![]() | Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
December 27, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that most of
Manchester's
Grade I listed buildings are Victorian, because of Manchester's growth during the Industrial Revolution? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Featured list |
![]() | This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What's the stance on buildings that have been listed Grade I since 2001? For example, Tameside had only one in 2001, but today has at least two: St Anne's and St Michael's churches; St Annes was II* in 2001. Nev1 ( talk) 16:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The same problem has occured for Salford: 3 new ones. Nev1 ( talk) 22:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Stockport has further complicated things, on their list of listed buildings from November 2007 there are two new Grade I listed buildings (not a big problem) and St Mary's Church, Cheadle has been downgraded to Grade II. Should St Marys be included with a note to say that it no longer counts? Nev1 ( talk) 00:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Yep. It just keeps getting bigger. On the upside, Oldham, Salford, Trafford, Wigan definately don't have any more. The council websites were helpful and provided up to date lists, as have Bury and Stockport. Infuriatingly, Bolton and Rochdale haven't. Nev1 ( talk) 01:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
There are only 14 Grade I buildings listed on the Manchester.gov.uk website, but there are 15 according to IoE. I'm trusting the council on this one, but it might be interesting to find out if one has been downgraded. Nev1 ( talk) 19:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
St Mary in the Baum Church in Rochdale is a Grade 1 listed building. 2A00:23C6:5B00:4900:8CC2:3DE3:F115:DDAA ( talk) 23:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
I see that Ryedale is part of the statistics included in the Images of England page for Greater Manchester, but we know that it is in Yorkshire. How could we convey that to the reader, before they've visited the link and become confused to why Ryedale isn't included in the list? Rt . 22:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Should this church not be listed here? The wikipedia page claims it is grade I listed but I do not see it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DankNoscoper ( talk • contribs) 21:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
I think the did you know belongs to either St Werburgh's Church, Warburton or Warburton, Greater Manchester (or perhaps both) rather than this page; this article only mentions one as only one is Geade I. Nev1 ( talk) 13:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Just thought that this book may be helpful both here and elsewhere for Greater Manchester! -- Jza84 · ( talk) 18:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
There are a lot of good pictures that won't fit into the article alongside the text, does anyone thing a gallery would be useful? Nev1 ( talk) 21:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we should standardise on either 6 or 8 digit grid references. Thoughts? -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 16:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Go for it. Nev1 ( talk) 23:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I've made the initial change, to match Bristol's layout, as I think the lead without a picture does look a little bit bleak. And Bristol is already an FA anyway. The table sizing still needs a little bit of work though, as the buttons are being squeezed. Is it worth carrying on with this? Is everyone happy that this is an improvement? -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 00:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I've made the change to the format now, see what you think. I've tested it with IE6 and Firefox 2.0, with various display resolutions, and it looks fine to me in both of them. I don't have IE7 to try that out. --
Malleus Fatuorum (
talk) 18:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Unless there are any outstanding objections, I'd like to nominate this for WP:FL status. -- Jza84 · ( talk) 01:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the names of the churches be more consistent? They presently range from "St Augustine" to "Parish Church of St Mary". Although giving the full name may take up two lines in some instances, shouldn't they all at least have "church" in the title? Richerman ( talk) 17:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to wrap this up, I'd like to suggest that we name all of the church articles we're stubbing Church of .... rather than Parish Church of ... as that seems consistent, and parish churches change from time to time. Whether or not they're listed as Parish Church in this article. I hadn't fully realised how many names one church can be known by until I tried to track down the Church of St Mary and St Bartholomew this evening. What does the panel think? -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 23:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the "13 Arches" entry for Salford is correct. There is an article on the Clifton Viaduct which is also known as the 13 arches but that says it's a grade II structure. However the picture looks like it's of a different bridge than the one in the reference given for Salford Council Listed buildings site where its called "Railway Bridge Wilburn St" On there it looks as if the arch shown is lower and wider and it doesn't look like 13 arches would be needed there for a crossing of that height. Richerman ( talk) 14:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I've overhauled the article, based on the information from http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/advancedsearch.aspx I wish that had been available a few years ago when we first wrote the article. Nothing has been lost, we just have a few more images now. The references aren't showing properly at the moment, but I think that will be fixed further down the line. The new layout is with an eye towards the UK participating in Wiki Loves Monuments. I did this one manually, but I think User:KTC has a script which can do things a bit quicker. If there's someone who can lend a hand, either with the Grade II* GM list or a list from somewhere else in the region (you can see them at Listed buildings in England) it would be a massive help. While the script can do most of the heavy lifting, someone needs to check the names are correct. If you have the time, let KTC or myself know. Nev1 ( talk) 11:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Should this structure be on this page? According to this page, a grading isn't applicable. Parrot of Doom 11:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Noting the discussion from 2008 above, I wonder if it does make sense to list it twice? The article is on Grade 1 listed buildings in Greater Manchester. There is only one such railway bridge over the Irwell. Therefore, I'm not at all sure that recording it twice helps readers - it certainly confused me. Surely more of it sits in one area than the other, or does the Manchester/Salford boundary absolutely bisect it? Which council pays for it's upkeep, if either., or is it both? That said, I see that English Heritage does maintain two separate listings, for "that part in Manchester" and for "that part in Salford" so maybe I should just shut up. KJP1 ( talk) 22:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Grade I 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Grade I 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Grade I 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
