![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
Montacute House | |
---|---|
Montacute House, the entrance facade | |
Location | Montacute, Somerset |
Coordinates | 50°57′09″N 2°42′58″W / 50.95250°N 2.71611°W |
Built | c. 1598 |
Built for | Edward Phelips |
Architectural style(s) | Elizabethan |
Governing body | National Trust |
Listed Building – Grade I | |
Designated | 19 April, 1961 [1] |
Reference no. | 434945 |
Reference no. | Somerset County No 187 [2] |
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)
I think that about covers my thoughts. Giano 23:06, 6 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)
"... 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)
Quick Reference
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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:
"a low service range"?
"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)
"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.
Hope that helps with the GA. Cheers -- RexxS ( talk) 22:52, 23 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)
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)
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'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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
It's Buckingham Palace, right? The one with sentence fragments like this:
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
Montacute House | |
---|---|
Montacute House, the entrance facade | |
Location | Montacute, Somerset |
Coordinates | 50°57′09″N 2°42′58″W / 50.95250°N 2.71611°W |
Built | c. 1598 |
Built for | Edward Phelips |
Architectural style(s) | Elizabethan |
Governing body | National Trust |
Listed Building – Grade I | |
Designated | 19 April, 1961 [1] |
Reference no. | 434945 |
Reference no. | Somerset County No 187 [2] |
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)
I think that about covers my thoughts. Giano 23:06, 6 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)
"... 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)
Quick Reference
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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:
"a low service range"?
"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)
"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.
Hope that helps with the GA. Cheers -- RexxS ( talk) 22:52, 23 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)
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)
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'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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
It's Buckingham Palace, right? The one with sentence fragments like this:
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)