Talk:Montacute House/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

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

Infobox removal

Montacute House
Montacute House, the entrance facade
Location	Montacute, Somerset
Coordinates	50°57′09″N 2°42′58″W
Built	c. 1598
Built for	Edward Phelips
Architectural style(s)	Elizabethan
Governing body	National Trust
Listed Building – Grade I
Designated	19 April, 1961
Reference no.	434945
Scheduled monument
Reference no.	Somerset County No 187
Location of Montacute House in Somerset

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quick Reference
Montacute House Montacute House, the entrance facade Location Montacute, Somerset Coordinates 50°57′09″N 2°42′58″W Built c. 1598 Built for Edward Phelips Architectural style(s) Elizabethan Governing body National Trust Listed Building – Grade I Designated 19 April, 1961 Reference no. 434945 Scheduled monument Reference no. Somerset County No 187 Location of Montacute House in Somerset }}

By inserting the following:

{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;font-size:88%;border: 1px solid #a2a9b1;width:260px;float:right;margin-left:0.5em;margin-right:0em;" |- ! class="plainlinksneverexpand" style="background:lavender" | <div style="text-align:left; padding-left:5.5em;">'''Quick Reference'''</div> |- |<div style="margin-left:auto; margin-right:13px;">

before the Disinfobox hypertext, and

}}</div> |}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enos family

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

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

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

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

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

? typo in history

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

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

Infobox

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

You are trolling from another page and another discussion! Go away or you will be blocked for disruption. Giano (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Bogus threats of blocking? *yawn* Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Hi again, Andy! The explanation is in the very long section "Infobox removal" higher up the page. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes; I see an over three-year old conversation, only a short part of which, involving just seven editors, relates to hiding the infobox. In it, wider discussion was suggested. Did that take place? Where? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• if anyone is puzzled about what the above editor is ranting about - it is because he has lost a debate here [3] and seems to have become rather unhinged. He has just put this info-box up for deletion [4] and been foiled there too. He seems to want to become Wikipedia's latest dictator. I advise ignoring or joining the debate at Talk:Little Moreton Hall which is current and where editors who understand historic buildings (he does not) are trying to sort this problem out, despite near hysterical, angry ranting from Pigsonthewing.  Giano  17:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec) The suggestion was that this useful compromise be referenced elsewhere, which it should be, and probably hasn't been. Seven editors is more than most such discussions attract these days. As mentioned in another place, the issues remain as fresh as a daisy. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Hidden infoboxes in progress, which is relevant to this article. Voceditenore (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

References or notes

Looking at the reference list on this article nos 11 (the term architect) & 32 (Elizabethan garden) could be put into notes rather than references - would anyone object?— Rod ^talk 16:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

& ref 24 (layout of pantry).— Rod ^talk 17:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope, no objection; that seems pretty logical.  Giano  17:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Done.— Rod ^talk 20:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

D'you know Rod, I just re-read this page fresh for the first time in a few months or so; though I say it myself, I think we do quite a good job; it is a good article - one of the England's finest buildings and without all the fuss, wars and shenanigans one sees elsewhere. Makes Wikipedia seem worthwhile.  Giano  22:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I try to avoid the controversy as much as possible and get on with writing & improving articles - which is what I enjoy and learn from. There are still some bits (mostly about specific rooms) which are not supported by references, but once we've got these we could try to get the wp mechanisms to agree it is a good article - ie by nominating it, but I know you have said in the past you are not inclined to go this route.— Rod ^talk 09:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't particularly like all the pedantics of FAs and GAs; I'm too lazy to cross every T and dot every i; but if you want to do it; I'll chip to help solve any queries. Which bits require reffs? - I have most books ever published on the place, so should not be a problem finding reffs for most things.  Giano  10:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay I've been sorting out issues Clifton Suspension Bridge. I've now added "citation needed" tags where I think references would be demanded by GA reviewers.— Rod ^talk 12:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Taking a look now. I can't find a reff for the bit abut the National Trust bulletin (do we know who added it - I don't think it was me) so have reworded it a bit and added a little more. The date was wrong anyway.  Giano  14:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You are doing great stuff on adding the refs. If you needed a break you might like to take a peak at Wells Cathedral and its GA review where the reviewer is considering some "POV" /flowery language in the architectural writing.— Rod ^talk 16:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

