A fact from Prodigy house appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 September 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that in 1616 Ben Jonson described the prodigy houses(Wollaton Hall pictured) of his day as "proud, ambitious heaps", "built to envious show"?
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 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
Hi @Johnbod:, thanks for your pretty extensive work on this page.
I have checked the multiple image on my phone (running latest iOS & so I guess Safari) and it manages to neaten the photos and allows for the chronological representation. This was my hope as currently (on computer and phone) the photos tend to sort of "spawn in" at random intervals alongside text on the computer/take up half the page on a phone (which I think is a bit of a hassle and not very reader-friendly) & I'm not aware of any other way of fixing this.
Given that this is a page about a style of architecture, I thought it would be best to show the progression of the style as a whole and yes, whilst some detail is lost in the multiple image, people can open the photos with similar ease as to before.
What else is there that makes them an abomination, please?
Most buildings, if they require a photo for reference at a specific area of the text, are viewed enough to have many photos available to deploy at that point of the article, which would help reading further, but given these were general photos at the top, I believed it best to make this the headline photo (a collage/composition) rather than about 6 headline photos which do not really represent prodigy houses, rather than each individually. Also, the duplication of Hatfield felt a bit wrong.
So yes, currently I feel the reader does not benefit from the photos fully. EPEAviator (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we are likely to agree here, but I don't have time to reply tonight. I also don't think your changes to the text are an improvement, at all. Johnbod (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not seeing any improvement at all. People aren't going to go up from the multiple caption to the image every time. They will scroll through the several screens of unexplained images to find the text. You've used no sources in the text changes, and recognised that you have introduced WP:OR by tagging with cn your additions, as well as tagging some old text that is clearly referenced. I don't think there is a clear "progression of the style as a whole" here, & certainly a bunch of small undescribed photos of large buildings will not demonstrate one to most readers. And so on. A full analysis is just too depressing. Johnbod (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
John, thanks for this. I'm sorry that it seems that way to you.
We are going to disagree here, but I am grateful you seem to have taken a few days to come back and check.
It is not several screens; I have checked on multiple small-screened devices and it has been at most one. I suppose if you request the desktop site this may cause this; I haven't checked that yet. You can (& I have now gone and removed buildings to carefully illustrate only the key elements of this... no sort of "religious symbolism" (Longford). I could have removed Hardwick on this but it is pretty clear it is the leading example of the house on the web.) see the progression from Hengrave (gatehouse, symmetry, but very Tudor, at best a little Flemish inspiration), to Burghley (basically the only large house of a set of prodigies with genuine tall gatehouses but very clear prodigy elements left), to compact houses & the beginning of architects proper (as sadly elements of Hampton Court which were designed in the cardinal style are now lost) without this but still the bulky tudor courtyard form in Longleat, to the beginning of tower form & adjusting layouts (Wollaton), to Hardwick, to Hatfield (Jacobean example). Having just read Architecture in Britain for a point below, this follows the trend he lays out (allowing Hardwick in for numbers and as the main web example).
On the citation front, as you have read, the cn is largely me adding it to your former statements. Insofar as they were previously placed, they were not referenced as the reference was before the statement or seemed to be very strongly tied to a later statement. I cannot go and check the reference as they do not state title, etc. Some of these dates do not align with any books available on the web & so this makes it pretty much impossible to verify them, I can trust them due to having read them over time elsewhere, but that doesn't work for wiki. An example of how this can be (& will be in time when I have figured out what all the references mean) hard is that you are clearly using books, but in cases such as the prodigy house coining by Summerson, earlier publications (potentially of the same book) by him use the term. I do not have Tudor & Jacobean Country House (... nor do most reading, who probably also don't realise this is the referenced book (I expect it is)) by Airs and so perhaps some tertiary sources wouldn't be amiss, but I was working on the structure first, then allowing for readers to open web citations. Ultimtately here, if the things I have added cn to are present in available texts, I do plan to add them. I might have used cn in slightly the wrong way between those who know about the topic somewhat, but I have added them in the way someone who doesn't would feel (read conclusion).
You should not go so far as to claim this violates original research, as it does not. All claims are conclusions reached in . Look up what I have said & exclude nonsense sources and you will realise I was just trying to choose the best (most creditable & concise) source for the point at the time, and have not yet got round to adding them. The 2 of my own I can see that you did not previously state (if you are to agree that "around 1600" implies "after 1580") are that about the gentry & Hampton Court/Somerset House. Re gentry, Summerson says it, but caution as above. Re Somerset House, this is produced in several sources citing Thurley, Re HCP, see RCHM and a plan which divides it into Wolsey and Henry.
Ultimately, I had largeley been through and placed things where I as a reader needed context/proof or where something felt detached. I do hope other readers do the same to my edits so the page as a whole improves. EPEAviator (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have the sources open on my computer and so can begin adding them once I have the time, but I am currently abroad & busy. I'd expect it will get done tonight. EPEAviator (talk) 05:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid this is all pretty incoherent. What are the web-links supposed to show me? I have the Penguin/Yale Summerson (8th edition though). I think the best thing is for me to do a full revert, and you to bring forward points to discuss here. The article as it is has been so messed about, it is hard to see the trees for the wood. This is a general survey of a large field, and I don't think it wants to get very much larger. Many of the articles on individual houses are very poor indeed on the architecture. Once you get back from your holiday it might be better to start working round the weaker of these. Enjoy your holiday! Johnbod (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
