Talk:Little Moreton Hall

Little Moreton Hall
Little Moreton Hall
	Little Moreton Hall's south range, constructed in the mid-16th century. The weight of the third-storey glazed gallery, possibly added at a late stage of construction, has caused the lower floors to bow and warp
General information
Location	Near Congleton, Cheshire, England
Coordinates	53°07′38″N 2°15′06″W / 53.1272°N 2.2518°W
Governing body	National Trust

Little Moreton Hall is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 12, 2013.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 18, 2012	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Architecture: Historic houses Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Historic houses task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Cheshire Mid‑importance

	Cheshire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cheshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cheshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CheshireWikipedia:WikiProject CheshireTemplate:WikiProject CheshireCheshire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historic sites Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Museums Low‑importance

	museums portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Assessment Report[edit]

The article needs to be expanded.
It should make use of sections.
References and Citations are crucial for wikipedia, and so these must be added as the article is expanded. Make sure that as many as possible are "in-line" citations.(See WP:References, WP:V, and WP:CITE for guidance.)

Peter I. Vardy 14:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding an infobox[edit]

I think a discussion should happen about the advisability of placing an HTML comment in this article asking for an infox not to be added to it. I see no reason why this request should be, and invite interested people to discuss the matter on WT:CHES#Little Moreton Hall. DDStretch (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the comment was placed by the primary editor, Giano, who has written about 60 architecture-related articles, around 10 of which are featured articles, most having been showcased on the Main Page. All of the articles, even those that are not currently FAs, are laid out as if they are going to achieve that status - location and size of images is carefully balanced with text, sections are appropriately organized, and so on. Infoboxes, with their huge amount of wasted space, and restrictions on the use of the rest of the page, do not add to the artistry or the informational value of the page, and actively detract from it in many cases. Architecture isn't a subject that is particularly amenable to userboxes; compare to lichens or fungi, or complicated mathematical formulae, or even films. Giano has unfortunately had to have this discussion on several of the pages in recent months, and I believe he has tried to take pre-emptive action by adding this comment rather than having to have the same conversation 60-odd times. I hope this helps. Risker (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please would it be possible for you to take this discussion to the page I recommended? DDStretch (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy it over. Risker (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthy discussion followed at Wikipedia talk:CHES#Little Moreton Hall

20th-century restoration[edit]

There is a brief mention of steel rods being inserted in the 19th century, but nothing I can see about the major 20th-century restoration. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not add something then? Giano (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have many other things to be doing, so why don't you? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current expansion[edit]

I see the page is now undergoing a needed overhaul, the editors concerned may find this useful File:Plan of Little Moreton Hall.jpg. It's a little feint, but better than nothing, and may give someone somes guidelines to draw a clearer plan. Giano (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

I couldn't parse this sentence. What does it mean? "Access to the house is via a stone bridge across the moat and through a gate house in the south range, each of the two upper floors of which is jettied out over the floor beneath." --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I think I figured it out. It was the juxtaposition of "jetty" and "moat", and the awkward construction of the latter clause that foxed me. I've rewritten it slightly and I think it is clearer now. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another query[edit]

The lead has "a ginger bread house ...". Should that be gingerbread? --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should indeed, and the quotation isn't quite right anyway, so I've fixed that too. George Ponderevo (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Meager[edit]

Is this a valid redlink? He seems only to be known for that one book. I can't quickly find any good sources on him. Thoughts? --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering exactly the same thing myself. I say no, let's get rid of the redlink. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. No prejudice against creating this in the future should good sources become available. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Style for FA[edit]

I am not sure of the procedure for FAC so I will leave a few comments here. Please move them or delete.

Lede-

As a German speaker my prose is flawed by a tendency to start every sentence with a subsidary clause. I see this here. # German grammar Now fully restored, the house is.... then At its greatest extent, in the mid-16th century, the Little Moreton Hall estate occupied.... and other examples

-08; the remainder was constructed in stages by successive generations of the family until around 1610. Surely this should be - 08. The construction continued until around 1610; successive generations of the family supervising further stages. Citation needed?

façades around three sides of a small cobbled courtyard A façade is a face of a building not a courtyard. Is façade the WP approved spelling of facade? Cobbled or cobble paved courtyard- the meaning of the former being ambiguous.

At its greatest extent, in the mid-16th century, the Little Moreton Hal surely extent which occured in the mid-16th Better however to say The Little Moreton Hall estate which was at its greatest extent during the mid-16th century.... Is extent the best word to express the concept of largest? Now we move onto the the iron bloomery with its cornmill, orchards and gardens and water-powered hammers. because that is the effect of the word with. Citation needed? wlinks needed to water powered hammers, cornmill types of orchard

The gardens were abandoned until their 20th-century recreation. Recreation or re-creation? I am troubled by abandoned until. To abandon is final- were the gardens responsible for their own re-creation? were left in an abandoned state until the 20th-century, when they were re-created using published 17th century designs? Perhaps. Citation needed? --ClemRutter (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll move your points to the FAC ClemRutter, and answer them there. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note re McKenna[edit]

Laurie McKenna appears to have been the senior listing officer for Cheshire at the time this book was written, so I assume it's authoritative. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Range?[edit]

It is only because this such a wonderfully fascinating article that I am wanting to ask the meaning of "range" as it is used here. Is it simply the side of a building from a particular direction ("façade" being the front)? Maybe it is similar to "wing"? I have not found the word in Glossary_of_architecture, nor, I think, in wikt:range. Should it be there? The article is quite clear without me knowing exactly what the word means but some sort of link or note would be comforting. I've now struggled to get down my OED and it gives a meaning as "row of buildings or parts of buildings; or a continuous stretch of building". BTW, many thanks for all the work and for persevering through the FAC. Thincat (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "range" is more or less synonymous with "wing". --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Since asking I have spotted this diff suggesting that the article is deliberately using the words somewhat differently. Thincat (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that a wing is built in one go so to speak, whereas a range is constructed in stages, as the east range was. So the house was built originally with an east wing, but it now has an east range. In the case of the south range, it would seem odd to me to consider it to be a south wing to the east wing. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am away from my books- but to me a range is a grouping of many individual building that have been connected together, where a wing will be integral to the building. The stables and kitchens may be in a range on the opposide of the courtyard, but the parlour or a library will be in the south wing. I will look for references in Pevsner and Brunskill when we are reunited.--ClemRutter (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what Pevsner says: "It [Little Moreton Hall] is timber-framed throughout except for the mighty brick chimneybreasts of all three ranges ...". George Ponderevo (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grafitto[edit]

The previous rendition "by her shadow hide ye what clothes shee weare" doesn't make any sense. The 1883 book Historic sites of Lancashire and Cheshire : a wayfarer's notes in the Palatine counties, historical, legendary, genealogical and descriptive (p. 446) by James Croston has "hede ye", i.e "heed" as in "see or perceive", which must surely be right. I've changed it.

