Talk:Troy House

Untitled
It seems a bit odd to talk of the Somerset family's fortune being "destroyed", as this article does, when the current Duke ranks 581st on the Sunday Times Rich List 2008, with an estimated wealth of £135m. Would "diminished" be a more appropriate wording? KJP1 (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Caption for infobox image
User:KJP1 recently changed the caption for the infobox image to "not very impressive externally". I removed the caption with the summary "delete unsuitable caption" and KJP1 has restored it with the summary "Unclear as to its inappropriateness. Please discuss on the Talkpage, referencing Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions".

My main reason for judging the caption as unsuitable is that it is a dismissive comment that is an inadequate summing up of the building. Manual of Style/Captions lists the following criteria for a good caption:
 * 1) clearly identifies the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious;
 * 2) is succinct;
 * 3) establishes the picture's relevance to the article;
 * 4) provides context for the picture;
 * 5) draws the reader into the article.

This caption does not (1) clearly identify the subject or (3) the picture's relevance to the article. It does not (4) provide context for the picture. It definitely does not (5) draw the reader into the article, on the contrary, it suggests that this is a boring building not worth the reader's attention.

The source of the quototion is not given in the caption, but the main text attributes it to "Local historian Keith Kissack". Kissack is not known as an architectural critic, and putting his aesthetic assessment here gives it undue prominance. A quote from John Newman would be preferable, but I don't see anything suitable in his Gwent/Monmouthshire book.

Placed at it is, this appears to be an attempt to sum up the building and it does not adequately do so. We would not want this in a biographical article and we should not put it here. No caption is needed as the picture is a simple depiction of the subject of the article. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I tend to agree. Any quotation needs a source, whether in a caption or not. I think such an assessment, if deemed notable, might be better dealt with in the article text. If any caption is required for the main image, maybe a date of construction could be added? Just an idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above two comments. If this were a book summarising and discussing views about this or similar houses, a caption like this might be regarded as fair commentary.  But this isn't such a thing - it's a factual and neutral encyclopedia aimed at a global readership.  So, in my view, captions should not approach the subject tangentially or as commentary - they should be factual and neutral.  In this case, it's fairly obvious that the picture shows the article subject, so no caption might be required - but, if it is included, it should simply give the house name.  A possible compromise might be something like:  "Troy House, described by Kissack as "not very impressive externally"" - but in my view that would be long, unnecessary, and not particularly helpful.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Martinevans123, Ghmyrtle, as you wish. Verbcatcher, our collaboration to date has been a blast. Here; where you forced the removal of images at John Newman (architectural historian) and Fred Hando; and those debates of listing dates at Castell Coch. À bientôt, j'espère. KJP1 (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * User:KJP1, in response to your last remarks, I am sorry that you feel that I have been unhelpful to your efforts. I made substantial contributions to the John Newman (architectural historian) article you created. We have also both worked on Allt-y-Bela, Llangwm, Monmouthshire, Usk, Kemeys Commander, Edwin Lutyens and probably elsewhere, I think without conflict.


 * I nominated two of the images that you uploaded as copyright violations. One of the ways I support Wikipedia is to identify copyright violations, and thereby to help protect it from challenges by its opponents. This should not be seen as destructive an I do not apologise for it.


 * Here and at Castell Coch we had differences of editorial judgement and discussed them on the talk page. That is how it is supposed to work. We should not refrain from challenging things that we see as undesirable. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Country Life - May 2020
Well, we do at least get a credit here,. KJP1 (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Abused pupils of Troy House Boarding School!
To anyone that attended this school in the late 80s early 90s and know what exactly went on there... you are not alone in thinking why there is no information regarding the abuse we went through at this school. Feel free to reach out if anyone needs help or is willing to get to the bottom of what we went through! 2A02:C7C:5877:BC00:1D6B:8C2C:FED4:A151 (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It see there is some information, at a blogsite here. The article doesn't seem to make it clear if it was a school for boys as well as girls. This source suggest it was only for girls. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Don't usually respond to IPs but, to be clear, the only reason that there's no mention of abuse is that nobody has found any RS and written about it. The blog does link to a BBC report, but that is hazy on the details/timing. It appears to suggest that the convicted man was working at Troy in the late 80s. It seems likely that the approved school took boys, at least in the later years, but we'd need some sources. I've not found any. KJP1 (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This suggests that Troy took boys, towards at the end of its life as a school? KJP1 (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it says "In later years the school was run by a private venture, which itself ended 20 or so years ago and which took in wayward boys up to the age of 18." I would count that as a reliable source. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For the attendance of wayward boys, yes, but not of the issue the ip raises. KJP1 (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, wholly agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)