Cheshire NA‑class Top‑importance

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Cheshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cheshire 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.CheshireWikipedia:WikiProject CheshireTemplate:WikiProject CheshireCheshire articles NA This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This page has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive Index Archive 1 Archive 2

Hello project,

It's a long time off (although seems to come around so quickly), but I've created a version of the Cheshire county map with the expected boundaries for 2009. It's found at Image:Cheshire_outline_map_with_UK_(2009).png. Just wanted the project to be aware of these for when (if) the time comes. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the experiences of some editors in nominating Cheshire articles for FA has not been universally positive, and neither has it always been a positive experience even at GA.

But there are now some very good Cheshire articles that are very close to FA. Maybe getting one or more of them to FA would give the project a well-deserved boost, and examples to follow. I mention this because at Wikipedia talk:Content review/workshop there has been some discussion about how to increase the number of featured articles, as a result of which a volunteer team of experienced FA editors has been set up. The aim is for them to ally with an active team from a WikiProject that knows the content side of things and is interested in taking an article to FA. The goal would be to help the project ramp up FA production, and to discover if this is a good way of sharing skills between content editors and people who know the FA process.

If anyone would be interested in trying out this idea, then please reply here. I'd have to admit that when I first heard about this FA team idea, Runcorn immediately sprang into my mind. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't see the point - see my comments above Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cheshire#Featured articles. It's a lot of jumping through hoops and (in most cases) doesn't improve the correctness of what's said (since it is unlikely that the FA reviewers will be in a position to check the correctness of an article), only the way it's said. Salinae (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's surely always a point in producing better articles? In spite of the unfortunate Runcorn episode described above, I think that in the overwhelming majority of cases articles are very definitely improved by both the GA and FA processes. And not just in presentation, but also in content and accuracy. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right that articles are improved by the process of getting them to GA or FA review - however the actual review itself is too hit and miss. Using Middlewich as an example, the two GA reviews brought up some points, however they were very US centric (because of the reviewers). The review by Espresso Addict was much more useful. My problem with the review is that often the people doing the review cannot do a technical review (in the way a peer-reviewed scientific paper would be) since they do not know enough about the subject, and/or have access to the reference material. Instead the review concentrates wholly on grammar and prose (this was certainly the case for the two Middlewich GA reviews). I think the idea of getting the article to GA or FA class is good, but I don't see the point in actually getting a GA/FA review done. Salinae (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously I have a lot of sympathy for your own particular experiences with the GA process. I know that in the past there has been discord between what US reviewers expect and what is reasonable for small UK towns and villages. I remember getting rather frustrated when a US reviewer demanded to know where Sale got its water from not so very long ago. But the development last year of the WP:UKCITIES guidelines has gone a long way towards addressing that problem. There are now quite a number of UK settlement GAs and even FAs conforming to that guideline.

Whatever your view on this FA team idea, what say you that we have another go at getting GA for Middlewich? We can do that ourselves pretty easily I think. The only disgreement I have with what you've said is that you can never know whether you've got the article to GA/FA standard until someone unconnected with it agrees that you have. So shall we try for GA again, together this time? :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go on then - you've twisted my arm! :-) Salinae (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I've made a few changes to the article over the past day or so, but I haven't done anything radical. There are still a few areas that I'm certain will be problematic at GA though, but living 20-odd miles away I don't have access to the sources that you do. :-) So to get things going, I suggest that I list what I see as the GA "problem" areas on the article's talk page, looking at the article like a (UK) GA reviewer, and then you can agree with me or not. How does that sound? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think working Middlewich towards GA in the way you suggest is an excellent idea. I guess this would be a model for working on other Cheshire articles towards GA (or even FA). It will be interesting to see how it progresses. I also guess that Salinae has felt a bit "lonely" during the work done on Middlewich and with team support it should be easier - I certainly felt rather on my own when I was struggling with Runcorn. Bon voyage! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If any Cheshire-based photographers could take snaps of (current or former) courts in their neck of the woods (Crown Courts, County Courts and magistrates courts) and add them to commons:Category:Courthouses in the United Kingdom, the photographs would be very much appreciated for List of courts in England and Wales and List of county courts in England and Wales. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 22:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles have now been written for all the Grade I and II* listed Cheshire churches - at least all I can find on Images of England. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As my article on the Acton CP was getting out of hand length-wise, I have started an article for the related ancient parish: Acton, Cheshire (ancient parish). I'm not sure if this is the best name for it, but there would certainly have been other APs of the same name in the UK, as it just means Oak Town. If these articles are going to be created in more than very small numbers, we could do with some thought as to the nomenclature and categorisation for them. I'm not sure if this is the best name for it, though it looks like the other Cheshire Acton, now Acton Bridge wasn't an AP. For now, I've just categorised it under Category:History of Cheshire. Thoughts most welcome, I really know nothing about this area at all (which is partly why I wanted to split it from Acton, Cheshire!). Espresso Addict (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I must go ahead and start the article I've been planning called "Ancient parishes of Cheshire". In which case, the naming scheme you've used seems reasonable to me, though others may suggest a better one. If necessary, the History of Cheshire category could have a suitable sub-category called something like "Ancient parishes of Cheshire", but unless more articles are split off from the overall "Ancient parishes" article, then it probably wouldn't be too much use. As a general strategy, I suggest that all information can begin in the Ancient parishes article, and get split out into separate articles ahen and if it "gets out of hand". I'm trying to adopt the same strategy for Hundreds of Cheshire, though only Hundred of Wirral is currently separate, and I think that article could be easily merged into the overall one, as it is mainly just a list of settelemnts at the moment. Since you are finding that theres enough material in the Acton case to put in a separate article, it probably would be in need of being split off in any overall Ancient parishes article as well, so I don't see any problem with that. Does that help at all? Any comments? (I'm still working on Diocese of Chester and Hundreds of Cheshire, and would be drawing up suitable maps for any Ancient Parishes article, as I have done for those two already, but it can be a bit time-consuming.)  DDStretch  (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A stub for Ancient parishes of Cheshire would be helpful, I think, even if just as a placeholder for linking to. Redirects or very short stubs for the sub-articles might be useful, even if there's no content to speak of, just so that people outside the project can find articles when they link to or search for phrases like "Nantwich Hundred", and thus find the main Hundreds of Cheshire article. Maps are a wonderful idea, and I'm not surprised that they are taking a lot of time to compile.

