# Talk:Winchester College

I doubt whether a train named "Winchester" for 18 years is notable enough for a whole section in this article. It's not hugely unusual for a school to have a train (given that 39 other schools share the same distinction) and the importance of a train to the school is highly limited (e.g. not mentioned anywhere else on the internet). Please do let me know what you think. Thank you. Godtres (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

The fact that the school is one of the very few, out of the  thousands of secondary schools in the country, to have a locomotive named after it is certainly notable and more than sufficient for the small mention given. Your "for 18 years" can be answered in one word: "once notable, always notable". I'd support similar coverage for the other 39, btw. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your prompt response. I'm afraid that I am still not convinced that it deserves such coverage. I question whether the train is sufficiently relevant to the school, "of interest for what it does, and for what it has done", not for things named after it.
Also, your four-word refutation to my point about the length of time the train was named "Winchester" does not stand: I was referring to the length of time that the train was named "Winchester", not how long ago it was. I agree that notability is not temporary, but has the train ever been notable? There is also a problem with your point about secondary schools, since the trains were named after public schools, a specific type of secondary school, of which there are only around 100. Since Winchester is one of the most prominent public schools, it would be more notable if it did not have a train named after it.
I'm happy for there to be some mention of the train in the article, perhaps in a new section named "Impact" or the like, which could include content from Winchester College in fiction. I, nonetheless, continue to doubt whether it deserves such thorough coverage. Thank you again for getting back to me so quickly. I am grateful. Godtres (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Basically I disagree with most of your judgements here, for instance on distinctiveness: this is nothing to do with how long ago the thing was, nor for how long (which is what I intentionally referred to, but no matter): it is, pace your reasoning, highly distinctive for a school to be chosen in this way (and the number of "public schools" can be measured with widely differing results, from less than ten to over a thousand). Any sort of reasoning that the school is so famous etc etc that it'd be surprising if it hadn't been, is rather missing the point: that it is a considerable honour to have a locomotive named in this way.
Relevance: the matter is plainly directly relevant to the school, as you recognise in your proposal for an "Impact" section (not a great name for anything to do with trains, btw, and one might doubt whether the heading was ever actually encyclopedic). We agree, therefore, that the subject belongs here, but you dislike the section heading. I find the actual heading unexceptionable, just a name, but I agree it's an odd bedfellow with the school song. Let's call the new chapter "Influence". Much could obviously be said on that topic, but we should keep the coverage minimal. I've drafted a brief text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm happy with this now. Godtres (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

The John Smyth section seems a bit thin. The abuse reviews give a lot of detail. Trustyservant (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The article is about the school (its history, its structure, its architecture, ...) not Smyth, nor even abuse. As such he's a footnote. Any more and we'll have a WP:COATRACK. If you think you can write an article about him and the abuse, good luck with that, but it doesn't belong here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply.
I would have thought the John Smyth episode is one of the major, if not the major, features of the school's post-war history.
It also ended with national, and due to the zimbabwe angle, international coverage and implications.
The (40ish years) silence around it is directly linked to the school's governance structure. As, potentially, are the links with the 'christian' organisation involved.
I'm happy to be directed by a mod but as the episode is an important part of the school's history and governance structure it seems strange there isn't more coverage.
Does this perspective contravene wiki's approach to covering institutional abuse? Trustyservant (talk) 10:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
We're not censored, nor do we shield any institution or organisation. However policy does require each article to focus on its subject, and we have to avoid recentism (as when a school has 600 years of history, we don't give heavy emphasis to the last few decades, as easily happens). When a subject is large (as with Winchester College), the top-level article is supplemented by several subsidiary articles (such as Winchester College Football) which go into more detail on sub-topics, with brief summaries at the top level. If you want to write a subsidiary article, feel free, but we mustn't derail the top-level article. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Understood.  I may make some minor edits to the existing section that (i think) will fit with your suggested guidelines. Trustyservant (talk) 10:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)