Talk:Little Moreton Hall

message: #The article needs to be expanded.
#It should make use of sections.
#References and Citations are crucial for wikipedia, and so these must be added as the article is expanded. Make sure that as many as possible are "in-line" citations.(See WP:References, WP:V, and WP:CITE for guidance.)
Peter I. Vardy 14:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment Report

message: I think a discussion should happen about the advisability of placing an HTML comment in this article asking for an infox not to be added to it. I see no reason why this request should be, and invite interested people to discuss the matter on WT:CHES#Little Moreton Hall.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the comment was placed by the primary editor, Giano, who has written about 60 architecture-related articles, around 10 of which are featured articles, most having been showcased on the Main Page. All of the articles, even those that are not currently FAs, are laid out as if they are going to achieve that status - location and size of images is carefully balanced with text, sections are appropriately organized, and so on.  Infoboxes, with their huge amount of wasted space, and restrictions on the use of the rest of the page, do not add to the artistry or the informational value of the page, and actively detract from it in many cases. Architecture isn't a subject that is particularly amenable to userboxes; compare to lichens or fungi, or complicated mathematical formulae, or even films. Giano has unfortunately had to have this discussion on several of the pages in recent months, and I believe he has tried to take pre-emptive action by adding this comment rather than having to have the same conversation 60-odd times. I hope this helps.  Risker (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please would it be possible for you to take this discussion to the page I recommended?  DDStretch  (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll copy it over. Risker (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding an infobox

message: There is a brief mention of steel rods being inserted in the 19th century, but nothing I can see about the major 20th-century restoration. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not add something then? Giano (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have many other things to be doing, so why don't you? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  20th-century restoration 

message: I see the page is now undergoing a needed overhaul, the editors concerned may find this useful :File:Plan of Little Moreton Hall.jpg. It's a little feint, but better than nothing, and may give someone somes guidelines to draw a clearer plan. Giano (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Current expansion

message: I couldn't parse this sentence. What does it mean? "Access to the house is via a stone bridge across the moat and through a gate house in the south range, each of the two upper floors of which is jettied out over the floor beneath." --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I think I figured it out. It was the juxtaposition of "jetty" and "moat", and the awkward construction of the latter clause that foxed me. I've rewritten it slightly and I think it is clearer now. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query 

message: The lead has "a ginger bread house ...". Should that be gingerbread? --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It should indeed, and the quotation isn't quite right anyway, so I've fixed that too. George Ponderevo (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another query 

message: Is this a valid redlink? He seems only to be known for that one book. I can't quickly find any good sources on him. Thoughts? --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just wondering exactly the same thing myself. I say no, let's get rid of the redlink. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. No prejudice against creating this in the future should good sources become available. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leonard Meager 

message: I am not sure of the procedure for FAC so I will leave a few comments here. Please move them or delete. 
Lede- 
#As a German speaker my prose is flawed by a tendency to start every sentence with a subsidary clause. I see this here. # German grammar Now fully restored, the house is.... then At its greatest extent, in the mid-16th century, the Little Moreton Hall estate occupied.... and other examples
# -08; the remainder was constructed in stages by successive generations of the family until around 1610. Surely this should be - 08. The construction continued until around 1610; successive generations of the family supervising further stages. Citation needed?
# façades around three sides of a small cobbled courtyard A façade is a face of a building not a courtyard. Is façade the WP approved spelling of facade? Cobbled or cobble paved courtyard- the meaning of the former being ambiguous.
# At its greatest extent, in the mid-16th century, the Little Moreton Hal surely extent which occured in the mid-16th Better however to say The Little Moreton Hall estate which was at its greatest extent during the mid-16th century.... Is extent the best word to express the concept of largest? Now we move onto the the  iron bloomery with its cornmill, orchards and gardens and water-powered hammers. because that is the effect of the word with. Citation needed? wlinks needed to water powered hammers, cornmill types of orchard
# The gardens were abandoned until their 20th-century recreation. Recreation or re-creation? I am troubled by abandoned until. To abandon is final- were the gardens responsible for their own re-creation? were left in an abandoned state until the 20th-century, when they were re-created using published 17th century designs? Perhaps.  Citation needed? --ClemRutter (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll move your points to the FAC ClemRutter, and answer them there. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Style for FA