All done, except for one I couldn't find, but I'm sure it's right so I'll re-add it if/when I can find it. Just realsied that someone has changed the reff sysytem since last I was editing, so i hae used the wrong one - never mind the important bits are done, I'll swop the system over tomorrow. Funnily enough, Wells cathedral is the English cathedral that I know best; I think it would be very hard to describe such an architectural extravaganza without resorting to flowery language. I'll take a look.  Giano  16:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• I see you have added ref needed for "H. Inigo Triggs, who illustrated Montacute as the first in his Formal Gardens in England and Scotland,[56][page needed] and Henry Avray Tipping were both convinced by this "Elizabethan" garden, as Roy Strong noted in setting the record straight in The Renaissance Garden in England[57][page needed]" I don't know who added that, and I don't have those books; I'll trawl through the history.  Giano  09:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• You don't need to scroll through hundreds of edits. WikiBlame will search for you & it shows the Triggs & Tipping comments/quotes were added at 19:42 on 18 May 2010 by User:Wetman with this edit.— Rod ^talk 19:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Do we need note F? User:Wetman doesn't have the sources to add page nos.— Rod ^talk 12:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I would have thought you could get away with 'Jacobean style fountain' as that is what it obviously is.  Giano  12:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Changed.— Rod ^talk 17:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Pre-GA notes

I was reading through the article with an eye on the upcoming GA review and noticed a few points that you may wish to look at:

• History: Is West Country worth a link? Could you explain "a low service range"?

• There are so many arguments about West Country, South West England etc I'm never sure if this is useful to add.— Rod ^talk 20:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• That's easy to resolve. Forget the arguments and use your own judgement. Follow the link to West Country: "The West Country is an informal term for the area of south western England roughly corresponding to the modern South West England government region. It is often defined to encompass ..." and a map. If you think the information there might help a visitor to better understand or put in context this article on Montacute House, then it's a good link and you make it. Otherwise leave it out. Personally, I think it's a good link, but it's your call. --RexxS (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Is "With the exception of the Philips family portraits" a typo for Phelips, or was there another family's collection of portraits? Is there any notable history post WWII? - the section seems to end a little abruptly.

• Phelips typo done. Post WWI it continued with the National Trust - I'm not aware of anything else to add apart from the National Portrait Gallery stuff which is covered in 2nd floor & present day. Should the "present day" section be moved after "History" to give some continuity?— Rod ^talk 20:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

  I wouldn't move it, I think it's fine where it is. Malleus Fatuorum 20:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed - don't move it; it helps "frame" the article and brings a nice conclusion. I was just speculating if there was anything to fill the gap between D-Day and 1995. If not, don't worry. --RexxS (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Architecture: I wonder if all of the links in this section are deserved? How many visitors either would not know the meaning of, or increase their understanding of Montacute House by reading the linked article to, the following: monkey, kitchen, family, lawn, flower, and perhaps even courtyard? On the other hand, I'd really like to see a link to palazzi and perhaps balustrading. What do you think?

• Done— Rod ^talk 20:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Interior: I understand the point about the image on the left being the first thing we naturally read, so the numbered list following the image is sensible, but that gives a problem on my monitor using the Firefox browser that the bullet points are rendered hard up against the image and it looks ugly. I know it's just an aesthetic, but I previewed each section with the image on the right, and in each case the list looks so much much better to me. It would also require switching the sides for the two images in the preceding Architecture section, so that may not be best, but it would be worth asking Giano's opinion about image placement as I assume he placed the images originally, and I'd trust his aesthetic sensibilities on the issue above my own.

