This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
Thomas Rotherham College is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
I tend to agree with what you say, or the sentiment perhaps inferred. This article states that the college takes its name by leap-frogging the earlier grammar school to that school's the founder; this linking here may be strictly understandable. There is an impulse in UK school articles, particularly for state schools, for aggrandizement by timeline linking to earlier more notable independent and/or grammar schools, even when there have been major changes in ethos, educational emphasis, and often even location/site, which often show very little or no viable association with that earlier entity, other than by name seizing. This aggrandizement can be emphasized by current schools grabbing notable alumni from an earlier school, although not in this case. I think the 'took its name from' does kind of cover your query. However, the article could be copy edited to shift much info in the sub-secs 'Sixth form college' and 'The college building (1876)' to the 'Grammar school' (renamed 'Rotherham Grammar School'?) sub-sec, leaving only that which strictly relates to the Sixth form college in its own section. However, there would then be a case to move most of this stuff into the Rotherham Grammar School article, leaving a much trimmed history section precis relating to this 1967 entity. If there has been no consensus over the next month (17 Feb), to keep this overbalance in the article, I will copy edit to reflect the above. Acabashi (talk) 09:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
