This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somerset, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somerset 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.SomersetWikipedia:WikiProject SomersetTemplate:WikiProject SomersetSomerset articles
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
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
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
Lead: perhaps a little short - could say a bit more about the history (Phelips arrest? Lord Curzon?), interior features, gardens, use in film, for instance. (done) ok. Layout: ok. Weasel: ok. Fiction: n/a. Lists: n/a.
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
Well organised sources and refs.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
I don't think so, but a few paragraphs remain uncited - most likely they are covered by nearby links, but please show this adding or repeating links as appropriate. (done) ok.
Credit to longstanding editors on this article - User:Rodw, User:Giano, and more recently User:Malleus Fatuorum. This is a handsome article, elegantly structured and illustrated, and a pleasure to review. It is also notable for its long preparation with careful and energetic collaboration by experienced editors. Well done everyone.
My position is that the images should be aligned to the right as far as possible, as this preserves a consistent left text margin which makes the article easier to read (see MOS:IMAGELOC).In the discussion above size of the images is cited as a reason for not having them all aligned to the right. When I moved the images to the right in this edit I didn't encounter any significant issues of placement, and this tool which compares display resolutions doesn't indicate any issues even on small displays. I'm not claiming there are no issues, but I've not been able to discover any and I'd argue they're outweighed by the benefits of a consistent left margin.Based on that I don't think there's any need to alter the image sizes. Nevertheless, only the house plans really benefit from being larger than the default size; even at 'upright=1.6' the detail in the other images, such as the coats of arms and statues of the worthies, is not particularly clear. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The plans can usefully be larger but I see no justification for the other images being anything other than default. That way readers have the option of setting their own default size if they want to.
As to the left positioning, I'm fairly agnostic. In some cases it can lead to a more pleasing layout. I had a play with the page, putting all the photos to the right at default size but leaving the floor plans to the left and it seemed to work quite well stylistically. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Default size for photos (except worthies) would be an improvement for me. With the current version I get a text sandwich in the "architecture" and "first floor" sections, and with all images aligned to the right the "hall chamber" picture pushes the later images down from their relevant sections, but this is improved when the photos are displayed at default size. Reducing the size of the floor plans does not make much difference because of the length of the captions. I have no problem with images being placed on the left, but I generally find it easier when there is text on the left directly below a section header, which usually means placing the first image of a section on the right. Here I think it would look fine if the alignments were switched so that some of the later images within each section were on the left. EdwardUK (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In general I support the large sizes, especially for the plans, but the old style of left then right placement is now much less used, and of course irrelevant to most of our readers (on phones etc), as I believe are the px settings, so I'm not too fussed about them. What we want to avoid is several images piled up together. Johnbod (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original layout seems the most appropriate, per above. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you like larger image sizes, then change your preferences (see WP:IMAGESIZE). Otherwise, wp:think of the reader who is most likely to be using a mobile. The default size should not be changed without a convincing reason – such as plans, for example. It is not obvious why the others need to be enlarged since they will need to be expanded to full screen to be examined properly – the thumbnail is a teaser trailer . Sizes in px are definately deprecated. Swerving left/right/left risks creating a MOS:SANDWICH depending on the reader's display size. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a result of the above discussion, I am going to be bold and resize the images to default.
Incidentally, if anyone is visiting the house with a camera, we coud do with a better picture of the stone screen. The current image is very poor, especially compared with the generally high quality of the rest of the photographs. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to this, and particularly in response to @EdwardUK's comment about having a left margin immediately below a section header, I've moved the plan images to the right. The result is fine, in my opinion, so I don't think there's much benefit to moving any of the other images to the left. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Must confess I don't like it that way, I thought it better with the plans left and the pictures right. That's why I left (sorry!) them. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly prefer a consistent left margin where possible – I do admit that it can be less aesthetically pleasing than a staggered layout, but it helps people read the article and that's ultimately more important. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generations of magazine layout artists would disagree with you, as would medieval monks with their illuminated capitals. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a magazine or an illuminated manuscript, and its layout requirements are consequently different. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good layout is good layout, regardless of application. But this is not something I'd go to the barricades to defend. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a key difference is that magazines and other physical media have static layouts, so there's more leeway to balance the text and other elements to produce something which is attractive and easy to read.
