Talk:Montacute House

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Montacute House/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 20:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	well written
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead: perhaps a little short - could say a bit more about the history (Phelips arrest? Lord Curzon?), interior features, gardens, use in film, for instance. (done) ok. Layout: ok. Weasel: ok. Fiction: n/a. Lists: n/a.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Well organised sources and refs.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Not a problem
	2c. it contains no original research.	I don't think so, but a few paragraphs remain uncited - most likely they are covered by nearby links, but please show this adding or repeating links as appropriate. (done) ok.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Good coverage
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Level of detail seems reasonable throughout.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	ok
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Has undergone intensive team editing recently.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are suitably licensed. Hard to believe the stone screen is a watercolour, amazing piece of work.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Well chosen images.
	7. Overall assessment.	Credit to longstanding editors on this article - User:Rodw, User:Giano, and more recently User:Malleus Fatuorum. This is a handsome article, elegantly structured and illustrated, and a pleasure to review. It is also notable for its long preparation with careful and energetic collaboration by experienced editors. Well done everyone.

RfC on image size and placement

There are two questions regarding image size and placement:

• Should the images in this article all be larger than the default size?
• Should the images in this article remain aligned to the left, or be moved to the right?

A.D.Hope (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• My position is that the images should be aligned to the right as far as possible, as this preserves a consistent left text margin which makes the article easier to read (see MOS:IMAGELOC).
  In the discussion above size of the images is cited as a reason for not having them all aligned to the right. When I moved the images to the right in this edit I didn't encounter any significant issues of placement, and this tool which compares display resolutions doesn't indicate any issues even on small displays. I'm not claiming there are no issues, but I've not been able to discover any and I'd argue they're outweighed by the benefits of a consistent left margin.
  Based on that I don't think there's any need to alter the image sizes. Nevertheless, only the house plans really benefit from being larger than the default size; even at 'upright=1.6' the detail in the other images, such as the coats of arms and statues of the worthies, is not particularly clear. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  The plans can usefully be larger but I see no justification for the other images being anything other than default. That way readers have the option of setting their own default size if they want to.

  As to the left positioning, I'm fairly agnostic. In some cases it can lead to a more pleasing layout. I had a play with the page, putting all the photos to the right at default size but leaving the floor plans to the left and it seemed to work quite well stylistically. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  Default size for photos (except worthies) would be an improvement for me. With the current version I get a text sandwich in the "architecture" and "first floor" sections, and with all images aligned to the right the "hall chamber" picture pushes the later images down from their relevant sections, but this is improved when the photos are displayed at default size. Reducing the size of the floor plans does not make much difference because of the length of the captions. I have no problem with images being placed on the left, but I generally find it easier when there is text on the left directly below a section header, which usually means placing the first image of a section on the right. Here I think it would look fine if the alignments were switched so that some of the later images within each section were on the left. EdwardUK (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  In general I support the large sizes, especially for the plans, but the old style of left then right placement is now much less used, and of course irrelevant to most of our readers (on phones etc), as I believe are the px settings, so I'm not too fussed about them. What we want to avoid is several images piled up together. Johnbod (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  The original layout seems the most appropriate, per above. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  If you like larger image sizes, then change your preferences (see WP:IMAGESIZE). Otherwise, wp:think of the reader who is most likely to be using a mobile. The default size should not be changed without a convincing reason – such as plans, for example. It is not obvious why the others need to be enlarged since they will need to be expanded to full screen to be examined properly – the thumbnail is a teaser trailer . Sizes in px are definately deprecated. Swerving left/right/left risks creating a MOS:SANDWICH depending on the reader's display size. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  As a result of the above discussion, I am going to be bold and resize the images to default.

Incidentally, if anyone is visiting the house with a camera, we coud do with a better picture of the stone screen. The current image is very poor, especially compared with the generally high quality of the rest of the photographs. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding to this, and particularly in response to @EdwardUK's comment about having a left margin immediately below a section header, I've moved the plan images to the right. The result is fine, in my opinion, so I don't think there's much benefit to moving any of the other images to the left. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Must confess I don't like it that way, I thought it better with the plans left and the pictures right. That's why I left (sorry!) them. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I strongly prefer a consistent left margin where possible – I do admit that it can be less aesthetically pleasing than a staggered layout, but it helps people read the article and that's ultimately more important. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Generations of magazine layout artists would disagree with you, as would medieval monks with their illuminated capitals. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a magazine or an illuminated manuscript, and its layout requirements are consequently different. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Good layout is good layout, regardless of application. But this is not something I'd go to the barricades to defend. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I think a key difference is that magazines and other physical media have static layouts, so there's more leeway to balance the text and other elements to produce something which is attractive and easy to read.

