Talk:Sailors' Snug Harbor

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Snug Harbor Cultural Center was merged into Sailors' Snug Harbor in September 2008 by an editor not involved in these archived discussions.

merge two snug harbor entries?

Snug Harbor Cultural Center vs Sailors Snug Harbor dm 16:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Merging the entries makes sense. It's a case of two different institutions in the same place. The Cultural Center did not exist until the mariners' home left, and most people use the same name for the new institution as they did for the old one. The principal reason NOT to merge is that, to the best of my knowledge, the mariners' shelter still exists, under its original name, at Sea Level, NC. Some confusion, therefore, could result. BklynBookWorm (talk) 04:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I suggest we merge the Snug Harbor Cultural Center page into the Sailors Snug Harbor page. The two articles would do better being merged into one. I think the Sailors Snug Harbor title is the one more people will recognize it by, but of course redirects will allow both titles to remain working. dm (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, not sure I agree with myself anymore :) Please see Talk:Snug_Harbor,_New_Orleans#Help for more discussion on this. dm (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Snug Harbor Cultural Center#Merger proposal Station1 (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

---

[The following discussion was merged here from the former Talk:Snug Harbor Cultural Center]

merge two snug harbor entries?

Snug Harbor Cultural Center vs Sailors Snug Harbor dm 16:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a stand-alone organization, separate from the neighborhood. It should not be merged. Jllm06 (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Snug_Harbor,_New_Orleans#Help for more discussion on this... dm (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The above brief discussion is superseded by the discussion below. Currently, there is very little about the current organization in the article, so it can be included in the merged article. If someone later wants to expand greatly about the current organization, to an extent larger than is appropriate in the merged article, then a separate article could be re-created at Snug Harbor Cultural Center (which should be converted to being a redirect to the merged article, for the indefinite future). This mainly just to respond to Jllm06's comment. For followup, perhaps best to join in discussion below. doncram (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

I cut and pasted this from Talk:Snug_Harbor,_New_Orleans#Help where it didnt really belong. dm (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I took an article about a jazz club named snug harbor, opened a ndw page entitled : Snug harbor (New Orleans) and lifted the contents entire to the new page. I did this in order to use the page entitled Snug Harbor to create a page on a major national historical landmark, notable piece of architecutre, and well-known contemporary botanical garden and museum, that has been called Snug Harbor for 200 hundred years, but that did nto have a Wikipedia page. The simple title SnugHarbor really belongs to this major institution, not to the - undoubtedly significant - jazz club. Now the new page on the jazz club [[Snug Harbor (New Orleans) has disappeared. Can someone please help me resurrect it?Elan26 (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26

