Talk:Montacute House

Untitled

Does anyone else think that using South Somerset, a recent local government designation, rather than Somerset, the historical county name, to describe the location of Montacute House a little odd? If South Somerset was used in order to indicate whereabouts in Somerset M.H is, perhaps 'near Yeovil in Somerset' could be added. I haven't changed anything yet. Monique34 21:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Infobox removal

Montacute House
Montacute House, the entrance facade
Location	Montacute, Somerset
Built	c. 1598
Built for	Edward Phelips
Architectural style(s)	Elizabethan
Governing body	National Trust
Listed Building – Grade I
Designated	19 April, 1961
Reference no.	434945
Scheduled monument
Reference no.	Somerset County No 187

I am aware that some editors don't like infoboxes and others find them useful, particularly where they provide additional information such as location maps & details of listings by English Heritage & note the infobox has been removed from this article, with the edit summary "Ridiculous that a pointless info box listing anachronisms such as "client" and "design team" forces the important plan almost off the page" - I was wondering what other editors thought of this removal?— Rod ^talk 22:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• A: The box served no purpose. All such information should be in the lead paragraph.
• B: The term "client" is anachronistic.
• C: There was no "design team."
• D: If people do not know where the house is, they can click on Montacute or Somerset.
• E: The box occupied far too much space, causing more important infomation, a plan of the house, to be lost at the bottom of the page amongst the dross.

I think that about covers my thoughts.  Giano  23:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Saw the note at WT:HSITES and had some thoughts. I believe the infobox is suppose to provide an overview of the article at a glance. I agree that "client" and "design team" aren't the best, and wonder whether using {{Infobox Historic Site}} would be better. Personally, I don't think a floorplan is all to critical, although neither is an infobox (more of a preference). Also, if the floorplan's placement isn't too your liking, why not expand the article so that its not lost "amongst the dross", instead axing the infobox. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Because having written most of the information (I did not write the autobox) in 2004 and already provided the information that is within the information box I have little more to add, unless going into huge architectural detail or dull information on the less than distinguished Phelips family. However, I would have thought most people would find a plan essential, if only to better understand the article, which is something the info-box does not assist. It's not a long page,, so even those with the attentuion span of a gnat shoud be able to survive until the final paragraph.  Giano  09:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Giano's taste here. Comparing the versions with and without the infobox, the one without is clearly superior. And the infobox most certainly doesn't give an overview of the article. It gives undue weight to the house's location (that's what the link to Montacute is for; perhaps one could say more about its neighbourhood within the village, but the infobox doesn't do this and is not the place for such information) and uses an enormous amount of space for the little information that is arguably worth stressing. Hans Adler 10:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with Giano & HA. Montacute village is not a "town", and the box has a very low ratio of useful information to space occupied. Ideally the map, and possibly the co-ordinates line (for those arriving by space shuttle?) could be detatched & put down at the bottom of the article. In these cases the views of local editors should be paramount. Ps: No article on Eno's Liver Salts? Johnbod (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

An interesting problem. I agree that the info box adds little and looks ugly, though I would like to see the location map retained in some form, as well as the coordinates - I don't see the need to make the reader jump through hoops to put the article in context. The lead only mentions this is in England by virtue of a mention of English Heritage. I certainly agree that the headings Building, Constuction, Design Team are redundant here. I would question whether uncertain data like the architect should go in an infobox. Perhaps worth noting that Template:Infobox Historic building redirects to Template:Infobox building. The merge was made in 2008, seemingly without discussion. Perhaps it could be reverted and revamped?

