Talk:Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Greater Manchester (Rated FL-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester 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.
Featured list FL  This article has been rated as FL-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Architecture (Rated FL-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Featured list FL  This article has been rated as FL-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Historic sites (Rated FL-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Featured list FL  This article has been rated as FL-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Lists (Rated FL-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Featured list FL  This article has been rated as FL-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Featured list Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 19, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
January 30, 2008 Featured list candidate Promoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 27, 2007.
Current status: Featured list

New Grade I listed buildings[edit]

What's the stance on buildings that have been listed Grade I since 2001? For example, Tameside had only one in 2001, but today has at least two: St Anne's and St Michael's churches; St Annes was II* in 2001. Nev1 (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting. I'd certainly put it in the article, as it is verifiably listed as Grade I. It's a shame there isn't a central database for all the listed buildings. That would take the total from 39 to 40 (of course!). -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The same problem has occured for Salford: 3 new ones. Nev1 (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Stockport has further complicated things, on their list of listed buildings from November 2007 there are two new Grade I listed buildings (not a big problem) and St Mary's Church, Cheadle has been downgraded to Grade II. Should St Marys be included with a note to say that it no longer counts? Nev1 (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Good question! I've thought about this for a few minutes, and I'm torn on the issue. It's not a Grade I listed building, but I can see that others may mistake the source material as current. Also it has been G1. I'm not sure.
So does that take us to 45 in total? -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep. It just keeps getting bigger. On the upside, Oldham, Salford, Trafford, Wigan definately don't have any more. The council websites were helpful and provided up to date lists, as have Bury and Stockport. Infuriatingly, Bolton and Rochdale haven't. Nev1 (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Bring back GMC I say! They'd have a list I'm sure (they published some fantastic books in their time). I'm sure we'll crack this at the rate we're pooling our info. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Hehe! :) Rt. 17:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't seem to find St Leonards on Images of England, but it appears to be Grade I. I don't know if that takes us to 46. We currently have about 40 listed though! -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I found the source you needed, but I'm struggling with a couple myself. Basically, if you see an entry without everything filled in it's because I couldn't find it on Images of England. Nev1 (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Seems as though there are some descrepencies with Images of England. I'm sure we'll be able to find the rest of the details elsewhere, these being very notable Grade I buildings! -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

There are only 14 Grade I buildings listed on the website, but there are 15 according to IoE. I'm trusting the council on this one, but it might be interesting to find out if one has been downgraded. Nev1 (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Found it. In fact, it's still Grade I. Nev1 (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Excellent! This is really coming on nicely!... I'm not sure where we're upto now. I'm working on getting a photo (or two) for the Rochdale section. Bolton and Bury still look weak (isn't Bolton Town Hall grade I?), and some of the tables in my browser (IE) have inconsistent spacing and are warping and crushing some text. I can't seem to fix it either which is odd. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I can provide two sources for comparison for St Mary's, a before and after. However, Rudget chose to remove the entry. It may not belong in the main body of the article, but I think it should at least be an honourable mention.
I don't know why the tables are squashed like that (they're the same for me but I'm using IE too); I copied the Manchester table and the values are all the same, so I don't know what went wrong. Nev1 (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
It's quite simple, if it was delisted since the publishing on Images of England, it shouldn't be on the text. This page is after all about current listed buildings. Rt. 12:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I suppose it's best to keep it simple. At least there is a note on the St Mary's Church, Cheadle page. Nev1 (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure we can take advice on the table formatting from someone at WP:GM when we've got all the info in place. I've been granted permission to use this image of St Leonards. The author has promised to change the licencing to a compatable one for WikiCommons.
So is the "G" footnote there without the actual entry? If so, we ought to find a way to address the issue, whether that be leaving it out all together, or find a way of having a note in the article somehow.
I'm also worried about the names of churches we're using here (and on List of churches in Greater Manchester). The Church of England names them with the convention of "PARISH, DEDICATION", so say "East Crompton, St James" for example. That said, it is a confusing system. On Wikipedia, even for GM churches, we have hugh inconsistency. For Salford, St Martin (a made up church for sake of argument) we have the following possible uses (leading to thousands of alternative names):
  • Saint; saint; St; St.
  • Church; church
  • Martin; Martins; Martin's
  • Church of St Martin, Salford; St Martin's Church, Salford; St Martin's Church (Salford)
I'm thinking we may have to approach the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglicanism for support and guidance on church naming conventions. And this is putting other denominations and chapels aside! It's a small challenge to get these churches consistent and following a house style. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


