Talk:Grade I listed buildings in North Yorkshire

Accuracy of the list
In testing the usefulness of the national heritage database I've linked at the bottom of the page, I found an entry on this list that was grade II, not grade I. I suggest an organised effort to verify all of these buildings may be required, because at the moment there's no clear way of being sure the list is entirely accurate. JulesH (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is in fact Grade I. IoE is out of date.  I've updated the overall reference and will add individual references in time (I have the whole of England to do)Major-General Clanger (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've checked Craven for updates after the IoE cutoff.Major_Clanger (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm planning to add additional references for the entries as I find them so hopefully any inaccuracies can be corrected. --Kaly99 (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you've picked up the new ones in Hambleton, so I'll stop checking--Major_Clanger (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Splitting list
I've created listed for the various districts in North Yorkshire:
 * Grade I listed buildings in Selby (district)
 * Grade I listed buildings in Harrogate (borough)
 * Grade I listed buildings in Craven
 * Grade I listed buildings in Richmondshire
 * Grade I listed buildings in Hambleton
 * Grade I listed buildings in Ryedale
 * Grade I listed buildings in Scarborough (borough)
 * Grade I listed buildings in City of York
 * Grade I listed buildings in Redcar and Cleveland
 * Grade I listed buildings in Middlesbrough (borough)

If no one objects, I'd like to turn this page into something like Grade II* listed buildings in North Yorkshire. Nev1 (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I should like useful information transferred first. For example, in the case of the city of York there is important information in the list of buildings which has been lost in the new page, for example distinguishing between churches with the same name, and Fairfax House, York has been incorrectly linked to a property in Australia. Since corrections had been made in response to the recent request in connection with the WLM initiative the timing is unfortunate because it can only confuse participants, not to mention the irritation to those who responded to the recent request to improve the information. --AJHingston (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A further thought. If the present page was split because of length, it should be remembered that the list of Grade II* buildings on the county is even longer. Added to that these are purely administrative divisions. Even locals will usually only have a very vague idea of the boundaries of a neighbouring district. The most useful listing may be that for York, because most though not all listed buildings are within the historic city and they are much more densely packed, but I wonder about exactly what the list is intended to achieve because that should influence structure. The ability to skim the list was probably far more useful to many people than having to guess where these districts actually are, and the name of the district in which somewhere like Fountains Abbey might lie. --AJHingston (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The Grade II* is already split along administrative lines. As long as these lists have been around, how to divide them when they get over-long has always been a conundrum, and doing so by local district is the most common method. In the table for the City of York, Fairfax House links to an article which starts "Fairfax House is a Georgian townhouse located at No. 27, Castlegate, York, England". I'll transfer over the changes you made in this edit as they're certainly useful, but unfortunately the various WLM tools don't work with tables (templates need to be used). Nev1 (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what happened with Fairfax House. Until recently it was a redirect, but in late June it was turned into an article on the house in York. Nev1 (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * AJHingston, I've gone through the links you added and have transferred them over to the City of York list. They were mostly there, but a couple were missed where I wasn't sure which church was which (fortunately the English Heritage site provided me more information to work it out and make up for my lack of local knowledge). All the links were to Medieval parish churches of York, which isn't an issue for the other lists, so hopefully that might be everything sorted. Nev1 (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Stockton-on-Tees
There's one (Church of St Peter, Hilton) but it's in the County Durham list with the borough's other Grade I listed buildings and was linked to the wrong place. Peter&#160;James (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing the link. Looking at it it belongs with the others in Stockton but it makes sense to also add it here. I've boldly gone ahead and done so with a note to clarify.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 20:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Is that because it falls in the County Durham part of Stockton-on-Tees? That's an unusual situation. Nev1 (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The borough of Stockton-on-Tees does fall in both County Durham (mostly) and North Yorkshire; something I wasn't aware of until I checked the edit to Grade I listed buildings in County Durham. There's no problem referencing the Stockton list here, especially as this page just has links not actual entries.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 21:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly linking to the other Stockton list is a good idea as it might come as a surprise to anyone not from the area. Nev1 (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

North Yorkshire (district)
Given the merger of the second-tier districts into the North Yorkshire district, would it make sense to merge them into a single article, perhaps Grade I listed buildings in North Yorkshire (district)? With York kept separate, as well as the other unitaries, it should be of managable length. Perhaps the same could work for the Grade II* listed buildings? Warofdreams talk 21:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I propose merging:


 * Grade I listed buildings in Craven
 * Grade I listed buildings in Hambleton
 * Grade I listed buildings in Harrogate (borough)
 * Grade I listed buildings in Richmondshire
 * Grade I listed buildings in Ryedale
 * Grade I listed buildings in Scarborough (borough)
 * Grade I listed buildings in Selby (district)

Into Grade I listed buildings in North Yorkshire (district); and similarly to merge the Grade II* listed articles.

These second-tier local authorities no longer exist, and have been merged into the new North Yorkshire district; the merge will make it easier for readers to locate the material. I propose keeping York and the other unitary lists separate as including them (particularly York) would make the lists excessively long. Warofdreams talk 21:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd agree but I'd consider dividing up into 2 lists like what has been done with Grade II* listed buildings in Herefordshire.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 00:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem with that, but you might possibly find difficulties with large numbers of uses of the NHLE template on the same page (which I had with Scheduled monuments in Derbyshire, which is why it is split). Dave.Dunford (talk) 06:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks both. I've completed the merge for the Grade I articles.  I agree there are too many Grade II* listed buildings for a single list, so I was wondering whether a split between churches and other buildings would work - might be easier to find buildings than an alphabetical split, and there's no particularly obvious geographical split which I could use. Warofdreams talk 00:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)