message: Laurie McKenna appears to have been the senior listing officer for Cheshire at the time this book was written, so I assume it's authoritative. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Note re McKenna

message: It is only because this such a wonderfully fascinating article that I am wanting to ask the meaning of "range" as it is used here. Is it simply the side of a building from a particular direction ("façade" being the front)? Maybe it is similar to "wing"? I have not found the word in Glossary_of_architecture, nor, I think, in wikt:range. Should it be there? The article is quite clear without me knowing exactly what the word means but some sort of link or note would be comforting. I've now struggled to get down my OED and it gives a meaning as "row of buildings or parts of buildings; or a continuous stretch of building". BTW, many thanks for all the work and for persevering through the FAC. Thincat (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "range" is more or less synonymous with "wing". --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Since asking I have spotted this diff suggesting that the article is deliberately using the words somewhat differently. Thincat (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

text: My understanding is that a wing is built in one go so to speak, whereas a range is constructed in stages, as the east range was. So the house was built originally with an east wing, but it now has an east range. In the case of the south range, it would seem odd to me to consider it to be a south wing to the east wing. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am away from my books- but to me a range is a grouping of many individual building that have been connected together, where a wing will be integral to the building. The stables and kitchens may be in a range on the opposide of the courtyard, but the parlour or a library will be in the south wing. I will look for references in Pevsner and Brunskill when we are reunited.--ClemRutter (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's what Pevsner says: "It [Little Moreton Hall] is timber-framed throughout except for the mighty brick chimneybreasts of all three ranges ...". George Ponderevo (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range? 

message: The previous rendition "by her shadow hide ye what clothes shee weare" doesn't make any sense. The 1883 book Historic sites of Lancashire and Cheshire : a wayfarer's notes in the Palatine counties, historical, legendary, genealogical and descriptive (p. 446) by James Croston has "hede ye", i.e "heed" as in "see or perceive", which must surely be right. I've changed it.
Admittedly, Croston also gives "Then" instead of "Than" as the start of the second clause; presumably in error.
Steve Graham (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grafitto 

message: Just so you know, these are the same thing. It should be ground floor, second floor, third floor. Why is it written this way??? Also, can we get a floor plan of the top floor? --98.246.156.76 (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What you describe is the American practice of describing floors. In England the first floor is above the ground floor. Nev1 (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

text: There are only two rooms on the upper floor, the Long Gallery and the Upper Porch Room, so a plan would add very little IMO. George Ponderevo (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Ground floor vs first floor

message: Giano mentioned the example of Montacute House earlier today, as an example of an article using a collapsed infobox. I've tweaked it a little to make it (to my eyes at least) a little more visually appealing, and I really am beginning to see this as a way forward to finally put these interminable infobox disputes to bed. I think it would be very easy to move the opening code to the infobox template, or a new version of it, should there be a consensus to move in this direction, to make it easier to use, but the more I look at it the more I like it. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at it. If you think that is a good compromise, fine. On my screen it's a lot of white space when the box is collapsed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because of the table of contents, and it was there before.  We're in sad shape if we need infoboxes to balance out the TOC. Instead, we should find a way to have text beside the TOC. Risker (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *It looks OK in my big desktop screen. I think this is the best compromise we can hope for. Randy Rabbit may have gone away, but there are plenty more like him up the borrow waiting to come out, so we have to find a solution to this. Even I can see that.  Giano  20:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

text: *:I think so too, and I agree with Risker that something ought to be done about the TOC as well, to reduce the slabs of white. I'm going to be bold and make this change to the article. If I'd known about this technique before I'd have been far less concerned about the deletion of the  template, which I no longer feel we really need. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

text: *:: Yes, go ahead, lets see if it works, and then we can look at what other fields would serve us. --ClemRutter (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Montacute House]] example