I also note the issue of infoboxes came up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cheshire/Archive 4#Little_Moreton_Hall following a comment left by User:Giano II, and at Talk:Buckingham_Palace#Info_Box. Much of this seems to revolve around FA's : "about Featured Articles on Architecture: There are 33 FAs that discuss buildings. Of those, 25 do not have infoboxes. Of the 8 that do have infoboxes, two are the only FAs of state capital buildings and two are the only FAs on skyscrapers. I would say that weighs 3:1 in favour of no infobox when writing at that level." Also at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive27#Infoboxes_in_articles_about_historic_or_other_notable_buildings "Infoboxes are not required by any criteria, and many editors (myself included) find them ugly and disruptive and redundant on some articles. That said, opposing an FA on the basis of an infobox being present or not being present would not be a valid oppose. It's a consensus item, and if editors don't want them, they need not be added. And that answer has nothing to do with FA, since there is no FA requirement or any requirement otherwise for infoboxes."

At this stage I would like to see something more definitive written in to the MOS or somewhere more appropriate. It could waste an awful lot of time going over this issue time and time again.--Derek Andrews (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The hardline position on disinfoboxes is taken by the classical music projects, eg: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Opera#Infoboxes. Of course it might be said that navboxes, which they use a lot, work better for them than they would for buildings. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes) should certainly assert the right of local editors and projects to decide - it is far too easy for young editors fallen into bad company to pick up ideas like this from User_talk:Amandajm#Cathedral_infoboxes:

"... what I am doing is not vandalism, the infobxes themselves have a maps section, which means it is there to be used. It come down to personal taste at the end of the day, and I like them! ... I dont really support the idea of NO infobox at all however, this would bad wikipedia practice ... It is considered good practice for ALL wikipedia articles to have infoboxes, so I can't support their removal completely, however nice this would make the article look. Wikipedia is not a beauty contest, and while Photos etc are desirable in any article, they are not of primary importance ... (and ending up) And by the way JohnBod, I am NOT 'promulgating this nonsense', how rude! Maybe some wikiprojects dont have infoboxes, but the HUGE MAJORITY do. Its not exactly unfair to assume that they are standard practice is it? Stop being so offensive, I am a good-faith editor, and dont appreciate your assumption of bad faith..."

But see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)#MOS_should_make_it_clear_that_infoboxes_are_not_always_welcome_in_articles for the last time this was raised. Do let me know if it is to be raised again. ¡La lucha continua! Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I should clarify that I am not a regular editor of architecture articles; I am here only by accident. Another WikiProject with a clear consensus against infoboxes is WP:WikiProject Mathematics, where I am active.

Derek Andrews while not insisting on the infobox, says he wants the coordinates and map in some form. I have added the coordinates to the top right of the article. This can be done with a simple template that doesn't need an infobox. I believe it's standard to do it like that for locations. Regarding the map I would argue that it really showed the location of Montacute, not of Montacute house, and that doesn't need repetition here since the tenth word links to the village. What would make sense is a village map of Montacute with the house marked, but that's a level of detail that we are generally not doing (yet). Hans Adler 14:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all for comments. I know that the use of infoboxes is controversial & that is why I raised it here. The previous infobox which had been i=-on the article for over a year without objection from any editor was {{Infobox Historic building}}. I have now mocked up a new infobox (shown to the right of this thread) using {{Infobox Historic Site}} which is more recent & gives details of the listed building status (and Scheduled Ancient Monument status which wasn't included in the article). I have asked whether it is possible to include a 2nd image which would enable the floor plan to be included. Personally I like infoboxes which provide some key details about a building, place, person etc providing the opportunity for a reader to quickly locate key information instantly and then decide to read the full text. I have watched many students using wikipedia - the infobox tends to be what they look at first (and may be all they look at - their choice). I would welcome comments further discussion either of the specific infobox or their use more generally (or should that be happening elsewhere?).— Rod ^talk 14:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Better information for sure. Don't like thier taste in multicoloured headings though. Maybe there are other fields that could be added such as building materials, notable owners / events, alterations. Maybe a timeline might be a better format for construction, alterations, events, owners? It should be no problem adding another picture provided it is done as an optional field. Personally I think I would work it into the current building template, or rework the original Historic Building.--Derek Andrews (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

