Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of listed buildings in Runcorn (rural area)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 08:08, 18 July 2009 [1].

List of listed buildings in Runcorn (rural area)[edit]

Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this as a featured list candidate because it is the companion to the FL List of listed buildings in Runcorn (urban area). Its formatting is precisely the same as the companion list. The text has been copyedited. The two lists together form a comprehensive list of all the listed buildings in the area of Halton Borough south of the River Mersey. A second list has been prepared rather then combining the two lists because one list would be unreasonably large, and there are significant differences between the urban area of Runcorn and its surroundings. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - how many listed buildings are there in Halton north of the River Mersey, i.e. in Halton but not in this list or the "in Runcorn" list? Listed buildings in Widnes suggests there are 18 in Widnes - rst20xx (talk) 10:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are actually 20 in Widnes according to this booklet produced by the council. Those missing from the current list are the railway bridge (which is on the "in Runcorn" list) and the war memorial in Victoria Park - I suppose the road bridge should be there too. I intend to reformat the Widnes list in a similar manner to the Runcorn lists and add the missing items. Then, also in Halton Borough, is the village of Hale, which has 17 listed buildings according to this booklet - another list to do, not yet started. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should combine this list with the Widnes and prospective Hale lists to form a List of listed buildings in Halton list, with the "in Runcorn" list effectively being a sublist of the result. If there are 26+20+17 = 63 buildings in total, then that is only 4 more than in the existing List of listed buildings in Runcorn. To make 4 lists when you could have 2 is oversplitting, IMO, and it also seems to me to be best, where possible, to try and organise such listed buildings lists around local government districts - rst20xx (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO this will not work. The urban area of Runcorn lies BETWEEN its rural district and the town of Widnes, over the Mersey; Hale is even further away. Such a combination would be illogical. A logical combination would be "in" and "around" Runcorn. But "in" Runcorn is already 49kB. It contains 59 buildings, each with an image and a description; with "around" it would total 85. Looking at the other FLs of listed buildings, only one exceeds 85 and that is List of Grade I listed buildings in Mendip with 90. Neither that list, nor any of the others, contains an image and a description for every building; and the other lists contain only between 30 and 53. IMO a list of 85 buildings, with an image and a description for each one, is way too big.
The trouble with local government districts is that they change. Historically and culturally, Runcorn and Widnes are very different; the former was in Cheshire and the latter in Lancashire; Halton Borough was formed for political expediency and not for any good practical reason. Cheshire has recently split into Cheshire West and Chester, and Cheshire East. The next move will be to take Widnes into Merseyside and Runcorn could then go (back) into Cheshire West and Cheshire.
I do not intend to combine this list with Widnes and/or Hale. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait 85? Where did the other 22 come from? If there are 85, then yeah, that's too many - rst20xx (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59 ("in") + 26 ("around") = 85. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry I see what you did, I misread what you wrote and thought there were more buildings somewhere else in Halton. Well, the borough of Halton has existed with its current boundaries since 1974, and looking at Halton (borough) it looks likely that the borough may move from Cheshire to Merseyside as you suggest, but can you cite somewhere that Runcorn will stay in Cheshire? If sources suggest that the borough is about to be broken up then it would be a bad thing to base these lists around, but if not then honestly I am still inclined to combine "around Runcorn"/"Widnes"/"Hale" into a "Halton" list, then have "Runcorn" as a break-off, and not speculate about the future of the district (any changes can be subsequently dealt with if they occur) - rst20xx (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree but shall be interested to hear what others have to say. If the consensus is to merge as you suggest, I shall withdraw the nomination. Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you not create the shorter lists you want, and transclude those lists into a larger article? Or is that not generally a done thing? Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen any article transcluded into another one, and I don't think that technically it would be a good idea anyway for a number of reasons, not least of which is indexing. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only place I've seen it done is at List of abbeys and priories in England (see the talk page for some of the problems and solutions), which is still in an experimental stage. It's an interesting proposition and it would make it easier to handle things if/when Halton moves to Merseyside (I'm not familiar with the situation).