The article formerly at "Snug Harbor" is now here at "Snug Harbor, New Orleans". I made "Snug Harbor" a disambiguation. As I noted on your talk page, don't try to "move" a page title by copying and pasting (especially if you are not the sole author); use the page move function as explained at Help:Moving a page. I have no particular objection to the one in New York being at "Snug Harbor" if it is the most famous as long as there is a disambiguation notice at the title pointing to other notable things with similar names. But I suggest taking one issue at a time. First let's make sure that the article histories are straight and links in various articles are pointed to the right Snug Harbor. After we're sure that's cleaned up, we can do a proper page move if there are no objections. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, Snug Harbor should be the dab page. Sailors Snug Harbor should remain the NHL page focused on on that alone. Snug Harbor Cultural Center which is a bit of a mess, should either merge into Snug Harbor, Staten Island or vice versa. Personally, I like the new text that Elan26 put in, but I'd like to keep the edit history and not just wipe the slate clean. Neither article should have the NHL infobox, instead it should focus on all the other institutions which were added *after* the NHL designation. This approach has been used on numerous other NHL articles dm (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest all of Sailors Snug Harbor, Snug Harbor Cultural Center, and Snug Harbor, Staten Island be merged into a single article. I have no strong opinion about which title remains, but in any case, the other two should end up being redirects to the one that remains. They all fundamentally refer to the same thing, and there is (unavoidably) much duplication between the three. Just plain Snug Harbor should remain as a dab page, but with just two entries; Snug Harbor, New Orleans, and whatever these three articles end up getting merged into. BTW, I also got rid of a redirect from Talk:Snug Harbor, Staten Island which pointed to Talk:Snug Harbor Cultural Center, which was very confusing trying to follow all the merge discussion links. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit messy. There are three article involved: Sailors Snug Harbor, Snug Harbor Cultural Center and the just-created Snug Harbor, Staten Island. Plus Snug Harbor, which is now a disambiguation page, and the newly-moved Snug Harbor, New Orleans which apparently contains the former "Snug Harbor". My strongest opinion is that Snug Harbor, Staten Island should definitely not exist; it's either called "Sailors Snug Harbor" (historically) or "Snug Harbor Cultural Center" (officially, although recently "and Botanical Garden" has been added to the title), not just "Snug Harbor", which is the New Orleans jazz club. I really think all three can be merged under "Sailors Snug Harbor" without making it too long. Then "Snug Harbor" can be given back to the jazz club and a hatnote can be put on it referring to "Sailors Snug Harbor" since you don't need a dab page for just two entries. "Snug Harbor, Staten Island" can be a simple Redirect to "Sailors Snug Harbor". Station1 (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Not to muddy the waters even more, but several sources spell "Sailors'" with a final possesive apostrophe. Station1 (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like (see the bottom of [1]), the correct version is sailors', i.e. the plural possesive of sailor. It is a snug harbor which belongs to more than one sailor. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest that all three articles be merged under the commonluy used name "Snug Harbor". "Sung Harbor, New Orleans can continue to be used for the jazz club. Reason is, "Snug Harbor" is an ionstitution that has been in place for two centuries, it is a major landmark in architectural history (those Greek revival buildings are somethig very special," it is a Ntional historic landmark, it posesses a truly spectacular and significant Chinese scholar;s garden, some of the later buildings are also architectural landmarks - notably the Music Hall, and the gallery spacees have the potential to develop into museums of some note. It is, another words, a significant place in the world on several levels. The jazz club, while significant as a jazz club, is really not an institution on the same level as Snug Harbor. To sum up There should be a single article, under the name Snug Harbor. Which is what I had begun to create on Sunday when it was divided down into three articles. The Cultural Center will do better to have the Wikipedia article under the name Snug Harbor since that is what everyone in New York and on Staten Island calls it anyway.Elan26 (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26

My point above is that "Snug Harbor" is not a correct name for this article. References such as the New York Times and the Encyclopedia of New York State refer to it as "Sailors' Snug Harbor", as did the institution itself when active as a retirement home. The current institution calls itself "Snug Harbor Cultural Center". The two-word phrase "Snug Harbor" is at best used informally and can be more easily confused with other institutions (like a jazz club). Not "everyone" in New York calls it "Snug Harbor". The article(s) should be titled "Sailors' Snug Harbor" and/or "Snug Harbor Cultural Center", both of which were created several years ago and both of which are correct. Station1 (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be glad to edit the merged page, including all the material now on all three pages.Elan26 (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26

I'm all for merging all three articles into one, but I'm concerned about your comment, The Cultural Center will do better to have the Wikipedia article under the name Snug Harbor. What is best for the center is of NO relevance here. The only issue is what's best for the encyclopedia and its readers. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A little googling shows there are a number of things and places called Snug Harbor. Whether any of them deserve Wikipedia articles is an open question, but I suspect some of them might in the future. Thus, I think leaving Snug Harbor as a dab page might be the best solution. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Roy, take a closer look at gogle, what you find is lots of marinas, inns, small harbors and so forth named Snug Harbor. The only significant institution that I can find by the name is the jazz club. There do not appear to be any towns named Snug Harbor. But, instead of google, try newsgoogle or books google. there you will see that what comes us is this place on Staten Island, which was a pretty high profile institution when it was the old sailor's home. The page I put up is paltry, and the others are even worse. This institution merits a better Wikipedia page, better on the history, better on the architecture (have you ever been there? Iwas there for the first time yesterday. I was blown away.) and the cultural center and gardens all deserve serious attention. The reason they have not gotten them is that it is on Staten Island. If it were in a small city, it would be a cultural icon. If it were in Manhattan, it would be celebrated. But, it's stuck out on Staten Island, so it gets ranked on a par with a jazz club. sighElan26 (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26

