This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shropshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Shropshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShropshireWikipedia:WikiProject ShropshireTemplate:WikiProject ShropshireShropshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
There may be a confusion to present day visitors about there being a 'north-east organ chamber'. The chamber, which looks like a short transept, ceased to contain the church organ in the 1970s, when the existing organ was removed and another, second hand, organ was installed in the west gallery. The chamber now only holds a linen cupboard. Cloptonson (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yes, the problem is of course with the source. Heritage England brings its descriptions up to date very rarely - not surprising really as they have so many listed buildings. I send them two lists every week of minor and major errors. I guess in this case the pragmatic solution would be to add the word "former". What do you think? This sort of problem must apply to hundreds, if not thousands, of listed building descriptions. Cheers, --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Depends on how much deviation from the cited source that would be. Better tactic would be to update the listing authority (with whom I have no contacts with regard to my area), check they have taken the update on board, then write that into the wiki article.Cloptonson (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
You are right - but easier said than done. I fear that HE is still in partial lockdown. I used to get feedback frequently for the errors I had discovered, but I have had no reply from my major contact for about 2 months. And I confirm every suggested amendment I send with evidence such as a photograph - usually from Geograph or Street View. Most of the descriptions were written decades ago and have not been undated. On today's count, there are 378,981 listed buildings, and hundreds, probably thousands, of the descriptions must be out of date. That means that people like you and I must let them know about most amendments - they cannot send one of their staff to every change in structure/use etc. For example, many listed pubs are no longer in use as pubs. There is a means of contact for the general public to inform about changes at https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/minor-amendments/ if you wish to try this. As you say, to introduce the word "former" would be to use personal observation rather than reliable published evidence, so I guess we will have to live with what is currently in the source, uncomfortable though it is, until the evidence is updated. Thoughts? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
.png){kind=small}