Hope that helps with the GA. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

You make a very good point about those bulleted lists RexxS, which look ugly, ugly, ugly. I'd be inclined to add the naming key to the image caption and rewrite the list in text, as I think it makes sense to have the plan on the left. Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, do what you like, but won't adding the naming key to the caption upset al those who like short captions? I am devotee of the long caption, but ......... Giano  07:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so, it's done in Chester Cathedral and Little Moreton Hall for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 12:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I've altered the ground floor section and made the text more flowing (only a quick job, it can be improved later). Before I do the other two floors in similar style - is this the concept you mean?  Giano  12:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid we conflicted on that section, as I was doing exactly what you were doing. My version looks a little different from yours in terms of ordering, but it has all the same info. And yes, that's exactly what I was suggesting. Malleus Fatuorum 13:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Some new photos have been uploaded here [5]; they are pretty good, I have used a few already - see what you think.  Giano  19:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

  Russavia emailed me earlier about those new images. Good to get at least one of the interior into the article. Malleus Fatuorum 20:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd quite like this one File:Front Elevation of Montacute House (8601898685).jpg in the lead, but for some reason I can't make it work in that bloody box thing.  Giano  19:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I think I prefer the one that's already there.  Giano  19:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm gratified that you kept my photo of the front (that's my wife in the picture btw) but it does seem washed out compared with russavia's slightly wider-angle shot. It was an older camera, of course, and I didn't process the image other than cropping it. I can try to re-tint the colors if you want, but I suspect the result would be too artificial. Also, mine is a little more up-tilted. That is to say, my personal preference would be the other guy's contribution! David Brooks (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I've swapped the image for the one I think you're thing of. Malleus Fatuorum 18:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both, The sections you've reworked look so much better to my eye. I really wouldn't give a moment's thought to the "short caption" school of wiki-philosophy because a caption has a job to do and you might as well make it do that work, even if it takes four or five lines. I'm just about to regularise the refs to make "Lines" a sfn like the others. If there is any objection, then please feel free to revert me. (Post script: I see Malleus is already sorting the references, so I'll hang fire until he's finished) --RexxS (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yerse, I shall let him finish too; in fact, I think I'll go to bed - Aren't the new images great? It seems it's impossible to keep a good editor down.  Giano  20:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I've finished for now RexxS, so you carry on. I'm going back to Pulteney Bridge for a bit now. Malleus Fatuorum 20:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the new Picture arrangement by Malleus: While I like it very much; on my super big, wide screen it has left a large chunk of white at the bottom of the second floor section which looks to be crying out for 20 lines of waffle. I already waffled in the last paragraph of the previous section - there is a limit to my waffling, but it would be a shame to loose the pictures.  Giano  18:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the image of the Nine Worthies back into this section, which ought to soak up some of your whitespace. Malleus Fatuorum 18:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

That's better, I can waffle for three lines to fill that up. However, the new lead image not only looks like we are zooming in at rapid speed from a tardis; it's also the same façade we have repeated below - one of them has to go - to make room for the other façade. I quite like the garden façade imediatly above the 3D plan as it makes it easier to relate to - so I suggest the original lead image (File:Montacute House front Apr 2002.JPG) is replaced.  Giano  19:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll leave you to choose the images you think are best Giano, I'm not really a very visual person, more visceral really. Malleus Fatuorum 19:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, if you're happy. I've made one or two minor adjustments - are we allowed to make the infobox image bigger - or is that cast in stone?  Giano  19:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You can make it a bit bigger if you like (I seem to remember that 500px was at one time recommended as a maximum, which seems a bit excessive to me) but you'd also need to match the expanded infobox. Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds very stressful - best left as it is.  Giano  20:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

We can make it a bit bigger, I'll have a go. And here's a prediction for you; the GA reviewer will choke over the lack of citations for the first two paragraphs of the Architecture section. I've considered a similar situation with the Pulteney Bridge article, and I'm coming down on the side of making an analogy between architectural descriptions and plot summaries for novels, where the the source is its own reference so to speak. But not all reviewers are as enlightened as I am. Malleus Fatuorum 20:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

... actually, increasing the image size was much easier than I expected it to be with this new method of collapsing the infobox, so I've upped it to 400px. Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

