I have added a couple of alternative layouts. I don't have strong feelings, but it may be useful to include a sortable "Listed" column (with possible parameters of I, II*, II and none for each entry). I also wonder if the "Name and location" cells are too cluttered if the coordinates are included, but I am not sure that a separate "Coordinates" column looks any better. Mertbiol (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I prefer the coordinates in the Name and location cell. A separate column for listing might be useful if there is a spread of listings but I suspect most will be Grade II. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a second row to some of the options. With regard to the listing, I am trying to think ahead to a potential Featured List nomination and am trying to ask "what information would potential reviewers expect to see in the table(s) and how would they want it to be presented?" My suspicion is that a direct link to the NHLE listing (i.e. not through the references) would be desirable. They might also want to see a dedication date, which I have included as a third option. I will ask others to weigh in. Mertbiol (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea adding the dedication date as a separate column. I'm still equivocal about the NHLE listing being in its own column but that is just me trying to keep the table as simple as possible. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note with the invite to take a look at this. I would definately include the listing column as NHLE is really the only national list which would include most of these. With the images you could also include a link (possibly below the image) to relevant categories on commons (eg Category:Abinger Common War Memorial) and if you format this appropriately (as in "more images" on Grade I listed buildings in Surrey) there is a tool which will semiautomatically find & update these (but I can't remember the tool/code). It may also be useful to include a sortable column for the designer - I note several are by Edwin Lutyens (see List of works by Edwin Lutyens#Memorials) and I would suggest contactng others who have worked on related articles/lists eg User:KJP1 & User:HJ Mitchell for comment as well.— Rod ^talk 17:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of other sources, your are probably aware of Surrey War Memorial research projects and Roll of Honour (Surrey) - it may be worth contacting these orgs as they are likely to have more inf not on their websites.— Rod ^talk 17:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions, I will investigate the update tool. I am slighly nervous about adding too many columns, the table starts to look cluttered and difficult to read. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking back (a long way) the upload tool may only work is you are using Template:English Heritage listed building header and Template:English Heritage listed building row (or similar heritage systems) so may not work in this situation.— Rod ^talk 18:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just discovered that, thanks anyway, can still add a simple link, I hope. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter I. Vardy has left a note on his talk page suggesting we take a look at List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Southeast England. The table on this page has the NHLE column on the far right hand side, which I think I like. (It also has the name and location separated, but he says he now generally combines these into a single column.)

Picking up on the suggestion from Rodw, I do know of an East Surrey editor who is a member of his local British Legion. I think it would be worth asking for his help, once we have completed the split. We should also engage with local participants in Wiki Loves Monuments when the time comes.

Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter I. Vardy's suggestion is a good one, the layout of that list covers what we we're looking at. Obviously don't need the "County" column and I think I woud retain the image at the left hand side of the table.

I am busy tomorrow but Wednesday I will try and construct a complete demonstration page. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Murgatroyd49: it would be great if you could start putting together a demo page. Don't feel you have to do everything, I'm happy to do some work on Thursday evening. Just a few other points:

• List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Southeast England uses <small> and </small> tags for the coordinates. I had thought that the MOS prohibits changing text sizes in tables, but it appears that this is not the case. (I have found a couple of other Featured Lists which also use these tags for coordinates.) It might be worth trying.
• It would appear that Historic England have recently listed a large number of memorials. For example, Byfleet war memorial wasn't listed when I took a photo in the (very hot) summer of 2022, but has been Grade II listed since February 2023. So it is worth checking each entry on the NHLE website.
• I would like to try to avoid using War Memorials Online so far as we can. For me, it strays a little too far into WP:USERGENERATED territory. I have noticed that some of the NHLE listings explicitly say that War Memorials Online was not used to compile the entry. We may be forced to reference it for some memorials, but let's try to minimise our use of it. I think the Imperial War Museum website is OK though.
• Let's stick with one table for now and not worry about splitting up into crosses, lanterns, walls etc.

Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about WMO. I will check out the latest listing situation for the unlisted memorials. Not too sure about the small tags but I will see how they work. Best wishes Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggested subheadings of "Buildings and porticos", "Crosses", "Lanterns", "Obelisks", "Statues", "Mounted tablets and plaques" and "Other" for the "Outdoor memorials". I suspect that the "Crosses" table will be very big, but I am not sure if dividing further into "Celtic crosses", "Roman crosses" etc is helpful - it could potentially prevent readers finding what they are looking for. Mertbiol (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a fairly comprehensive list. My own was something on the line of "Crosses", "Free standing", Tablets and Plaques. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking more about it, I think breaking the table up into sections woud be counter-productive. Readers searching for a particular memorial won't necessarily know what type it is. The basic alphabetical list is easiest to navigate. A column for type (see example) Layout trial second table. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having mulled it over some more, don't really need the "Type" column as the image already reveals what type it is. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Murgatroyd49: I have added the memorials starting S, T and W to the bottom of the table. Later today and tomorrow, I will look for local newspaper coverage, to see if I can fill in the dates of missing dedication/consecration ceremonies. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mertbiol: Thanks, I've found a couple more memorials which I have added in. It's taken longer that I thought because I had to check nearly all the references as some just linked to flickr images and others were taken from various UGC sources. I should have a presentable version by this evening. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Murgatroyd49: I think the table is looking great. You've clearly put a lot of hard work into this. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My first draft is now finished. The intro needs some work still. Quick query, hat is the advantage of using the style: colspan=1 in the listings field. Given that only one of the listed memorials is not Grade II, I'm not sure how useful that column being sortable is. Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering whether to create a draft article first or just be bold and launch it on an unsuspecting world? @Mertbiol:, @Rodw: Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would make the description column wider (or let the colums autoresolve depending on browser settings) as on my screen that column is often longer than the rest of the data and picture for the entry. This may be because of the position of the coords box as it only applies to the first set "Outdoor memorials". If I sort by date the first dozen entries have no date - is this because it it not known or just omitted for some reason? Grayswood War Memorial has no description. If I sort by Grade there are some Grade II before II* - even though 1.5 & 2 have been used - this bit sort sortable listing doesn't seem to work properly but not sure why - maybe "none" needs to be sort "1" or "3".— Rod ^talk 17:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the location column, all the columns should auto-resolve. The blank date columns are becausethe information is not known. I'll have a look at the Grade syntax and see if I can fathom what the problem is. Grayswood seems to have slipped through the system, thought I'd found it on the IWM war memorials register. Thanks for the comments. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you move the Geogroup template to the top of the intro para it resolves the column issue.— Rod ^talk 17:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That got it. I also don't see description for Coldharbour War Memorial, Mickleham War Memorial, Shottermill War Memorial or Thursley War Memorial.— Rod ^talk 17:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are several images for Sutherland Memorial Park on geograph eg https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/362153. — Rod ^talk 17:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Oxted war memorial?— Rod ^talk 17:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coldharbour and Mickleham I've done, I will have a go at the other two. Found an image of Sutherland park on commons.

The picture doesn't resemble the one depicted in the register for Oxted. I've tracked it down; it is outside St Mary's church on the northern edge of the town. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about this for Oxted?— Rod ^talk 19:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's the one, presumably it can be downloaded to commons Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to do this properly, with a formal WP:SPLIT proposal on the List of public art in Surrey page. We can put a link on the talk page, pointing to the sandbox so that anyone who wants to comment/support/oppose can see the draft. If we don't do a formal split, we'll end up with a sudden deletion of a large amount of content, which might very well launch us into a whole host of problems... Let's get the split proposal underway and we can continue to tweak and add in the sandbox over the next week or so. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK will do Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no objections raised to the split so it would seem a good time to carry it out. What title do people prefer:

• [1] War memorials in Surrey
• [2] Surrey war memorials
• [3] List of War memorials in Surrey
• [4] List of Surrey war memorials

@Mertbiol and Rodw:

For what it worth, my preference is for [2]. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this still a bit early to split - I would prefer to wait until the weekend (8th Feb).

I think option [1] is best War memorials in Surrey. "Surrey war memorials" would seem to imply that the memorials have an official status in the context of the county (i.e. they were put up by Surrey County Council), which they do not. There are a couple of articles similarly named: War memorials in Monmouth and War memorials in Enfield Town - I think we should keep the same style.

When the split is carried out, we need to follow the proper procedure. That means copying the current "War memorials" subsection over to the new article (exactly as it now stands), before pasting the new format from the sandbox. I can do this for you, if you are not sure what to do.

Best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just been reading up on the procedure. I agree that option [1] is more in keeping with the established style. Thanks for the offer but I will try to do it myself, Ive split things off other articles a couple of times. Useful to keep in practice. Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]