Wikipedia has a variable layout depending on the the user; for me a left-aligned image might be exactly the same height as a paragraph and so produce a convenient left margin, but for you the same image might break the paragraph and make reading more difficult. It's unfortunate, I don't know of a good way around it. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Murgatroyd, and thus I've restored the left-aligned plans. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with that placement. At the very least the first images in each section should be aligned right so that the margin isn't broken immediately below the heading. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I've reversed the pattern so that the plan images are on the right and the great chamber and hall chamber images are on the left. It would still be better if all images were on the right, however. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Now it just looks silly. Carry on fighting amongst yourselves. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It looks no sillier than the reverse arrangement did. If the process is frustrating you then perhaps stepping away is wise. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Again have to agree with Murgatroyd on this one. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The reason for having right-aligned images immediately below the headings is that it preserves the left text margin and makes reading the article easier. The reason against is that 'it looks silly'. I don't find that very persuasive. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

For the record it was the swapping of left and right so you end up with small images on the left and large and small on the right that looks silly. OK poor choice of words: It looks unbalanced and actually makes the page more difficult to read. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, isn't it funny how the smallest things can lead to the most drawn-out discussions on this site?

As you know I think all the images should be right aligned, but that layout seems unlikely to reach consensus because @Nikkimaria is so opposed to it. Reversing the order so that the first image is right aligned seems like the best compromise, although I can't say I love the result. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem is what we are discussing is largely a matter of taste, an area where you can expect people to have wildly divergent views. However similar discussions have lead to good results, eg the infobox images for North Yorkshire. So nil desperandum! Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

This discussion overlooks a third alternative, which is to centre the plans. I have just done this for one section. If preferred, the centred image could come after the first paragraph (which itself could be divided in two, so ether si some, but less, text before the image). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Have to say, I don't like it, too much white space. If you reposition the plan till after the first para then it could remain left and satisfy (FSVO) everyone. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I still strongly favour right alignment for the first image in a section. Breaking the margin immediately makes the text more difficult to read. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Hence why I said after the first para. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I still don't understand why having the plan images in their current position but right-aligned is 'silly', to quote your earlier comment. It doesn't seem to cause any issues. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

(Sorry if the above seems snappy, I didn't mean it to! I never really grasped the problem is all.) A.D.Hope (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I also don't like centred images, unless of very wide panoramas. And like most of these changes, it makes no difference to the majority of our readers, who use mobiles. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Infobox collapse

I've uncollapsed the infobox, as as far as I can tell MOS:COLLAPSE and MOS:PRECOLLAPSE state that collapsible elements should not normally be used and, where they are used, should automatically be 'open' rather than 'closed'. Making the infobox here automatically 'open' would defeat the point of it collapsing at all, so removing it entirely seems like the best option.

I do understand that there was a local consensus for using collapsed infoboxes here and at Little Moreton Hall, which was reached in 2013, but the site-wide consensus has moved on since then. Using a collapsed infobox as a compromise between having an infobox and not having one no longer seems to be an option.

@Nikkimaria, you may have some interest in this. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi A.D.Hope, MOS:PRECOLLAPSE specifically applies to content in the article's main body, and MOS:COLLAPSE supports infoboxes having precollapsed sections. As such, your assertion that it "no longer seems to be an option" would seem to be in error. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

MOS:COLLAPSE doesn't support precollapsed elements, it states "collapsible templates should not conceal article content by default upon page loading." Further down it states:

A few infoboxes also use pre-collapsed sections for infrequently accessed details. If information in a list, infobox, or other non-navigational content seems extraneous or trivial enough to inspire pre-collapsing it, consider raising a discussion on the article (or template) talk page about whether it should be included at all.