Admittedly, Croston also gives "Then" instead of "Than" as the start of the second clause; presumably in error.

Steve Graham (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ground floor vs first floor[edit]

Just so you know, these are the same thing. It should be ground floor, second floor, third floor. Why is it written this way??? Also, can we get a floor plan of the top floor? --98.246.156.76 (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you describe is the American practice of describing floors. In England the first floor is above the ground floor. Nev1 (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two rooms on the upper floor, the Long Gallery and the Upper Porch Room, so a plan would add very little IMO. George Ponderevo (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

I recently fixed this article's infobox, which was not displaying. Another editor has now removed it, saying "it adds nothing anyway". That is patently false, as the infobox, in addition to providing a summary of key points for the benefit of our readers, causes the article to emit machine-readable metadata, such as is used by DBpedia, search engines, and, soon, Wikidata. The infobox should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking above, the topic is not new. I added an infobox to the German subset and think it's a start to being helful, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed to death. Have you seen the topic above?[1] George Ponderevo (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see a discussion from five years ago. It doesn't seem relevant to the point I made today. I see This discussion, too. Have you seen WP:OWN? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have, and I've even read it, unlike so many others apparently. The metadata was available for analysis via the invisible infobox, therefore I don't really see the validity of your point. If you want metadata then have metadata, but there's no need to add unsightly clutter just to have metadata. I have no objection to you restoring the infobox to the way it was earlier this evening on the other hand, invisible. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be labouring under a misapprehension; the so-called "invisible infobox", which was not an infobox at all, emitted no metadata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of us is certainly labouring under a misapprehension, but I think it's you. I reject utterly your position that it is necessary to introduce unsightly infoboxes simply to make metadata available. How many infoboxes emit metadata at present? Why is it not possible to emit metadata without an infobox being visible? Doesn't {{Persondata}} do that for instance? George Ponderevo (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You misrepresent me. Your claim that "the metadata was available for analysis via the invisible infobox" is bogus. False. Untrue. I can only wonder why you said that, if it wasn't due to a misapprehension on your part. The metadata emitted by Persondata is a limited, Wikipedia-specific type that applies to people only; that emitted by our infoboxes uses a set of more feature-rich, international, open standards called microformats. There is consensus for the use of microformats on Wikipedia; we already emit millions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George, chasing a personally theory on a FA article seems a trifle foolish. When we got FA I checked my edits on the Android app, as well as Firefox on my laptop- it looked good on both. It now looks 'orrible on the smart phone. Please just roll it back. I had a similar problem with my tetile mills, so I just wrote {{Infobox mill building}} to do the job. Until we have a customised template- the existing one must do, it works for mobile phone users.--ClemRutter (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so now I'm foolish for arguing that metadata and presentation ought to be separate issues. Fair enough, I'm done here, but I'm rolling nothing back. If you want to wreck the article's presentation then you go right ahead, I won't stop you. I'll be disappointed, and likely won't ever work on a building article again, but I won't stop you. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would lead to a more productive discussion Pigsonthewing if you could back off from trying to bully me, intimidate me, or patronise me, as I've probably forgotten more about computing than you will likely ever know. Now please answer my question; how many infobox templates currently emit this metadata, and why could they not still do so while being invisible? After all, separating interface from implementation has long been regarded as a worthy goal in software development. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is often not helpful or sensible to make accusations against other editors, especially when one's own record is less than spotless. Instead of making massive visual changes to articles that are already at Featured Article status without prior discussion, and than being aggressively defensive if someone objects, then surely a better way forward would be to pose the following question: Is the change I am making a significant change that could affect this article's Featured Status? If it is (and visual appearence seems an integral part of this), then perhaps some other solution is required? I speak as someone who is usually in favour of infoboxes, but not at the expense of endangering an article's status, which in this case, I think it would. In any case,I would not be unwise enough to do this without prior discussion, here: you can be bold, but there is a fine line to be drawn between being bold and being reckless. DDStretch (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I worked long and hard on this, even had to pretty much rewrite the timber roof truss article to address one issue, and I consulted with Giano throughout the rewrite, who was against an infobox, and I respected his wishes. And my reward is to see the article now trashed by some metadata obsessive on a mission? No wonder Wikipidia is haemorrhaging active editors. And to have WP;OWN thrown in my face as well just takes the biscuit. About time Wikipedia woke up to the reality of what's going on here. George Ponderevo (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article looked fine without the infobox, and like that deserves its Featured Status. However, with the infobox added, it looks worse to my mind, and, although I would not wish it to be put to the test, it could change its status downwards. I think in the case of articles that are already at Featured Status, the best approach is to make minimal changes to add functionality, disturbing as little as possible: adding an infobox when the editors who got the article to Featured Status worked hard and long to do that without an infobox, seems to be regressive. Surely there is a different solution? Would it not be better to spend time solely and practically finding that solution? DDStretch (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In truth I've got no strong feelings either for against infoboxes, and to be honest I'd love to see a great deal more consistency in formatting between Wikipedia articles, but then i don't rule the world. What I do think is important though is that the article's contributors are given appropriate respect, not dissed as ignoramuses who can't tell a template from a hole in the ground, or as impediments to some kind of metadata business opportunity. George Ponderevo (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If - and the assertion is unproven - the addition of an infobox would invalidate the FA status of the article, then either the FA process needs to catch up with the rest of Wikipedia; or we need to stop appearing to be beholden to something so broken. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. The point is not just that, and I suggest that you know that it isn't. The point is that making large changes to articles that are already at Featured Article status that affect the visual appearence is not wise, and you have been around enough, and been blocked enough to have had adequate experience of that in the past. Instead, a more sensitive approach would be to try to accomplish what you want to do with making as small a set of changes as possible that do not disrupt the visual appearence of the article, since that was one of the components used to award the FA status in the first place. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and you cannot be allowed to make radical edits in order to make the point that "the FA process needs to catch up with the rest of Wikipedia; or we need to stop appearing to be beholden to something so broken." So, the issue is again: how can you add what you want to add by making as few changes to the visual appearence of this article? If you are really interested in adding functionality to this and other articles, rather than trying to make a point, you should be thinking about this problem with the aim of solely solving it in as disruptive manner as possible rather than making this situation move closer and closer to a situation where administrator action may be required, surely? DDStretch (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is based on a premise of disruption; and one of "making radical edits in order to make a point". Both premises are false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it was not, but if you think it was, I apologize for giving you that interpretation. It was intended to point out how it may well appear to others. And I note that, once again, you have ducked the issue of trying to solve the problem of adding the information in a way which makes as little disruption as possible to an already well-laid-out article. It is that last point that makes me more sad than angry at your latest contribution to this discussion. DDStretch (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, your premise is one of disruption. Once again, that premise is false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sad that you are spending time making these personal comments rather than using it productively to find a solution that does not disturb the appearence of the article.I know that you really want to add information to the article, but there are different ways of doing that. It is not using a premise of disruption to point out that the way you used made the visual appearence worse than it was before.Now, can I suggest we drop this, and you work on adding the information in ways suggested above that do not involve making great changes to the visual appearence that others think diminishes its appearence? DDStretch (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Only just seen this] My comments - unlike yours, oddly - are not personal. I've talked of the premise in the substance of your comments, not about you personally. Your new comment about the visual appearance is indeed not using a premise of disruption; but it is an assertion of a mere personal preference as a fact; and is preceded by a false premise of disturbance. Like your later comments, you fail to address here the points I made in my initial comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have made accusations against another editor, who objected to you: you said he was being personally involved via WP:OWN. This was prior to my own entry to the discussion, and you should note that I started by making a comment about personal statements by yourself were unwise. Your comment about ownership is a personal statement. That having been made, I naturally assumed that you felt it was acceptable (though unwise) for personal statements to be made. You cannot now complain when they are. In fact, if any accusation similar to WP:OWN is to be made, a cursory investigation of issues surrounding all this shows that you have many similar issues to that of ownership as well. So, let us stop this silliness, because it adds nothing to what we are supposed to be doing. Please re-start the discussion, because your hitherto aggressive statements have just made it more difficult for you to convince us of what you would like us to do. I would have expected you to have had more sense than to make editors you wish to convince, irritated by your own initiation of personal comments. Let us all try to calm down by starting again. DDStretch (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your allegations about my behaviour are false. You may stop your silliness whenever you choose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In common with all architectural and cultural pages, this page has no need of an info box. If the information is not clearly set out in the lead, then the page needs re-writing to ensure that it is. In this case, the lead contains all necessary information. If coordinates must be included (are we planning to bomb it?) they can be stuck neatly out of the way at the top or bottom of the page. Reducing a lead image of a large and splendid house to the size of a dolls’ house is a ludicrous action – just what is it supposed to achieve other than instantly gratifying some retard with the attention span of a gnat? This constant interference by people wandering in off the street and plonking what looks like an incongruous, cheap Pokémon card on a thoughtfully laid out page, is nothing short of vandalism. It’s lovely that children are encouraged to look at Wikipedia, let’s go a step further and encourage them to read it too. Giano (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of anyone "wandering in off the street" to edit this article, but if they do, it is Wikipedia policy that they be welcomed. It's generally not considered acceptable to refer to editors or readers using such a derogatory term as you do, particularly once one knows what it means, so I invite you to find out, assuming you do not, and to remove it. False accusations of vandalism are equally frowned upon. Perhaps you might also read the infobox's documentation before issuing judgement on it; there you will see that its image can be resized. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? I thought I had made myself perfectly clear; however, let me put it simply - Andy/Piggy (whatever the name is) has wondered in off the street. You have had nothing to do with this page; it is entirely the hard work of others. There is nothing derogatory about the truth - it's a simple fact. It's now an FA (a new one, not even an old one) you have missed the boat. Now I suggest you go away and finds a spot where your input is more welcome. Is that clear enough for you? Giano (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completely clear; utterly against our core polices; and thus easy to ignore. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no policy mandating infoboxes, as you well know Andy. This one considerably reduced the size of the lead picture, had very little useful information, and removed the informative caption. Sometimes infoboxes make sense, sometimes they don't, as here. If you want the metadata, put it out of sight, or at least in a single bar horizontal template at the bottom. Same time next week? You choose where. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tilting at windmills again, John. And economical with the truth, again. Here's the infobox, with the caption, yesterday: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Little_Moreton_Hall&oldid=537792524 Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at your last version. But is the extra information in the infobox worth the visual disruption? Clearly not. All the "cultural heritage" infoboxes have bad fields, and are very typically badly filled out, so that they are just not worth cramping the lead pic for. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just ignore him John and he'll go away. He's just trolling because he knows (as do we all) that info-boxes are left to the principal editors discretion, and on these sort of pages that is rarely. My position as a principal editor of this page has long been supplanted, but that view still seems to the the concensus of the main editors. On mathematical and scientific pages there may be a case for the info-box (I would not presume to interfere on pages where I know little and have contributed nothing of value), but there is no case here. Giano (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat the challenge I made the last time someone asserted the "principal editor" (however that is measured) canard: Go to a page like WP:VPP and try to get at adopted as a policy. Such argument from authority is of no merit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is of no merit is editors such as yourself, entirely ignorant of the subject, insisting that this article must be formatted according to their personal preferences. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recognise any "visual disruption". You appear to be arguing that your personal aesthetic preferences are superior to others'. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't see it then clearly my personal aesthetic preferences are indeed superior, at least to yours. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{indent)I am a great fan of infoboxes, and have added them to (literally) hundreds of church articles, where I think they give added value. BUT in the case of this article, IMO the suggested infobox adds nothing, and actually detracts from the impact of the article. Let's leave it as it was accepted by the FA reviewers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I refuted the bogus assertion that the infobox "adds nothing" in my opening comment in this section. FA reviewers have made clear that they do not consider infoboxes, pro or con, in their deliberations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are saying that the only way you can add metadata to articles is by adding an infobox, then that is clearly a design fault of your own. Please go away and liberate your desired metadata from such a silly restriction so that you can accommodate more articles. Until then, I contend that the articles stays with NO added infobox. This is your problem, not the article's! DDStretch (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could address the points I made in that opening comment, rather than what you'd apparently like to believe I said. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop evading this issue, and please answer this basic question: Can you or can you not add metadata to an article without adding an infobox? 01:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could address the points I made... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know the answer to Ddstretch's question, Andy. Nev1 (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Start[edit]

