Talk:Winchester Castle

Sources

• cityofwinchester.co.uk
• britainexpress.com
• eng-h.gov.uk dig, not yet included.
• Put in ref to ship [1] and locomotive [2]

Date of construction

Just a question, how could the castle have been the seat of English government in the 10th and early 11th century if it was built in 1067? Was there a castle at the site prior to the Norman one (as was the case at Old Sarum)? If not then wouldn't it be more proper to say that the city of Winchester was the seat of English or at least West Saxon government in the 10th and early 11th centuries? Josh 17:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Castle use as courtroom?

The current article refers to a trial that once took place there. However, when I was taken to see the Table in the summer of 1956, an "important" trial was going on in the room where the Table was displayed. It was though this was frequently used as a courtroom. The history of its use as a court should be documented. Student7 (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox inclusions: Listed buildings

Should the listed building status be included in the infobox? It is in by default in a number of infobox templates for historic buildings and is an important piece of informaton about the subject. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

No. Histories and other articles on Winchester Castle make very little, if any, reference to its listed building status, nor the date that it was given that status; it doesn't therefore appear to be a "key feature" of the article, which is the requirement described for inclusion under MOS:INFOBOX. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The book I was using to expand the history sections does refer to the listed status of the Great Hall. Listing a building is, of itself, notable. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

What does the guidebook say about the listed status? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

It says it is a listed building. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

What I was trying to determine is whether it presents it as a key fact for the reader (e.g. in the first few paragraphs) or towards the back of the piece. I note that the official website doesn't consider it worth mentioning at all - nor does Biddle and Badham's academic work on the site, or survey works like Pounds. I'm not saying we shouldn't mention it in passing in the main text, but the reliable sources and our MOS suggests it isn't a "key feature" for the infobox. NB: worth considering that the castle isn't significant because it's got legal protection; the castle has been given legal protection because its significant. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Your latter point is precisely the reason I feel the information is suitable for the infobox. Worth also considering that Wikipedia encourages the documenation and recording of listed buildings, including the annual photographic contest to get as many pictures of listed structures as possible. There's even a listed bulding link template. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

As nobody else seems to be worried about this I will reinstate the listing information in a week's time Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Murgatroyd49: I agree with Hchc2009 on the (non)inclusion of this material (essentially a factoid). Our guidelines are quite clear—MOS:INFOBOX states that to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article...The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose. This is clearly not, to the sources, a "key fact", and we should not make it one when they do not. Note also Hchc2009's point about the listing stemming from the notability of the castle, not causing it: WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Incidentally, it is generally il-behoved for an editor to lay down deadlines for inclusion (particularly arbitrary ones that they have chosen for themselves), as it implies a degree of unwarranted ownership of the article. And, of course, there is no deadline. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Not mean to be a claim of ownership, just that as no further discussion was taking place it seemed to suitable to assume that there were no further objections than the original. Just left some time for anyone watching the page who hadn't had a chance to comment to do so. If you feel that is unreasonable then I shall take no further part in this dicussion Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

It's better to have the discussion than to leave it, Murgatroyd49  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 21:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, that sounded worse than I meant, I will just withdraw from the discussion as I think my point has already been made. For discussions about my methods then feel free to visit my user page. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)