December 27, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that most of
Manchester's
Grade I listed buildings are Victorian, because of Manchester's growth during the Industrial Revolution? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Featured list |
![]() | This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What's the stance on buildings that have been listed Grade I since 2001? For example, Tameside had only one in 2001, but today has at least two: St Anne's and St Michael's churches; St Annes was II* in 2001. Nev1 ( talk) 16:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The same problem has occured for Salford: 3 new ones. Nev1 ( talk) 22:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Stockport has further complicated things, on their list of listed buildings from November 2007 there are two new Grade I listed buildings (not a big problem) and St Mary's Church, Cheadle has been downgraded to Grade II. Should St Marys be included with a note to say that it no longer counts? Nev1 ( talk) 00:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Yep. It just keeps getting bigger. On the upside, Oldham, Salford, Trafford, Wigan definately don't have any more. The council websites were helpful and provided up to date lists, as have Bury and Stockport. Infuriatingly, Bolton and Rochdale haven't. Nev1 ( talk) 01:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
There are only 14 Grade I buildings listed on the Manchester.gov.uk website, but there are 15 according to IoE. I'm trusting the council on this one, but it might be interesting to find out if one has been downgraded. Nev1 ( talk) 19:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
St Mary in the Baum Church in Rochdale is a Grade 1 listed building. 2A00:23C6:5B00:4900:8CC2:3DE3:F115:DDAA ( talk) 23:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
I see that Ryedale is part of the statistics included in the Images of England page for Greater Manchester, but we know that it is in Yorkshire. How could we convey that to the reader, before they've visited the link and become confused to why Ryedale isn't included in the list? Rt . 22:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Should this church not be listed here? The wikipedia page claims it is grade I listed but I do not see it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DankNoscoper ( talk • contribs) 21:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
I think the did you know belongs to either St Werburgh's Church, Warburton or Warburton, Greater Manchester (or perhaps both) rather than this page; this article only mentions one as only one is Geade I. Nev1 ( talk) 13:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Just thought that this book may be helpful both here and elsewhere for Greater Manchester! -- Jza84 · ( talk) 18:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
There are a lot of good pictures that won't fit into the article alongside the text, does anyone thing a gallery would be useful? Nev1 ( talk) 21:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we should standardise on either 6 or 8 digit grid references. Thoughts? -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 16:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Go for it. Nev1 ( talk) 23:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I've made the initial change, to match Bristol's layout, as I think the lead without a picture does look a little bit bleak. And Bristol is already an FA anyway. The table sizing still needs a little bit of work though, as the buttons are being squeezed. Is it worth carrying on with this? Is everyone happy that this is an improvement? -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 00:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I've made the change to the format now, see what you think. I've tested it with IE6 and Firefox 2.0, with various display resolutions, and it looks fine to me in both of them. I don't have IE7 to try that out. --
Malleus Fatuorum (
talk) 18:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Unless there are any outstanding objections, I'd like to nominate this for WP:FL status. -- Jza84 · ( talk) 01:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the names of the churches be more consistent? They presently range from "St Augustine" to "Parish Church of St Mary". Although giving the full name may take up two lines in some instances, shouldn't they all at least have "church" in the title? Richerman ( talk) 17:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to wrap this up, I'd like to suggest that we name all of the church articles we're stubbing Church of .... rather than Parish Church of ... as that seems consistent, and parish churches change from time to time. Whether or not they're listed as Parish Church in this article. I hadn't fully realised how many names one church can be known by until I tried to track down the Church of St Mary and St Bartholomew this evening. What does the panel think? -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 23:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the "13 Arches" entry for Salford is correct. There is an article on the Clifton Viaduct which is also known as the 13 arches but that says it's a grade II structure. However the picture looks like it's of a different bridge than the one in the reference given for Salford Council Listed buildings site where its called "Railway Bridge Wilburn St" On there it looks as if the arch shown is lower and wider and it doesn't look like 13 arches would be needed there for a crossing of that height. Richerman ( talk) 14:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I've overhauled the article, based on the information from http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/advancedsearch.aspx I wish that had been available a few years ago when we first wrote the article. Nothing has been lost, we just have a few more images now. The references aren't showing properly at the moment, but I think that will be fixed further down the line. The new layout is with an eye towards the UK participating in Wiki Loves Monuments. I did this one manually, but I think User:KTC has a script which can do things a bit quicker. If there's someone who can lend a hand, either with the Grade II* GM list or a list from somewhere else in the region (you can see them at Listed buildings in England) it would be a massive help. While the script can do most of the heavy lifting, someone needs to check the names are correct. If you have the time, let KTC or myself know. Nev1 ( talk) 11:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Should this structure be on this page? According to this page, a grading isn't applicable. Parrot of Doom 11:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Noting the discussion from 2008 above, I wonder if it does make sense to list it twice? The article is on Grade 1 listed buildings in Greater Manchester. There is only one such railway bridge over the Irwell. Therefore, I'm not at all sure that recording it twice helps readers - it certainly confused me. Surely more of it sits in one area than the other, or does the Manchester/Salford boundary absolutely bisect it? Which council pays for it's upkeep, if either., or is it both? That said, I see that English Heritage does maintain two separate listings, for "that part in Manchester" and for "that part in Salford" so maybe I should just shut up. KJP1 ( talk) 22:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Grade I 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Grade I 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Grade I 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)