It may better to make a break here, because the preceding main section seems to have reached an impasse and there is no possibility that any further progress can be made in that direction. Andy Mabbett's points are made on the apparent assumption that you cannot do what you want to do without adding an infobox. I am merely asking him whether this is true or false. This is basic information required to begin to re-start this debate without all the aggressive drama that has been apparent so far. Now, in order to proceed, he needs to give us complete information, and since it is he who is advocating a change, it seems a sensible strategy for him to accommodate reasonable questions we ask of him ("the burden of proof for those who propose a change rests with those who make the proposition"). It is a reasonable question to ask him whether adding an infobox is the only way of achieving what he wants to achieve. He obviously is committed to adding this metadata to articles, so it is in his interest to accommodate this reasonable question, because then he has a chance of getting us on his side in some way. The amount of time he has spent arguing this point could have been used by him to add metadata to more articles. So, please, asking him directly: Could you answer this question: Is using an infobox the only way you can add metadata to an article? DDStretch (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could address the points I made... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could answer that straightforward question. I doubt that the debate can continue while some of us are ignorant about the details of this matter - and would like to be informed about it. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also now note that we have not been given full information surrounding this. This comment by myself hopefully supplies that missing information: On 11th February, the following proposal to delete the invisible infobox was made by Andy Mabbett. If you wish to comment, you may do so there: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_11#Template:Infobox_invisible . Thank you. DDStretch (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have stayed out of this flame fight until I understand what the issues really are, and I suspect that other editors are doing exactly the same. However, now it is being said elsewhere that there is a concensus on this page not to add an infobox, I feel my views are being totally misrepresented. To me the sole question is what info we add. Infoboxes are essential to smart phone users. Infoboxes are essential to English as a second language speakers, and Wikipedians auto-translating into minority languages- as for metadata I haven't researched it to a level where I could make an informed decision. But to be inclusive- smartphones are increasingly important. It was good of Andy to assist by providing an infobox and remove the false-infobox- but I have reservations whether the content of that box adds much that is useful. Bramall Hall uses Infobox building too, which renders well on a Samsung phone- though looks naff on my PC. Years ago I had a similar problem with a series of textile mill articles so wrote {{Infobox Mill building}} as an extension of/based on {{Infobox Windmill}}, I have had no feedback on whether it correct/adequate/a gross sin, it works for me and no flaming is usual good news. A more productive way of spending our evenings would be designing a {{Infobox historic house}} which contains the fields that we feel are important. This must express: architecture, history, families, listing status, location-- but writing the template must be a collective act.--ClemRutter (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this bast of common sense; and for addressing the points I made in my opening comment. The infobox as I restored it was open to having additional parameters completed; this being a wiki and all.
All the parameters you're likely to want to use in a {{Infobox historic house}} should already be in {{Infobox building}}; but should you find one that is not, it can of course be added. Equally, constructive suggestions for improvements to the visual appearance of {{Infobox building}} are welcome on its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that all infoboxes, the way we use them, reduce the size of the main picture by a considerable extent, and that most historic houses have the kind of complex history that experience shows infobox-fillers can't handle well. Infoboxes work well over fairly standard types of article where the important data fields are always the same, and the information always known, objective, and unambiguous. None of these are true of historic houses. This is a straightforward house compared to most - all built over a relatively short period, for one (not very important) family, and essentially famous for one thing. But there is no known architect, the dates are vague, and so on. Hence the infobox can't think of anything useful to say; with another filler-in it might list everything, & be too long without adding much essential information. If people are keen to do something about cultural heritage infoboxes I suggest they help do something about the crime against humanity that is Template:Infobox World Heritage Site, which takes all the issues over infoboxes to the nth power. If that blot was sorted out (and I don't want it removed anywhere much, but made useful), infobox fans might get a more sympathetic hearing, from me at least. But I've been complaining about it for years, & nothing has changed. Johnbod (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have already pointed out, above, that the picture in {{Infobox building}} (and indeed, in many other infoboxes) can be resized. It need not be one pixel smaller than without the infobox. Furthermore, we don't know what image sizes our readers have in their default settings, what type and size of display they are using, or even whether they have image downloading enabled. Arguments based on an individual editor's views as to what is a pixel-perfect layout are pointless. Your opinions about infoboxes not coping with buildings with complex histories are shown to be unfounded by the successful use of infoboxes on articles about many such buildings. As to {{Infobox World Heritage Site}}, perhaps you could make positive suggestions, rather than complaining? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion that there is "successful use of infoboxes on articles about many such buildings" fails to explain why so many specialized editors are here objecting to attempts to impose them. I have been arguing at Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site#Gives altogether the wrong information and elsewhere for years about the WHS template (as I remember in one in person discussion with you, you had trouble understanding some of the objections). Undoubtedly one issue is that putting actually useful information in the boxes would take a huge editorial effort, and we don't have the personpower any more, which would also be a factor for British houses. If the picture is the normal size for the lead picture in a visual article, the rest of the infobox below looks bloated. Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not just my opinion; it's the opinion of the many editors who create and populate those infoboxes, and keep them in articles when editing them. I'm not clear what you mean by "specialized editors"; perhaps you could clarify the distinction between them and everyone else? I don't see anyone trying to impose infoboxes. Given that there is no requirement for any individual editor to add to an infobox, your comment about personpower appears to be a straw man; especially when so many are willing to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By specialized editors here I meant those who specialize in creating (writing) articles on buildings, though those who spend a lot of time creating and filling infoboxes can of course also be described as specialized. Unfortunately many of the latter, editing articles in areas they are not familiar with, don't know what the important and useful types of information are, so create boxes with the wrong fields or filled with the wrong sorts of information, especially by over-simplifying matters that cannot usefully be summarized in a word or two. That is what leads to resistance against infoboxes. Johnbod (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You make that sound really scary. Let's address your concerns with regard to this specific case. In the infobox under discussion for this article (inserted nearby), which of the facts included is "wrong" or of "the wrong type"? Is the name of the building not "Little Moreton Hall"? Is the building not at the coordinates shown (they're still in the article at the time of writing)? Is the image not of the building (it's still in the article)? Is the image caption wrong (it's still in the article at the time of writing)? Is the building not "near Congleton, Cheshire, England" (the lede currently says "4 miles (6.4 km) southwest of Congleton")? Is the building not governed by the National Trust (the lede says it was "transferred to the National Trust in 1938", but doesn't mention their relinquishing it)? I'll be happy to work with you to address the "wrong" facts, but confess that - despite being someone who writes articles about buildings - I have failed pitifully to identify them in this case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Governing body" is a wierd field for a buildings template - buildings have owners, not governing bodies. The "right" facts are of course given in the lead, mostly in the first para, and the most important naturally include the period of the most important construction, the architectural style, and the principal architect(s) - unknown here so best left blank. I realize that fields for all these exist at Template:Infobox building, but it is entirely typical that you (I presume) as infobox-filler chose not to use them. I see that the example given at the template, "Law Courts of Brussels", is much longer, with some 20 fields filled, is an example of the other style, full of bloat, telling us several times that it is in Belgium, and commissioned, owned and used by the Belgian government, as well as that it is 7ft above sea level! That is more the WHS style, which loves to take a line or two to tell people India is in Asia etc. Getting the balance right is an editorial skill specialized infobox-fillers just seem to lack. Readers want to read articles, not wade through unimportant or blindingly obvious data at the top of an article. Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So your concerns about "wrong" information are irrelevant to this article and need not trouble us further here. There is an |owner= parameter, which could be used in place of |governing_body=; that's hardly a reason to remove the infobox in its entirety. I'm not sure you're now discussing the lede, when your objection was about "wrong" information in the infobox. Your presumption is erroneous, (not for the first time, when you make pronouncements about me); I didn't populate the infobox, I merely enabled display of what was already in the article, but mostly hidden. As I've said elsewhere on this page, this is a wiki; my edit was neither intended to be final, nor a binary option. There is no reference to sea level in Law Courts of Brussels's infobox; that it is in Belgium is mentioned, rightly, once. That infobox has 16 fields completed, three of which are coordinates, image and caption, each of which would be needed even if no infobox were used. Your apparent belief that you can speak authoritatively for an homogeneous group of readers seems to lack substance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pot to kettle! What does "Elevation 2 m (7 ft)" mean then? I count 6 Belgium/Belgians, excluding the currency one - and what exactly was a "Belgian franc" worth in 1880 or whenever? Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where on the page or in its source do you see the string "elevation"? My PC finds it in neither. Presumably the money has the same value as when mentioned in the lede - that's a content issue, not an infobox issue. What does this have to do with the infobox in this article? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox line after "Cordinates" and before "current tenants". Infoboxes (WP:IBT) are supposed to: "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." Does a 19th century Belgian franc amount really meet these criteria, do you think? And this is the showpiece example on the template documentation. Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you're not looking at Law Courts of Brussels at all,but an example, clearly labelled as such, on a template documentation page. Nonetheless, if you think that example can be improved, as I said before, you could make some positive suggestion for improvement, rather than just complaining. This is still not relevant to the article at hand, where the infobox also did not include elevation.. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I made that perfectly clear - your mistake. Aren't examples supposed to be good ones? Johnbod (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take the point that ClemRutter has made, and state that I should have used "majority" rather than "consensus", though I note that "consensus" on wikipedia has hardly ever meant "100% of people who have the same opinion". Nevertheless, I offer my apologies for this mistake.

