Talk:List of historic buildings of the United Kingdom

Historic buildings?
An awful lot of these are not buildings at all. I am inclined to take them out. Any comments? Walgamanus 23:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree - the whole thing is awkward too. No real context to it. AFCR 11:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Time for a split?
Does anyone else think that this article needs to be split? My main problem is not its size (even though the size is a problem), but the fact that it contains different types lists, some listing buildings and some listing architects. I propose as a first step that the first section is made into an own article called "Pre-Historic buildings & structures in the UK" or something like that. Comments, protests? Pax:Vobiscum 16:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the list needs to be split into several pages to make more sense. AFCR 16:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't imagine this page being of any use to anyone in its current form. At the very least architects should be split from buildings! (List of British architects?) There are literally thousands and thousands of historic buildings in the UK, it is ridiculous to try to maintain a manageable list of these, even if split into several period lists. Surely this is what categories were made for? Edward Waverley 14:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Have created List of British architects, and am rearranging this page by building, rather than by architect. The lists are rather confused at present and will require trimming and sub-sorting. eg Scots classicist James Smith's works listed under "English baroque". I will try to come up with a better, more detailed list of architectural styles/periods, though sorting all these buildings may be difficult. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Further suggestion: this page could be split into four or five sub-pages, linked as a series. I propose the headings listed on this sub-page, with each page titled, for example, Mediaeval buildings of the United Kingdom, and split into sections as outlined on the sub-page. Comments on the headings welcome. It would be nice to have some sort of consensus for doing all this... Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the page needs sorting - but I'm not sure what is the best way to do it. I used similar headings/periods to those you suggest on Buildings and architecture of Bristol but the divisions between the periods & styles will never be totally clear cut. Does the new list need to link (in some way, I've no idea how) to the Category:English architecture (which is even more messy), Category:Years in architecture & in some way to the listed buildings at Category:Listed buildings?&mdash; Rod talk 10:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * PS are you happy for us to add buildings we've done articles about as far as Baroque or will that just get in the way of your plans?&mdash; Rod talk 10:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, please don't let restructuring hold up other stuff. It will take a while to work thorugh this stuff, so keep adding anything you have. As to the headings, the divisions is what bothers me too, some buildings just don't fit into one phase or another. Category:British architecture is, as you say, a bit of a mess, perhaps it might be better to fix up the cats first, then come back and see what can be done with the list(s)? Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK I've added a few to both this list and List of British architects. Shouldn't the sections of this list follow Architecture of the United Kingdom & perhaps work a few more of the examples into that article?&mdash; Rod talk 12:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As the split has been done I have tidied up - removing the architects, which are now at List of British architects, and renaming the list. Split tag removed.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Explanations of subheadings
It would be useful, especially for casual readers like me, if the subheadings could be wikilinked to explanations of them. I see from the above discussion that it's not simply a case of assigning dates to them. --Northernhenge (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Replacing the A-L, M-Z headings
There are drawbacks with the use of the A-L, M-Z headings, and I thus suggest we replace them with template:Div col.

I will leave it a while, to see if editors have other ideas. At some point, if no objections are raised, I then suggest we do the replacing.

1: What purpose does it serve?
 * Problems with A-L usage

It's surely obvious that the entries are in alphabetical order.

2: The columns require different lengths. This leaves unnecessary white space & scrolling.

3: A-L assumes that nobody has a wide (or indeed narrow?) screen.

If one does, there's no reason to fix the number of columns at precisely 2 ("one size fits all").

(See the == See also == section, for how this works.)
 * Benefits of using "Div col"

1. The browser will determine the optimum number of columns.

2. The browser will make all the columns an equal no. of lines.

Comments, of course, are as always welcome and encouraged. Trafford09 (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)