Oh, the reason I threw in the bit about the name being better for the cultural center is that in the old discussion someone got all hot and bothered about merging the cultural center. I am simply pointing out that the cultural center would be better off using the simple , marquee name "Snug Harbor" HOWEVER, so would Wikipedia. It shows a lack od discrimination to rank this institution oon the same level with a jazz club. When there is a stellar institution (individual, city) whose name is shared by lesser lights, the big deal institution gets the name, the others get names with addenda.Elan26 (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26

We've run into this with other NHL's where the original NHL is reused (in this case Sailors Snug Harbor for something larger (Snug Harbor Cultural Center with the various museums, gardens, etc). In most of those cases, we separate out the NHL into its own article and a separate article about the larger newer thing. dm (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused -- NHL redirects to National Hockey League. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused too! It should be NHLD which points to National Historic Landmark District sorry! dm (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

As a frequent NHL editor, my view offhand is that there should be just one article here (with clear statement of alternate names for the same place), because it sounds like the current Snug Harbor Cultural Center is the same area. The area designated an NHL was the full site, with then estimated 85 acres and many listed buildings, in the NRHP Inventory-Nomination document prepared by Carolyn Pitts. The same area seems to have been documented by a HABS survey mentioned by Pitts. In other NHL situations (e.g. Richard Nixon Birthplace vs. the now much larger Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum that is on the same property), i agree with Dmadeo that the NHL seems to need a separate article to allow for description of it, as it is in effect a different place. Here, it seems the NHL is the whole place, the same place as this SHCC, so one article should be created, i think. On the other hand, there have been 2 articles since 2005, so i am not sure. If there could be a lot more written about the current Cultural Center, then maybe it should have a separate article (but there is minimal of value there now).

I think we're agreeing here. Elan26 seems set to describe all of the other institutions which have emerged as part of the Snug Harbor Cultural Center which occupies the same general area as the old NHL. This would seem to suggest keeping them separate. dm (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

About the name of the article, it doesn't matter so much, as long as all the other alternative names are given in the first sentence. And, the NHL name "Sailors' Snug Harbor" should appear as the title of the NHL/NRHP infobox. doncram (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

About User:Elan26:Elan26's starting the 3rd article as a new one, just recently: That seems wrong to me, in terms of giving credit to previous editors in the edit history. I assume Elan26 is not trying to grab credit, but in the new article's edit history, it looks like Elan26's idea to have a wikipedia article on this topic, while the other two were started in 2005. The merged article should built in or put into one of those two (and i prefer the Sailors' Snug Harbor one to which i had contributed), and then moved to whatever is the finally intended article name. doncram (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I assume (based on comments and edit history; correct me if I'm wrong) that User:Elan26 wanted to create a new article either because he didn't see the two already there, or mistakenly (IMO) thought "Snug Harbor" was a better name. He then attempted a cut and paste move of the pre-existing "Snug Harbor" article (about the jazz club), rather than proposing a move at WP:Requested Moves. The main thing now is to get rid of the title "Snug Harbor, Staten Island", which is plainly wrong (IMO). To be clear, I have no problem with the content, most of which is a valuable addition to either or both of the pre-existing articles, but a new title should not have been created. "Snug Harbor" by itself is an informal usage and can be confused with the common lower case phrase or other institutions that do use the two words as their proper name. Whether to then also merge the two older articles -- "Sailors Snug Harbor" (used circa 1831-1976) and "Snug Harbor Cultural Center" (used circa 1976-present), which were separate institutions occupying the same physical space -- is a secondary issue (I would merge them both into "Sailors' Snug Harbor" with an apostrophe on the first word, but that is of far less importance). A tertiary issue is whether to leave "Snug Harbor" as a dab page, or just give it back to the jazz club whose official name it is, perhaps creating "Snug Harbor (disambiguation)". Station1 (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• I don't care which article is kept, just so all the material is kept. It certainly needs one of those signs at the top, requesting that people who know the topic add more material. The Cultural Center has been putting on exhibits in recent years that have drawn attention in the art world. And the concert venues appear to draw major acts, as they did when it was a Sailor's home. the legal cases about landmarking the paace appear to be cited as precedents on the issue of the rights of a charitible organization whose property gets landmarked, an attorney would be useful here. This, like a lot of wikipedia articles, needs extensive enhancement.Elan26 (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26