There are loads of other fields at {{Infobox Historic Site}} which I didn't use as I didn't want to "overwhelm" the article. I'm sure your comments there would be appreciated. As far as the colour scheme for the designations these are handled by {{Designation}} I believe the US ones are set by NRHP but again I'm sure could be debated.— Rod ^talk 15:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I still feel that the map is inappropriate because given its scale it's very hard to argue that it actually shows Montague House. Hans Adler 14:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is most useful for showing the context of where it is. For someone who has no idea of the geography, they can quickly see that it is in the British Isles, and roughly where. The coords link can locate it more accurately if needed, in a number of formats.--Derek Andrews (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Further to my post above, I should make it clear that I am all for infoboxes on some types of articles, & support (ok some of them) those projects who have made them mandatory - eg for species, games etc. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the info box above looks horrendous. The map us superfluous, Monatcute and Somerset are both linked and both have maps. The coordinates can go in the top right hand corner as they do om many other pages, allthough what good they serve is beyond me - hopefully people want to visit the place not nuke it. Nothing will make me change my mind. All basic information should be in the first few lines, it does not need to be repeated in some form of pokemon card as well - with the lead image reduced to a postage stamp. What may be fine for a pplitician or a scientific theory is not necessary right for an architectural page where an info-box may actually cause people to miss important information properly explained in the text.  Giano  17:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that the image thumbnails shouldn't have a size specified without a good reason (per WP:MOSIMAGE and WP:ACCESS), as it overrides the user's preference for thumbnail sizes. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 17:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Horrendous is a POV term & unlikely to represent the view of all. Claiming that the map is superfluous & then suggesting people might want to visit is contradictory - I would want to see how far it is from my house & therefore how long it might take me to travel. Suggesting people can click through to the village article or on the coords template for this information negates your point about the images as they can always click on the image for a larger version. Describing the infobox as a pokemon card could be interpreted as demeaning (unless you like pokemon cards), and suggesting this may "cause people to miss important information properly explained in the text" is trying to proscribe how people use the information provided on wikipedia - different learning styles suggest some people will get most through reading through the text, others may benefit most from the pictures or plans and others may want summarised information in "bullet point" style. As editors we can not decide how those reading the article want to use it.— Rod ^talk 17:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

In an article on a historic house of national if not international importance for its architecture (but not at all for its history) it is a fair assumption that architecture is a leading concern of those coming to the page. Among the things Wikipedia is not is a travel guide. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Rod, I appreciate the info-box may have taken you a long time to format and create, but I am sorry, it adds nothing to the page that is not already clearly there or very easily and obviously obtainable elsewhere on the same site. It is not just horrendous, it is horrendous clutter. I can see why some people will think Henry VIII needs an info-box, when I was a moronic lazy little boy doing my history homework, I would have loved to quickly check when he died or literally chopped wives without having to read thousands or dull words. You see that is about the only purpose an info box serves, ane even then some may convincingly argue that is serving nobody well.  Giano  18:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is part of a wider debate about forms of knowledge. J A Muir Gray (amongst others) has argued that we need a 30 second view, a 3 minute view and a 30 minute view of information, making it accessible for different audiences in different contexts. (I can find the full ref if needed) I would argue the infobox is the 30 second view, the lead or short article the 3 minute view & the full, FA standard article, the 30 minute view. Each of which has a place and we should not be forcing the 30 minute view on someone who wants the 30 second view. There is increasing evidence of the Generation X & Generation Y differences in how information is accessed and used - any information source which is unable to adapt to the changing demands will soon languish unused.— Rod ^talk 19:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

By inserting the following:

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="width:260px;float:right;margin-left:0.5em;margin-right:0em;" |- ! class="plainlinksneverexpand" | <div style="text-align:left; padding-left:5.5em;">'''Quick Reference'''</div> |- |<div style="margin-left:auto; margin-right:13px;">

before the Disinfobox hypertext, and

}}</div> |}

after it, the Disinfobox is rendered in the clearly labelled, openable form as shown at right.