I don't know how far I will develop Acton, Cheshire (ancient parish); there are some events that cross the boundaries of the CPs/townships, such as the Battle of Nantwich, which might be at least mentioned there? Just teasing out history of what split from Acton when might well be too detailed for a top-level article. And there are also what look like AP population figures available at Vision of Britain Through Time, though it's hard to distinguish population change from boundary change.

At the moment, though, I'm focusing on working through the modern Acton, with the hope that a GA might eventually prove possible! Espresso Addict (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at the moment, I'm very much in favour of doing what Peter I. Vardy has done with Secondary education in the Borough of Halton, where he has consolidated a number of very short articles (at risk from deletion nominations) into one large article, with redirects for all the high schools put in place to point to the relevant sections within it. This then allows individual articles to be split off from it if and when it seems sensible to do it. It removes the threat of deletion to individual articles, as the overall article can easily pass the notability tests. I think this "top down" strategy could be used in more cases, and we should consider using it whenever we are faced with similar situations. I'll get on with it shortly (this evening). I think, and I'll certainly put stubs in place for the hundreds article soon as well. I envisage we could do something along similar lines for modern ecclesiastical parishes, the old pre-1974 but post 1948(?) local government areas as well. At least that is the idea I have had in my mind for a little while.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those that don't watch the Cheshire portal subpages, I've just done a belated update. Suggestions for what to use in subsequent months would be useful! For those new to the project since the last update, there's a suggestions page for articles, biographies & images, as well as a timetable for suggested items without objections. We're still particularly short of good suggestions for biographies.

PS If you're new to the project, I'd encourage you to list all your new articles & stubs in the relevant sections of the main Wikiproject page, as that's where I draw the material for the "Newest articles" section. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 19:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if it would be useful to maintain a list of free online resources that are relevant to the project. I'm sure many, like the Images of England, Geograph, Genuki, Vision of Britain through Time and Neighbourhood Statistics will be well known to most, but Peter I. Vardy recently pointed me towards the UK Database of Historic Parks and Gardens, and I've only recently discovered the UK National Inventory of War Memorials and the very handy Cheshire County Council: Interactive Mapping. Also people might not realise how much is available for free via Cheshire library card log-in -- the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, for a start.

I'm aware that the UK project lists some resources at the bottom of How to write about settlements, but I don't know how one would go about adding resources or comments to it. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a brilliant idea. I struggle to know where to go to find the info I want. It may of course exist somewhere in Wikipedia but if it does I've never found it. How to write about settlements is not very "friendly". There are lots of sites I've come across and it would be good to have a place to record them and make them available to others. Such as Pastscape, Romanesque architecure, for stained glass, British History Online: Cheshire, etc etc. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea. I suggest a specific section on the project page for them. The two parts to vol 5 of the Victoria History of the County of Chester were online, but I can't seem to locate them now (the site they used to be at is not really functioning anymore). The two parts dealt with Chester itself, and so should also be added to the list if they can be relocated. I also make use of the Election maps site ( http://www.election-maps.co.uk/ ) to sort out parliamentary constituencies and so on. The websites for the districts and boroughs probably should also be added as I have often found they can be used either directly or indirectly (to find other links) to yield useful information.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the list could get quite long, I think we should probably make it a project subpage, but linked clearly from the main project page, perhaps in the Important subpages box, as I think it would be most useful to newcomers to the project.

I agree with adding the borough websites; I use Crewe & Nantwich quite frequently. (I hope that information doesn't get lost if/when the reorganisation goes ahead!) The interactive mapping site I mentioned also gives the election districts, by the way. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a subpage: Online resources. It contains the urls that are mentioned above, as well as one or two others. Feel free to add/comment! Espresso Addict (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment on Talk:Old Dee Bridge about the use of ChesterTourist.com as a reference. Is this a reliable source? It says itself that it is an unofficial site and some of the comments made seem to be without foundation. Here it has a legend about Edward I and this has just been copied into the article. Does anyone have more reliable information and references about the bridge to improve the Old Dee Bridge article? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with you. There is or was strong links between that site and the person who added enormous amounts of unreferenced material to Deva Victrix and other articles about Chester, and never responded to any messages inviting them to help wikipedia and those articles by beginning to add references to the articles. On another matter, I'm also not sure just why Hanford has the Welsh name added to its reference (and note its another one which has the Welsh name given in the lead in the article itself) when it is not clear just why it should be specially marked out in this way. I have a reference to the Old Dee Bridge as dating back to Saxon times (as it was mentioned in the Domesday Book), and I'll try to dig out some more. (The reference is on page 7 of the book: Wilding, R. (1997). Miller of Dee.:The story of Chester mills and millers, their trades and wares, the weir, the water engine and the salmon. Chester: Gordon Emery. isbn 1-872265952.)  DDStretch  (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Sankey (a glance at its recent editing history will make clear what this section is about.) We may need to be aleart to the fact that some editors are being rather quick off the mark on tagging entire articles as unsourced, and when the unsourced tags are removed (correctly removed), we may even be faced with a deluge of individual unsourced tags being placed on the article. In this case, the editor concerned isn't a new editor, though I note their talk page has at least one other message about this extremely quick kind of tagging that can interfere (as it did with me on one occasion) with ongoing editing. I tend to create articles in wikispace rather than userspace, as I think it conforms more with what wikipedia is about concerning collaborative work, but I wonder how others approach doing this? It does mean that my created articles tend to be invalid as DYK nominations (see Ancient parishes of Cheshire as an example of a long-term ongoing article creation.) A related discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Bite the newbies and get rewarded with an adminship about overly swift applications of the Speedy Deletion tags to newly-created articles, and some have suggested that this has come about as a result of the ways in which candidates are increasingly being assessed in RfAs (it shows up the deficiencies in the RfA process if this is true, in my opinion.) In the case of Great Sankey, I do wish the editor concerned had forewarned editors about what he was proposing to do. So, what do others suggest we do, if anything, for articles that fall within our remit here?  DDStretch  (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a discussion! I tend to work in my sandbox for new articles and for significant changes to existing articles so that (1) I can concentrate on it in my own time and (2) I don't get b*ggered about by other editors while I am in "creative mode". I did this today with the Haslington-related topics. Collaborative stuff can come later when my own stuff feels sort of complete. But I do think there is a difference between articles with potential for expansion (eg civil parishes) and rubbish (Joe is a good chap). If an article is being actively edited (and the history will tell that) it should be left. There are thousands of articles out there which have not been touched for months and are entirely unreferenced. Those going for adminship (if this sort of thing really helps) could do some useful work with these. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It takes a little bit of effort to find those articles though, compared to just patrolling new pages. I tend to prefer working in the full public glare, and so don't do much article building in my sandbox, but we're all different. I do wholeheartedly agree with your distinction between articles that have the potential for expansion and those that don't, and for me that ought to be the only criteria; instead of tagging it, fix it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that one should fix it rather than tag it, but I am disappointed with the renewed slew of tagging that gets done to the Great Sankey article as soon as I remove the inuse template. Most of what is being tagged is of old stuff that has been there for ages, but the amount of individual sentences that are being tagged would result in incomprehensibility if applied, say, to Ancient parishes of Cheshire, and yet the solution I supplied in Great Sankey (which I had seen used elsewhere) was deemed unsatisfactory to the tagger. If he ever sees Ancient parishes of Cheshire, tagging almost everything he is likely to tag would result in hundreds of individually-cited references to different pages of a relatively small number of sources.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it helps if the first version of the article saved into wikispace has at least one (preferably inline) reference. I've always tried to do this, and only once had problems with overzealous tagging (though I realise now I'm an admin, my creations are no longer patrolled). The other trick is to put something like "Creating article on XXX; intend further work" as the edit summary if one has to leave the article in an unfinished state for any reason.