My wife thanks you. David Brooks (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Has she asked you yet whether her bum looks big in that? Malleus Fatuorum 01:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Image sizes

I've restored the previous image sizes. All else being equal, I agree that it is better to use the default thumb size, but in this case, an image width of 220px does not allow a clear view of the architectural features and even on large monitors the floor plans become difficult to read. The vast majority of our readers are not logged in so have no way of controlling thumbnail size - and even registered editors cannot set a thumbnail size above 300px wide. WP:IMGSIZE specifically accepts that cases will arise when a forced image size is appropriate and it is clear to me - even with my declining vision - that in this article the balance between text size and a 220px image size does not work. --RexxS (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

you could always use thumb|upright=1.5 to achieve 330px and still allow for resizing using personal preferences. Frietjes (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting point and worth considering. We'd need |upright=1.6 to get the 350px that is used at present for some of the images, which would yield a width of 480px for those who have set 300px as their default thumbnail size. That might be uncomfortably large, although I guess those who set 300px like large images anyway. On the other hand, the ratio of logged-in to non-logged-in readers is tiny, so the benefit of accommodating those who have even bothered to set a preference for thumbnail size must be quite small. Personally, I tend to leave preferences at default, because I want to see pages the same way that most visitors do, so I wouldn't resize using a personal preference anyway. --RexxS (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• The page looks best with nice, big, generous images; tiny little postage stamp types tell us nothing and don't illustrate the text - the presnt size looks fine to me  Giano  16:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It is highly dependent on what sort of device you are using to view the page. This is why we have traditionally allowed users to set their own preferences rather than hard-coding what looks best for one editor on one particular set-up. --John (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Images

Very nice article ... however there is a small problem with the sandwiching of text in a few places any way to fix this as per MOS:IMAGELOCATION...may be with {{Multiple image}}.? Moxy (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is sandwiching Moxy? I don't believe I am familiar with the term.  Giano  20:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe the issue has been resolved. it happens when you do something like this

left image

right image

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

as the browser window is reduced, you will see the text sandwiched between the two images. the solution is to shift one of the images up or down. which, as far as I can tell, has been done here since the comment was posted. Frietjes (talk)

Well, I don't know what has happened, but it now looks totally appaling on my screen with images here, there and everywhere! A total mess.  Giano  20:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what font size or screen size you are using but to the average readers with a laptop monitor it looks like ..File:Sample of Wiki page.jpg and on my I phone looks like ...File:Wiki page snap shoot.jpg. Could also be that the images are being force to a large size... that again is something we should try to avoid if its not a diagram as per WP:IMGSIZE ... All that said this had noting to do with the GA status... as the article is great...just some small format problems. Moxy (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Well it looks nothing like that to me; I have images overhanging sections; on my nice bif wide screen; this looks perfect [6]. We need the images to be large or they don't illustrate anything properly.  Giano  18:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It is possible to apply a little fixie-dust to avoid the worst of the text-pinching:

left image

right image

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

See how that behaves as the screen gets narrower compared to the first example. Of course, that would be contrary to the received wisdom, so I'd never encourage anybody to employ such subterfuge. --RexxS (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate Images of England ref

Footnotes 1 and 4 (as currently numbered) are to the same Images Of England link. They differ in the "retrieved" date, but the current page still supports both the assertions in the text. I'm not familiar with all the subtleties here, and I know the "retrieved" qualifier is necessary in case the source changes. But, in this case, is there any reason not to combine the refs, and update the "retrieved" date? David Brooks (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Good catch, David, thank you. I've combined the refs and, having checked the link is still live, I've now updated the accessdate. --RexxS (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Gallery

Because there are 87 pictures in Commons in random order, I thought it would be nice to have a gallery - commons:Montacute House. I just created an initial structure and put some representative pictures into it. I'm sure the more active editors around here can improve it. David Brooks (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

p.s. one thing bugs me. The standard "Wikimedia Commons has media related to..." link goes to the media category page, and you have to know that the first link in that page, which is auto-generated, goes to the gallery. Based on a very few samples, that's a convention. It seems a great way to bury the gallery from view. Is there a conventional way of making it more discoverable? David Brooks (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

