Talk:Wolvesey Castle

A most curious name-change

Um, even English Heritage call the site "Wolvesey Castle". They note, of course, that it contains a medieval bishop's palace, a surviving chapel, and a later bishop's palace; and that the medieval one was fortified by a nervous Bishop Henry, who had betrayed both his brother, King Stephen, and his wife and rival, the Empress Matilda, so his house ended up looking enough like a castle that everyone from who knows when, could be the 12th century, to the present day has called it Wolvesey Castle ... and so should we. Given this much precedent, I shall boldly put it back there now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The later bishop's palace (including the chapel) is neither owned by English Heritage nor part of "Wolvesey Castle": it is "Wolvesey Palace". I think that maybe giving the later palace a separate article is the best solution. Let me know your thoughts. Godtres (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

No, but it's right by the site, and it incorporates the chapel which was part of the medieval palace, so it's not very separable. A subsidiary article could be created for it, if anything worthwhile can be found to say about it, but it would still have to be mentioned here (with a summary and a "main" link"), both for its obvious relevance and for the survival of the chapel. So, in a nutshell, I'd say that splitting it off is unnecessary and counterproductive. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Wolvesey Palace is not part of Wolvesey Castle (although the converse is partly true), nor has it ever been known as such, so it is curious to have all its content in an article named "Wolvesey Castle". There are two solutions: either my previous solution, which keeps both the palace and the castle in the same article under the heading of "Wolvesey" (which is used, by e.g. English Heritage, to refer to the site containing both); or my proposed solution of having two articles, with as you say appropriate links between the two. Which do you think is preferable? Godtres (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with your analysis or your offered "there are no other alternatives" choice. The article is way better in one piece, and definitely better as the name with which the site is boldly labelled, Wolvesey Castle: that is the WP:COMMONNAME and we should follow standard practice. The new palace overlaps with the site (one thing we do seem to agree on) in function (home for bishop, and worship in the chapel, both being there in medieval and modern instances) and location (physically overlapping sites, the chapel being in both subsets), so it's not great to try to split the thing off. If you really want to create a subsidiary article for the new palace, nobody will stop you if you can source it properly, but it's really not necessary from an encyclopedic point of view.

If you're finding this difficult, it may perhaps help just to look at it all like this: we have a well-known name that denotes the old bishop's palace, and the chapel that went with it, and the fortifications applied to that residence. Then much later a second bishop's palace (and a third, actually) were built on much of the same site (the current palace corresponds to the West wing of a much larger structure). It makes sense to have one article for the complex overlapping themes of history (aren't they always), and it makes sense to mention the current structure, which is definitely an aspect of the story, even if it's younger than the rest, and even if it pays its council tax separately. My tuppence 'orth. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

"Wolvesey" is the WP:COMMONNAME for the site (containing both the castle and the palace).

"Wolvesey Castle" is the WP:COMMONNAME for the medieval ruin, not the whole site. For example, the past tenses here: [1] and [2].

"Wolvesey Palace" is the WP:COMMONNAME for the current bishop's residence.

Following on from what you have written, I trust that the latter of my two options is preferable, with appropriate context of the other given in each article. There is almost certainly sufficient material for a separate article on Wolvesey Palace. Godtres (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Um, as I've now said repeatedly, if you really think the current palace needs an article, and if there are suitable sources, nobody can stop you: it may well work out fine. Whether you create such a thing or not, however, the current "Wolvesey Castle" will continue to need about as much coverage of the current palace as it now has: if there is a subsidiary article, that will be a section with a "main" link and a short chunk of cited text summarising the subsidiary article. That will be needed because of the undeniable and substantial overlaps between the "palace" and the "castle", on the three different measures that I described already. You are continuing to imagine that the world divides up neatly between crisply-defined topics, but it hardly ever does: political theories split, hybridise, and merge, as do species; towns grow, absorb villages around them, take on new names: or don't (New Jersey is, or isn't, part of "New York", according to taste: but the conurbation spreads...). An "ideological" approach to naming, and a desire to create categories based on fixed ideas, just leads to hyper-taxonomic chaos; every discipline (including this encyclopedia) always ends up having to be a bit more pragmatic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you about the need for coverage of the palace in an article on Wolvesey Castle (and I'm sorry if I hadn't made this clear enough earlier), and am glad we have now reached some sort of consensus. Godtres (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)