Regarding frequency of citations, I believe one per paragraph is generally deemed adequate for everything except featured status, although precise numbers and quotations should usually be cited. You could always try placing a reference to the whole book at the end of each paragraph as an interim measure to get rid of the annoying slew of tags.

I'm not sure that the discussion about RfAs is based in much reality as to how RfA works. In my experience, civility is one of the key things people are looking for. I certainly managed to acquire the mop without doing any speedy tagging! Espresso Addict (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I did put three references at the head of a section delaing with demographics (which I hadn't written, in fact) in Great Sankey in response to the unsourced template, and stated that all the subsequent subsections used information from those references, but this was obviously not sufficient for the editor, as it resulted in templates being added to every one of the subsections! Additionally (not in our project, but it is where I live, and so it is on my watchlist and I have edited a bit, but not much) Smallthorne has two sections where almost every sentence has been individually tagged by the same editor - actually I note that some references I am sure I included have been removed at some point. As I said, this does not bode well for Ancient parishes of Cheshire, which, on the editor's current form, he will get around to looking at as he seems to be looking at articles I have edited in the past for some reason (though I don't think this is their aim to concentrate on me). For this article, if an inline reference is explicitly needed for each cell in all of the tables, it will be a disaster!  DDStretch  (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be helpful in Great Sankey to provide inline citations for all the numbers provided in the demogs section, as they're not from precisely the same source. However, I've consolidated the "citations needed" tagging as the multiple tags in each subsection were just getting silly. In tables, there's often a column for references, which doesn't take up too much space, and you could put a note on general sources in the table footnotes. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I may do that, but my enthusiasm for editing that article has been a little drained, as my previous edits always provoked an almost immediate slew of new tags, often to parts of article I had not edited before. In terms of the column for references idea in tables, I could do that, but it would make the tables much more wide. Let me think while I try to complete them at the moment. At the moment, it is fairly clear where the facts' verifications come from, even though they are not present as inline citations, and, as I said, I have seen quite successful articles (perhaps even FA status articles that achieved FA status after the need for verification was written into the guidelines) use this technique.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask for some help accessing local knowledge, from members of this wikiproject, on the behalf of the new WikiProject Museums? We are currently trying to identify articles within the Museum projects scope (& develop guidelines to help improve them etc). There is a List of museums in Cheshire. Could you take a look at the list for your local area and see if any are missing or create articles for any red links. Could you also add the new project banner "{{WikiProject Museums}}" to the Talk pages of the articles, so that we can identify those in need of work etc. Any help appreciated &, if anyone is interested you are welcome to join the project or discuss Museum related articles on the Project Talk Page.— Rod ^talk 13:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a load (yesterday) and tried to put in either websites or contact details for them, too, to reassure people that they are real (like the "Cuckoo Clock Museum", for instance). May be there are more, or there are some which could be added but which I thought were outside the remit of the project? What kinds of places which one might not immediately think of as museums would be included?  DDStretch  (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, thats great. The remit & scope of the project is still being refined but it includes art galleries, heritage centres, historic houses that include interesting exhibits & are open to the public, museum ships etc but not zoos and aquariums (? aquaria) & the like as they are covered by other projects. Take a look at WikiProject Museums & its talk page for more.— Rod ^talk 11:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a bit of care before adding articles on smaller local museums, such as Nantwich Museum, as I recall they have been deleted at AfD in the past. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is another instance where an overall article, titled perhaps, Museums in Cheshire could usefully be about all of them, with notable ones (some of which already exist) being split off from it?  DDStretch  (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Museums of/in Cheshire would be a useful article. Additionally, the ones of purely local interest could be included in the appropriate local article (town, CP). "Merge with locality" tends to be the AfD outcome for such entities. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a long-running content dispute about the appropriateness of certain material added to Talk:The King's School, Chester#Despite discussion, how can the continuing dispute about adding the CCF past and present leaders in a series of lists be resolved?. I think it could do with some additional views from people who have been uninvolved up to now. Since this project has a banner on the talk page, it seemed sensible to invite people from this project to comment. Could I politely invite anyone with the time or inclination to read through the dispute and comment on the article's talk page? The article is under full protection at the moment, to stop the edit-warring that was going on with respect to the disputed material, and it could do with being resolved, one way or another, to allow development of the article to proceed. Thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am appalled at the state of the Chester article, a key article and one that ought to be setting a standard for this project. Is there some reason why it's so poor? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been in a far far worse state, believe me. The reasons may well be various: too few active members of the project, too busy fighting fires elsewhere and writing other articles more close to one's home and interests. There's also been a high incidence of vandalism at times and poor-quality editing that adds tons of pictures and/or slews of text that seem to be from a tourist site, or wrangles with editors who think things should be done a different way, or who think certain sites should be included even though it goes against wikipedia's policy. Speaking for myself, it got so dispiriting that, given that Chester is a place I know comparatively little about, I just went and edited something else I knew better. I agree it is in a very bad state. But there again, there is much to do in many articles and many of them are in a poor state within the project.  DDStretch  (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do know what you mean. There are lots of articles that I've completely given up on as hopeless cases. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's always easier to start a new article properly than to fix a poor quality existing one, especially one that isn't referenced. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been a problem since I arrived at Wikipedia (and presumably before), but the challenge has always seemed too great. It will have to be rewritten, I think, virtually from scratch (this had to be done for Runcorn and Widnes). The project has 32 avowed participants. Could someone with the necessary reference material take this on? Or perhaps individuals could take on sections (History, Governance, Transport, etc.) and build up a much better article, which we must all agree, is a key article. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking back at the article's history. There have been sporadic attempts to work at improving the article, and back in November 2007, I edited the names and sequence of sections to make it conform more to WP:UKCITIES. Others have done work from time to time too. I've also tried to do something to the Governance section, and added material about the toponymy. The problem is that none of the active members of the project know much about the city, and, although I have some source material for what could go into parts of the article, my information is not complete. So, I'd support Peter's idea of us having effectively a task-force of the project to work on the article, with people taking on different sections. I could take on Governance and try to sort out the existing references so that they conform with guidelines (small work, compared with what needs to be done, I agree), but if we are to do this, it might be an idea to work on it section-by-section basis, and possibly in a sandbox somewhere prior to inserting in the article, which means a group effort for each section. I am easy with either approach. We need to harness some enthusiastic editors who may not yet be fully aware of all the issues about structuring articles, the need for reliable sources, and so on. However, if a group of us agree to make a start on it, I'm in. It is an article we should ideally be prioritizing.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could start a Collaboration of the Month with Chester, and advertise it on the portal. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) That would be a good idea!