Wikipedia has a variable layout depending on the the user; for me a left-aligned image might be exactly the same height as a paragraph and so produce a convenient left margin, but for you the same image might break the paragraph and make reading more difficult. It's unfortunate, I don't know of a good way around it. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Murgatroyd, and thus I've restored the left-aligned plans. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree with that placement. At the very least the first images in each section should be aligned right so that the margin isn't broken immediately below the heading. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reversed the pattern so that the plan images are on the right and the great chamber and hall chamber images are on the left. It would still be better if all images were on the right, however. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now it just looks silly. Carry on fighting amongst yourselves. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks no sillier than the reverse arrangement did. If the process is frustrating you then perhaps stepping away is wise. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again have to agree with Murgatroyd on this one. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for having right-aligned images immediately below the headings is that it preserves the left text margin and makes reading the article easier. The reason against is that 'it looks silly'. I don't find that very persuasive. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record it was the swapping of left and right so you end up with small images on the left and large and small on the right that looks silly. OK poor choice of words: It looks unbalanced and actually makes the page more difficult to read. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, isn't it funny how the smallest things can lead to the most drawn-out discussions on this site?
As you know I think all the images should be right aligned, but that layout seems unlikely to reach consensus because @Nikkimaria is so opposed to it. Reversing the order so that the first image is right aligned seems like the best compromise, although I can't say I love the result. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is what we are discussing is largely a matter of taste, an area where you can expect people to have wildly divergent views. However similar discussions have lead to good results, eg the infobox images for North Yorkshire. So nil desperandum! Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion overlooks a third alternative, which is to centre the plans. I have just done this for one section. If preferred, the centred image could come after the first paragraph (which itself could be divided in two, so ether si some, but less, text before the image). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have to say, I don't like it, too much white space. If you reposition the plan till after the first para then it could remain left and satisfy (FSVO) everyone. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still strongly favour right alignment for the first image in a section. Breaking the margin immediately makes the text more difficult to read. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hence why I said after the first para. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand why having the plan images in their current position but right-aligned is 'silly', to quote your earlier comment. It doesn't seem to cause any issues. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry if the above seems snappy, I didn't mean it to! I never really grasped the problem is all.) A.D.Hope (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just tried your suggestion of left-aligned plans positioned after the first paragraph, and while it works for the 'Ground floor' subsection it won't for the other two as there isn't enough space. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't like centred images, unless of very wide panoramas. And like most of these changes, it makes no difference to the majority of our readers, who use mobiles. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the interpretation of the MOS in this case hasn't been settled above, I've opened a discussion (not an RfC) at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:COLLAPSE to try and encourage wider input. Anyone can contribute, of course. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the discussion, here, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Montacute House, I've had a go at a simplified IB. I hope, as far as possible, it strikes a balance between the contending viewpoints. Obviously, any element can be removed/added, dependent on discussion here. KJP1 (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it, an expanded lead would help to reduce the impact. I'll have a go, and do a short section at the bottom on the listing details. KJP1 (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I am once again bored of infobox discussions & this is why I did not reply in the DRN (any "consensus" will only last so long; new editors will come along and it strikes me this is such a niche area & we are all reasonable enough that we won't force this "consensus" down future editors' throats for sticking to rules set down in the past's sake). Only problem right now is that there seems little benefit to having the listings here at all, given there is no link to the listing - I was mainly for them is that they tend to be the easiest resource out there (for very private buildings this still means very poor, but oh well) for the common reader to get a good sense of the house. Maybe it is just me & the country house enthusiast bubble (which probably favours a lot of people who like a general architectural understanding but not necessarily a detailed one of a building) who think so, though. I would also like to see the park listing gradated, but that is not for here.