My understanding of that passage is that it discourages pre-collapsing infoboxes, which would be in the spirit of the overall guideline. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure how the quoted passage could be read as not supporting precollapsed elements, when it quite clearly acknowledges their use. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Acknowledging a situation isn't the same as supporting it. The guideline doesn't support pre-collapsed elements, so why would infoboxes be different? A.D.Hope (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Because they are specifically called out as being different. More broadly, the guideline supports precollapsing elements which are repeated or supplementary, which is by definition what these are. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The guideline doesn't exempt infoboxes, it just states that some are pre-collapsed. It then goes on to say that editors should consider whether this is appropriate, which is in line with the guideline not supporting pre-collapsed elements. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that MOS:Collapse discourages pre-collapsing infoboxes. The info is all relevant for a quick look at the article content which is the object of having an infobox. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The guideline does support precollapsed elements which are repeated or supplementary; its statement that some are precollapsed is consistent with that. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

That does not address the suitability of collapsing the infobox in this case. What is the point of doing so? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

It was a compromise position between having and not having it. This highlights the photo and map, and offers easy access to more details for those who want them. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The infoboxes of other UK historic site articles almost universally don't collapse those details, which implies a consensus against doing so. Even if we do retain the 'collapsible' parameter it needs to be changed so that it's autumatically un-collapsed, which in my opinion defeats the purpose of it being there at all. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed the point why this article, as far as I am aware uniquely, should have part of the infobox collapsed when no other historic site article does. And I speak as one who has added a lot of such infoxes to articles. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Little Moreton Hall seems to be the other outlier, but there may be more. Rufford Old Hall did have a collapsed infobox, but I un-collapsed it last September and the decision hasn't been disputed so far. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I have explained why that happened here, and why it could be considered for other articles. But ultimately, this is a per-article discussion. In this particular case, I'm not seeing a reason to change the existing consensus. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

You still haven;t explained the purpose of doing it. Your argument appears to be do it because you can do it. I still don't see what it achieves. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you need to justify why the currently collapsed information falls under the category of 'infrequently accessed details'. I'd venture that the date, builder, and location of the house is the type of information a reader would want to access at a glance. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

A plain reading of MOS:COLLAPSE is that auto-collapsed elements are undesirable, and that it is typically only used in infoboxes for 'infrequently accessed details'. The collapsed details in this article's infobox are un-collapsed in nearly every other 'good' and 'featured' British historic building article which uses Template:infobox historic building, so I don't think there's any consensus that they're considered 'infrequently accessed'.

I don't see a reason to keep the existing consensus, based on the MOS and editorial practice in similar articles. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. The MOS supports collapsing information that is repeated from or supplementary to the article text. It does not support making such decisions based on what other articles do. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The MOS only supports that function for tables (my emphasis): "Collapsed or auto-collapsing cells or sections may be used with tables if they simply repeat information covered in the main text." A.D.Hope (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. This is a table which repeats/supplements content in the main text. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

It's an infobox. Tables are a separate feature. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

It's "a fixed-format table" used to "present a summary". Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Nikki, the MOS distinguishes between general tables and infoboxes. I really don't think you can interpret the quoted section to apply to infoboxes. A.D.Hope (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I think your interpretation is in general overly narrow, and over-reliant on othercontent. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I try and intepret the MOS plainly, and in the spirit in which a given section was written.

In this case, collapsing is discouraged in general. The fifth paragraph mentions various exemptions, including for tables, lists, and navboxes; these are specific to the feature in question. For infoboxes, the exemption is for 'infrequently accessed details', which does not apply to the content of this article's infobox. A.D.Hope (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I certainly still support collapsing it - especially the heritage listing cruft in the lower parts. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Heritage listing is not cruft. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The registration number, without even a link, certainly is. Johnbod (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Heritage listings are very commonly included in historic site infoboxes. What is the justification for hiding them in this case? A.D.Hope (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I know they arebut they shouldn't be! The registration numbers etc are cruft of no interest whatsoever to the vast majority of readers, do NOT meet the criteria in WP:INFOBOX. The information should be in the text at the bottom of the article, and not in the infobox. If there it should be hidden. Johnbod (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The registration numbers are unique identifiers which help readers find the listing in question. They also link directly to the full listing, which is useful. Nothing should be hidden in the infobox; if it's insignificant enough to be hidden then it should be in the infobox at all. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

A missing "not" at the end there, I hope! Yes, they should not be in the infobox at all. The policies you cite say collapsing "should not be used to hide content in the article's main body". That doesn't cover infoboxes. Johnbod (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a missing 'not', well spotted! Both policies cover infoboxes, either in whole or in part. For example, nothing in the following quote from MOS:COLLAPSE suggests it doesn't apply to infoboxes:

Collapsible templates should not conceal article content by default upon page loading. This includes reference lists, tables and lists of article content, image galleries, and image captions.