On the matter of references, I've just tried to track down the books listed in the Further Reading section to see if the full detauis can be retrieved. So far, I've discovered that all the Emery G. books are apparently self-published, as they have G. Emery down as both the author (sometimes with others) and the publisher. I've got one of the other books myself ("The Miller of Dee" one), and I know that the Lewis 2007 one was added by the author, though it is a researched book that looks into the disaster. Given what I read on the various pages to do with Reliable Sources, along with comments by a frequent closer of FAC articles, it seems that more attention is being given to the quality of the sources used, and so I suggest that if we have an effort to improve this article, we need to pay particular attention to the sources.

As for the Emery books, they were added in July 2006 by 81.7.35.216, who from the edit summaries, is the author. I don't know what status these books would have from the point of view of reliable sources, but I imagine they would be problematic if they were used as sources, and may even be so in a further reading section, given what I have read on wikipedia about self-publishing.

Finally, there's an annoying "op. cit." in teh footnotes, when there is no unambiguous way of determining what the source referred to actually is. I'll try to sort some of these out. Even if the sections are re-written, we may be able to reuse some of the references already supplied.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to help by taking on a section or two as well. I share DDStretch's concern about some of the current references as well. The standards for reliable sources seem to have got quite a bit tougher recently. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I'd like to help if I can. My editing time is limited at the moment, but this is something that has been long overdue for sorting out. I'm no expert by any means, although I have some knowledge of the city and the surrounding area, having spent time there studying some years back. I could assist with sorting out the formatting & finding citations/refs. I'm glad others feel the same as I do about the sorry state of the article. I too have been put off editing on this article because I thought it was a lost cause (for various reasons). It should be the flagship article of WP:Cheshire. Snowy 1973 (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me too! I share all the above concerns, but I'd still love to help where I can! --Jza84 |  Talk  14:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's listed on the portal as "Collaboration of the Month". As it's mid-month, I suggest we see how far we can get until the end of May. Someone capable of banner design might like to make one. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I've sorted out, as far as I can, the Further Reading section. I found a surprisingly large number of errors, including missing authors, short-form titles, and wrong isbn numbers. I'm not sure many of them should be included, though I have the Wilding one about The Miller of Dee that does give some information about early indiustry. Amongst the problems are self-publishing, and the unknown quality of many of the publications. I'm almost inclined to remove all of them. What do others think?

I'm willing to have a go at a section on Landmarks (including tourist attractions) plus Religious sites (which may well be incorporated in one section). It will be a bit complicated to sort out thoughts initially so at least the first phase will be in my sandbox. Then when it goes live, I would appreciate help with copyediting, etc. Regarding self-publishing, I guess it's a bit like personal web pages. If they are well and reliably referenced, they should be OK; if not, in my opinion, they should go. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do the same as Peter, but for the Governance section  DDStretch  (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a new section Landmarks and tourist attractions which is a bit long, but this reflects the quantity of material under this heading. It is fully referenced and I hope complete-enough. It will need copyediting and maybe additions, if these are sufficiently notable. The new section means there is duplication elsewhere in the article which we will have to work through (and a lot of the material in the article should be deleted anyway). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now started work on the notable people section. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing the governance section, but I'm wondering what detail should go into it: should I include detailed historical stuff about the parliamentary constituency, for example, or just concentrate on the more recent history and the present day? Any advice?  DDStretch  (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I'd be inclined to stick to the recent past on the governance section, as the History of Chester has already been hived off to another article. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the governance section should concentrate on the recent past, but in the interests of being comprehensive, I really think that some history should be included especially since the history of Chester article is poorly referenced and doesn't have a specific 'history of governance' section. Nev1 (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we must have replied at the same time -- I didn't see yours before I made mine! I'd agree history of governance is a legitimate topic, but I don't think it's as urgent to include it now as to edit much of the rest of the article into better shape. As to whether it should be under History of Chester or as a subsection in Governance, I don't think it matters much either way, as long as the Governance section points to it if it's placed in the History of Chester article. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're suggesting prioritising that's fair enough: there's no need to go to the effort when there are other parts which need attention more urgently. Let's just hope it doesn't get forgotten :-) Nev1 (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Peter. "Landmarks and tourist attractions" looks like an excellent summary, and given the amount of material mentioned eg by Pevsner, I don't think it's too long. I think it needs amalgamating with much of the following section, currently entitled "Present day", and the photographs need redistributing and/or replacing. Perhaps some of "Present day" could also be moved into history, as it seems to relate to 20th/21st century development? Espresso Addict (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UKCITIES suggests including information on "changes in governance made throughout the history of the settlement—what was its former status? its former administrative district and/or county? etc"; it is otherwise a bit vague on what historical stuff can go in. How Chester is governed today is the most important facet of a governance section, but the historical stuff should definitely be included too, probably in a 'history' subsection of governance. The way I see it is being comprehensive rather than superfluous if that's your concern.