I still think we are susceptible to (read: are probably) coming at this from a not-very-accessible standpoint (we all tend to extensively edit particular buildings/buildings that relate to particular styles\periods\architects\people we have an interest in). I stand by my anecdotal information that most people only read (on their phones) infobox (colours + pictures/maps), then skim lead, then skim any bits of article suggested by the lead. I think our aim (an encyclopedia's aim) should be to highlight the big bits of knowledge AND facilitate the reader to read on in what they're interested in based on their new summary knowledge. Imho listings will trump skimming lots of article text for the architectural side (For notable buildings it is unlikely a listing does not include top importance architectural information listed elsewhere (Pevsner, CL articles, etc.) - although they sometimes go overboard, dare I say to counteract malpractice due to lay belief in England that only what is mentioned in a listing is listed, and sometimes there is little information out there/entry is denied). For the history of buildings (which ranges from nigh on watching paint on the walls dry to having hunreds of years of top-notch murder mystery/political drama), I am unsure how to provide the same... EPEAviator (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought: given these are frequently more about the history than the architecture, why is there no "key dates/events"/"known for" part of the infobox (when needed)? For many buildings this is one of their primary reasons for being notable. EPEAviator (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, "these are frequently more about the history than the architecture", but that's the main problem with them (I don't mean this one). We should emphatically not encourage this. In fact it is almost always their architecture that makes them notable (with exceptions like Chartwell). Johnbod (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In writing my response (I did not initially understand what position you are taking) I realised that parts of this will come down to inclusionism vs. deletionism (if you dare include information within articles in this classification, my metawiki trivia is nonexistence as to if there is another term for this viewpoint). I probably sit on the other side of the fence than you, believing in information being there if it is verifiable and relevant, given a good directory to pieces of information by their notability.
(My logic being that those with similar information-inclusion thresholds to me [sidenote here that those of us who write articles on buildings we are specifically interested in are quite likely to fall foul of this if it is considered a fallacy by others] will, given the hundreds of years of history and numerous semi-notable owners/related persons these houses tend to have, end up having far more we can write about history than about the architecture, especially given a lot of popularly-read sources largely focus on their "stories" [which may indicate the common person's interest lies separate from the architecture and closer to these rambling histories].)
Anyway, as I read it, we might agree on the bits and bobs of this (aside from your reasonable reservations about it encouraging trivia-loading, sort of see below), i.e. a stressed "when needed". I think the "known for" would be good for differentiating important buildings in a style from less important ones, or important owners, or important events.
It was an off-the-cuff idea which may be useful for a subset of buildings, but I wouldn't want to see it when it isn't known for anything in particular. Having been planning to work on Drayton House pre- and post-Saltburn (still thoroughly disappointed the hiding hole wasn't a plot point to get to see it), I also wouldn't want to see Drayton House listed as "known for Saltburn", or Lyme Park for "Mr Darcy wet shirt" and so on... but maybe I'm just a snob. EPEAviator (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn’t everyone sick to death of discussing infoboxes? At one time, a reasonably educated editor would write a page, other reasonably educated editors would then assist and the result would be a comprehensive page. If those editors liked infoboxes, the page would have one. If they didn’t, it didn’t. Then came a day, when the petulant would turn up, the educated editors left, and the petulant would go here, there and everywhere, shouting at the top of their high pitched voices until they had enough attention to impose a form of their will, principally because everyone else had lost the will to live! Congratulations, Mr Hope - enjoy looking at the box which is far less useful than the collapsed box achieved by compromise a long time ago by editors who loved the subject rather than uniform, mind-numbing monotony! AdamBlack89 (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To chime in a little late, I do agree with @EPEAviator that including a link to the listing itself is helpful. I've implemented this at Little Moreton Hall and think it strikes a good balance between brevity and usefulness. Ideally the listing type and link would be included in a single box, but that's not something we can do unilaterally.
At Little Moreton I've also kept the building dates and the owner. I don't have particularly strong feelings on including curren ownership, but the date(s) a building was constructed does seem to be the type of thing a reader would want to know at a glance. What do you think? A.D.Hope (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