I note that Andy Mabbett is still not answering the simple question I asked, though given his comments here, I suspect the answer is that emitting metadata can be done in ways that do not force the addition of an infobox.

Now, onto my own position: I like infoboxes, and I think they should be used for reasons that include the points made by ClemRutter, above. However, I also know that, no matter what is claimed or asserted, there is no general wikipedia-wide agreement that all articles must have an infobox if some person wishes there to be one to allow some other feature for an article (emitting metadata) to be used. Similarly, I know (because in my non-wikipedia life, I professionally researched these areas) that if one wishes to persuade people to adopt a particular set of beliefs or course of action, etc, then there are ways that help one do this, and there are ways that are unlikely to work, unless one faces a completely unsual situation, and one is particularly skilled at such things (which is not the case here with any of us, I suspect). The strategy attempted here could be taken as a textbook example of how not to do it: in fact, one could have possibly been more successful if one looks at what was done here, and simply did the opposite! What happened appears to be: (a) unannounced and undiscussed, a drastic edit that changed completely the appearence of this article was made, and at roughly the same time, a proposal to delete the old template that was on this article was made. (One can be bold, but one should try not to be reckless, and upsetting editors by making such edits in such a way, especially to an article that is at FA status may make people a little jumpy. Also, no notice was given to people on this page that the template that was there had been proposed for deletion); (b) when people reacted in a predictable way by being a little irritated, they were the subject of personal criticisms, along the line of having "ownership" issues, and when issues were raised that suggested that the source of such personal criticisms might have personal issues as well, they were criticised back for indulging in personal attacks (inconsistency, and an approach that suggests one is able to use such strategies against others, but they cannot use tham back is almost guaranteed to initiate flame-wars); and(c) when a legitimate question was asked about the necessity of adding an infobox to "emit" this metadata, there was a strange reluctance to answer this question.

Taken together, all of these points act to make people resistant to the original intention. My own position is clear: I like infoboxes, I think adding metadata is a good idea, but this is not the way to go about it. If there is really no feasible way of adding metadata to an article except by adding an infobox, then we need to know this, and that requires us to know whether we can't just because people haven't got around to constructing other ways to do it yet, or whether there is some other restriction. At the moment, until a comment was made in the last few hours, the situation seemed to be certain that there was absolutely no other way to get this article to emit metadata other than using the infobox that other editors think diminishes the artitle's appearence (and assertions that this is false, is just another counter-productive persuasive move). That is why this whole attempted implementation has been an "own goal" so far, for those wanting to add metadata. I request that they start again, and take account of the fact that wikipedia encourages editors to work in a collaborative manner, not in a manner that initiates confrontation, as has happened here.

DDStretch (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely ignorant about such things, but I thought that the (invisible) Persondata template used in biography articles was added to provide metadata. If the issue is metadata, perhaps a parallel template could be devised for historic building articles. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree. I just cannot see why there has been such a strong binding between the infobox that has caused all this drama, and metadata. That is why I posed the as-yet unanswered question. I don't know why, if it is possible, writing a separate and independant template (which would be more universally applicable and usable) was not just simply done in the first place. But without any comment from the person who seems to be on top of such things, we are just stumbling in the dark. DDStretch (talk) 11:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a more-or-less acceptable, compromise solution on a page I wrote years ago, here: Montacute House. Howvever, unlike that house, one of the chief problems is that most of these buildings have evolved over centuries, not sprung up like something on a municipal housing estate. I remember once someone trying to impose an info-box on Buckingham Palace with a section headed 'Design Team' listing architects over 3 centuries - absurd, especially as the earlier architects works are often lost. I have seen other info-boxes reporting a house as in the Tudor/Gothic/Palladian style - that serves no purpose other than to confuse. I quite see the use of an info-box on pages concerning elements and chemicals, but not here, or on these sort of pages. Giano (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you've done on Montacute House is a pretty acceptable solution, although I'd probably have put the collapsed infobox after the lead image rather than at the top of the screen and not included an image in the infobox. But something like that seems like a good compromise, although like Johnbod I wonder what the thinking was behind having a "Governing body" field rather than a straightforward "Owner". George Ponderevo (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I expect 'Governing Body' something to do with Marxism - a glorious house having one lucky owner is probably to much for some people to stomach. Yes, Montacute's discreet box would be better under the lead image. However, unlike here, the person who wanted the info-box had made quite a few knowledgeable edits to the page, and was eloquent and polite. Not traits I've noticed in Andy Mabbit - so he there was quite entitled to a view and I felt more inclined to compromise. Giano (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, re-reading the Montacute info-box debate [2], I see we have a lot of the same players as here. Nothing much changes on Wikipedia - some of us just go on for ever. Giano (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

La lucha continua! I'd forgotten all about that one, which does indeed articulate the buildings infobox issues very fully. Someone should start a list of extended examples of these debates, as the issues and arguments indeed change little. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Among the early debates on this issue were Talk:Ponte Vecchio in 2008 (I see an IP User:68.35.24.151 - I think we can guess who that was - removed that compromise in December 2010 with no discussion after it was twice agreed on the talk page involving many similar names again). The similar compromise at Montacute House lasted from 2009 to today without fuss until Giano mentioned it. I think it was Wetman who first proposed the hidden infobox. The version on this page dispays automatically on my mobile device incidentally. It strikes me that this is a good compromise solution but some people seem unwilling or unable to compromise. If there are technical concerns about the implementation, no doubt they can be resolved by technically-minded people.