The only drawback to this presentation is that the Disinfobox is unable to compete for attention with the encyclopedia text, which is perhaps a major aspect of its appeal.--Wetman (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That seems like a reasonable compromise to me.--Derek Andrews (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I could live with that as a compromise if it achieves consensus. Would Wetman & User:GiacomoReturned be happy with that approach on Brympton d'Evercy & similar?— Rod ^talk 19:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of a collapsible infobox. Having written some hundreds of articles on churches and historic buildings I am "for" infoboxes; they provide a source of immediate impact for the casual viewer (and I guess a high proportion of "hits" for articles are by casual viewers), who having glanced at the infobox might be drawn into the body of the article. But the link would have to be a the TOP of the article and not be lost in a mass of navboxes, categories and other "stuff" which is normally at the bottom and therefore off the page for the casual viewer.

And what's the problem with coordinates? They're not there for space travellers or whatever. Click on the link and you're given the opportunity to see the location of the object on a map, photograph, or even in some cases the fascinating "bird's eye" photos in BING. They provide an opportunity to study the location of the building, its relation to its surroundings, and it often reveals information about its architecture which cannot be provided by any number of photos in the body of the article. There's an example here.

Should this discussion not be copied elsewhere so the the various projects could discuss whether their articles could be enhanced by a collapsible infobox? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think copying this discussion elsewhere would be appropriate.

There is no problem with the coordinates, I don't think there is a real dispute about them. Perhaps Giano is not aware that they allow us to get to a satellite view of the house with just two clicks, and then we can zoom in easily. [1] Perhaps he is. But even he doesn't seem to mind them, so I think we can drop that subject. I would like to hear from Giano whether he thinks a collapsed infobox is acceptable. Hans Adler 11:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I grudgingly suppose that a collapsed box is better than a more highly visible one.  Giano  11:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems a very useful compromise to me, with potential for wide application in areas where local editors don't like them. Thanks, Wetman! I agree this debate should be referenced elsewhere, and the collapsed box mentioned at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes). I don't think it was fully mentioned above that one reason editors don't like them is that they are far more likely to be inaccurate than the main article - the Titian's birth date spat between Brown and Cameron was partly caused by an inaccurate infobox (see the talk) and media coverage of course fastened on this. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all useful contributions. I've taken the comments above & the lack of further comments for a few days as being consensus & added the collapsed infobox to the article.— Rod ^talk 13:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Enos family

Can anyone determine where the statement "the Enos family, Americans famous for their pharmaceutical products" comes from? As far as I can determine, the Eno (drug) was first introduced in the UK by James Crossley Eno and is still made by a UK company.--Derek Andrews (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I wrote and have removed it [2]. I am trying to find a reference and will re-add it when/if I do (only pathetic excuse: It was written year's ago, when references were less important). It's something I was told rather than read, but I do know the source was impeccable allthough I may have jumped to the conclusion that they were American. I'll check it out.  Giano  12:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually from this it seems they were American, but not the Fruit salt lot. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That is marvellous, thanks a lot. I've spent two hours today, looking for a source and was begining to wonder if i had imagined it. I was told the Eno story years ago, by an ancient Montacute resident (well Btympton resident to be precise) and was sure American was mentioned - I supppose they assumed that to be rich and have that surname one folowed the other - apparently they were very kind to local children who as old people remembered them kindly. Moral of the story os to check sources first - slap on wrist to me. I wonder if he is worth a page?  Giano  15:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

He was worth a page (just) Henry Lane Eno.  Giano  08:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

? typo in history

Following the great expansion in this article, there is a sentence in the history section which says " The day work started is documented, but generally thought to be 1598/9;" which doesn't quite read true to me - should this be "The day work started is NOT documented, but generally thought to be 1598/9;..."?— Rod ^talk 15:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes you arre quite right there is a missing "not", but is's a clumsy sentance even then, I will fix it.  Giacomo  15:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox on this article is hidden. This is unhelpful to our readers. I un-hid it, but I have been reverted, with no explanation. The infobox should be displayed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)