I see that Ryedale is part of the statistics included in the Images of England page for Greater Manchester, but we know that it is in Yorkshire. How could we convey that to the reader, before they've visited the link and become confused to why Ryedale isn't included in the list? Rt. 22:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

We ought to e-mail Images of England to fix this. I think the mistake is obvious enough to hang back for now. We're not going for GA or FA for the timebeing so I think we'll be OK. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Well seen as it's a list, it can't get GA anyway, but yeah okay. Rt. 17:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


I think the did you know belongs to either St Werburgh's Church, Warburton or Warburton, Greater Manchester (or perhaps both) rather than this page; this article only mentions one as only one is Geade I. Nev1 (talk) 13:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It was mentioned earlier today, see here. Rt. 13:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
You can see it here also. Rt. 13:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I see. I assumed the tag on this page referred to the two churches of St Werburgh as the one on Victorian buildings in Manchester had already been archived when I looked. Nev1 (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional source[edit]

Just thought that this book may be helpful both here and elsewhere for Greater Manchester! -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Could we add it to the bibliography section? Rt. 10:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't see why not no! -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


There are a lot of good pictures that won't fit into the article alongside the text, does anyone thing a gallery would be useful? Nev1 (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Landscape shaped images seem to work well with the presentation, but portrait does not. I think there's a few options here.
  • Maintain (and improve upon) having selected images for each section.
  • Have a floating div "image bar" with more images going down the length of the article (at risk of having images not against their repective sections). This would be like Grade I listed buildings in Bristol.
  • Have a gallery of images at the end of the article.
  • Have a gallery of images at the end of each section.
I'm not sure myself. But I do like the pictures! ;) -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
My own thought is that there should preferably be a picture for each section and a gallery at the end for any pictures that don't fit. Nev1 (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a good idea. But only about 1 width, not two rows, that may be too much. Rt. 16:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
That seems reasonable to me, yes! It's coming on nicely now! -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
My impression is that galleries are frowned upon by some reviewers. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
If this is the case (and I'm sure there is good reason for it) it would be nice to avoid galleries and try to resolve the issue without them. I think -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

OS grid references[edit]

I think we should standardise on either 6 or 8 digit grid references. Thoughts? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, definately six rather than 8, as some aren't accurate to 8. Nev1 (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Nice, you got the table columns to line up, but is there a way to do it without pushing the pictures into a corner? It leaves a lot of white space. I had a go, but it was back to the old problem of columns not lining up. Alternatively this looks like the right time to reraise the discussion of where images go: we could sitck them all in a gallery at the end? Nev1 (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Getting the columns to line up was the bigger part of the job; changing the grid refs was easy. I'm not sure what you mean by "pushing the pictures into a corner", but I do have a suggestion about where images could go that may help. What about having two tables side by side - one for the present table and the other for the images? I'm not certain how that would work with the section headers without trying it out, but in my mind's eye I see a regular column of pictures down the right hand side of the screen. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
In that case, it may just be my screen settings or because I'm using IE7. Your suggestion sounds like Jza84's in taking a lead from Grade I listed buildings in Bristol, which might be the way to go. Nev1 (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That Bristol layout is pretty much exactly what I was suggesting. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
PS. Except that I wouldn't start the table(s) in the lead. Shall we try it? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Nev1 (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a quick bash at it now, but I may not be able to spend the time getting it right until tomorrow. By which time someone else may have done it and saved me the job of course. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made the initial change, to match Bristol's layout, as I think the lead without a picture does look a little bit bleak. And Bristol is already an FA anyway. The table sizing still needs a little bit of work though, as the edit buttons are being squeezed. Is it worth carrying on with this? Is everyone happy that this is an improvement? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In my browser (which is the boring but common Internet Explorer 7), the tables are pushed right down beneth all the images. Is there an outstanding coding problem? -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunatelty, I'm having the same problem as Jza84. Nev1 (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm using Firefox, in which everything looks OK. But I think the problem is that the Bristol article gets away with its layout because there's only one table, whereas we've got 10, one after the other. So I think our layout will need to be a bit cleverer. I'll ses what I can do before the sandman makes his next visit. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Assuming this will work (and I do think it will), I think it will look great. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll revert my recent edits, copy this page into my userspace, work on it there, and then bring it back tomorrow when I think it works for IE as well as Firefox. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the conflict may be due to the increased length of the tables. They seem to clip the edge of the images forcing them to seperate. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
You're probably right, but without the increased length the table columns don't align. I think the best way to resolve this problem is to have one table with two tables inside it, which is what I'll try tomorrow. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Or we invoke WP:IAR and force the image sizes to a preset smaller size?... I'll leave this one with you though. Aren't I kind? -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
No point in giving the MoS police a reason to oppose this article unless we really have no other choice. WP:IAR has its place, and maybe that's what we'll end up having to do, but I'll experiment tomorrow with various layouts/screen sizes/browsers and see what I can come up with that looks like being the best compromise. BTW, what screen size are you using? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
19" flat panel display, not a widescreen one either. - I really should be in bed! -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made the change to the format now, see what you think. I've tested it with IE6 and Firefox 2.0, with various display resolutions, and it looks fine to me in both of them. I don't have IE7 to try that out. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