To answer the question, metadata can be emitted without infoboxes of course (although it is not at all clear to me that the emission of machine-readable metadata should be an important function for an encyclopedia, but if it can be done without getting in the way of the encyclopaedic content - the text - then why not). Why combine them? To force through infoboxes on the spurious ground that they are needed to emit metadata. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.237.125 (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I also think the solution at Montacute House is an acceptable compromise. On my screen, there are a "rogue" two lines that place themselves in between the expanded box and the lead image; it would be nice if they could be routinely avoided, in my opinion. The bigger question, however, remains unanswered, even though he's had plenty of time to give a simple answer to what was a simple question or two: Is using an infobox the only way metadata can be added to an article? And, as a supplementary: If it is, why has this restrictive binding together happened at all? I see I am not the only person wanting an answer to this, but, so far, answer have we none... DDStretch (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Montacute House is a neat bit coding- and personally I would copy it over- and keep on talking. I understand why everyone is screaming! None of these templates are fit for purpose and I propose that spend some time devising a template suitable for vernacular architecture.

Personally I now test pages on my Samsung Galaxy Smartphone (mug a teenager at any bus-stop and ask them to look up the page for you on their phones Wikipedia app)-and it is a here you see why infobox and image issues are no longer black & white. To my surprise the Montacute House Infobox just appears. Quick reference seems to default to show/ not hide- the opposite to the behaviour on the PC- (I wonder what the iPhone app does?). Looking at de:Little Morton Hall we can see a working info box- useless information but it renders well in contrast to en:Little Morton Hall (status quo) which becomes unusable when scroll down on the langing page. Don't however break it by moving it below the image-check first. A dilemma.

I propose that spend some time devising a template suitable for vernacular architecture. One should never waste a good disaster! Giano, myself and Andy have written infobox templates in the past and understand conditional coding, the primitive inheritance, limitations on number of fields- if we take Bramall, LMH, Montacute and Lyme and Infobox mill buildings to guide us we have a idea of the fields needed- that can cope with history, the family, architecture, listing status and what ever. Field names are not important as you can have two fields zB |governing body and |governing body title text, which will change the way the prompt or title is rendered on screen.I expect 'Governing Body' something to do with what to call the organisation that manages the listing- 'more methodism that Marxism'!

My User:ClemRutter/sandbox3 is vacant at the moment- and later this evening I will try an put together a few ideas which we can share. Cut and past rules OK.--ClemRutter (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Montacute House example[edit]

Giano mentioned the example of Montacute House earlier today, as an example of an article using a collapsed infobox. I've tweaked it a little to make it (to my eyes at least) a little more visually appealing, and I really am beginning to see this as a way forward to finally put these interminable infobox disputes to bed. I think it would be very easy to move the opening code to the infobox template, or a new version of it, should there be a consensus to move in this direction, to make it easier to use, but the more I look at it the more I like it. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at it. If you think that is a good compromise, fine. On my screen it's a lot of white space when the box is collapsed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's because of the table of contents, and it was there before. We're in sad shape if we need infoboxes to balance out the TOC. Instead, we should find a way to have text beside the TOC. Risker (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks OK in my big desktop screen. I think this is the best compromise we can hope for. Randy Rabbit may have gone away, but there are plenty more like him up the borrow waiting to come out, so we have to find a solution to this. Even I can see that. Giano 20:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think so too, and I agree with Risker that something ought to be done about the TOC as well, to reduce the slabs of white. I'm going to be bold and make this change to the article. If I'd known about this technique before I'd have been far less concerned about the deletion of the {{infobox invisible}} template, which I no longer feel we really need. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, go ahead, lets see if it works, and then we can look at what other fields would serve us. --ClemRutter (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of process[edit]

Yes, well I don't think that will be possible because Wikipedia's ambassador to Kosovo. Andy Mabbett, seems hell bent on antagonistic vandalism [3]. if this is how admins behave, thereis not much hope for the rest of us. Giano (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is certainly not an admin on en.wikipedia.com, but he appears to state he is on another site connected to the whole wiki enterprise. It probably isn't clear enough. What he has done, when we were almost at a point where we had some agreement, is certainly disruptive, in my opinion, and any sympathy to his desire to add metadata to articles is quickly vanishing within me if this is the kind of behaviour required to implement it on what pruports to be a collaborative enterprise. DDStretch (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well he's getting worse now [4]. I could have told you that he's nothing more than a troll. God knows how he's obtained all this 'Wikipedian in Residence' nonsense and permission to address Wikipedians in Kosovo. Giano (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and worse [5] If he can't force his views on us here, he will sink to subterfuge elsewhere. Something needs to be done about him. Giano 16:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been mostly staying out of this one, but I absolutely need to take exception to Clem Rutter's statement that "Infoboxes are essential to smart phone users". Nonsense. I've been looking at Wikipedia with a smartphone for several years, and I find that infoboxes are even more disruptive on a smartphone than they are on a fullsize computer. They also make it almost impossible to edit using a mobile. The fact that we have probably well over a million articles without infoboxes, and yet they're all accessible by mobile, tells us this statement is patently untrue. Risker (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I bow to your greater experience. I can only report on what I have seen. Can you help us by explaining how infoboxes are even more disruptive on a smartphone, or even why it is considered that infoboxes are disruptive when I would have used the word 'challenging' Which platform, OS- which app? Do you have accurate statistics on infoboxes missing? But, on consideration I think these responses should be in a separate section so we can separate the discussion on this article, from personalities and technicalities.--ClemRutter (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They take up far too much space in the tiny little screen and make it harder to get to the actual article. And though I usually use a blackberry, I've also used iPhones and occasionally an android. Doesn't matter what applications and OS we're talking about, though. You're the one insisting they're essential. What is it about infoboxes that you think is essential, specifically on smartphones? I am calling into question your categorical assertion. Risker (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take it within context- in this debate the imperative is to look for cooperative solution so preventing experienced editors from talking themselves into a corner. While gently pointing out there were other points of view, we are focusing on Little Morton Hall, that George took to FA. It is always better to say IMHO than Nonsense.

My observation is that postgraduate students grab their Androids and just look at the Infobox and the screen below- last year we saw iPhones. Five years ago naturally it was only Blackberries. The debate among Web Designers is which platform to program for how these systems render a website. The Android app I use, renders the Infobox, and prints out the lead, then the TOC which can be tapped to unhide the section. Blackberries are now very peculiar, a bit like IE5. I use the Samsung so rarely (it doesn't act as a phone), I cannot say whether a better Wikipedia app has superceeded the one I use. The app I use won't pinch and expand the text and has a screen width of about 40 characters- if I use the Firefox app, the font changes it sets the same screen width but will pinch and expand but the line length stays the same. Neither allows me to edit.

