User talk:KJP1/sandbox 5 Monmouthshire gardens

Column headings
, - First, thanks very much indeed for the advice and assistance. I really appreciate it. My next ask is, are the column headings right? I've tried to reproduce what we currently have below for ease. Taking Edward's comment about the fewer the better for optimal viewing, I definitely think we need a Notes column. Could we combine Grid Reference and Geo Coordinates, perhaps with Location as well, as in Grade Is in RCT? Could we lose Type, as they are all landscapes? Do we need Completed, given that many have been developed over centuries? Is Date listed valuable? Apart from Notes, I don't have strong views on any of these. Then, how easy is it to change the table? I don't know how to, but would be very willing to pick up any populating grunt work if that was needed? All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, @KJP1, if you're referring to Grade I listed buildings in Rhondda Cynon Taf, that uses simple wikitables rather than templates, I am open to converting this into a wikitable rather than using templates. Note, as you had copied a template (English Heritage listed building row and English Heritage listed building header) over I had boldly kept it using templates but changed it to potentially more flexible Historic building header and Historic building row that are not linked to historicengland.org.uk/.
 * The columns are based on how Historic building header and Historic building row templates work. Their source text indicates the type, architect, (date) listed, gridref, notes, imgs, ref and wikidata columns can be hidden or not. The other columns, such as Geo coords, name, location, completed and designation are probably set to be shown by default. Therefore a notes column can appear. Type and date listed can disappear. But unfortunately completed has to stay, and Geo coords would have to replace Grid Ref if only one is to be shown. Ofc, if we were to convert this into a wikitable it would probably be easier to edit, add and remove columns. Open to that.  Dank Jae  18:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Looking at the coding of the "historic building header" it should be reasonable manageable to create a new header template for what we need. This would enable an alternative selection of column names. Certainly the template would be usable for both listed buildings and parks/gardens and I think it would be good to have a fairly consistent layout used for all lists of Cadw heritage sites – listed buildings, scheduled monuments and parks/gardens – This may be a good opportunity to look at lists for all types of sites when designing a template for the parks/gardens as it looks like the scheduled monuments articles could do with some development too (filling in missing/incomplete citations, removing redundant "historic county" column, images too small, etc) - I have done some testing in my sandbox and think that one set of templates - named something like "Cadw heritage list header" and "row" could be used across all these lists - with Period and Designation columns that would have a show=yes option depending on the type of list required and would display list entries as shown in the examples below (scheduled monument, park/garden). It could also be possible to set other columns like "image" or "date listed" as optional.


 * The notes column could be used to cover information like the site type and completed, so I do not think separate columns for these are needed. The date listed is something that will become more useful as more sites are added, and including it gives consistency with the listed buildings articles. A single column for location/mapping seems to work, however I found that as Geo-coords and Grid ref provide the same information either one would be sufficient and when both are used they each generate markers when using the OpenSteetMap link. This may be why on the scheduled monuments lists the grid refs are displayed without the link template.