A.D.Hope (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

But not mentioning infobox content is my point. Johnbod (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't exclude infoboxes Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Hooray! Another long discussion on infoboxes. Just to add my twopenn'orth, for what it's worth:

• I think the collapsed IB was an attempted compromise between those editors who wanted IBs and those who didn't. Like many such compromises, it's a bit of a dog's breakfast and pleases neither side;
• The chance of achieving a consensus on whether articles on historic buildings, and many other topics, should/should not have IBs is nil. This is surely demonstrated by the horrendous amount of discussion/argument/abuse that has been generated in prior discussions on this point. The debate about the IB here has been going on for ten years. Even editors who agree on many things, may disagree on this. I have long disagreed with Johnbod on whether the listing details for buildings are, or are not, "dull, bureaucratic cruft" (or words to that effect!). I suspect we also disagree on IBs;
• As there is no such consensus, you will have differentiation, and consistency won't be possible. I think Nikkimaria is right that an article-by-article consensus is the best to be hoped for, and that such variation is permissible under MoS;
• Is this really intolerable? As four examples: Belton House and Bramshill House don't have IBs. Nor do they have all their images to the right. Nor are the images all standard size. But they are fine articles, which cover the buildings well, and they are FAs. By contrast, Cragside and Sissinghurst Castle Garden do have IBs. And they're FAs too, which also have variation in image placing and size;
• My personal opinion, after witnessing many such debates and participating in a few, is that it is best to accept that there are valid, and strongly held, views either way. The inevitable consequence is that there won't be consistency. Vive La Différence! So, in this case, I'd leave the images, and the collapsed infobox, as they were. KJP1 (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for the appeal to compromise, it's always helpful.

I think the issue here is that the current compromise no longer works – even with a generous reading MOS:COLLAPSE and MOS:PRECOLLAPSE really don't seem to support it, and these collapsed infoboxes are outliers among the UK historic building articles. Whether a given historic building article should have an infobox is for local editors to decide, but if there is one then it shouldn't be collapsed, according to both the MOS and convention. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Johnbod (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Quibbles over the meaning of the MOS aside, it's a fact that these infoboxes are outliers. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Johnbod (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Not applicable. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Really, why not? Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

To address the underlying point, MOS:COLLAPSE notes that 'a few infoboxes also use pre-collapsed sections for infrequently accessed details.' The fact that almost all UK historic building articles – including the featured and good ones – which use Template:Infobox historic site don't collapse any details strongly suggests that none of them are considered to fall into the 'infrequently accessed' category.

Given the currently-hidden infobox parameters can't be considered 'infrequenty accessed' we should bear in mind that 'collapsible templates should not conceal article content by default', another provision of COLLAPSE. This means that the infobox should be automatically un-collapsed, in which case I don't see the sense in having the template at all. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

These are not heavily edited articles - there is no process of "considering" going on, except in the head of the lone infobox-adder (who almost invariably has done nothing else to improve the article). See the talk pages, or rather the lack of anything on them. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

There are a fair few 'good' and 'featured' UK historic building articles, it seems fair to assume their their infoboxes have been considered. The FA versions of Ham House and Cragside both have un-collapsed infoboxes, for example. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• And Wikipedia is probably still wondering why nobody bothers to write serious pages on architecture anymore. It’s very, very sad! Nice to see you still persevering Johnbod. AdamBlack89 (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Well you have certainly persuaded this editor not to bother any more. Congratulations. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't rise to it, Murgatroyd. We've been fairly civilised until now. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that there is not a consensus either as to how we might change the page, or that policy/guidance requires that we do so. In these circumstances, I think the status quo that has existed for over a decade should prevail. We can then all get on with some of the many other things that need doing on here. KJP1 (talk) 06:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe MOS:COLLAPSE requires us to change the page, so I can't accept leaving the infobox in its current state. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that’s your view. But it isn’t shared by a number of us, including myself. In those circumstances, there really isn’t a consensus to change it. KJP1 (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Consensus should be based on strength of argument, not numbers, and the argument against these changes is weak. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

To expand, I think the only argument put forward so far in favour of collapsing is that the collapsed elements are ‘supplementary’, but the fact the same elements are not collapsed in the infoboxes of similar ‘featured’ and ‘good’ articles strongly suggests that they aren’t generally considered so.