My point is that youngsters and journalists are fused to their Androids, and we need to consider how they access the information, rather than relying on a none typical user group- us. We need to be cognacent with the issues- which I suspect will lead WP into a period of turbulence.--ClemRutter (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. To me, I think you've just given the very best argument possible to eliminate infoboxes completely. I have rarely seen an article where the information in a multiple-field infobox matched the info in the article, and in almost all cases it was the infobox that was wrong. Further, much of what is in an infobox isn't even significant information, and many are highly subjective. (Check out the infoboxes of currently popular musical acts to see the joys of edit-warred musical genres.) I think people are kidding themselves when they consider infoboxes to be "metadata". It's junk info. Risker (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I'd go even further and suggest that those who call whatever's contained within an infobox "metadata" haven't got the first idea of what metadata actually is, or are using the term in a very restricted Wikipedia sense. Metadata is data about data, not repackaging data in different formats for the potential convenience of some hypothetical user.George Ponderevo (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I very rarely access the Web via my Android phone, and have never had an IPhone, but I've been playing about a little with the formatting of the Montacute House article that Giano mentioned earlier. I think now that collapsible infoboxes done in that way or something similar is probably the way forward. Contrary to what has been claimed it's not in conflict with the MoS as no information is being hidden, simply aggregated, and a similar technique is routinely used in other places anyway, such as route maps for canals. George Ponderevo (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now been reported to WP:ANI by User:Pigsonthewing for my actions. DDStretch (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so have I, and am probably about to blocked because I reverted his mate to restored his nomination and then voted to delete the box [6]. It's a great pity that those of us who understand historical buildings cannot be allowed to sort this out and compromise for ourselves - because I think we could if we weren't being hectored and bullied by this megalomaniac. Giano 18:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Giano, I know little or nothing about Historic Buildings, but i know enough to defer to those who do. I also have disagreed with you in the past, and I probably like infoboxes more than you do. However, what I saw as being quite unacceptable strategies being used made me immediately react against Andy Mabbett. He does not reply to reasonable questions, and templates that could be used as solutions are put up for deletion by him, just, it appears, because they do not correspond exactly to his preferred solution. Are we supposed to be engaging in collaborative editing or what? DDStretch (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'm done. I am withdrawing unless something particularly relevant to my future on wikipedia emerges. DDStretch (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Horses for courses or whatever the expression is. I don't blame you; I've half a mind to leave historic building to Andy Mabbit (Why's he got two names - it's so confusing) to write, but I've just found a good one that doesn't already have a proper page, so I think I'll stick around. So long. Giano 18:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick popping back to mention that one might see an intriguing description of the discussions here on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes. DDStretch (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it seems we are not alone in challenging mabbitt's knowledge and authroity on this subject [7]. He's going to have to learn a painful lesson it seems. Giano 13:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I have tried to be conciliatory and helpful on the page of the wikiproject concerned with Infoboxes. It seems to me that the only way we can work to try to prevent this kind of controversy arising again (not just on this talk page), is to get a dialogue going with members of that project. I wonder if anyone, other than Andy Mabbett, is going to respond and not immediately dismiss in a rather superficial and insulting way, to what I hoped was a positive and helpful set of advice? DDStretch (talk)

New Box - verdict.[edit]

It looks very nice <said with a shudder>, but if it gets people of our backs and allows us to write without these constant interuption, I would agree to it on pages I ~~own~~ have heavily edited. Giano 21:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we now have a way forward then, that everyone can sign up to? I'm pretty much completely agnostic about infoboxes, except for the visual clutter they so often create for no obvious benefit, but to accommodate those convinced of their benefits and those who think they're just "junk", this seems like the best compromise we're likely to be able to achieve. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's visually poor, with low accessibility and unhelpful to the people, wanting quick access to key points, that infoboxes are intend to help. It's also a model that has been rejected when tried elsewhere. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but better, but we do need to ponder a little before we tweak the figures in the infobox so it renders better on Firefox- it is fine on the Android. The fields need to be refined. ¡Hasta manana! --ClemRutter (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It renders just fine on Firefox for me. I agree with you about the need to refine the fields, and the whole template seems very flakey to me anyway, but as you say, that's for another day. George Ponderevo (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again Andy you are making assertions without providing any evidence. Where has this model been tried and rejected? I understand that you have an unwavering loyalty to visually obtrusive infoboxes, but at some point you're going to have to accept that others don't share your view, and that a compromise must be reached. Or as it's called here, a consensus. I've offered a compromise, but you're yet to budge even a single inch. Is that because you're convinced that you're "right"? Well get this; I'm just as convinced that I'm "right", and that many of your arguments (such as the almost subliminal linking of infoboxes with metadata) are without merit, but I've been willing to try and reach a compromise solution nevertheless. George Ponderevo (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This form of info-box has been tried and tested on Montacute House for four years. As Mabbit (a Wikipedian in Residence) should know, Montacute is one of the UK's best known houses and architecturally famous houses; it has over 2,500 hits a month (90 a day). Until Mabbit wandered in off the street, everyone was quite happy with the box. I really don't think the tried and rejected argument holds any water. In fact, none of Mabbits's arguments do. He's on some form of obsessive crusade; so there is little point in engaging with him further. Giano 08:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rather alarmingly, it appears from this week's Signpost, featuring WikiProject Infobox, that Andy is one of the moderates on the project (2nd question). Johnbod (talk) 12:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The new box seems to work well to my mind. I assume that any (commercial or non-commercial) applications outside the wiki-universe will be able to make use of the so-called "metadata" emitted from it, though its up to those with that interest to eventually let us know. One point is that there could do with being a bit of white-space in between the left border of the expanded box, and the right border of the text. I would try to access it on my Android phone from China (where I live now), but connections can be slow and unpredictable, depending on how trigger-happy about some perceived slight the operators of the Great Firewall can be (which is why I sometimes use a VPN service). DDStretch (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is a bit late in the day to be asking, but what exactly is 'metadata'? and why is it so important? Giano 15:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way the term "metadata" is being bandied around here is incorrect. Quite simply, metadata is data about data; think about a database schema for instance, or an XML grammar, in which various properties of the data to be stored are defined, such as data type, maximum length of text fields, numeric precision and so on. Clearly nothing in an infobox qualifies as metadata in any meaningful sense, as it's simply an alternative representation of what the text of the article says. Why is it important? The short answer is that it isn't; the slightly longer answer is that those so wedded to infoboxes (which have nothing at all to do with metadata of course) believe that emitting data in a machine-readable format such as one of the microformats that have been mentioned a few times will one day facilitate the development of the Semantic Web, but that's just a leap of faith. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The [meta]data emitted by our infoboxes is already used by Google and Bing and has been praised by Yahoo; and is retrievable as JSON. Infoboxes are also parsed by DBpedia and made available using RDF. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What "metadata" is that? The only thing I can see that even remotely resembles metadata is field names (which aren't even standardised across infoboxes) fudged as CSS classes. And you've yet to explain why infoboxes, which are visual elements, are so intimately linked to this "metadata" in the first place. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Microformats are not dependent on field names. DBpedia has mapped our infobox field names. There is no such thing as "CSS classes". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discursion on CSS classes / classes used in CSS[edit]

