User talk:Crouch, Swale/Bot tasks/Listed buildings

Comment
I think lists of listed buildings are more useful for the reader if they include a street address or other locational info in the first column, rather than in some cases just a house name or "Milestone" with coordinates. I worked on a local parish to make these improvements. Not sure how much it can be automated ... but presumably the text in the "Notes" field is added manually in any case, so the human task of creating that field can be extended to include "add a meaningful address to the first column where necessary". Pam D  07:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * yes that would be useful, for some reason in List of listed buildings in Dumfries it doesn't put the street in the address but that could be because those like "55 High Street" the street is part of the name, I think we could still put "High Street" in the location section unless that would be seen as unnecessary duplication. If the building falls in a different settlement eg St Jame's Church is in the village of Avonwick in North Huish parish then that to should go in the "location" section.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 09:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no problem when the name of the building includes a street name, and duplication would look odd "3 High Street, High Street" is a mess, but "White Cottage, High Street" is much more informative than just "White Cottage".
 * Are you liaising with who has created so many of the "list of listed buildings" pages to date? He seems still to be actively working on these and created Listed buildings in Newborough, Staffordshire today. He may have others in the pipeline: would be a shame to duplicate your efforts.  Pam  D  09:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I see in those created by Peter they have both the name and location in 1 parameter. I was just following the likes of List of listed buildings in Gigha And Cara, Argyll and Bute created by the bot in 2012, I suppose we could do the same but in cases such as the church in Avonwick that info would be lost.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 10:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, Pam. You have a point.  I had rather assumed that by giving the coords, a click on them and a click on a chosen map or aerial view would give not only the address but also the geographical context of the building.  Not sure it would work for isolated buildings, as some might need a sort of mini-essay, but in towns where a building has a name and an address, it would be worth adding the latter.  Incidentally, I now add some details of the location of milestones and mileposts in the Notes. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we need to think of the reader: if they are curious about the listed, ie potentially worth a look at, buildings in the parish (whether local, visitor, or armchair traveller) they won't necessarily want to have to click on the coordinates for each one to get an idea of location. House names, milestones, etc in isolation don't necessarily ring a bell. A bit more info in that first column will help the reader get an idea - eg whether it's in the village built-up area or is outlying; whether there are a cluster of buildings near each other in one square, etc. Pam  D  15:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The location tends to be given in the "details" section of the listing, such as the church "NORTH HUISH SX75NW AVONWICK" while the "location" gives the "statutory address" and parish, district etc.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)