Usually I would advocate a list for the whole borough, but I think this situation requires a more nuanced approach. This is not a case of content forking as there is sufficient content for this list to stand alone and is covered by reliable sources (Pevsner). There's also potential for a list about the rest of Halton. Runcorn and its environs are separate from Hale and Widnes, literally and figuratively. Nev1 (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd argue very strongly in favour of separate lists for Runcorn and Widnes, rather than a merged Halton list. Runcorn and Widnes, being on opposite sides of the River Mersey, have quite distinct characters, perhaps analogously to their larger neighbours downstream, Liverpool and Birkenhead. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I had always felt uncomfortable of the previous organization (i.e. each rural parish with the buildings, without a clear structure); merging together those articles in a well sourced structure is a reasonable solution. Merging them with Runcorn would be in my view a really bad solution, because Runcorn is a town and as such its buildings have considerable things in common; on the other side, the surrounding is rural. While the Halton suggestion has some logic, as noticed, it would be impractical to bring them all in a single list due to its size, for the same reasons we do not list all Grade I listed buildings in Somerset under Somerset, but split them. That said, it may be of some use a List of listed buildings in Halton, but just to coordinate the four sublists (Runcorn, around Runcorn, Hale, Widnes). My only doubt is that the merging done seems to me a bit arbitrary, as simply being "around Runcorn" is in my view a bit weak as a unifying factor.--Aldux (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; the titles are weak - but this gives me a better(?) idea. How about renaming the existing FL List of listed buildings in Runcorn (urban area) and name this one List of listed buildings in Runcorn (rural area)? We would then have the listed buildings in Halton south of the Mersey clearly defined. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a specialist of the area, but are the villages in the immediate area known locally as Runcorn, especially considered it's already a rural area? If I can make an example, the rural parishes of Suffolk surrounding the town of Ipswich wouldn't ever be considered "Ipswich" by anybody (the parishes that have been absorbed in the suburbs of the urban area while administratively independent are different, obviously). Maybe calling them by their name could be a possibility, even if the title would be quite cumbersome: List of listed buildings in Daresbury, Moore, Preston Brook and Sutton But as I already said, also this has its problems, and I don't really understand how Clifton sits: if I get it correctly, while in the countryside this is officially part of Runcorn.--Aldux (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, everything in Halton Borough is OFFICIALLY in Halton. Whether the people of Moore associate themselves with Runcorn (as some might), or with Warrington (as some do), this is all irrelevant. It is a matter of pedantry v. pragmatism. The pedantic (official) titles for the four lists (if they ever come to completion) would be: Listed buildings in the borough of Halton south of the River Mersey (urban area), Listed buildings in the borough of Halton south of the River Mersey (rural area), Listed buildings in the borough of Halton north of the River Mersey (Widnes) and Listed buildings in the borough of Halton north of the River Mersey (Hale village and the surrounding rural area) - which would be silly (wouldn't it?).
How about going back to the start? I have submitted a list as a FLC. How about assessing it as it stands (or even with the titles I suggested above)? If it passes, well and good. If it fails, I can go and tend my garden (Voltaire - Candide). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be touchy; also I suspect you misunderstood me somewhere - I don't doubt, nor ever doubted it is. As for my pedantry, you have to forgive me for it: it's part of my intellectual formation, and, alas, I seem myself unable to free melf of it. That said, regarding the quality of the list, I would love to contribute to bettering it, but honesltly I'm unable, being as it is structured on the model of the original Runcorn list, which I consider the best of all the lists of listed buildings. Good luck for the FLC, and sorry for being a bit pedantic. Ciao, --Aldux (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I just felt we were getting away from the object of the exercise. Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by doncram

  • First, what is the telephone booth doing in the list? I take it that is not in fact a Listed Building. It's fine by me for a thumbnail pic with a caption about this to be in the article, as an illustration of historic-like feel of the area, but the list itself should be Listed buildings only.
  • Offhand, the name as "List of listed buildings around Runcorn" does not seem right. I am not fully absorbing the previous discussion above, but it seems to me that a list-article for a larger jurisdiction (perhaps all of the "borough of Halton"?) makes sense, out of which a list-article covering the town of Runcorn alone has already been split, which is fine. In U.S. NRHP list-articles, there are now many cases, where there is a list of NRHP listings in a state, out of which some county lists of NRHP listings in ___ County, State have been split out (sometimes all counties split out, sometimes only the larger ones). Then within larger counties there are sometimes town lists split out. I don't think it matters that there would be two geographic chunks, separated by the town of Runcorn chunk, in one list of the larger jurisdiction. Also, the size of a list can be larger, up to 200 in my view (as 200 is the cutoff for proper display of coordinates in the Bing / formerly Livesearch accompanying map). There are many U.S. list-articles of NRHP sites with more than 200 listings though.
  • Currently the lead is a bit odd, starting out talking about Runcorn which is not the subject of this list and in fact is specifically excluded. I think it would be more natural to talk first about listed buildings in Halton or whatever is the larger jurisdiction, that there are X buildings in total, say that this list covers all but the 50 or however many in Runcorn, which are covered in another list. For a good (although without the FL star) list example, see how List of NHLs in NY discusses upfront that List of NHLs in NYC is split out in an accompanying article.