I never said that microformats were dependent on field names, so I don't know where you got that from. "No such thing as CSS classes"? Really? The CSS2 documentation I have open in front of me on my desk quite clearly explains the purpose of CSS classes, which is nothing to do with emitting metadata, so I don't know where you got the idea that there are no such things as CSS classes from either. And once again you have failed to answer the question you've been asked many times now; why is emitting of this "metadata" so intimately linked to a visual element such as an infobox? Do you ever answer questions that are put to you? George Ponderevo (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! I recall teaching students about CSS classes... I also recall teaching some others about the underlying theory of how to write in a rational, persuasive way which conforms to all accepted standards of polite, yet hard and probing dialogue (it uses the ideas of the Canadian Philosopher, Douglas Walton, if anyone is interested). DDStretch (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] I have the CSS2 documentation in front of me, too, online. For example http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/selector.html#class-html - I have yet to find the string "CSS class" in it; and indeed neither can Google (Searching for 'site:www.w3.org/TR/CSS21 "css class"', without single quotes). I only find references to "classes", "class attributes", "pseudo-classes" and "Class selectors". Perhaps you could provide a citation? I'm happy for you to do so on my talk page, or elsewhere, as this is increasingly off-topic for this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

did you miss this one? It is one of the first my search engine found, and I thought it was useful because it come from wikpedia itself, and has some code that clearly indicates a class attribute being used. If the objection is that it is a "class attribute" rather than just a class, then you are tripping up over your overly literalist shoes again. DDStretch (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't "miss" that, because I was searching a reliable source, not Wikipedia documentation; but I've fixed the error, thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Masy be you also missed the many reliable sources indicated in the following search results, including Microsoft, w3.org and others: [8] . DDStretch (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My overwhelming impression of this "discussion" is that Andy Mabbett never answers questions and never admits when he's wrong. It would be good to see some evidence in his future contributions that my impression is wrong. George Ponderevo (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reference to "CSS classes" by the W3C in the page you link to (the linked W3C page is part of the resource I mentioned, above), and only trivial mentions by Microsoft, in the titles, but not content, of minor documentation pages. Otherwise, mostly unreliable sources like chat forums and blogs. However, I did find http://tantek.com/2012/353/b1/why-html-classes-css-class-selectors which says 'Search the web for "CSS classes" and you'll find numerous well intentioned references which are imprecise at best, and misleading or incorrect at worst. There are no such things as "CSS classes"' - thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Sigh!) Ok then. I invite you to look at "Beginning CSS Web Development: From Novice to Professional" by Simon Collinson, published by APress in 2006, with ISBN(13): 978-1-59059-689-0. You need to go to Chapter 2, titled "Core Concepts of CSS". In that chapter, there is the following sections announced a little way into the beginning (I use my Kindle, because I am in China, and cannot easily buy the paper version, so I can't easily give page numbers): "ID vs. Class", and "Class". In the sub-section named "Class" we have the following text: "A class can be used an infinite number of times per page making it a very flexible method of applying CSS. A class defines an element as belonging to a group, or as a reusable object or style. Classes solve problems in the short term, but can provide less flexibility for more complicated CSS designs." There are other similar statements in this book and in others I possess. The publisher is reputable, and I've even heard positive things about the author elsewhere. Is there any wriggle-room left for you? DDStretch (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does he call them "CSS classes"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the unlikely event of disruption on this or other pages by User:Pigsonthewing, it is a matter of record there were two Arbcom cases about similar behaviours leading to two separate one-year blocks and various other sanctions, and active sanctions that remain in place indefinitely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.237.233 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 15 February 2013

I think this [9] says all we need to know. Mabbitt was banned for a year after this Arb case. It seems nothing changes [10]. Wikipdian in Residence indeed. We don't need to be trying to placate him; he just wants banning again. Giano 20:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Hidden infoboxes[edit]

There is a discussion on hidden infoboxes in progress, which is relevant to this article. Voceditenore (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Little Moreton Hall. 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://archive.is/20121224065208/http://virtualtours.nationaltrust.org.uk/little-moreton/home.html to http://virtualtours.nationaltrust.org.uk/little-moreton/home.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Little Moreton Hall. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday services[edit]

The page referencing Sunday services at Little Moreton Hall is archived (see https://archive.ph/20121224143048/http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/history/view-page/item384575/259542/). Obviously they stopped in 2020. I can't find any reference to Sunday services on the current NT site or a wider search. Is it safe to say they no longer take place? BobKilcoyne (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

@Nikkimaria, I'm opening this discussion as I said I would be happy to discuss the changes to the infobox, and this seems more productive than conversation-by-edit-summary.

I'm confused as to why you've removed the listing boxes, location, and co-ordinates. These fields have have all been retained in the infobox of Montacute House, and the discussion there informed my editing decisions here. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both the location and coordinates are still present; I don't see a reason to repeat them. I also don't see a reason to repeat external links already used as cited sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're possibly missing the point of infoboxes – they repeat information already in the article for ease-of-access. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The location and coordinates also aren't present, is this a mistake? A.D.Hope (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both are indeed present, one in the infobox and the other in the title. As to external links, when disputed they are excluded by default. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The location and co-ordinates fields have been removed from the infobox, so they're not present. The title doesn't accurately summarise the location, as, besides Moreton not being a defined settlement, Little Moreton Hall is not in the civil parish of Moreton cum Alcumlow.

I think the best course of action would be to format this infobox exactly as the one at Montacute House currently is, then participate in the discussion at that talk page about what should be included. That would mean removing the 'built' and 'owner' fields, and restoring the listing boxes (but not links), the 'location' field, and the 'co-ordinates' field. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would be appropriate, since this is something that's meant to be determined on a case-by-case basis. I'm also not sure what you're looking at, because what you're describing doesn't match the version of the article that I see. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox only contains the 'built' and 'owner' fields, plus the image and map; you have removed all the rest.

I disagree that UK historic house infoboxes need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. They are similar enough that precedents can be set, and the Montacute House discussion is one such precedent. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to disagree, but that's what's in the relevant guideline. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do disagree, yes. This article and Montacute House are very similar, the discussion there could easily inform the infobox here. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we don't seem to be arriving at agreement about what should be where, I've restored the last stable version pending further discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to do the same myself, so thank you. I'd suggest taking any further discussion to Talk:Montacute House#IB, where a more general discussion of 'simplified infoboxes' is taking place. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]