Talk:English Heritage

message: ----
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservation Worldwide
----
Thoughts please:
When I started adding heritage-y type govt bodies for England, Wales etc I thought it would be good to provide as many links as possible. 
In particular, I adopted a structure where each page for one of these UK agencies had links to:
a. Wiki pages for the other equivalent UK agencies
b. The *external* site of the agency itself
c. The *external* sites of the other UK agenices listed in (a).
---
Looking at it now, I am beginning to feel that (c) is a waste of time and space. If you are on the Enhlish Heritage (EH) page and you want to know about Historic Scotland (SH), you can easily go to the wiki SH page and from there, if you want it, the SH external website is only one click away.
So, I am feeling inclined to remove the (c) bits from these four pages as I do not think they add anything. Comments please? Nevilley
----
Yes, I think you're right. As long as one can link to the equivalent Wiki pages, one doesn't need the extra external links. I haven't really started adding external links to much of my output, so I'll be able to bear that in mind from now on. User:Renata
----
OK done that. I think it makes more sense and is more elegant in its current form. Thanks, Nev
----
which is a direct result of government policy, but only up to a point, Lord Copper. EH are primarily a quango and are largely autonomous in most of their activities. user:sjc
----
SJC's amendment did not read as very NPOV to me but rather as a quite impassioned statement. I have altered it slightly. I thought it was OK to report differing views as long as they were clearly that, not stated as fact. Nevilley
Yeah, no probs. They are unelected and they are a quango though;. user:sjc
Um, what's a quango?  -- Zoe
It's a quango... user:sjc
Of course if English Heritage didn't charge admission they would have to make up the shortfall elsewhere - presumably from more money from central government... This needs NPOVing.Secretlondon 23:23, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. adamsan  17:04, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Old Discussions

message: Despite what this banner suggests, the 'frequent changes due to cleanup activity' have yet to materialise...
::...however I have made a start by organising this Talk page!
EdJogg 13:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup Taskforce

message: They Agreed To Demolishing There Own Head Quarters In A Conservation Zone to Build Flats
"English Heritage has controversially agreed to allow its own historic London headquarters to be demolished and replaced by flats – despite it being in a conservation area."
http://www.rics.org/Property/Commercialproperty/Commercialpropertydevelopment/heritage_hq_230306.html 
Catintheoven 21:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Headquater Controversy

message: Whilst this is very interesting, I would comment that any historical site/monument,etc which comes under the jurisdiction of English Heritage prior to the 5th or 6th Centuries, which is now found in the modern country of England, would not be English at all and should be attributed to Celtic/Briton or Roman.  For example, how can Stonehenge be under the care of English Heritage when at the time it was built the Englishas a nation did not exist and certainly not on these islands.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.188.154.254 (talk) 12:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy of English Heritage Sites in Cornwall 

message: I find a couple of elements of the article display a certain point of view: 
*"English Heritage is thus an unelected quango with a considerable degree of power and access to public money derived from taxation". All true, but it has already been stated a couple of times that it is a non-departmental public body. Quango tends to be used in a dismissive sense. Unelected quango seems to be pure needle. 
::Agreed - rv'ed. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - modified those and other sentences to de-POV and add relevant material. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: POV?

message: About what happened with the English heritage signs in Cornwall, is it really necessary to have it here? The group involved in the removing of these signs aren’t exactly well known to say, Mebyon Kernow too. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A very small incident… 

message: Earlier discussions point out that this page is thin on information and very out of date - but so far no-one seems to have tackled it, even though there have been lots of lively discussion most of it is about issues rather than basic stuff.
What is people's opinion if I have a go at adding some text under the following new sections (ie using a similar format to the English National Trust page)?
* history of the organisation
* purpose and remit (eg it would be nice to include something about planning policy and how the listed building process operates)
* Governance inc committees
* Funding inc links to the most recent accounts
* Membership
* Volunteering
* Heritage at risk survey
Any other ideas?
Is there anyone else, or other method that I should use to get opinions from other editors?
I am not proposing to add anything about the properties themselves, as there are already separate pages for most of these. I will also avoid changing anything under the heading 'controversies' until a consensus is reached. 
Please let me know your thoughts before I spend too much time on this. FGLawson (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up and improvements to this page 

message: Hi, having read through the page a couple of things strike me about it:
*The sections are too small and could easily be merged. For example, could the 'Domain', 'Purpose and Remit' and 'How English Heritage is run' sections be merged into one 'Operation' section? Equally, is there any sections that the 'Membership' and 'Volunteering' sections be merged into or be made sub sections of?
*The page is very confused and repeats points such as who EH are and what purpose they play. Some of these sentences could be removed and made clearer.
*There seemed to be a lot of 'See also' links. Should these be reduced?
Also, on the talk page, I am unsure if the current Start rating reflects accurately the page's current state. Maybe it could be updated. And finally could an archive be done of old discussions on this page. It is really rather confusing.
I present these ideas for consideration. I am an outsider to this page but know a little about EH and it could be expressed clearer. Thanks. Rafmarham (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: Re this edit and its reversion by Snowded. "Hitherto" means "to here", "to this point", or (if used in the context of time) "until now". A statement made at the time a particular change is implemented might well say something like "the act dissolves the bodies that have hitherto provided advice"; but if you then change that statement into an account of what happened in the past, not only do you have to modify the tense of the verbs ("dissolves" becomes "dissolved"; "have provided" becomes "had provided"), you also have to change the word "hitherto" to something else. The IP's suggestion "thitherto" (meaning "to there" or "until then") was grammatically correct, but archaic and ugly English. My alternative, "previously", was grammatically correct, colloquial, and (I would have thought) uncontroversial. Leaving the word as "hitherto" is ungrammatical nonsense. GrindtXX (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have thought that hitherto in use now incorporated thitherto, but if you really want previously I'm not going to get worked up about it----Snowded TALK 06:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Changed. GrindtXX (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hitherto" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on English Heritage. 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/20110817201114/http://heritagelaw.org/AMA-1882- to http://heritagelaw.org/AMA-1882-
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131013015419/http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk:80/MP-calls-Cornish-Heritage-replace-English-body/story-13529395-detail/story.html to http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/MP-calls-Cornish-Heritage-replace-English-body/story-13529395-detail/story.html#axzz2Nnp3ogIv
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120318034922/http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk:80/news/stonehenge_regret_photography_ban_update_news_303071.html to http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/stonehenge_regret_photography_ban_update_news_303071.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Very bad grammar and syntax in this article.  I've done a bit but it needs more work.  Deipnosophista (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor drafting