Great! I think there is some agreement then. Perhaps the way to start is to move the content of "Snug Harbor, Staten Island" into "Sailors Snug Harbor", make the former a Redirect, and then decide on the next step. Station1 (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Elan26 or Station1, please go ahead. I do think there is some additional material in the Sailors Snug Harbor, specifically the NRHP/NHL infobox, which should be kept/added to the nice work Elan26 had begun in the Snug Harbor, Staten Island article (which already incorporated some material from Sailors Snug Harbor). doncram (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there is complete agreement that three articles is too many, but I don't think we've come to a conclusion yet on whether two or one is the right number. It seems clear that merging Snug Harbor, Staten Island into Sailors Snug Harbor makes sense. The unanswered question is whether we then need both Sailors Snug Harbor and Snug Harbor Cultural Center? I personally don't think we do, but I haven't seen clear consensus on that yet. The issue with what to do with the dab page seems like a minor issue which would be best resolved after the main issue of two vs. three articles is settled. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm good with the merge, but the title is now silly. It should be Snug Harbor. Just : Snug Harbor. With all the material from all three articles.Elan26 (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26

• • (edit conflict) Okay, well i have just boldly merged "Snug Harbor, Staten Island", into "Sailors Snug Harbor". I copied in the entire new text by Elan26, and just edited it minimally. There is repetition and the organization is not great now, but hopefully someone can fix this up. Also i uncommented a passage that had been hidden which someone had indicated should be moved to the Snug Harbor Cultural Center article. Surely this article needs a section about the modern use of the district, so the section can stay in, i think, and/or it should be edited mercilessly. Perhaps the remaining question, whether to have a separate "Snug Harbor Cultural Center" article or not, can be left until this merged article is fixed up. I believe a separate Snug Harbor Cultural Center article could be needed IF there is plenty of material and someone wants to write it more substantially than what can be included in the main article. doncram (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur. I rather think that the Cultural Center should be merged into this, larger article. Reason is, at present the cultural center (with the exception of the "Chinese Garden) is a modest undertaking of mostly local interest. I searched pretty hard, and turned up concert series and art exhibits, but not of first rank artists. With their facilities and location, this may become an important arts center, but its not there yet. At present, the only things of greater than local interest are the Chinese Garden and the old buildings. So it might as well be merged into a single article called: Snug harbor, so that people looking for any aspect of the place can find it. Any aspects fo the Culture center that merit individual articles - as the Chinese Garden does - can have them.Elan26 (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26

I am getting the idea that Cultural Center wants to be important, and there are some promotional toned webpages perhaps claiming how important it is, but that it is not so important. The architecture and the historical role of the place is important (as verified by the NHL designation). So, I am thinking that the historical name "Sailors' Snug Harbor" is the important name, and is best as the article name. The current operators are trying to make use of the facility, but i am sure that the 26 buildings are not being used very much in any way comparable in importance to its historic role. doncram (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What name to use?

Namewise, how is the current title "Sailors Snug Harbor" silly? I think moving it to "Sailors' Snug Harbor" would be an improvement, yes. That is the U.S. National Historic Landmark designation name for the site, as documented in a couple references. Some other references call it "Snug Harbor Cultural Center", that would not be silly either. Who, if anyone, calls it "Snug Harbor"? I could say that is silly, too. I am mainly responding to the use of the loaded term "silly". I don't think anyone here wants to force their own way with this article, but please let's try to avoid argument by derision. :) doncram (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to, Who, if anyone, calls it "Snug Harbor?, apparently the parks department does. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, they also call it Staten Island's Sailors Snug Harbor, as well as calling it Snug Harbor, here. doncram (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think in that reference, they're calling it (in one place) Snug Harbor, and in another place, Sailors Snug Harbor (plural, no possessive). Where they say, Staten Island's Sailors Snug Harbor, I interpret the Staten Island's part as a descriptive phrase, not part of the name per-se. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Silly only in the sense that the sailors have been gone for decades. People who care about this place nowadays care about the Greek revival buildings, the gardens, and the art exhibits. It takes a history buff (which I am) or a maratime history buff to care that it was once a sailor's home. So, the Sailor's part of Sail'o's Snug harbor is anachronistic. When people in and around New York talk about the place, we sall it Snug harbor, no sailors in the phrasing. But the main reason for using the two-word name is that it refers to all aspects, the art, the architecture, the gardens and those old and decrepit mariners.Elan26 (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Elan