message: It looks very nice <said with a shudder>, but if it gets people of our backs and allows us to write without these constant interuption, I would agree to it on pages I own have heavily edited.  Giano  21:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we now have a way forward then, that everyone can sign up to? I'm pretty much completely agnostic about infoboxes, except for the visual clutter they so often create for no obvious benefit, but to accommodate those convinced of their benefits and those who think they're just "junk", this seems like the best compromise we're likely to be able to achieve. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's visually poor, with low accessibility and unhelpful to the people, wanting quick access to key points, that infoboxes are intend to help. It's also a model that has been rejected when tried elsewhere. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but better, but we do need to ponder a little before we tweak the figures in the infobox so it renders better on Firefox- it is fine on the Android. The fields need to be refined. ¡Hasta manana! --ClemRutter (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It renders just fine on Firefox for me. I agree with you about the need to refine the fields, and the whole template seems very flakey to me anyway, but as you say, that's for another day. George Ponderevo (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Once again Andy you are making assertions without providing any evidence. Where has this model been tried and rejected? I understand that you have an unwavering loyalty to visually obtrusive infoboxes, but at some point you're going to have to accept that others don't share your view, and that a compromise must be reached. Or as it's called here, a consensus. I've offered a compromise, but you're yet to budge even a single inch. Is that because you're convinced that you're "right"? Well get this; I'm just as convinced that Im "right", and that many of your arguments (such as the almost subliminal linking of infoboxes with metadata) are without merit, but I've been willing to try and reach a compromise solution nevertheless. George Ponderevo (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

text: *This form of info-box has been tried and tested on Montacute House for four years. As Mabbit (a Wikipedian in Residence) should know, Montacute is one of the UK's best known houses and architecturally famous houses; it has over 2,500 hits a month (90 a day). Until Mabbit wandered in off the street, everyone was quite happy with the box. I really don't think the tried and rejected argument holds any water. In fact, none of Mabbits's arguments do. He's on some form of obsessive crusade; so there is little point in engaging with him further.  Giano  08:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather alarmingly, it appears from this week's Signpost, featuring WikiProject Infobox, that Andy is one of the moderates on the project (2nd question). Johnbod (talk) 12:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

text: The new box seems to work well to my mind. I assume that any (commercial or non-commercial) applications outside the wiki-universe will be able to make use of the so-called "metadata" emitted from it, though its up to those with that interest to eventually let us know. One point is that there could do with being a bit of white-space in between the left border of the expanded box, and the right border of the text. I would try to access it on my Android phone from China (where I live now), but connections can be slow and unpredictable, depending on how trigger-happy about some perceived slight the operators of the Great Firewall can be (which is why I sometimes use a VPN service).  DDStretch  (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this is a bit late in the day to be asking, but what exactly is 'metadata'? and why is it so important?  Giano  15:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The way the term "metadata" is being bandied around here is incorrect. Quite simply, metadata is data about data; think about a database schema for instance, or an XML grammar, in which various properties of the data to be stored are defined, such as data type, maximum length of text fields, numeric precision and so on. Clearly nothing in an infobox qualifies as metadata in any meaningful sense, as it's simply an alternative representation of what the text of the article says. Why is it important? The short answer is that it isn't; the slightly longer answer is that those so wedded to infoboxes (which have nothing at all to do with metadata of course) believe that emitting data in a machine-readable format such as one of the microformats that have been mentioned a few times will one day facilitate the development of the Semantic Web, but that's just a leap of faith. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The [meta]data emitted by our infoboxes is already used by Google and Bing and has been praised by Yahoo; and is retrievable as JSON. Infoboxes are also parsed by DBpedia and made available using RDF. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What "metadata" is that? The only thing I can see that even remotely resembles metadata is field names (which aren't even standardised across infoboxes) fudged as CSS classes. And you've yet to explain why infoboxes, which are visual elements, are so intimately linked to this "metadata" in the first place. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Microformats are not dependent on field names. DBpedia has mapped our infobox field names. There is no such thing as "CSS classes". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: New Box - verdict.