  • Will be able to comment more on July 4 or later, have this watchlisted now so should be reminded. doncram (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The telephone box is a listed building, it's one of the quirks of the system over here :-) Here's the source.
  • Addressing your next two points, I think it helps to have an idea of the geography of the place we're talking about. The borough of Halton in Cheshire (which I think is analogous to a county within a state in the US) is divided into north and south by the River Mersey. Runcorn is the main settlement in the south of the borough, and Runcorn and its surrounding area (ie: "around Runcorn") have a separate history from Widnes and Hale in the north of the borough. Moreover, the borough will at some point be divided, with the north becoming part of the county of Cheshire and Runcorn and the surrounding area merging into one of the other boroughs in Cheshire. As such, I think it's not only acceptable for this list to be distinct from an all encompassing Halton list but appropriate. Nev1 (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, I'll look into it. Nev1 (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC) I misunderstood this story and read into it more than was there. Nev1 (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No citation available (my POV - I just happen to live there and listen to Runcornians). So what do people want? A basic List of listed buildings in Halton, Cheshire would be feasible, if that is what folks want. The current FL List of listed buildings in Runcorn has a description and a photograph of EVERY item in the list. How many FLs achieve this? Maybe it does not add value, but IMO it does. The current FL is 49kb. To produce List of listed buildings in Halton, Cheshire to this standard would be over 100kb. Is this acceptable to WP? If so, it will take some months/over a year (with the necessary photographs) to produce; nobody has done anything on the listed buildings in Hale yet. If a FL containing the listed buildings in the urban area of Runcorn is acceptable, what's wrong with a FL containing the listed buildings in the rural area of Runcorn? Help! I'm baffled. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well my thinking is that a List of listed buildings in Halton, Cheshire would be best, but that as that article would be too big, it would make sense to fork a section of it off to a seperate article - and the one section that would fit size-wise would be List of listed buildings in Runcorn, which admittedly would remove a town right in the middle of Halton but would leave two lists with 63 and 59 items, respectively. Any speculation about the future break-up of Halton seems a bit WP:CRYSTAL to me, but if Halton does break up then there is nothing stopping the lists from being re-arranged at that stage. After all, the hardest part in writing these lists is creating the tables of listed buildings, and these would still be valid after a break-up. But for the time-being, arranging the series of articles around Halton fits best - rst20xx (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Titles of both lists changed. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Nice list.

  • "Clifton Hall, which was built in 1565"
  • "second floor level." Is a hyphen required here? I don't know whether this is referring to the level of the second floor or the second "floor level".
  • The date column doesn't sort properly. I think you may need to use a hidden sortkey (see Template:sort)
  • "window which matches the others."-->window that matches the others.
  • "distance to the terminus at Shardlow as 92 miles." Need a conversion for the miles ({{convert}})
  • "This is a former sessions house which is now used"-->This is a former sessions house that is now used Dabomb87 (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments. I have dealt with 1, 2, 4, and 6 above. The milepost actually says "92 miles" so I do not think that a conversion template is appropriate. So I have added "(which is 148 km)" after the distance, and I think this deals with that comment. Regarding the sorting of the dates, I am not sure how to apply the hidden sortkey. Can you help me? Thanks for giving some positive feedback. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you give me a couple hours, I can fix the sorting for you. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a slightly different method for ensuring the sorting that doesn't involve templates, it should only take 20 to 30 minutes so I'll get on it. Nev1 (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go, how does the sorting look now? Nev1 (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. How about Dabomb87? Is it OK? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far as I'm aware, the change applies only to featured article candidates, not featured list candidates. Have the FLC criteria been changed? --Malleus Fatuorum 13:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see that criterion 5 has been updated to say that images must have "'alt' text if necessary". What exactly does "if necessary" mean? --Malleus Fatuorum 13:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure, but seeing as most of the images here don't have captions, I think we need some kind of description. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, I'll do it. But it may not be complete until after the weekend (domestic duties). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I don't mind if it's done after promotion, and I won't withhold support over it. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done it (negotiated the time!). I hope this is the sort of thing required by alt text (never done it before). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Chipping in here, but 'if necessary' means that, quoting WP:ALT: "Every visible image should have alt text, unless the image is used only for visual formatting or decoration." ceranthor 17:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_listed_buildings_in_Runcorn_(rural_area)/archive1&oldid=1138486865"