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.

Infobox and images

@Nikkimaria, I'm opening a discussion about the infobox and images, as requested. What issues have you identified with using right alignment for images and uncollapsing the infobox? A.D.Hope (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Some of the sections contained detailed diagrams relevant to those specific sections, and changing to right alignment results in those diagrams being pushed out of their sections. Additionally your proposal involves shrinking the lead image, which I don't agree is appropriate. FYI, both of the issues you raise have been the subject of previous discussions which resulted in the current state. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Right alignment doesn't alter the position of the detailed diagrams, they're all positioned to be at the head of their respective subsections.

Images should generally not be bigger than the default size (220px), but I think an exception is reasonable for the detailed diagrams and possibly for the image of the bay window, as the coats of arms are the focus and they're small. The other images do not need to be larger. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Creating a column of images on the right-hand side results in display displacement of those images downward, regardless of where they are placed in wikitext. Given that the focus of the article is architectural detail, most of the images benefit from being larger than default. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Having images aligned to the right only causes displacement if there isn't enough space for all the images on a given user's display; this isn't the case on my display, even with the larger-than-usual sizes of all the images. Removing the 'upright' parameter except where necessary (i.e. on the plans) would go some way toward mitigating the issue on other displays. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The existing layout has the benefit of both keeping images in the relevant section and also allowing detail to be seen. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

The existing layout doesn't follow MOS:IMAGELOC, which states "Most images should be on the right side of the page, which is the default placement." This improves readability and accessibility by keeping a consistent left margin.

The current image sizes allow the plans to be seen more clearly, but the other images don't benefit much – to view the coats of arms in the bay window image properly, for example, I'd make it full screen and zoom in. The image of the worthies is indistinct even at full size, and the screen image is only 209x170 pixels. By way of comparison, the National Trust Properties in Somerset featured topic articles generally use the default image size (even if they use left image alignment more than I would), and many of those images are just as detailed as the ones in this article. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

The existing layout is consistent with IMAGELOC: it indicates most images should, not all images must. I appreciate that may not be the layout you prefer - let's see if anyone else wants to weigh in. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

As I understand it exceptions to MOS:IMAGELOC should have a specific justification. The justification here is that the size of the images in the article means that they aren't in the correct position if aligned to the right (which is not a problem I experience), but the size of this article's images is also larger than recommended by MOS:IMAGESIZE. The justification for that larger size is that this allows the details of the images to be seen, but this doesn't hold up for the images of the stained glass coats of arms, worthies, or the screen and isn't consistent with similar articles. Making the images the default size, with the exception of the plans, would allow for right alignment. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Individuals attempting to rigidly apply MOS to articles because MOS is exactly the reason why MOS is a guideline and not a policy, despite repeated attempts over the last 20 years to make it one. The entire purpose of the encyclopedia is to produce informative, readable, visually cohesive articles, including images and diagrams where applicable. It is not to force articles into a one-size-fits-all format whether or not the article is best served by that format. This isn't a rock and roll article, where the image size doesn't matter; in this case (as with other architectural articles), the image size and placement matters a great deal. MOS uses words like "most", "many", "preferred", in recognition that it is not a definitive, appropriate, or required standard for every single article in the encyclopedia. Even featured articles do not follow the MOS rigidly if doing so will reduce the quality of the article. In this case, the article is dramatically better for reading, viewing and comprehension without the MOS-inspired image and diagram changes. Risker (talk) 22:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Why is the article ‘dramatically better’ for not following the MOS? A consistent left margin makes reading easier, so it can reasonably be argued that having several left-aligned images makes it worse. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, for one, it's possible to look at the diagram on the left at the same time as reading the more descriptive sections associated with that diagram on the right; it's easier for the eye to track side to side than it is up and down, especially because one can do so without moving the cursor. The size of the diagram is optimized for easy reading and observation of details. The placement on the left leads the reader to examine the diagram before reading the text, which allows the brain to make quicker connections between the written word and the descriptive diagram. This is part of what makes the article so dramatically better. MOS is largely based on archaic print media theories and formulations; it is easier for a printer to put all the images on one side, but it was never better for readers. Risker (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

A consistent left margin is better for readers whether the medium is print or digital. This typically means right-aligned images are better, as left-aligned ones create an inconsistent left margin.

Readers can look at the diagram on the right at the same time as reading the text associated with the diagram on the left. A certain amount of up-and-down movement is inevitable for desktop users regardless of the position of the diagrams, as the 'height' of the text is greater than the height of the diagram images. You have a point about readers encountering the diagram before the text, but this isn't outweighed by the negative of making the page more difficult to read. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)