Template talk:English Heritage listed building row

Hi there - Seems to be some stray vertical space below photos in all but the last row - see Grade I listed buildings in Derbyshire for example. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You might also be interested to look at Template:Listed building table header, Template:Listed building table entry and Template:Listed building table footer, which I created to serve a very similar purpose (but which aren't used on any live article; only the incomplete article User:Dave.Dunford/DerbyshireGradeI in my sandbox uses them). With respect, I have to say I prefer some aspects of my templates: I'm not sure it needs so many columns, and I'm not keen on the unconventional small font and column-centred text. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know much about templates and don't want to go fiddling with the code, but I'm not sure the removal of Lat & Long is helpful. Although I'm happy with Grid Refs - anyone from outside the UK (and some Brits) will not be - therefore the removal of this function may limit their ability to find the building. It also stops the "KML" functionality which can map all the sites in a list onto Google or Bing maps (see for example the links top right of the list at Grade II* listed buildings in Taunton Deane). The edit summary says they are 50m out- but I have spent hours adding and correcting them on lists for Somerset - see sub lists of Grade I listed buildings in Somerset & Grade II* listed buildings in Somerset (a couple still being converted to use the template). If Lat & Long are not going to be used should I just save myself time & not bother filling them in?— Rod ^talk 08:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I have copied your post to, and replied to it at, Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board#Hiding of coordinates, where other issues with this initiate are being discussed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

It was the intention of the WLM team that both Geo-coordinates and grid references are useful, and ought to be shown, so the edit to comment out Geo-coordinates was a surprise to me. If there turn out to be errors, they ought toi be corrected, not hidden. On Commons:Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United Kingdom/planning#Resources there is a reference to a PHP tool, but I don't know exactly if or where where that has been used. User:KTC may know. It is also quite possible that there may be isolated errors in the raw data from the listing organizations.

Questions to the WLM team can be posted to Commons:Commons talk:Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United Kingdom/Organizers' help desk. More volunteers will be watching that page than here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I've replied there. For the moment, perhaps lat/lon should remain visible, because they are a maximum of 121m out. (Reply to me there, not here.) - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 21:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I see the link under the image which enabled easy uploading of other images of the same building has been removed "now WLM is over". I think the link was quite helpful even when not submitting images to WLM as I used it since the end of the competition because it adds location details & NHLE listing numbers automatically. Do others think the link is now redundant or should it be kept?— Rod ^talk 16:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Related to this is the removal of the link to other images at Commons which allowed you to get to the category on Commons relating to the item. Keith D (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I removed it. The comment that accompanied it, 'This next bit adds an "additional upload" message and should probably be removed after the end of WLM', indicates that it was meant to be only a temporary feature. It's undoubtedly true that we could always do with more good quality images but it's not normal practice to include such links in articles, or anything else that is helpful just to editors. We have a more pressing need for images for articles without them but even that doesn't get mentioned within the article: the templates for it such as {{Image requested}} should only appear on the talk page (the template complains if it's placed in an article).

If some editors find it useful then the best option would be a gadget or Javascript which users can enable/add. Something like the 'edit' links added to each section by another gadget. This could be then be used by those editors who want it but would not distract other editors and readers who aren't interested in it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I can see that's true for uploading extra images, but what was the rationale for removing the commonscat link, especially as some of the categories were added or corrected by hand to make them useful? --Northernhenge (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Could somebody debug and restore this edit, which I have just self-reverted, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the original code from September to show the Commons link. Looks like it works OK. Revert if there is a problem. Keith D (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I am working on List of scheduled monuments in West Somerset and have been challenged because the number of items in the wp list does not match the number from the NHLE. I have discovered that the NHLE uses two separate UIDs for a site if it straddles a county border (which mean they are not Unique identifiers). See 1003838 and 1006209. I have tried adding both into the UID field of this template (with comma, & etc) and I'm having problems with this. Can anyone suggest a better way of dealing with this?— Rod ^talk 21:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I came across something similar (though it wasn't a template issue in my case). I put the same entry in twice (with different UIDs and an explanation in the lead). Dave.Dunford (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You could modify the template to add a second id for an entry. I have tried in the sandbox by adding |uid2= and it seems to do what you want. Try it out and see if that is what you require. Keith D (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this very common? If not, would it be possible to just use a footnote, in the rare cases where there are two IDs? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

They are UIDs, because the uniquely identify the property; a subject may have more than one UID, but an UID may only identify one unique subject. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I had already added a note next to the number of sites in the lead, but adding |uid2= doesn't seem to display the 2nd number. I also need to work out where the other 2 missing entries are.— Rod ^talk 08:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The |uid2= is only in the sandbox version of the template, not in the live version as only for testing. You can see it if you change the call to {{EH listed building row/sandbox}}. I will put live if you think that is the way to go. Keith D (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks I hadn't realised I had to change the row header - now works.— Rod ^talk 17:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

If that looks OK I can put live. Keith D (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Its fine by me, but I don't know enough about templates and this one is used hundreds (? thousands) of times so I would be nervous about any changes.— Rod ^talk 19:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I've applied the new parameter to the sandbox, in this edit, but it doesn't seem to be dsilaying properly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

If you go to List of scheduled monuments in West Somerset & scroll almost to the bottom - Wood Barrow round barrow - you can see the two IDs displayed.— Rod ^talk 19:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I have put live & also moved the subpages over to the new name. Keith D (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to request that a couple amendments be made to this template.

• I have been reviewing Grade I listed buildings in England completed in the 20th century, which extensively uses this template, for an ongoing FLC. I noted with dismay that it was not possible to add custom alt text to each image. While the current configuration (automatically using the name of each building as the alt text for any given image) is better than nothing, I came across multiple images in that listicle where more descriptive alt text would be ideal. I believe that a custom alt text parameter should be added.
• In the same FLC, I also noted that the default output for a building with no image should be marked as unprintable. If it is not already, then I ask that such be implemented using the guidance at Help:Printing#Controlling print.

Thank you very much, Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 14:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)