Talk:Benjamin Mountfort

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleBenjamin Mountfort is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 6, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 16, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
September 29, 2008Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article

Discussion[edit]

Just read the article... its brilliant!

DiamondVertex 07:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nice to know you think so. Thanks Giano 09:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I also find it well-written and illuminating. One thing that could improve it: colour, up-to-date photographs of the man's works. That's my only suggestion to boost this excellent article. Radagast 04:22, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, regarding the images when I started to write this I would have agreed with you, I only used the Victorian black and white photographs as they were the only ones I could find out of copyright. Having now stared at them for the three weeks or so I was writing this, I now think they add a certain nostalgia and originality to the page, they also have a certain clean clarity that new ones may not have, especially as many of the buildings are now in heavily developed areas. However I suppose this is a modern encyclopedia, and that is not a very encyclopedic view, and colour would brighten the page up, but in the meantime I quite like the old ones. Giano 15:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's true that the monochrome imagery adds something of a general theme to the article; however, I like to appreciate all aspects of a structure when it comes to architecture, and a crisp colour image or two would make a lot of difference, IMO. Radagast 17:13, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting[edit]

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting


  • (1) In-house only
  • (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
  • (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
  • (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.
  • (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences
  • (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.
  • (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates
  • (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
  • (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
  • (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.
  • (4) Typos and misunderstood coding
  • (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
  • (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
  • (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.
  • (5) Edit-mode clutter
  • (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.
  • (6) Limited application
  • (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
  • (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 08:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the disadvantages, Tony, but I'm rather busy with the FAR right now. Feel free to remove them yourself if you like - just drop a note on the talk page or the FAR after doing so; we don't want contributors accidentally adding more autoformatted dates after the original ones' removal. Nousernamesleft (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks, Nouser—I hadn't realised it was in FAR. Shall do. Tony (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome. Note to self: I need to get rid of the templated accessdates and replace them with manual non-autoformatted ones once the sourcing of the article is finished. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St Luke's[edit]

It says in the article: "Cyril Mountfort was responsible for the church of St Luke's in the City, which was an unexecuted design of his father's." This is referenced with this source. What it says in that source is: "[Cyril's] two most important ecclesiastical designs were for St John's, Hororata and St Luke's" and further: "The design of St Luke's is closely related to two of Benjamin Mountfort's churches of the 1880s - The Church of the Good Shepherd, Phillipstown, begun 1884, and St John's Cathedral, Napier, 1886." So it would appear that the statement in the article is not backed up by the source. I'm a bit reluctant to make big changes to FA class articles without giving others the chance to discuss this first, hence this post. Schwede66 22:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Benjamin Mountfort/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs inline citations and lead should conform to WP:LEAD --plange 21:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 21:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 09:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Benjamin Mountfort. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Benjamin Mountfort. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Benjamin_Mountfort&oldid=1209221974"