 * With a bit of experimenting I think it may even be possible to re-write the existing Cadw listed building header template (without messing up the existing lists that use it) by using the show=yes/no switches and by recoding its hb= parameter to fix any issues with the reference number links. EdwardUK (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I think they all look good, with my personal favourite being the last one. I agree that a, reasonably, consistent style across the Cadw sites is desirable, Cadw being responsible for them, both at the initial listing stage (although, like England, there's a rubber-stamp ministerial sign-off, ) and subsequently. And I also think the Show Yes/No facility would be excellent, given that some variation would be useful, e.g. Function/Type in Grade I Listed, where you have bridge/castle/church/house/folly/cross/barn/wall/stables, that you may not want in Registered parks and gardens, although, as Edward says, this could be covered in Notes. Conversely, Grade I's/II*s etc. won't need Grade while Parks and Gardens will. I'm not competent to comment on any of the technical aspects, so will leave those to you two to agree among yourselves! My only other thought is whether, having worked up an example/(s), it should be floated it for comment? It potentially impacts a lot of articles, the Wales Project will likely be interested, and we may get some useful input from WikiProject Historic sites, where I was delighted to see that Cadw/ICOMOS Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in Wales is already listed. So, how do you want to progress this? KJP1 (talk) 07:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree, it would be good to get the views of other wikiproject editors before making changes to the existing lists, as there are about 80 articles based on lists of Cadw sites (roughly? buildings=40, monuments=40), and the parks/gardens will add about 20 more. After a bit of testing I think the single header template that I thought of for all site types may be too complicated for some editors to use due to the number of options that would be needed, but using three sets of very similar templates should work.
 * For parks/gardens I can create Cadw park garden header and Cadw park garden row, which will be similar to the template for listed buildings, but will replace hb= with num= and uid= so that the link to the reference number works. It may take a few days to sort out the coding and write up the documentation for using it, but this will enable us to get going with creating the articles based on it. Then we can look at options for making some changes to the listed building template and creating something for scheduled monuments too. I've made some minor adjustments to the examples below to show how I think the templates would display - notably changing the name of the "notes" column will increase its minimum width. EdwardUK (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Edward, that would be fantastic. And obviously no rush. I agree that simple is best, many editors, myself among them, aren't strong on Wiki's technical workings and complex formatting will just frustrate and discourage. Clean and simple is also best, as you say, for the reader experience. I think grouping all the Location details in one column, maximising the space for Notes, and keeping it to as few columns as possible is the right way to go. I guess Historic (Ceremonial) County may have had some value when Scheduled monuments were set up, but I can't really see its relevance now. And I think the detail from the Function column in Listed buildings can easily be incorporated in the Notes column. I think having an example we can show will really help in getting input on the Wales/Historic sites projects. Looking forward to it. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * p.s. Just so you don't think I'm sitting back and doing nothing! I'm working along the South Wales coast populating the Parks and gardens categories, where we've got existing articles. I'm also doing some Starts, e.g. Coldbrook Park, Bailey Park, Abergavenny where we've not. Dank indicated they'd start in the North, as time permits, and they've very helpfully got the Cadw map into list format, so we we should have the data ready, when we want to populate the lists. KJP1 (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I have made the templates - Cadw park garden header and Cadw park garden row - and filled in the documentation for them which hopefully explains how to use them. It makes sense to me, but might not to others, so if there is anything that seems unclear then it can be improved. There are only a couple of things that I have not got exactly as wanted, as my knowledge of templates is entirely based on what I've worked out from studying others and therefore quite limited. I can't work out how to automatically add a colon after the function when this is displayed as part of the notes column, and I am yet to try working out how to code the grade column so that entries do not require the use of a sort template, and so that it will display colours (which I can do in wikitables but have never tried with templates), I think this may be possible and could be added later, but apart from that they should be ready for testing/using. Again examples below of how it would display depending on parameters used. EdwardUK (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have edited the grade parameter so that using I, II* or II will now display the matching colour and it no longer needs a sort template. EdwardUK (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

- And very bloody nice they look - although you shouldn't be working on them at 2.00 a.m.! Seriously, they are fantastic and thanks for all the work you've put in. To me, they look ready to float on WikiProject Wales and WikiProject Historic Sites. Or is there more you want to do? KJP1 (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it is ready. The template appears similar to the listed building equivalent, and it has only a few changes from the parameters used, so it should not be complicated to use. However, it would be helpful for editors to understand how the template works and why particular design choices have been made. For the parks/gardens template we are looking for comments on the general appearance, and if there is anyone familiar with templates who may be able to pick up on any coding errors I have missed. Then we should ask what others think about using a consistent style across the various lists of Cadw sites, which would mean updating (for listed buildings) or creating (for scheduled monuments) templates for this. EdwardUK (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * - Great - will you do the honours, as you did the work, or would you like me to? Just let me know. KJP1 (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As I feel it is most important to Wales I have put the information on that wikiproject, and added a link to that on the Historic sites page. I have split it into two sections (1. parks/gardens, 2. lb/sm) and have covered the details about the template design and usage, but you may want to add something about Cadw and the parks/gardens register as you seem much more knowledgeable about it than I am. EdwardUK (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've updated the examples below as I have changed the template, replacing the "function" parameter with "site_type" - this was still easy to change for parks/gardens as there are only a couple of examples of the template in use, unlike listed buildings with maybe 4,500. EdwardUK (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Cadw heritage list header
Example for a Scheduled monument list: Example for a Park/Garden list:

Cadw park garden template
With and without show_site_type=yes


 * }


 * }

A bloody good job
, - Just wanted to say an absolutely huge thanks for all of the effort put in to bringing these together. IMHO it's been a bloody good job, and the categorisation and the lists are sound models for how these could be developed going forward. Appreciate that we didn't please everyone and, as can be the Wiki way, strong efforts can be greeted largely with silence, while mistakes generate a chorus of disapproval! But I'm pretty confident other editors will like them and, more importantly, that they will provide a useful resource for readers. With thanks and all the very best. KJP1 (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)