Jump to content

Talk:Fort Nassau (North River)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Castle Island issue

[edit]

The article states that Fort Nassau was built "near" Albany, NY. The fort was built on Castle Island, and Castle Island is today better known as the Port of Albany and is within the city of Albany. Another name for Castle Island is Waterloo Island (with or without two o's).24.182.142.254 (talk) 01:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Nassau (South)

[edit]

Where was Fort Nassau (South)? There is no article of that name and I can not find any references to it. The wikipedia New Netherlands project has it listed but no article of that name. Camelbinky (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Nassau (South River), among others. — LlywelynII 12:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

I'm not an expert, but could there be a better naming scheme for Fort Nassau (North River) and Fort Nassau (South River)? These terms are dead today; maybe making reference the current river names or current states they would be located in would be better for easy understanding? Just my 2¢. upstateNYer 22:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I guess I can check the history and see if there was a primary user who was maintaining the article and see if they are still around. I have never actually read the Fort Nassau (South River) article though would assume from the name of South River that it is in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, or Delaware (South River being the Delaware River). So suggestions I'm throwing out are for this article- Fort Nassau (New York), Fort Nassau (Albany) (same format I have Fort Frederick (Albany)), or Fort Nassau (Hudson River); as long as the other Fort Nassau is formatted in a complimentary way (ie- both articles are done by state, city, or by river. Sounds like perhaps this is something User:Doncram would know more about. Camelbinky (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really concerned which one you use, though I would suggest changing Fort Frederick (Albany) if you do decide to not go with city (on second though, the state seems like a good idea, unless any of these had twins with the same name in the same current state). upstateNYer 20:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Djflem was the caretaker of this article for a long time, I contacted his talk page and will wait for a response for a little while longer, if no response I'll probably go with a city, state format. Changing Fort Frederick (Albany) and the two Nassaus to- Fort Frederick (Albany, New York), Fort Nassau (Albany, New York), and Fort Nassau (Gloucester City, New Jersey). This seems to be a format most in line with the disamb naming conventions.Camelbinky (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Using the names of the current location is also somewhat misleading as the current locales were not named until after the forts were long gone, and won't necessarily help in identify them. If there's a real need to re-name, is it a suggestion to name them by the somewhat long winded, though historically contextualized title?: Fort Nassau (North River), New Netherland?Djflem (talk) 09:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too much. I'm of the opinion that we should reference current names or boundaries so the lay reader can easily identify the place. The current river name, or, perhaps, the current state name would be a better way to do it. upstateNYer 01:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone object to putting the question in the hands of User:Doncram and accepting whatever outcome that he thinks is best? Otherwise we may just have a stalemate of one vote for each proposal and it doesnt seem like there would be any new information that would convince one person of the other's idea,(and I'm not supporting either idea, I'm staying out of this other than to hopefully find some compromise or third-party solution).Camelbinky (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current titles seem OK to me. They are correct historically and serve to disambiguate two otherwise identical titles, which is the only purpose of parenthetically qualifying titles. The previous titles "(North)" and "(South)" were also OK, although they probably should have been lower case. If they must be changed "(Hudson River)" and "(Delaware River)" would also be OK, but anything with New York or New Jersey in it would not be as good, because those political entities did not exist at the time; both of these were forts of the same political entity, New Netherland. Station1 (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some good considerations above. I agree with the original statement of issue, that "South River" and "North River" are not meaningful and don't serve readers well. Another option, which i am not saying i would prefer, would be to use year-dates, or date-ranges, as in "Fort Nassau (1614)" or "Fort Nassau (1614-1618)" for the one in Albany, and "Fort Nassau (1623)" or "Fort Nassau (1623-1653)" (or appropriate other years if i have those wrong) for the one on the Delaware River. Year-dates are used in disambiguation of some NRHP-listed places, I believe, though i can't find any other examples right now. Camelbinky asked if i would be willing to provide a 3rd party type judgment. I think in general it's better for editors to come to a consensus on their own if they can do so. But I would be willing to come back and make a 3rd party type judgment at some later time, if the discussion here seems deadlocked and my judgment is in fact desired. --doncram (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current titles at both pages are fine, although they should have hatnotes linking to one another. We should not use anachronistic modern names and both were located within the New Netherlands, so what we have is fine as a dab; if some change is being forced, we should simply modernize the river names (Fort Nassau (Hudson River), Fort Nassau (Delaware River)).
The dates proposal is terrible: it makes them look like they're articles on the same location during different periods. — LlywelynII 12:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with founder

[edit]

There were hatnotes here and at Hendrick Christiaensen: aside from the fact I oppose (both are notable; the stub at Christiaensen can be expanded but is no reason to merge), there were no arguments at all presented on either page to justify the merge. Removed the notes. — LlywelynII 12:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fort Nassau (North River). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fort_Nassau_(North_River)&oldid=1207274059"