No gallery. Wikipedia isn't a coffee table picture book. Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a lover of galleries either, unless they contain really specific and worthy images which for reasons of space just cannot be included in the page proper. From what I can see the images, while excellent, they only depict what is already well illustrated in the article already. Sorry.  Giano  09:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's there now, although as I said not very discoverable. My intention was to highlight some of the better images that aren't in the article, especially of the exteriors, and bring some order to the Category, reducing the duplication. But if nobody is that interested I'll put it on the back burner. David Brooks (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Article mentioned at Manual of Style

The problems with the images on this article ( images on the left - forcing big images beyond any recommendations - hiding of images - sandwiching of text) have been mentioned as an example of what not to do at the Image Manual of Style talk page. Those involved with the article may want to join the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Location (2). -- Moxy (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The images should be shown at the users default thumbnail size, and not oversized as at present; for justification, see Talk:Charles-Valentin Alkan#Lede image. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting - I see that it is also a GA article. Why are the reviewers not following our basic guidelines on images and accessibility during the review process? Moxy (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you ever read the GA criteria? One of them is most definitely not "The article should be laid out as I prefer". Eric Corbett 19:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You got it - best to follow our basic guidelines over personal preferences. Perhaps the GA review template should mention image size and placement.Moxy (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The GA review template is irrelevant. If you want to change the GA criteria then I would suggest this is not the correct venue. Eric Corbett 19:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what your saying at all - my guess now is your first comment was sarcasm that back fired. What we are looking for is solution to the current problem(s) as described above - as there is no need to change any GA criteria because the GA review process should be guided by our guidelines and policies (this is common sense). If you believe accessibility and image size and placement is not a concern pls join the conversation about the MOS as linked above. -- Moxy (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

If you don't understand what I'm saying then you really need to spend some time reading the GA criteria. Eric Corbett 20:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This is nothing ore than Moxy and Mabbitt having a joint stir - ignore them, and if they attempt to force any changes revert them.  Giano  20:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Eric Corbett 20:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Good! That's decided then. I accepted Moxi's invitation to comment at MOS, and have done so [7]. I don't think it necessary to say anymore. I am confident that the Arbs will soon be dealing once and for all with the disruptive Mabbitt [8] and hopefully then Moxi will realise that such behavior is unacceptable on pages where he has never edited and on subject about which he knows nothing.  Giano  20:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

At some point could you comment on the concerns raised over posting your paranoid insulting associations. Was hoping to get those here involved in a conversation that I presumed editors here would be interested in - but I see this may not be possible because of preconceptions. If at any point in the future thoses that wish to engage in the topic raised pls send me a message.Moxy (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I adjusted the image locations and forced sizing in the Montacute House article according to the current MOS:IMAGES guidance, showing that images can be staggered left and right where appropriate without placing images on the left at the start of a section. Since I did not work on the article, please feel free to revert or modify my edit. Bede735 (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

That's much better, and much less harmful to accessibility for our readers. And that is work on the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

and I have reverted. The primary editors are quite happy with the page as it is. Now go away and try and cause trouble somewhere else.  Giano  16:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The new format was better, but I suppose there must be a good reason for old format. We should fully protect the page now that it is finished. Frietjes (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