On a different note, I've sorted out the Roman bit of the history section. Nev1 (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I agree that "Present Day" should go - completely - and the material therein deleted or amalgamated with other sections. Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements does not include such a section. And the photos need sorting (or removing and/or replacing) but maybe this will be done when the article is nearing its completion. I think a brief history of governance is worth including to give some perspective of the current situation, while concentrating mainly on the present. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Notable people are now in prose and each one is referenced. I have excluded those for whom I cannot confirm birth in the city. It's a bit bare and I should think there are more (and more notable) people around. I think we should add residents of Chester as well as those born in the city - the residents will often have more influence in the city than those who happened to be born there and moved away. Please add those you can find. If editors add people who are not blue-linked or are unreferenced should, in my opinion, be deleted asap. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with adding residents. I think we can leave red-linked people who obviously meet the notability requirements (eg have ODNB entries) as many British biographies are currently missing. However, we should definitely require inline citations to solid sources for such entries. Red links might become a problem with GA or FA review, but we can always quickly create stubs if references are given. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments about governance. I had read WP:UKCITIES and noted that it mentioned history, but whilst writing, wondered at the degree of detail required. Since I started to write about the history in some detail, what i will do is continue with that, place it in a relevant section in History of Chester and then summarize it with some expansion of the present day governance issues for Chester.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good compromise. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As members of the project may already have noticed, the Deva article was promoted to GA today (17 April). It's been suggested on the talk page that it could be improved further to FA and I think it's definitely worth doing. It's a very important subject and deserves a good, comprehensive article. As such, I'm asking for any help people can give, especially copy editing. It would also be great if someone could find or take some better images, the current ones are ok, but there must be a better one of at least the amphitheatre. There's currently a peer review of the article going on so feel free to drop by and add your opinions. Nev1 (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! It was one article that I despaired of, in the state it was before you took on the task of editing it into shape.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed the addition to Audlem whilst trying to sort out some slight undesirable edits (someone had changed the map_type in the infobox to Wales, which didn't work). I noticed the section about it voting to become part of Wales. The first inline EL isn't relevant (and could be removed) which leaves only the second inline EL to a BBC news report. My question is: Is this of sufficient notability to have such a dominant section to the article? A similar dispute which led to me being called all kinds of names has happened to Adlington, Cheshire about an accident which deposited mango chutney on the road. Would it be possible for us to discuss this a little?  DDStretch  (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Audlem, only 80 people voted to become part of Wales out of 1,790 population (4.5%), so I'd say not sufficiently notable for more than a brief mention. It's perhaps part of the general feeling hereabouts (I live a few miles up the road) that the split to Cheshire East is unlikely to be positive for this region.

Re: the mango chutney, I'd be in favour of removing it altogether per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but there is little guidance as to what constitutes sufficiently important and it might well genuinely be the most important thing to happen in the village for years. I get the feeling from the tone of the comments on the talk page, however, that the pro-mango editors aren't entirely serious. I have removed it and watched the page -- no doubt I shall get attacked for being pro-espresso & anti-chutney...

As a more general point, is there any way of setting up a project watch page for all the articles tagged by the project? I only watch those I've edited, so I tend to miss these spats. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at the Audlem website [1], there appear to be several news stories about this linked there (eg in the Independent [2], and the poll now has a lot more votes (though I see no mechanism for restricting it to Audlem residents). I think the current section is overlong, but the story does seem to have generated broad media interest, including national newspapers. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, my opinion is that the vote should get a mention (of one or at the most two sentences) with links to say the BBC and Independent stories, which should be sufficient for the article. What this does bring to light is the enormous amount of work needing to be done to articles on Cheshire settlements; the Audlem article is pretty scrappy and poorly referenced. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little Moreton Hall
Little Moreton Hall, the south wing constructed cira 1570
General information
Architectural style	Timber framed
Town or city	Congleton, Cheshire
Country	England
Completed	15th century
Client	Richard de Moreton

Someone added an HTML comment to Little Moreton Hall asking that no infobox be added to the article. I don't know why this was put in. The person who added it has added similar messages, all undiscussed and as far as I know unexplained, to many other articles. Does anyone know why such a comment should be put there? (I removed it pending a discussion.)  DDStretch  (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems rather bizarre, I can't think of a good reason, we'll just have to wait until the editor in question decides to respond to your question on his talk page. You asked him at 21:49, and he's edited since then so he may be ignoring the issue. There's even an infobox that is perfect for articles such as Little Moreton Hall: Infobox Historic building. Nev1 (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suspected an infobox like that exists. Odd.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm copying over my comments from the talk page of the article. 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) 22:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that this Argument from authority is convincing in this instance. Can you point to any FA submissions where an infobox for articles like this has failed? Are there any guidelines or policies about this? If not, I would have thought that specifying some and getting broader consensus about this would have been the way forward. Incidentally, Little Moreton Hall isn't just an article about architecture, and doesn't have any project templates on its talk page showing an interest from any archiatecture project. Finally, I would have thought that unilaterally or pre-emptively adding the comment to 60-odd pages would lead to quite a few identical conversations about this, and there should be a better way forward than risking 60-odd reversions and requests for discussion. On the whole, I'm afraid I am unconvinced by this.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes are good things, used to give quick facts in a simple format. I don't understand the logic as to what damage they do? Surely they benefit our readers. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They can be damaging because they take up a lot of space, and they displace all images in the article down below them. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too find the argument from some supposed authority to be quite unconvincing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that sometimes architecture would be difficult to fit into an infobox, but I have to disagree about it not improving the overall article. I think that used properly it can be a good aid to the lead, helping to get across some of the bare essentials. At the very least the inclusion of a map is a benefit to the article. I completely agree that featured articles should be used as templates for other articles but that doesn't mean that they cannot be improved, despite official descriptions of FAs as "finished articles". I think it's worth considering including infoboxes in all historic building articles. Have you seen the template? There are fields for all sorts of things. Nev1 (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd better say no more on this topic for now, as my well-known bluntness may get the better of me. Suffice to say I remain unconvinced by arguments from self-appointed authorities. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit, I have long been of the opinion that infoboxes are overused. Being used to print publishing where page layout is critical, I habitually balance my text and images with care, and find the addition of a long and unsightly infobox which adds little of value and displaces the images in the body of the article rather annoying. Specifically in the Little Moreton Hall article, adding an infobox would mean that one of the images would have to be deleted, and the lead image reduced in size. In St Michael's Church, Marbury, the very long infobox means that the extra images have had to be made into a gallery. On the other hand, the infobox works well in filling the space on the right generated by a long contents box, particularly where the article is only sparsely illustrated, see eg Crewe Hall. I think we have to take their addition on a case-by-case basis, and bear in mind the views of the editor who has created much of the text. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've generally found them pretty useless myself. Part of the problem is that the same article falls under the context of multiple projects, and each one likes their infobox best, and wants the facts they consider key to be included. By the time everyone is satisfied, the infobox can easily take up half the length of the page, and completely throws off any balance to the article. With architecture articles particularly, a larger than usual main image is important, otherwise key details of the building are not easily visible on smaller screens. In this case, the image would have to be reduced by about 40% to fit into an infobox, rendering it essentially useless. Risker (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's possible to increase the width of the infobox image. I've tried various syntaxes without success in the past, but wikicoding defeats me. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was mentioned that infoboxes can clash with images; just left align them in the upper sections. Infoboxes should take precedence over images; the former contains useful information, the latter is not a tier to obtaining GA or FA. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem to work with all infoboxes -- at least I remember spending ages trying to get images to appear to the left of one infobox without success. Also, I suspect putting images to the left of an infobox would be against the MoS, which states "Avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other" and would probably apply to infoboxes.

As to whether infoboxes are more important than images, that appears to be a matter of personal opinion, as the differing views being expressed here attest. The GA criteria state that images are preferred ("It is illustrated, where possible, by images") and the FA criteria actually require them, while neither guidelines mention infoboxes. Images provide information that isn't in the article; infoboxes in general should merely be summarising information that already exists. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to explain why the architecture project: WP:WPARCH then has infoboxes mentioned as things that can be added to articles? Furthermore, the project even has tools that can be transcluded to generate starter articles that include infoboxes in them (see WP:WPARCH#Help for authors)? I find it very odd why they exist, given that an argument was advanced against including an infobox in an article (Little Moreton Hall) concerned with architecture, and which used the fact that the article was concerned with architecture. Finally, can I politely ask again if there are any examples of FA candidates being rejected because they included an infobox, and also (a new one) whether any have passed when they included an infobox. I think a general rule requesting no infoboxes has not been justified so far.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added what the Little Moreton Hall infobox would look like to the top of this discussion for editors to have a look at (probably the wrong place to stick it I know, but I couldn't think of anywhere else). Can you really say the image is too small to be of use and that the infobox serves no purpose? Nev1 (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what a reader would want to see IMO. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though we should not be fixing the size of images in articles but leaving this to user preference. Keith D (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a point that was niggling me, as I, too, thought that there was a view that we should not be fixing the size of images in articles: if the viewers should see an image of a good size in order to appreciate the text, then shouldn't it be possible to do this by simply clicking on the image? In fact, wouldn't this be the only way of getting an image of sufficient size to satisfy some of the needs to show ceratin aspects of the architecture? In which case, then an argument based on the size of image shown in an infobox doesn't really have as much force as it may have at first appeared.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the MoS currently says. The guideline now is that image sizes shouldn't be fixed at less than the maximum that users can set in their preferences, 300px. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okey Dokey. That then leaves the strange inconsistency in the arguments being advanced here, and the tools that are given in, say, WP:WPARCH#Help for authors. However, the issue of being able to click on an image to see it at a greater size, and the fact that sometimes this may be necessary to illustrate a point about architecture still means the argument about image size has less force than it appears to have. Finally, we still have the unanswered questions about articles with or without infoboxes gaining or being refused FA status. I think this surely has to be considered on a case by case basis, and the mass addition of the comment doesn't appear like a case by case process was in operation here.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the MOS now stands we appear to be violating it with most of our infoboxes as we are fixing the image at 240px to 250px which is less than the 300px Keith D (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out here that the MOS does not state that images should be at a specific size. It states that the image itself should be no smaller than 300 pixels wide. The actual sizing, IMHO, should be left to user preferences. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like in return to point out that you are quite mistaken in your understanding of the guideline. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image does appear small to me, and doesn't allow details of the timber framing to be discerned. More of a problem is what happens under the infobox -- I previewed a trial version of the page with the infobox and, unless images are allowed to be sandwiched left of infoboxes (which I think contravenes MoS), then all the images of the article will need to be moved, and probably one deleted or at least made into a gallery. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People might like to review a similar argument on Talk:Buckingham Palace#Info Box which recently took place for the same kind of reasons.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Cross posted]

[edit conflict]I'm from cheshire (and a parish councillor) and I think it's a terrible idea to add a box here - dreadful things. yuk! I mean what's it going to say? "architect - unkown, style - tudor (duh), age - tudor, vital statistics - "still looking good despite all the 'showing it on the balcony'[sic] (direct italian translation), resulting in a knee trembling weakening in the foundations - but really, what value?--Joopercoopers (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, just run that by me again? You're from Cheshire, a parish councillor who thinks that adding infoboxes is a terrible idea? Am I supposed to be in some way swayed by that nonsense? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be a fool not to. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm destined to remain a fool. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me too :-) Nev1 (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

such is our fate. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you bother to look at the example infobox at the start of this section? You can leave fields blank if you don't have information. Nev1 (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - saw the box, vomited, and then realised I'd written that bit in WP:ARCH- complete nonesense of course, just exuberant wikiyouth coming out before I realised - the wiki way is the one of no rules - If you're writing an article, do as you please, just make it better. Are we making this one better with our box? Or just a better encyclopdia because it all has a standardised look? Me, I'd rather an irregular encylopedia with fantastically written and presented articles, that might differ a little in style - arts articles might be, well arty - science articles would be written to the tastes of good, communicative, scientists - excellence over standardisation for me please. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should take a moment to clean yourself up then, don't let wikipedia get in the way of personal hygiene. One thing that nobody's really reflected on is the map? Does anyone apart from me think it's useful? Nev1 (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a serious concern about the size of the infobox, then I'd be in favour of dropping the map rather than the infobox. But I think it is useful, yes, and as must be obvious I really don't understand what all this fuss is about. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's better - thanks for the advice - the map, yes very useful in the geography and town/village articles, they also occur in - but it's at least as large as the building photo in the architecture article - is where it is in Cheshire, as important as a good view of the additional 'long gallery' that was added and contributed to the frame deformation - perhaps just the picture would be better, with a nice caption about the 'long room' - rather than a large, unnecessary map which might help if I wanted a day trip to the house, but then, I'd just click the coordinates at the top RHS of the page and load it up in google earth - like I usually do. Still failing to see why the earth will stop turning if the map wasn't there - yours --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to respond to a previous question 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.

As to this userbox, I just popped upstairs to look at it on the 15 inch monitor (which is the standard one in most of the world), and the details of the house were very washed out, the map was overwhelming (and I feel pretty well useless generally speaking - maps with one red dot usually are), and if I was to superimpose it on the article it completely displaced everything else. And why coordinates? They're already at the top of the page. Risker (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would the details of the house not be equally washed out using your preferred size on a 15 inch monitor? Did you test this to avoid bias in this report at all? Fields can be omitted if required. Why does WP:WPARCH#Help for authors still have infoboxes mentioned if they are such an obvious disadvantage to these kinds of articles?  DDStretch  (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The map can be easily omitted, as is now demonstrated. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, still works without the map, still useful. Nev1 (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A vast improvement - so what are we left with by way of information - Client- Richard de Moreton - was he the only client? Isn't the situation a little more complex than that? "Completion date - 15th century" Is it complete? Which bit was complete then? Do we include the 19th century strengthening? Or the other restorations and additions - where's the line? "Style - Timber framed" Do we need this in an infobox? We seem to have the coordinates twice on the page too. I'm not seeing a convincing case this box is adding information that is most pertinent to the article. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't see a convincing case for summarising some of the important information about the building in an easily acessible and standardised form? My mind is boggling. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, image is still lacking detail when not logged in on a 15 inch monitor. The box is simply too small, and to make the box bigger completely erodes the text.

Here is an example of a FA without an infobox: Queluz National Palace. It took three image specialists 6 hours to get all the images properly laid out in such a way that it worked on the major browsers on the main screen sizes, both logged in and logged out. Layout is much more important than infoboxes, especially when all the key info in the infobox is in the first few sentences of the article. Risker (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who you are responding to here, and I suspect it either isn't me, or, if it is, I may not have made myself clear enough in what I was asking. You mentioned before that the image used in the infobox looked very washed out when viewed on a 15inch monitor, and that was one reason against including the infobox. My question was what did the image look like if it was at your preferred size and viewed on a 15inch monitor? Wouldn't it also look washed out? If so, your specific point doesn't really count against the infobox, but it does point out the unsuitability of using a 15 inch monitor to view such articles, be they in possession of an infobox or not. Your point about a problem of the map as used in this article may well still hold (but your personal dislike about them in all circumstances, however, is just a personal opinion.)  DDStretch  (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

because wikiprojects aren't policy makers - they're just a bunch of editors that sometimes get together and decide that's how they'll do things when writing their articles. I bloody delete the section at WP:ARCH if that's your argument - I put the thing there in error years ago - time to go....--Joopercoopers (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, perhaps you were right then and in error now. In any event, it isn't for you or anyone else to lay down the law on matters like this. Parish councillor or not. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

Does anyone think it's bizarre that we're generating thousands of words here and no-one has added a word to the Little Moreton Hall article? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the map is very useful, and it isn't particularly an architecture issue. Incidentally, Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Infoboxes in articles about historic or other notable buildings has just had a message from SandyGeorgia which confirms that opposing an FA on the basis of an infobox being present or not being present would not be a valid oppose, and that it's a consensus item. So, I think the force of the argument in favour of unilaterally adding the comment to many articles is weakened some more: it is as I suggsted, above, a matter to be decided on a case by case basis, and there are ways of getting an image to the relevant size in order to illustrate architectural issues whilst still having an infbox. (The matter of WP:WPARCH#Help for authors could even be said to support these other methods of getting the right sized image.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) No. A thorough discussion here (and elsewhere) is appropriate. It prevents hard feelings and gets the discussion out of the way without generating controversy. Gaining consensus before making a change seems to be the way to go. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to a point made earlier by Risker: "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." Well, it shows that the editors who submitted articles for FA review had preferences against using infoboxes that resulted in a 3:1 proportion against using infoboxes. Given that opposes based on the presence or absence of an infobox would not be valid (as SandyGeorgia confirmed) I don't think it says anything more than a comment about the preferences of the editors who did the submitting. In order to draw the conclusion that the proportions mean infoboxes should always be avoided, you would have to have had articles submitted which had infoboxes, and for the reviews to have asked for them to be removed. These reviews would have to be worded very carefully, given SandyGeorgia's comment. Indeed, perhaps if more people submitted articles for FA review which included infoboxes, they would still achieve FA status, and the apparent unequal proportions would become less. In any case, it does not really support the unilateral undiscussed addition of the html comment asking people to never use an infobox.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I have indicated before, layout and image use are key considerations for FA. Not one of the FAs without infoboxes have defining images that would fit into an infobox; check out Sanssouci and you will see what kind of a problem it would be. As to the comment, I do hope Giano will pop in tomorrow and explain further. Risker (talk) 02:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but once again that does not answer the question I asked, and the question is a key one: How many articles have been proposed for FA status with an infobox where the reviewers have asked for the infobox to be removed? As supplemental questions, how many have been rejected that were submitted (a) with an infobox, and (b) without one? Have any been submitted without one and the reviewers have asked for one to be included? Without these data, your desire to show that the number of FA articles you mentioned is caused by them not having an infobox fails, because it could merely reflect the fact that the proposers preferred not to use them. If you can provide these data, then depending on what they show, they will strengthen your argument by making much more unlikely any alternative explanations for the figures you previously provided. The reasoning I am using should be obvious to anyone who has experience in arguing about causes from empirical data. I'm willing to be persuaded, but so far, this argument is not convincing.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox as it now appears above strikes me as a bit silly. ¶ It appears to have two titles, first "Little Moreton Hall" and secondly "Building information". The reader, even if somewhat slow-witted, should be able to infer from the page title that it's Little Moreton Hall that's being discussed, rather than, say, "Fallingwater". "Building information" is potentially ambiguous, depending on the syntax of this noun phrase. On the one hand, it might remind our slow-witted reader that this is not, say, fish information or Pokemon information. On the other, it might be self-congratulatory or implicitly hortatory, akin to "Delivering information to the masses". If the former, I really wonder about the level of imbecility to which en:WP is pitching its articles. If the latter, I object to the boosterism. ¶ The "town" is given as "Congleton, Cheshire". Now, I'm gradually coming to realize that en:WP is written for people who are either dimwitted or stunningly uninformed. Such people are likely to misinterpret "Town: Congleton, Cheshire" analogously to "Publisher: Little, Brown". Or they may think that "Town" is missing a final "s". Further, I look at the photo and see no sign that this most handsome building is situated within any town. Indeed, the article says that it is "4 miles (6.4 km) southwest of Congleton". Thus Congleton isn't its location but instead (I suppose) the closest town. ¶ Need I continue? Briefly, almost everything in the "infobox" is a pointless duplication or an oversimplification. Giano was entirely right to take prophylactic measures. -- Hoary (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not for you to decide what is "damn silly", nor even the saintly Giano. Frankly I found your comments to be rather unhelpful. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You puzzle me. I thought this was a discussion about the introduction of, or about the request not to add, a certain kind of infobox, exemplified above. You are of course welcome to give your view. I have. Mine is that the infobox is damn silly, and I have given my reasons for saying so. My reasons or my logic may be inadequate, and you would be most welcome to explain why. But it seems perverse of you to deny my right to draw such and such a conclusion without giving your grounds for this denial. Meanwhile, I regret it if my comments are unhelpful. How might they be more helpful? -- Hoary (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to realise that using terms like "slow-witted", "self-congratulory", "level of imbecility" and so on do not foster a discussion that tries to be non-inflammatory. You could have given your views without using such terms. Indeed, making use of them routinely is a sign that one's arguments may well be weak. Your position may well yet have a force that persuades people, but using such terms in presenting the argument may well be inflammatory rather than persuasive . I assume that you do aim to persuade people towards adopting your position?  DDStretch  (talk) 08:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a carefully phrased and polite comment, which I'll take as I think and hope it was intended. I notice, for example, that you do not accuse me of having described anyone here, or indeed any editor, as slow-witted, self-congratulatory, or imbecilic. I'm grateful for that, for indeed I made no such accusation. ¶ Let me explain. If Britannica, for all its faults, is to encyclopedias what the New York Times is to newspapers, then Wikipedia stands a chance of being [language aside] Die Zeit. (At least for buildings. What it has about Pokemon doesn't concern me.) However, uses such as the above of infoboxes are to me symptomatic of a move to becoming the USA Today of encyclopedias. The editorial board of USA Today are not slow-witted, let alone imbecilic, but they do appear to regard their readers as slow-witted. ¶ And let me rephrase. The species of infobox above -- like so many (but not all) species of infobox -- seems to me to do several unfortunate things, of which I'll here describe two. ¶ First, much of its content unnecessarily duplicates the kind of material that writers are requested to put at the top of [the prose of] the article. Now, when I write about architectural matters (which is rarely and haltingly, as I'm no expert) I'm happy to write for a readership that may be even worse informed about architecture than I am, or rather young, or both. But I'm not happy to write for those with some cognitive deficit that prevents them from rather easily deriving simple information from close by within a well organized article. This is because when I want to read an article and am given information twice in this fashion, I either feel that I'm being treated like an idiot or have unpleasant flashbacks of this or that dire textbook whose writing was so laborious it needed to depend on such gimmickry. (A particular horror of a phonology text, published by Blackwell, comes immediately to mind.) ¶ Secondly, some of the fields encourage or even force misleadingly simple answers: if I'm to believe the prose of this article, this building is not in a town; the infobox implies that it is. ¶ Not everything about infoboxes is bad. The particular photograph here fits the infobox rather well. I've no objection to its placement there. On the other hand, it doesn't benefit from being in an infobox: there are plenty of precedents for articles whose top photo is fine sans infobox, and there may be worthy top photos that wouldn't fit such an infobox well. Further, I'll concede that an infobox may have actual virtues -- and not only for fish or Pokemon, but even for structures. Uniformly formatted location (via OS or whatever) is just the kind of thing that fits awkwardly within running prose but goes well in a box. So let it go in that box, but take out from the box anything that duplicates what's in the prose. -- Hoary (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]