Well, I don't know that people in and around New York talk about it at all. It was designed by Minard Lafever as a home for sailors, and that is a big part of the importance of the architecture (and what is weird about the place), that it was designed for that purpose. It is somewhat bizarre to have those greek temple style buildings (like other greek-style designs used for churches, city halls, other buildings around the country at that time). I am still reacting to the word silly, and now also to the idea that people in NY might be talking about the place, which I do not believe. Both of these have me resisting the idea that "Snug Harbor" is actually a hugely common name for the place. doncram (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

People do talk about it, and not only in architectural and historic preservation circies. I know someone - a gloomy, literary type - who told me last winter that he had taken the ferry to "Snug Harbor" to brood after he broke up with the girl he was seeing, because he knew that there would be noone there at that season and he could brood. Okay, brood was my word. But he said Snug Harbor. More to the point, there is nothing bizarre about the Greek Revival style in a Sailors home. It was not reserved for high-minded purposes, like churches and civic buidings. It was used for warehouses (without th epillars) houses (with the pillars) schools, school dormitories, small town law offices (think diminutive temple, four one-log pillars, no plumbing) and everything else that Americans built. This one is special not because of the bizarre idea of building an old age home in Greek revival style, but because of the scale, the degree pf preservation, and the fact that they stand alone in that lawn, not hemmed in by other buildings.160.39.35.24 (talk) 11:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26

Oh, and using Snug Harbor for the whole thing enables each aspect of the cultural Center to be easily identified (we have several Children's museums and multiple botanical gardens in NYC), while the ones that merit it can have separate Wikipedia articles. The Chinese Garden has one. The contemporary art museum may merit one someday (or perhaps now, an artist might know)Elan26 (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26

That is an argument for having a combined article, I suppose. It is not an argument for "Snug Harbor" being the prevalent common name for the place. We should not make up names for our convenience. doncram (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Who calls it Sung Harbor (with no modifier)?

Paul Goldberger for one. “ARCHITECTURE VIEW; THE SLOW, STYLISH REDESIGN OF SNUG HARBOR

They won a round, then lost a round, and then the city ended up deciding that the best way out was to purchase Snug Harbor as a park and cultural center for ...July 5, 1987 - By PAUL GOLDBERGER”

And the New York Times in an 1899 story: “POLITICS IN SNUG HARBOR; SEVERAL DEMOCRATIC INMATES EXPELLED.GOV. TRASK ALLEGES "POLITICAL CORRUPTION" AND THE OLD MARINERSALLEGE CRUEL TYRANNY. June 8, 1889, Wednesday”

Many news stories , both form the nineteenth century legal and political battles, and from contemporary coverage use the simple Snug Harbor, because there is no other Snug Harbor in the minds of the New Yorkers who do indeed talk about the place. In my experience, talking about it takes place in regard to the architecture, which is a big deal among architectural historians. People write "Sailor's Snug Harbor," but I cannot imagine anyone calling it that in a spoken sentence. I rather doubt that everyone who refers to that Greek Revival row at Snug Harbor actually recalls that the institution for which it was built was a home for sailors.Elan26 (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26

Yes, but Wikipedia is not spoken and not just for New Yorkers. Page naming policy calls for the most common name (not just in NY) "with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity". Aside from "snug harbor" being a common if somewhat obsolete maritime phrase and the name of another wikipedia article, if you a Google for snug harbor your first hit is the New Orleans jazz club. Your second is "Snug Harbor Cultural Center" [sic]. Your third is "California Delta Snug Harbor". There are also restaurants and inns in Washington, upstate NY, Cape Cod, a boat dealer, and a reference to Heinlein's novel The Number of the Beast all on the first page. On the other hand, "Sailors Snug Harbor" yields only two unrelated hits on the first page and "Snug Harbor Cultural Center" none. The Goldberger article you cite uses "Snug Harbor" in the headline but "Sailors Snug Harbor" in the text. References such as the Encyclopedia of New York State and Forgotten New York use "Sailors' Snug Harbor". And I won't even mention Snug Harbour, Ontario. History buffs, see also here, mostly for fun. Station1 (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Take a closer look at the tTimes and other papers. The usage is dual, sometimes the full name, often just Snug Harbor, especially when referring to contemorary use of the place:

"For almost 150 years, the winds from the Kill van Kull must have evoked memories of the violent seas for thousands of homeless sailors who took shelter at Sailors Snug Harbor, a self-contained community for retired seamen on Staten Island.

