Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Listed buildings in Rivington/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:18, 10 August 2010 [1].

Listed buildings in Rivington

Featured list candidates/Listed buildings in Rivington/archive1

Nominator(s): J3Mrs (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a complete list of all the Listed buildings in Rivington. The text has been copyedited and the format is one used in other successful FLs. J3Mrs (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick-fire comment, will review in more detail later (but delighted to see it here!) – have a look at some of those previous FLs and find some categories into which this list can be put. Bencherlite ^Talk 09:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 10:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, although I must declare an interest. I was responsible for making the date column search (I hope properly), and for unifying the format of the references. Otherwise the list has been completely compiled and collated by the nominator. It is comprehensive, well presented and there is an appropriate amount of information on the buildings. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 07:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An editor has deleted all the details of the publishers of the Heritage Gateway website; I understood that it is mandatory to include the name(s) of the publisher in a reference. To this end I have added a note at the start of the References section giving this detail. Actually it looks much tidier and IMO does the job just as well. Is that acceptable?--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Ref 1 is small.

I didn't notice, but the only way I could change it was to make the Note larger.

External links is empty.

Removed

"The village is a conservation .." would re-assert Rivington here as it's been a while since you mentioned it...

changed to "Rivington village centre..."

You link cruck on its own and then cruck frame. Be consistent.

It is now

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thanks for your comments, I've changed the link, removed the empty External links, added Rivington to a sentence, and changed the size of Reference 1.

Support, I think it meets all the criteria, and is well-written and interesting. A query: why are the page titles and website titles in the references section in italics?--BelovedFreak 23:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just the way {{citation}} formats the references. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the website title, I know, but we can override it, and I thought that that was generally thought desirable, per WP:ITALICS. That's the principal I've been working from. Am I wrong, or is it not considered a problem either way? I've never been completely clear on whether or not WP:ITALICS also applies to the references.
  - {{Citation}} doesn't format the page title in italics, that has been manually added here (eg. ''Hamer's Cottage, Rivington''). Just wondered if there was a reason.--BelovedFreak 09:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think WP:ITALICS requires italics for page titles, but for printed publications (newspapers, magazines, journals). Dabomb87 (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, that's right. My concern is whether or not it prohibits (or, rather, discourages) italics for page titles.--Beloved Freak 14:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Re the italics, suggest you look at the discussion here on the subject. I'm not sure this completely resolves the situation, but it does explain why things are as they are in this list.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks, that helped a little, although I'm still unclear on which is the right way to do it, but I'm more than satisfied as far as this FLC goes.--Beloved Freak 17:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I too am unclear (not unusual for me). My personal feeling is that there should not be two "families" of citations. Makes it difficult for mere mortals like us (?).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Thanks for your support, much appreciated. As to the italics, User:Peter I. Vardy was kind enough to format them for me following a discussion elsewhere as I am "challenged" when it comes to understanding technicalities. I think I know how to remove the italics if it's a problem.--J3Mrs (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you should change it if it isn't a problem, I'm just trying to work out whether or not it is! It's my understanding that the references go against the WP:MOS as they are, but I'm also aware that Peter's lists have got through FLC just fine, in the same format, so that's why I wouldn't oppose based on that.--Beloved Freak 14:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What's the publisher for Janet Waymark's book? Courcelles (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Frances Lincoln, as the citation says. Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, then, what's the location? Courcelles (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - London, which I've added. Personally though, I prefer not to include the locations for any sources, but each to their own. Malleus Fatuorum 21:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Malleus, I don't care much about locations, either, so long as they're consistent. Clare Hartwell's book already had the location. Courcelles (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thank you for your support Courcelles, much appreciated. And Thank you too MF--J3Mrs (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.