I’d also note that at least some of @Johnbod’s opposition is to certain elements being included at all, which is really beyond the scope of this discussion, rather than them being collapsed. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I object to any information being included at all, but minor trivia like the day and month of a garden scheme registration should be at the bottom of the text, not taking up two lines in an infobox. This is clearly as per WP:INFOBOX. In general, I don't think any information in the infobox should not be in the main text, except perhaps in the case of long statistics in sport etc. This is again in accordance with policy. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

That's really beyond the scope of this discussion to address, as most of the historic place infoboxes which use the 'designation' parameters include the date. The infobox talk page or WP:Historic sites might be more appropriate places to discuss removing it.

For the purposes of this discussion I'd consider the designation as a whole to be significant and therefore information which should not be collapsed. It hardly seems worth collapsing the date alone. A.D.Hope (talk) A.D.Hope (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Rather than being beyond the scope, it's rather central: it's both a reason why the article is as it is, and also a potential outcome - if you don't care for how these details are presented, they could simply be removed entirely. That would be consistent with KJP's perspective as well as guidelines which support an article-by-article determination. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

On what grounds should the collapsed infobox parameters be considered "extraneous or trivial", which is the reason WP:COLLAPSE gives for considering removal? A.D.Hope (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I would also suggest that article-by-article determination is inappropriate in this case, as most historic sites use the 'Infobox historic site' template. It isn't logical that the date Montacute House was built should be considered 'trivial' and worthy of removal, but the dates of Barrington Court or King Alfred's Tower not, as information conveyed in each case is identical. Any decision on removing parameters should therefore take place at Template talk:Infobox historic site. A.D.Hope (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

As the editor who opened the discussion about the infobox (back in 2009) I have a couple of comments to make:

• Yes this was a compromise (primarily between me and User:Giano, see Talk:Montacute House/Archive 1#Infobox removal). It concluded with "I grudgingly suppose that a collapsed box is better than a more highly visible one." and that has seemed to work for the last 15 years.
• I do not consider listed building status to be "cruft" and in my opinion gives quick links to data supporting the significance of the buildings.
• My personal preference would be for the infobox to be displayed in full but that would impinge on the images included, which I feeel help the reader get a sense of the structures under discussion.— Rod ^talk 21:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing, Rod, I appreciate it and you make some good points. On the previous discussion, I think a lot has changed on the infobox front in the past 15 years, and it's now very common for UK historic site articles to have an un-collapsed infobox. This article has become an outlier, and one which isn't really supported by the MOS – I've gone into detail about why I think this is above, so forgive me for not laying it out again.

If the infobox were un-collapsed I think it would only affect the first image, as the rest are far enough down in the article that they wouldn't be impinged upon. The first image isn't that important anyway, as it's supposed to show the Phelips coats of arms but they're not particularly clear. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Not much has changed on most of these articles in the last 15 years (unfortunately), except that the gardens scheme has been added to infoboxes. This question has very rarely been discussed on talk pages. Unfortunately it is much easier for an infobox fan to add standard information to infoboxes than to research and add the better information on the houses and gardens that the articles really need. Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree. In my experience the infobox rarely needs as much work as the rest of an article when it comes to improving it, although I do think the historic site infobox parameters have been improved since it was first introduced here.

In terms of making an infobox good, though, isn't it better to remove the irrelevant info than collapse it out of sight, out of mind? A.D.Hope (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Just seen this. I implemented the collapsing out of effective deferrence to Nikkimaria as they are experienced and the main arguments against infoboxes seemed to be aesthetic/layout-based, whereas those for it were on those who want information finding it. I was not aware of the MOS against it. I fall on the side of information trumping lack of information, but in the real world people probably seriously doubt my ability to use my opposable thumbs, and maybe this is now just an ingrained compromise over producing beauty.

Outside of the Wikipedia bubble, I do interact with people who complain about the current Wikipedia historic house infobox state, and it is definitely the case that some people use the infobox as a sort of point-of-reference (a lot of people who are interested in these topics fall in the bracket of able to use the internet, but not ctrl + f with any great accuracy, and so information in them (including navigating to the listing) is quite useful (as opposed to reference-hunting). As a spritely young soul, I apologise if you have been (or still are) one of those people: I can't use plenty of technologies that were commonplace in your youth but have fallen out of fashion, and so I logically try to be accomodating of people who are less familiar with the internet.

