# Talk:Montacute House

This review is transcluded from Talk:Montacute House/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 20:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Per the discussion, here, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Montacute House, I've had a go at a simplified IB. I hope, as far as possible, it strikes a balance between the contending viewpoints. Obviously, any element can be removed/added, dependent on discussion here. KJP1 (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking at it, an expanded lead would help to reduce the impact. I'll have a go, and do a short section at the bottom on the listing details. KJP1 (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
To be honest, I am once again bored of infobox discussions & this is why I did not reply in the DRN (any "consensus" will only last so long; new editors will come along and it strikes me this is such a niche area & we are all reasonable enough that we won't force this "consensus" down future editors' throats for sticking to rules set down in the past's sake). Only problem right now is that there seems little benefit to having the listings here at all, given there is no link to the listing - I was mainly for them is that they tend to be the easiest resource out there (for very private buildings this still means very poor, but oh well) for the common reader to get a good sense of the house. Maybe it is just me & the country house enthusiast bubble (which probably favours a lot of people who like a general architectural understanding but not necessarily a detailed one of a building) who think so, though. I would also like to see the park listing gradated, but that is not for here.
I still think we are susceptible to (read: are probably) coming at this from a not-very-accessible standpoint (we all tend to extensively edit particular buildings/buildings that relate to particular styles\periods\architects\people we have an interest in). I stand by my anecdotal information that most people only read (on their phones) infobox (colours + pictures/maps), then skim lead, then skim any bits of article suggested by the lead. I think our aim (an encyclopedia's aim) should be to highlight the big bits of knowledge AND facilitate the reader to read on in what they're interested in based on their new summary knowledge. Imho listings will trump skimming lots of article text for the architectural side (For notable buildings it is unlikely a listing does not include top importance architectural information listed elsewhere (Pevsner, CL articles, etc.) - although they sometimes go overboard, dare I say to counteract malpractice due to lay belief in England that only what is mentioned in a listing is listed, and sometimes there is little information out there/entry is denied). For the history of buildings (which ranges from nigh on watching paint on the walls dry to having hunreds of years of top-notch murder mystery/political drama), I am unsure how to provide the same... EPEAviator (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Just a thought: given these are frequently more about the history than the architecture, why is there no "key dates/events"/"known for" part of the infobox (when needed)? For many buildings this is one of their primary reasons for being notable. EPEAviator (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, "these are frequently more about the history than the architecture", but that's the main problem with them (I don't mean this one). We should emphatically not encourage this. In fact it is almost always their architecture that makes them notable (with exceptions like Chartwell). Johnbod (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
In writing my response (I did not initially understand what position you are taking) I realised that parts of this will come down to inclusionism vs. deletionism (if you dare include information within articles in this classification, my metawiki trivia is nonexistence as to if there is another term for this viewpoint). I probably sit on the other side of the fence than you, believing in information being there if it is verifiable and relevant, given a good directory to pieces of information by their notability.
(My logic being that those with similar information-inclusion thresholds to me [sidenote here that those of us who write articles on buildings we are specifically interested in are quite likely to fall foul of this if it is considered a fallacy by others] will, given the hundreds of years of history and numerous semi-notable owners/related persons these houses tend to have, end up having far more we can write about history than about the architecture, especially given a lot of popularly-read sources largely focus on their "stories" [which may indicate the common person's interest lies separate from the architecture and closer to these rambling histories].)
Anyway, as I read it, we might agree on the bits and bobs of this (aside from your reasonable reservations about it encouraging trivia-loading, sort of see below), i.e. a stressed "when needed". I think the "known for" would be good for differentiating important buildings in a style from less important ones, or important owners, or important events.
It was an off-the-cuff idea which may be useful for a subset of buildings, but I wouldn't want to see it when it isn't known for anything in particular. Having been planning to work on Drayton House pre- and post-Saltburn (still thoroughly disappointed the hiding hole wasn't a plot point to get to see it), I also wouldn't want to see Drayton House listed as "known for Saltburn", or Lyme Park for "Mr Darcy wet shirt" and so on... but maybe I'm just a snob. EPEAviator (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Isn’t everyone sick to death of discussing infoboxes? At one time, a reasonably educated editor would write a page, other reasonably educated editors would then assist and the result would be a comprehensive page. If those editors liked infoboxes, the page would have one. If they didn’t, it didn’t. Then came a day, when the petulant would turn up, the educated editors left, and the petulant would go here, there and everywhere, shouting at the top of their high pitched voices until they had enough attention to impose a form of their will, principally because everyone else had lost the will to live! Congratulations, Mr Hope - enjoy looking at the box which is far less useful than the collapsed box achieved by compromise a long time ago by editors who loved the subject rather than uniform, mind-numbing monotony! AdamBlack89 (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
To chime in a little late, I do agree with @EPEAviator that including a link to the listing itself is helpful. I've implemented this at Little Moreton Hall and think it strikes a good balance between brevity and usefulness. Ideally the listing type and link would be included in a single box, but that's not something we can do unilaterally.
At Little Moreton I've also kept the building dates and the owner. I don't have particularly strong feelings on including curren ownership, but the date(s) a building was constructed does seem to be the type of thing a reader would want to know at a glance. What do you think? A.D.Hope (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The current image of the Long Gallery is a little...underwhelming. No disrespect to the photographer - it's a nice clear image - but the gallery is devoid of anything. It looks rather like it's in the middle of refurbishment. I'd hoped for an image of the gallery with the NPG portraits. Commons draws a blank, as does Geograph. Do they permit visitor photography of the interiors? User:Lajmmoore may be able to help. KJP1 (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello @KJP1 - I'm not working for the National Trust any more (sadly, the contract ended), but I've forwarded the request on Lajmmoore (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Having volunteered at Montacute for over 10 years, the story of the ponies in the long gallery has come up a number of times. The general opinion of the staff and volunteers is that this is a myth, mainly from the point of view that you could probably get the ponies up the many stairs, but getting them down slippery stone steps would have been impossible. ~2025-33849-28 (talk) 10:17, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps - but we currently have a reliable, if somewhat dated, source that says they did. Given the way we work on Wikipedia, that will trump the speculations of staff far removed from the actual events. But while you’re here, would you be able to take/upload a better image of the Long Gallery (see above)? Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 12:39, 15 November 2025 (UTC)