This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Cheshire This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cheshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cheshire 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.CheshireWikipedia:WikiProject CheshireTemplate:WikiProject CheshireCheshire ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Archaeology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. UK geography Low‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Historic sites Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I've suggested on WT:CHES that the article be moved from Scheduled Monuments in Cheshire (1066-1539) to Scheduled Monuments in Cheshire (1066–1539). This would ensure the title is inline with MOS:DASH which states that ndashes should be used in ranges instead of hyphens. Nev1 (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Sorry, I should have done that in the first place but overlooked it. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done and dusted. Nev1 (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scheduled monuments shouldn't be capitalised per the main article and the legislation. Jack (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth discussing this edit by Snori. I think it's important to explain what a scheduled monument is, and why the date range is being used (that it's not some arbitrary division by us, but is the medieval period). Also, the edit does not make it clear that there are scheduled monuments in Cheshire from other periods, and as such I would like to revert the change. Nev1 (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think my approach of wiki-linking scheduled monument is the correct way for Wikipedia. Firstly it keeps this article clean and focussed, and secondly it ensures the the explanation is of the best quality – each of the explanations on the various "Scheduled Monuments in Cheshire..." pages differ - some discussing Cold War stuff etc. (Mind you, it looks as if the scheduled monument page is in dire need of work). I've retained the link to the definition of the medieval period, so I think anyone quibbling with that definition can see where it comes from, and the existing “See also" section links to the other periods.

It is clear that all "Scheduled Monuments in Cheshire..." pages have been setup in a similar fashion. I think my approach is better and therefore should be used on them all but I won't be pursuing this myself. Snori (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the point of removing material from the lead, some of which is in my opinion essential. The definition of a scheduled monument must be there, and its legal basis. This is one of a series of three lists, which has been split merely for the purpose of making their size manageable. Removal of the relevant text makes this unclear and also makes the context of this particular list ambiguous. I agree to a complete reversion. The material would not be there unless the editors considered it to be of value to the list and to the series of three lists. A model for a list of this type and subject matter is Scheduled Monuments in Greater Manchester, which is a FL with a lead broadly similar to the original lead to this list; an example to follow, I think. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with you Snori. A wikilink as explanation is useful in avoiding undue weight on explanation of a technical term (I have seen this done on many cricket-related articles). However this is not the case here, as scheduled monuments is what the article is explicitly about. The medieval period is not fixed, some people take it to include the Dark Ages (the wikipedia article for instance gives dates of 400–1517), so it is necessary to explain why the period 1066–1539 is used for the article. A reader should not have to wait until the see also section at the end of the article to find out there are more scheduled monuments in Cheshire, it makes far more sense to mention it in the lead. I also don't think that the lead was unfocused. Nev1 (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of scheduled monuments in Cheshire (1066–1539). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090223141821/http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.1369 to http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.1369

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of scheduled monuments in Cheshire (1066–1539). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090306190311/http://www.cheshire.gov.uk/Archaeology/RCP/RevealingCheshiresPast.htm to http://www.cheshire.gov.uk/Archaeology/RCP/RevealingCheshiresPast.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]