Anyway, I've got sidetracked... What I was trying to get to is that 1. the information is useful and appreciated, 2. Wikipedia (and this Wikipedia topic perhaps especially) is a bubble wrt familiarity with articles, common parlance, etc. 3. some consistent area for information would be very useful for many armchair-level-interested readers (which, if we are frank, is most of those who read any non-NT/EH/major "treasure house" article, and most who read past the introduction on a NT/EH/major treasure house article) who are familiar with books with consistent style (i.e., Pevsner, etc.) and not Wikipedia, where there are varying editors following various time-dependent trends and tentative consensuses. (consensi? Caecilius in horto est)

I forgot, but the collapsible infobox was also used because Johnbod (to be fair, rightly, having used the mobile form more frequently now I've been travelling and not had my laptop to hand as much) points out that, otherwise, these boxes take up the whole/several pages of phone text. I am not sure how we get around this without compromising the above ideals.

I see some people may suggest the See Also for the listing information, but 1. we are in too deep now (listings are generally not in non-infoboxes See Also, otherwise there is an infobox) and 2. the rest of the information still remains popular and to be seen.

From my brief foray into this (and similar) issues last summer, I have learnt that trying to gain consensus is a fool's errand, and I am just popping in here as I know I probably caused the most recent batch of these discussions and so should probably hang around. Given my understanding of the two positions as is, I have run into this (function vs form) in several projects, given the size of Wikipedia, I think a process of "at"ing an opposing view (friendly) editor might be a way to go about this topic when you come to revisit an old article or write a new one. I want collaboration, as this is probably the closest we get to consensus.

On collaboration, I feel that a really key thing is that we don't get defensive over pages. We have all probably at least felt this at some point, and I have seen it play out before. I think this may also include stubbourn defensiveness for editors who created a page, but this is probably a little more controversial. EPEAviator (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, I mean that I have had people complain about infoboxes as is (on the ground of missing information and sometimes them not being consistently there), but never as an argument against them. EPEAviator (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for giving your perspective, particularly on the original discussion, EPEAviator. It's much appreciated. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed a most interesting perspective, thank you for sharing it with us. And you Mr Hope, it must be very difficult when all that attention seeking flops like that. I wonder where you can go from here to garner support. Perhaps another page; there must be 100s of country houses without a page; perhaps you could write one and tailor it to you specific requirements? Good luck. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I saw this notification and was about to compliment you on your username, being a fan of Austen. I still will, but I am quite upset by your comment. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, don’t be upset; I’m sure you mean well. Just don’t get so worried about what really is trivial. Trying to impose any one rule on a trillion-billion pages is never going to work. People who write pages quite naturally feel they know what’s best for them. You can’t blame them. When an editor spends weeks on a page, it’s as though they’ve given birth to it and they feel parental towards it. Wikipedia has never recognised that and declared it to be non-collegiate. Perhaps it is, but we are all human, and a little tolerance and understanding never did anyone any harm. Don’t you agree? The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Publicising discussions

I've re-publicised the above discussions at WT:SOMERSET, WP:ARCH, and WP:HSITES, in the hope of getting more input and reaching a conclusion one way or the other. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

You’re beginning to look like rather a bad loser A.D.Hope. Some might even say troublemaker. AdamBlack89 (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you could make a constructive contribution to the discussion, Adam, rather than sniping from the sidelines. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe that one can make many more constructive edits to a page, without driving by the talk page of a strange neighbourhood, parking one’s car badly, annoying the local road users and then sounding one’s horn relentlessly until one garners sufficient attention that people give in because they can’t bear the relentless noise. AdamBlack89 (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, you're just here to snipe at me. Please stop. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Not at all, but since you bring the word up, you have done nothing but ‘snipe’ at this page over images and infoboxes since you rocked up out of the blue. You have then proceeded to ‘snipe’ ad nauseum at every reasoned argument presented to you. Now, when it seems you can’t get your own way, you decide to stamp your pretty little foot to attract even more attention to yourself. One despairs, one really does. AdamBlack89 (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that you disagree with the proposals, but it would be better to focus on the content under discussion rather than me. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)