buildings in Runcorn for an example of what this list could be. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

But isn't the problem there are over 2500 listed buildings in Liverpool so tabulating them would create a massive article or require it to be split up into several articles --Daviessimo (talk) 08:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad someone is taking an interest in this
I can see the value of a simple alphabetical list of all the listed buildings, with links if they have pages; but I can also see the value in a more complete description, like the [[list, or teh ones for Bristol or Manchester. Also, there is alredy a Merseyside list.
Why not have both?
We could trim this down to an alphabetical list (lose the dates, clarify or get rid of the grades; or group them in I, II*, or II tables: It would act as an index of all the buildings and whether WP has anything on them yet. Then have separate pages for tables showing the buildings, pictures, basic details like the examples above. How about that? Swanny18 (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I do like the idea of splitting the buildings up into I, II and II* groups, because the Manchester list looks really good. I also like the idea of keeping this as an index list with nothing but the listed buildings names provided because it will make navigation a lot easier --Daviessimo (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed formatting

OK, it seems the discussion on moving this page forward have gone a little stale so I'm going to propose what I feel are two options in taking this forward. I think we can all be agreed that an article listing the Grade I buildings is required and there's certainly a case that a similar list could be made for the Grade II* buildings as well. In my opinion, when these are created we should not get rid of this, but rather keep it as an index (as was mentioned above). However, in its current form it is pretty horrific and needs to be made more user friendly. For me, the prefential option would be keeping all the info currently listed, but tabulating it, say for example, like this:

Location	Postcode	Notes	Year	Listing
Abercromby Square	L7	Garden House	1972	II
Abercromby Square (west side)	L7	Nos. 1 to 7 (consec) No. 7a	1972	II

However, as this article essentially lists every one of the 2500 listed buildings in Liverpool, the size of the article is going to be a major issue. The size is already pretty big (165k) and tabulating everthing is going to push this over the edge. Thus the other option is to trim right down and have a very simple listing like this:

Abercromby Square (south side) L7 No. 8 Abercromby Square (south side) L7 Nos. 9,10,11 (consec ) Abercromby Square (south side) No. 12

Abercromby Square (south side) No.13 Abercromby Square (south side) L7 No. 14 Abercromby Square L7 No. 17

However, in this form we lose the information that seems to make the article any use (in particular the grade and year of listing)

The only other options I can think are much more radical, like splitting this article up into groups (e.g. A-G H-N O-Z) or creating a new category and listing letters seperately. Anyway it would be good to get other people's thoughts so we can try and get some movement --Daviessimo (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I favour the table format. Providing some sensible sorting can lift the reader's experience on the page. From Article length - Occasional exceptions: "Two exceptions are lists and articles summarizing certain fields". There is therefore basis for arguing that list pages should not be treated in the same category as normal "long pages". If there is a natural split, perhaps more than one table could be on the page.  HWV258  22:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I would go for the table it may be big but it's a big subject. I'd also recommend integrating the addons at the bottom. I check the stats and before the name change the article was being accessed about 600 times per month, which is significant.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 10:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Was there any particular reason they stuck in a section at the end rather than being integrated into the article? Or was it simply a date thing? I do agree that they should be slotted in, in their relevant place thought. Anyway, if that is three in support of the table (inc. me), I think we could probably start making a move. Rather than copying the whole article to a sandbox and working on it all there, I think we should do it section by section (i.e. copy one section, format it, then reinsert back in the article). We should be able to do this under and 'construction tag'.

Also regarding the table do you think it will be better to have it full width, rather than the standard 'fit to text' size (as above). It's just that as big white gap on the right, may look a little funny. Also are we going to keep all the date information, or just list the year. I mean does knowing the exact date have a huge impact? --Daviessimo (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think as above is fine. Judging by the dates it is all those done after a certain time that appear in the appendix. What shall we do with the images?--Kitchen Knife (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well if you keep the table as fit-to-text format you could keep them along the right hand side, although if this is an index article I'm not sure if they will be needed, as they should be used in the Grade I and Grade II* listed building articles instead --Daviessimo (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I might be able to do it in one go wuth the help of some C. Let me try tonight. I'll post the results here Talk:List of listed buildings in Liverpool/Format 1--Kitchen Knife (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

First attempt at Talk:List of listed buildings in Liverpool/Format 1 code at Talk:List of listed buildings in Liverpool/Code--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The column formatting needs a % symbol after the width figure, otherwise it won't format the width correctly. At the moment it is like:

class="sortable" style="background: #f2f2f2; color: #000080" height="17" width="35" | Location

but it should be like:

class="sortable" style="background: #f2f2f2; color: #000080" height="17" width="35%" | Location

Not sure if you know a way to do throughout the article in one go. cheers --Daviessimo (talk) 08:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ye just rewrite the code. There may be some duplicates in it but I have now updated the sample and the code.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Its showing up full width on my PC, thanks. Do you think it should maybe be sized down to something like 75% or 80%. The Grade I listed buildings in GM is like that and I think it looks pretty good. What do you reckon? --Daviessimo (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's ok as it is width wise. If we make it narrower some of the descriptions wil go on to a lot lines. It still needs some tidying by hand especilly in the smithdown area. What I been doing is going to edit selecting all then copying it into a file via notepad, then running a c program that produces another file. Then block copying that back over the original. If you block copy to any editor it makes the editing easier then trying to do it online.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna edit the table format to make it full width throughout in order to maintain clarity. At the moment the table are different widths and it looks funnny. Also by having it full width, it means there should be less entries that cover two lines. Hope that's OK --Daviessimo (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. I did notice the change in width at L but couldn't see a reason. The Location doesn't need to be as big as it is there is some free space in all entries. Making this a bit smaller would give more space for the description.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Greatest number of listed buildings outside London

I removed the claim about Liverpool having the greatest number of listed buildings outside of London, as Bristol appears to have more - see here. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Listed buildings in Liverpool. 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/20130927230204/http://liverpool.gov.uk/media/525901/heritage-listed-buildings.pdf to http://liverpool.gov.uk/media/525901/heritage-listed-buildings.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081017074148/https://www.liverpool.gov.uk/Environment/Land_and_premises/Conservation/Listed_buildings/index.asp to http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/Environment/Land_and_premises/Conservation/Listed_buildings/index.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070919203531/http://www.merseyside.org.uk/displaypage.asp?page=40 to http://www.merseyside.org.uk/displaypage.asp?page=40

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) 04:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)