Talk:Montacute House/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Infobox and images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Publicising discussions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infobox collapse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't agree that the people who write pages should have parental feelings toward them, or that the main contributors to an article always know what's best for it. I'm the main contributor on a couple of articles myself, but that doesn't make them mine. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

A.D.Hope - this is all getting regrettably personal. I understand that you have a view on collapsing the IB, and image placement, and that you think arguments to the contrary view are weak. But it is very clear that there isn’t a consensus for the change that you want to make. Can I ask that we all just recognise that, accept the status quo, and move on to some of the many, many other things that need doing on here. KJP1 (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I understand that everyone is tired, but the status quo no longer aligns with the MOS and needs to be changed. I don't especially care how the infobox is brought into compliance with the MOS – un-collapsing it, removing it, or a third option, but a new consensus needs to be found.

I could reasonably state that the original local consensus here is now overriden by the global consensus at the MOS, but I don't think that imposing changes like that is helpful. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Your repeated assertion, here and elsewhere, that your interpretation of MoS/policy/guidance/whatever is correct, and that any opposing view is not, really makes collegiate editing rather difficult. You say on your Userpage that you want to “foster collaboration”. Speaking frankly, your current approach isn’t making that easy. KJP1 (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

In response to your first comment I said that I appreciated your appeal to compromise, and I did mean that. However, accepting the status quo and walking away from the discussion, which seems to be your preferred resolution, isn't a compromise. The decision reached in 2009 no longer works because of changes to the MOS since, but that doesn't mean a new compromise is out of reach. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

MOS Collapse discussion

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)