By George, I think he's got it! It works. Nev1 (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks great to me! Seems like there's space for a couple of extra images too! Excellent work Malleus! -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


Unless there are any outstanding objections, I'd like to nominate this for WP:FL status. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's got to be close now, but I'm not happy with this statement in the Notes section: "The other being a book authored by Eamonn Canniffe and Tom Jefferies, both writers who have had various publications out in the public domain for around 15 years. They are both associated with the Manchester School of Architecture, one of the university providers of architecture courses." What is it trying to say? "Various publications" is classic weasel words isn't it? "One of the university providers of architecture courses". What a surprise that a school of architecture would be offering architecture courses. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd overlooked this. Yes I agree this is a problematic statement or two. At very least it needs a copyedit. Perhaps the user(s) who added this could elaborate on what is/was intended here. I think it was added to up the reliability of the source, though it doesn't seem needed. But I could be wrong. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see that it's needed at all, and I'm all for taking it out. The references are clearly listed. The English Heritage one was worth mentioning though, to make the point that the listings are only up to 2001. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
On reflection (by which I really mean you convinced me) the statement itself is a breach of WP:V! I agree it should go. It can always be added back in at somepoint in the future (with a copyedit) if the original contributor makes a sound case for it.... So, anything else we feel we ought to clear up at this stage? -- Jza84 · (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Now that I've convinced you, I'll take that sentence out and repair around it. When that's done I think this is well worth a punt at FLC. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, at the time of this sig. Fingers crossed! -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I was able to fill in the last two boxes (with sources). Let's hope this passes. Nev1 (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It's certainly as good, if not better than Grade I listed buildings in Bristol. We even have better buildings ;) -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It's become, I think, a really nice looking and informative article, so we must be in with a chance.
I did just notice one thing with the format of the references though. "Canniffe, Eamonn (1998). Manchester Architecture Guide. University of Manchester, 35." Presumably that 35 is a page number, so ought to be "p. 35", to be consistent with the other references? (God, I'm turning into one of those picky FA reviewers. :-) ) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Now-now! There's no need to beat yourself down to that level just quite yet! "Creative thinking should be viewed as an essential supplement to, though not a replacement for, critical thinking." You're right about the pages. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't believe we can't do this! I won't loose sleep about it though. Infact I'm gonna get some now. -- Jza84 · (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The idea, as I understand it, is that we can't be certain of what concept the person being quoted had of, in this case Victorian. So it's a bit like putting words in their mouths to wikilink to what we think they probably meant. But I'm off to bed to now as well, so probably see you around tomorrow. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Naming convention[edit]