We can see Giano is not interested in following the recommendations set forth by the community or advice by many editors. But Giano you need to address people with a little respect - just a little would go a long way in helping you get your positions across. Thus far your civility is more of a concern and determent to the project and its editors then a few articles that you have implemented your personal image preferences on.Moxy (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Go away Moxy. You and Mabbitt are nothing but trouble to any page.  Giano  17:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You need to work on your delivery because your reputation is in the craper - thus far here your a determent to your side. Not one time have you even tried to explain your position. Are you sure your suited and have the maturity level needed for this collaborative environment. -- Moxy (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Just go and troll somewhere else Moxy; I have no intention of engaging collaboratively or in any other way with you and Mabbitt.  Giano  09:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm looking at this on my netbook, and the sandwiched text does look a bit awkward (there's an initial "The" floating at the top"). But the size of the images, I can't see why we shouldn't have nice big images here (esp. the first two); the visual rhetoric here successfully conveys the scale of the object(s). Certainly the plans are better in the larger format: one can read them without having to click on them, and I can't read the smaller ones. Anything that prevents clicking away from the article is to be encouraged. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies; it all looks fine on my screen. Is there anyway that you can fix the 'floating the' without altering the layout too much; I can't do it yself because I can't see it.  Giano  09:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Ha, Giano, changing the syntax so the first word is much longer is one way--but that's not preferred. (The sentence is kind of a run-on, with so many "and"s in there.) Anyway, look at a file I just uploaded, File:Screenshot of Montecute house.png, and you'll see what I mean (quick, before it gets deleted because I made a typo in some attribution.) Drmies (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we'll need to do a little bit of juggling with the images, but while you're here, what does "... which from the exterior appear to cling perilously with only a small corbel like to the masonry" mean? Eric Corbett 13:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Odd perilous sentence is sorted. Has your juggling sorted the floating 'the'?  Giano  15:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Like you I can't see the floating "the", so I don't know. Don't even know what sentence we're talking about. Eric Corbett 15:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Screenshot of Montecute house.png - Thank you guys for addressing one of the concerns raise over the passed few months. -- Moxy (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that. Eric Corbett 18:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• The "the" no longer floats, and I made a minor tweak to satisfy my personal taste. Thank you all. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

  I'm sure that's not the way we are supposed to have done it, but it seems to have worked quite well :-)  Giano  18:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

  I moved the image down a bit, where it seems to fit more naturally anyway. Eric Corbett 18:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The trouble is, I have no idea if it looks any different or not. I shall assume that it does.  Giano  18:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, look at File:Screenshot of Montecute house.png again (and don't pay attention to the vertical stretchiness). Now there's a half a sentence in between the two images, "across the Low Countries to England, and the Gothic elements, much of the architectural influence is Italian". Changing the image size would solve that, one way or another, but I suppose we can't make every screen happy. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps fixed by moving the image to the right? Eric Corbett 19:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me now. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Great; that's that sorted. I just love that image of the window - one has to do a double take to see if it's a painting or a photo - amazing! All those pictures would loose something if they were reduced in size. I'm not going to mention the only other article I know of that's as well illustrated as this for fear of attracting the wrong sort of attention, but it's a great pity that some people do want to reduce everything to mouse-like proportions.  Giano 

It's Buckingham Palace, right? The one with sentence fragments like this:

• "State banquets [line break] also take place in [line break] the Ballroom; these [line break] formal dinners take [line break]
• "At the centre of this wing is the [line break] famous balcony, with the Centre [line break]

Even in full screen mode it looks more like a printed newspaper page than a web page. That's always very memorable. Still, I guess that's what I get for reading Wikipedia using just a bog standard notebook computer. John The Fourty Third (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I get virtually the same there; using a 21" widescreen monitor with the window covering the full left-hand half of the screen. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Strange things are going on: I have now had to revert this [9] twice - peciliar indeed. How nice to see a single purpose, new account so interested in architecture and able to format correctly.  Giano  19:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

As I suspected: the above comments are by a proven sockpuppet [10].  Giano  21:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Montacute House. 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://web.archive.org/web/20120419195307/http://www.theheritagetrail.co.uk/stately%20homes/montacute.htm to http://www.theheritagetrail.co.uk/stately%20homes/montacute.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120603064722/http://www.savistamagazine.com/article/montacute-house-gardens to http://www.savistamagazine.com/article/montacute-house-gardens
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130409193251/http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/montacute-house/things-to-see-and-do/gardens/ to http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/montacute-house/things-to-see-and-do/gardens/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714205330/http://www.westerngazette.co.uk/BBC-production-Wolf-Hall-coming-Montacute-House/story-21080748-detail/story.html to http://www.westerngazette.co.uk/BBC-production-Wolf-Hall-coming-Montacute-House/story-21080748-detail/story.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)