This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lincolnshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lincolnshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LincolnshireWikipedia:WikiProject LincolnshireTemplate:WikiProject LincolnshireLincolnshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This has recently been changed. Both the old and new infoxes are pretty terrible. The new one has rightly removed a huge load of crap about dialling codes, police & fire areas and so on, but then added an even larger pile of doo-doo repetitiously giving every listed building reference number. This does not meet WP:INFOBOX. Johnbod (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I've explained on Constable Burton Hall how Grade I and Grade II* and parks are notable and how this is information that deserves to be put in the infobox for quick reference. By WP:INFOBOX: this information might be hard to integrate elsewhere, but relates strongly to the building and so this article (similar to some of the information on Chemical elements). People are not unlikely to be searching for information specifically about the gatehouse or gardens. This is the most concise way of presenting the information and, as this is a VERY important & quick source for these structures and buildings, it should be in the infobox. There should also be consistency between infoboxes in the British country house genre, and so, due to people also searching for garden/park information elsewhere, other articles have this information, and so so should these. EPEAviator (talk) 12:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really want to drive home the gardens point. I've just realised we are both mostly architectural editors... we represent the majority of readers on that front, I am sure, but there will certainly be a significant minority interested in the house almost solely for the gardens, and so on the page. So, garden information should definitely be in the infobox, however limited. EPEAviator (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is completely easy to include all listings info in the text, in its own section if it is lengthy. This is what should be done. Mobile users don't want to scroll though screens of this bureaucratic stuff, which tells you nothing about what the gardens are actually like. Typically, nor does the article. I'm all for adding info on gardens (which many of our readers are also interested in), but this is best done by adding text, not crufty data that should be in the references. I see others have also been reverting your expansions of infoboxes; this is the wrong path to take. Everything in the infobox is also supposed to be in the text - but not vice versa. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be mixing up removal of the redundant template boxes. Guilty as charged there, I copy in from a word document so I don't miss something like the map or double up coordinates. You are the only person who has reverted actual filled out listings as of recent. EPEAviator (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, two other editors have reverted your infobox changes in the last 24 hours, just from the articles on my watchlist. There will be more I'm sure. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have just checked my Summer's edits and I can only find one who has fully removed listings; you. On Montacute I made some errors that were cleared up in the process of the reversion & they have used a collapsible box.
Further, the number is irrelevant. I would like to work this properly through as I can see your reasoning but also think that (and am aware of others doing the same) this information should be there. Do I think some of the listings are superfluous? Some of them I do not have interest in but assumed others did (as I had seen similar things listed elsewhere/mentioned in the article), but as a general rule I think House + Garden + Stables if GI/work by a significant architect is pretty reasonable to be considered a summation of the article. (Grade I listed => important historical architectural site), the infobox exists to highlight this in a similar way to the Chemistry one to how the actual architecture can be overlooked on many shorter pages; it gives this information to the reader, as the listing is important. This is the standard way of presenting the listing across this type of house, I am mostly involved in expanding it to smaller houses as of now. EPEAviator (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