message: ::::::::I never said that microformats were dependent on field names, so I don't know where you got that from. "No such thing as CSS classes"? Really? The CSS2 documentation I have open in front of me on my desk quite clearly explains the purpose of CSS classes, which is nothing to do with emitting metadata, so I don't know where you got the idea that there are no such things as CSS classes from either. And once again you have failed to answer the question you've been asked many times now; why is emitting of this "metadata" so intimately linked to a visual element such as an infobox? Do you ever answer questions that are put to you? George Ponderevo (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed! I recall teaching students about CSS classes... I also recall teaching some others about the underlying theory of how to write in a rational, persuasive way which conforms to all accepted standards of polite, yet hard and probing dialogue (it uses the ideas of the Canadian Philosopher, Douglas Walton, if anyone is interested).  DDStretch  (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: [ec] I have the CSS2 documentation in front of me, too, online. For example http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/selector.html#class-html - I have yet to find the string "CSS class" in it; and indeed neither can Google (Searching for 'site:www.w3.org/TR/CSS21 "css class"', without single quotes). I only find references to "classes", "class attributes", "pseudo-classes" and "Class selectors". Perhaps you could provide a citation? I'm happy for you to do so on my talk page, or elsewhere, as this is increasingly off-topic for this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  did you miss this one? It is one of the first my search engine found, and I thought it was useful because it come from wikpedia itself, and has some code that clearly indicates a class attribute being used. If the objection is that it is a "class attribute" rather than just a class, then you are tripping up over your overly literalist shoes again.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I didn't "miss" that, because I was searching a reliable source, not Wikipedia documentation; but I've fixed the error, thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

text: My overwhelming impression of this "discussion" is that Andy Mabbett never answers questions and never admits when he's wrong. It would be good to see some evidence in his future contributions that my impression is wrong. George Ponderevo (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

text: I see no reference to "CSS classes" by the W3C in the page you link to (the linked W3C page is part of the resource I mentioned, above), and only trivial mentions by Microsoft, in the titles, but not content, of minor documentation pages. Otherwise, mostly unreliable sources like chat forums and blogs. However, I did find http://tantek.com/2012/353/b1/why-html-classes-css-class-selectors which says 'Search the web for "CSS classes" and you'll find numerous well intentioned references which are imprecise at best, and misleading or incorrect at worst. There are no such things as "CSS classes"' - thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: (Sigh!) Ok then. I invite you to look at "Beginning CSS Web Development: From Novice to Professional" by Simon Collinson, published by APress in 2006, with ISBN(13): 978-1-59059-689-0. You need to go to Chapter 2, titled "Core Concepts of CSS". In that chapter, there is the following sections announced a little way into the beginning (I use my Kindle, because I am in China, and cannot easily buy the paper version, so I can't easily give page numbers): "ID vs. Class", and "Class". In the sub-section named "Class" we have the following text: "A class can be used an infinite number of times per page making it a very flexible method of applying CSS. A class defines an element as belonging to a group, or as a reusable object or style. Classes solve problems in the short term, but can provide less flexibility for more complicated CSS designs." There are other similar statements in this book and in others I possess. The publisher is reputable, and I've even heard positive things about the author elsewhere. Is there any wriggle-room left for you?  DDStretch  (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Does he call them "CSS classes"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

text: *I think this  says all we need to know. Mabbitt was banned for a year after this Arb case. It seems nothing changes . Wikipdian in Residence indeed. We don't need to be trying to placate him; he just wants banning again.  Giano  20:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Discursion on CSS classes / classes used in CSS

message: There is a discussion on hidden infoboxes in progress, which is relevant to this article. Voceditenore (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Hidden infoboxes]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Little Moreton Hall. 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://archive.is/20121224065208/http://virtualtours.nationaltrust.org.uk/little-moreton/home.html to http://virtualtours.nationaltrust.org.uk/little-moreton/home.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Little Moreton Hall. 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  tag to http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/history/view-page/item384575/259542/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110426172620/http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-littlemoretonhall to http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-littlemoretonhall
*Added  tag to http://pastscape.english-heritage.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=76089
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013115740/http://www.architecture.com/HowWeBuiltBritain/HistoricalPeriods/TudorsAndStuarts/ElizabethanDevice/LittleMoretonHall.aspx to http://www.architecture.com/HowWeBuiltBritain/HistoricalPeriods/TudorsAndStuarts/ElizabethanDevice/LittleMoretonHall.aspx
*Added  tag to http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/history/view-page/item1009321/259542/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130313044312/http://virtualtours.nationaltrust.org.uk/little-moreton/map-first.html to http://virtualtours.nationaltrust.org.uk/little-moreton/map-first.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The page referencing Sunday services at Little Moreton Hall is archived (see https://archive.ph/20121224143048/http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/history/view-page/item384575/259542/). Obviously they stopped in 2020. I can't find any reference to Sunday services on the current NT site or a wider search. Is it safe to say they no longer take place? BobKilcoyne (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunday services