Talk:Little Moreton Hall

External links modified

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 {{dead link}} 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 {{dead link}} 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 {{dead link}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Sunday services

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)

Infobox

@Nikkimaria, I'm opening this discussion as I said I would be happy to discuss the changes to the infobox, and this seems more productive than conversation-by-edit-summary.

I'm confused as to why you've removed the listing boxes, location, and co-ordinates. These fields have have all been retained in the infobox of Montacute House, and the discussion there informed my editing decisions here. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Both the location and coordinates are still present; I don't see a reason to repeat them. I also don't see a reason to repeat external links already used as cited sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

You're possibly missing the point of infoboxes – they repeat information already in the article for ease-of-access. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The location and coordinates also aren't present, is this a mistake? A.D.Hope (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Both are indeed present, one in the infobox and the other in the title. As to external links, when disputed they are excluded by default. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The location and co-ordinates fields have been removed from the infobox, so they're not present. The title doesn't accurately summarise the location, as, besides Moreton not being a defined settlement, Little Moreton Hall is not in the civil parish of Moreton cum Alcumlow.

I think the best course of action would be to format this infobox exactly as the one at Montacute House currently is, then participate in the discussion at that talk page about what should be included. That would mean removing the 'built' and 'owner' fields, and restoring the listing boxes (but not links), the 'location' field, and the 'co-ordinates' field. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that would be appropriate, since this is something that's meant to be determined on a case-by-case basis. I'm also not sure what you're looking at, because what you're describing doesn't match the version of the article that I see. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The infobox only contains the 'built' and 'owner' fields, plus the image and map; you have removed all the rest.

I disagree that UK historic house infoboxes need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. They are similar enough that precedents can be set, and the Montacute House discussion is one such precedent. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome to disagree, but that's what's in the relevant guideline. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I do disagree, yes. This article and Montacute House are very similar, the discussion there could easily inform the infobox here. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Given that we don't seem to be arriving at agreement about what should be where, I've restored the last stable version pending further discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I was going to do the same myself, so thank you. I'd suggest taking any further discussion to Talk:Montacute House#IB, where a more general discussion of 'simplified infoboxes' is taking place. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Hidden Content

Nikkimaria is there a reason you continue to hide almost the entire Infobox? I will also note you are performing a manual revert rather than an undo so that I am not notified that my edit has been undone which is very sketchy. This odd behavior aside, what is the purpose of hiding almost the entire infobox which is a direct violation of MOS:DONTHIDE and is not done anywhere on wikipedia? Why is this being done? You have offered ZERO explanation in your manual reverts. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the talk page. However, as I noted in my revert, the claim that this is a "violation" of DONTHIDE is not correct - even leaving aside that that is a guideline, its third paragraph notes that autocollapsing is permitted in templates. The current status was a compromise arrived at as a result of extensive discussion here and elsewhere; given that history, I don't think unilateral redesign is an appropriate step. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

In the future if you are going to sneakily manual revert another users edits, you could AT LEAST link to the discussion where this so called consensus was reached. I will also point out that this discussion was nearly 13 years ago. Is there any other page on wikipedia where the entire infobox (except for the image) is collapsed? That is bizzare to me. I've seen it in {{Infobox officeholder}} where there were tons of offices, but not hiding the entire thing. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: you have done it again. Is there a reason you refuse to use the undo function so user's like myself and this time Jonesey95 are notified that their edits have been undone? additionally why do you insist on reverting this edit as well which preserved your desire to keep everything hidden? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I find the notifications disruptive so typically prefer not to produce them. As to the map change, apparently it results in Lint errors. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I find your actions to be highly inappropriate as you are intentionally hiding what you are doing (ironic). You have no produced any evidence other than WP:OWN of this article as to why the entire infobox should be hidden. The discussion form nearly 13 years ago has little to no mention of hiding the entire infobox in violation of MOS:DONTHIDE as both myself and Jonesey95 have said. You have thus far refused to answer my question so please, for the third time, explain why you insist on hiding the entire infobox. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

As already noted, this was the compromise arrived at after extensive previous discussion both here and elsewhere, with DONTHIDE being among the issues discussed. While of course consensus can change, at this point the only change evident is increasingly aggressive argumentation on your part. I would suggest you take some time to calm down. If it's helpful to you, I will endeavour to remember, should I need to revert you in future, you prefer to be notified of that. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

If I'm being aggressive it is because of your highly irregular and very sketchy editing style of reverting other's edits without notifying them and will very unclear edit summaries:

• rv, see talk
• trim
• rv as per previous

You have reverted three separate editors making the same fix. Gonnym, Jonesey95 and myself with an ever chaging story.

First you claimed it does not violate MOS:DONTHIDE, then you claimed that MOS:DONTHIDE was one of the factors discussed in the redesign of 13 years ago. Neither are accurate. Hiding an ENTIRE infobox absolutely does violate MOS:DONTHIDE and NOWHERE in the discussion mentioned above is MOS:DONTHIDE mentioned a single time, which makes sense as that policy wasn't created until 2015. So your statement that it was part of the discussion 13 years ago is patently false as the policy didn't yet exist.

I would advise you to cease you OWNERSHIP behavior of this article since, as I pointed out, you have now reverted 3 separate editors because you think the article should be a certain way. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

you have now reverted 3 separate editors because you think the article should be a certain way. Nope - this isn't what I personally prefer. Rather I reverted because there is an established consensus version that was arrived at after considerable discussion, and if editors think it should be changed it would be up to them to demonstrate a consensus to do that.

NOWHERE in the discussion mentioned above is MOS:DONTHIDE mentioned a single time, which makes sense as that policy wasn't created until 2015. Also nope. That redirect was established in 2015, but the concept predates it significantly - including the provision that collapsing in tables/templates is permitted, which was already present by 2011.

At this point I would suggest we wait to see if anyone else would like to weigh in. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I would like you to show me where in the above discussion from 13 years ago the policy that MOS:DONTHIDE links to was mentioned a single time, because I see no such discussion. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

It was the Linter errors that brought me here. {{Collapsed infobox section begin}} and its corresponding end templates are quirky, in that they can't be used in some infobox parameters that use unusual markup. Doing so creates Linter errors (typically, misnested div and td tags). Compounding the issue is that infobox parameters can be placed in any order, and the placement of {{Collapsed infobox section begin}} and its sibling are essentially "inside" two of the parameters. It sometimes works the way that editors expect, and sometimes does not. That's the technical bit.

As for hiding, my personal view is that hiding the interesting information in the infobox is contrary to MOS, and foolish in this article, since the infobox is not that long in comparison to the article. I am not going to dig into the history of this talk page, though; I will trust that compromises were made in getting this article to FA status.

An aside: copy editing is need to bring the prose in this article back up to FA standards. Constructions like "1504–08" are simply errors per MOS:YEARRANGE (a missing century in the end year), not just a matter of a style choice, and "c. 1510–63" has two plain errors (two missing spaces and a missing century). Those year ranges need to be fixed. I think "£3,000–£4,000" also has an extraneous £ character, and that range formatting is inconsistent with "£12–16 million" in the same sentence. The article also contains inconsistency in its use of the serial comma. Since some contentious editing is happening, I will refrain from fixing them at this time. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Completely agree with Zackmann here. This is just an edit trying to WP:OWN an article. At least 3 editors do not agree with you. Gonnym (talk) 14:24, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

For info: here's another time this issue came up. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Fully support Nikkimaria's edits here. There was a consensus established after long and well-attended discussions. We should stick to it. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2025 (UTC)