Shouldn't the names of the churches be more consistent? They presently range from "St Augustine" to "Parish Church of St Mary". Although giving the full name may take up two lines in some instances, shouldn't they all at least have "church" in the title? Richerman (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right, that thought had crossed my mind as well. Churches seem to go by various names though: Church of St Augustine, St Augustine's Church, Parish Church of St Augustine, St Augustine (I made all of those up). Is there a definitive list of each church's "official" name? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Not that I know of but they should be around on various websites. Richerman (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Different web sites often give the same church different names though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a best guess really. I've changed the Bury ones, I'll wait to see what others think before going any further Richerman (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
There was only one left without "Church" in the title so I've done that too. I'm happy with it now anyway Richerman (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I've gone for the names that Images of England used in the ones I've changed. It does look better now though, I agree. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I spotted this issue myself a while back. I raised it with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglicanism at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anglicanism#Naming_conventions_query, but alas, nothing really came of it. I list the various styles in that discussion. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
In the the end I used the form that you see on the name outside most churches which is "Church of" or "Parish Church of" and I think that was the same as Malleus Fatuorum used so it is at least fairly consistent throughout the list. Are all those red links a good idea though? Richerman (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm totally happy with that. Seems strange that the various Christianity projects haven't synthesised a naming convention for this issue though. Oh well, WP:GM leading the way again! -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Judging from the comments made so far on the FLC those red links are going to cause a problem. Looks like we'll have to roll our sleves up and write some stubs if we want this to get through. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to wrap this up, I'd like to suggest that we name all of the church articles we're stubbing Church of .... rather than Parish Church of ... as that seems consistent, and parish churches change from time to time. Whether or not they're listed as Parish Church in this article. I hadn't fully realised how many names one church can be known by until I tried to track down the Church of St Mary and St Bartholomew this evening. What does the panel think? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with any system so long as it's consistent. My personal view on this is that the church's article title should be "Church of Saint Whoever, Parish", but in the article itself, use the convention "Parish, Saint Whoever is a church in Exampleshire, Exampleland". The "Parish, Dedication" style is the official convention in the Church of England (I can't speak for the other denominations). However, what would a man raised by Presbyterians, Baptised an Anglican and sent to Methodist sunday school know about any of this for... 23:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your article naming convention, for instance, Church of St Leonard, Middleton. Within the article I don't see such a need for consistency though. For instance, I don't have a problem seeing an article about Church of ...St X, Y start off "St X's is ...". BTW. Why are we having the thresh out this church naming convention? It's hard enough writing all these stubs without worrying about what to name them. And that's the considered opinion of someone who was brought up as a Roman Catholic. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
We shouldn't be! I'm utterly amazed that this issue hasn't been tackled before now. There doesn't seem much desire to do so from the various Christianity projects either. I shudder to think how we'll standardise List of churches in Greater Manchester. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

13 Arches[edit]

I'm not sure that the "13 Arches" entry for Salford is correct. There is an article on the Clifton Viaduct which is also known as the 13 arches but that says it's a grade II structure. However the picture looks like it's of a different bridge than the one in the reference given for Salford Council Listed buildings site where its called "Railway Bridge Wilburn St" On there it looks as if the arch shown is lower and wider and it doesn't look like 13 arches would be needed there for a crossing of that height. Richerman (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. The picture on Salford's site doesn't look anything like 13 Arches. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
As it's not just me going daft I've changed it to "Railway bridge over the River Irwell" Richerman (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm very sorry, 13 arches was my fault. I think I've found the correct ref on IoE (the image is almost identicle to the one on the Salford website) except that IoE says it's in Manchester rather than Salford. Nev1 (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
That's definitely the right bridge. As it's crossing the Irwell I suppose that one end is in Manchester and the other is in Salford. I wonder why Salford claimed it and Manchester didn't? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
To answer my own question, I've just noticed that it is listed in both Manchester and Salford, so there are only 46 Grade I buildings in GM. Which taable entry should we keep? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
How about both, with a note to say why? Nev1 (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. In the meantime I deleted it from the Salford table because that was easier than correcting the listing details. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd personally make a note in the third paragraph of the lead that one crosses the district boundary. I think it deserves a note given the distinction. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Another good idea. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


I've overhauled the article, based on the information from I wish that had been available a few years ago when we first wrote the article. Nothing has been lost, we just have a few more images now. The references aren't showing properly at the moment, but I think that will be fixed further down the line. The new layout is with an eye towards the UK participating in Wiki Loves Monuments. I did this one manually, but I think User:KTC has a script which can do things a bit quicker. If there's someone who can lend a hand, either with the Grade II* GM list or a list from somewhere else in the region (you can see them at Listed buildings in England) it would be a massive help. While the script can do most of the heavy lifting, someone needs to check the names are correct. If you have the time, let KTC or myself know. Nev1 (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Marple Aqueduct[edit]

Should this structure be on this page? According to this page, a grading isn't applicable. Parrot of Doom 11:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

River Irwell Railway bridge[edit]

Noting the discussion from 2008 above, I wonder if it does make sense to list it twice? The article is on Grade 1 listed buildings in Greater Manchester. There is only one such railway bridge over the Irwell. Therefore, I'm not at all sure that recording it twice helps readers - it certainly confused me. Surely more of it sits in one area than the other, or does the Manchester/Salford boundary absolutely bisect it? Which council pays for it's upkeep, if either., or is it both? That said, I see that English Heritage does maintain two separate listings, for "that part in Manchester" and for "that part in Salford" so maybe I should just shut up. KJP1 (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I just stumbled accross that as there is Manchester Liverpool Road railway station listed with the same id on this list. There are definetly two listings for the bridge. But I have not been able to locate the correct ID for the station. Agathoclea (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I think I've fixed that now. Eric Corbett 13:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
That's spot on, thanks for sorting it. Nev1 (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)