The community moved to North Carolina in 1976, but the winds are still blowing through Snug Harbor's iron gates, carrying with them a strong sense of history. The 80-acrecompound is now a thriving cultural center, but it is easy to imagine what the place might have been like a century ago.

The maritime hospital and retirement community just a block from the water's edge opened in 1831. It was endowed by a wealthy mariner named Robert Richard Randall, who came from a family of privateers and died in 1801. Legend has it that Alexander Hamilton drafted Captain Randall's will, which endured 30 years of legal challenges before Snug Harbor was finally able to open...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE7DC1438F93BA25752C1A966958260Elan26 (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26

That's standard journalistic practice to refer to the full name in the lead and then shorteened versions thereafter. The 1899 article, for instance, refers first to "Sailors' Snug Harbor", thereafter to "Snug Harbor" or just "the Harbor". Similarly, first to "its Governor, Capt. G.D.S. Trask", thereafter to "the Governor" or "Capt. Trask". You wouldn't title a wikipedia article "the Harbor" or "the Governor" because of that. Station1 (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

To Merge or not to Merge

We still need to decide what to do about the Snug Harbor Cultural Center article.Elan26 (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26

At the very least, the page neme nees to change to match the current name of the institution, The Snag Harbor Cultural Center and Botanical Gardens. I still suggest one article, with separate Wikipedia entries for each notable coponent, the chilcren's Museum and Chinese Gardens hav had such pages for a while now.Elan26 (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26

The more I think about it, the more it seems that the Cultural Center and Botanical Garden is an umbrella organization, and it probably makes the most sense to give each of the parts its own page. Eliminate the old Snug Harbor Cultural Center page. And keep this one omnibus page for the whoe place.Elan26 (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26

I think we may be having difficulty knowing what to do about the Snug Harbor Cultural Center because many of us, me included, have little idea what a cultural center is, much less whether Snug Harbor Cultural Center is a notable one. The wikipedia article on it is unsatisfying, and just tries to define by example, providing links to a few places with Cultural Center in their name. Those examples do not belong to a category "cultural centers" and seem to be all different. Is it an organization, is it a place, or what? I suspect that naming this one "Snug Harbor Cultural Center" reflects wishful thinking on the part of its organizers (not inappropriate) that the organization or place become indeed an important center of culture. I don't currently believe it is a center of New York City culture, or even a real center of Staten Island culture. I currently believe it is an impressive collection of buildings that was formed as Sailors' Snug Harbor, a retirement home for sailors, and that is now severely under-used. None of us present in this discussion write articles about cultural centers, as far as i know. I don't think it needs to be developed, but it is okay by me if "Snug Harbor Cultural Center" is left as a stub referring strongly to the main article about the place. About the various other arts organizations that may be beneath the SHCC umbrella, I would leave it to editors writing about other arts organizations to perhaps create articles about these ones, eventually, but i rather doubt they rank high in the priorities for wikipedia article creation relative to other arts organization candidates. doncram (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's an umbrella non-profit organization that maintains the physical plant for the city and provides space and support to constituent organizations such as museums, art school, botanical garden, occasional performance groups, etc., and rents space for meetings, weddings. I would say it is locally notable. Station1 (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I went to Guidestar, the service that provides the Form 990 tax filings (the main annual financial report of U.S. nonprofits) and other reports on nonprofits, and find it there. Its entire "Who we are" statement is as follows: "THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF SNUG HARBOR CULTURAL CENTER IS TO OPERATE, MANAGE AND DEVELOP THE PREMISES KNOWN AS SAILORS' SNUG HARBOR THROUGH ITS CULTURAL PROGRAMS." Note, the SHCC is a nonprofit organization, and it officially refers to the place as Sailor's Snug Harbor. 990 forms from 1999 through 2006 are available. You may have to create a free account, as i did some time ago, in order to access them. In 2006, its revenues and expenses were both around $3.7m U.S., and its year-end assets were $2.6m. Let's describe Snug Harbor Cultural Center that way, as a nonprofit that operates the Sailors Snug Harbor facilities. It is a nontrivial nonprofit, notable enough for an article as an organization. So, I am happy with saying DON'T MERGE. doncram (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You're fundamentally correct, although I found old articles about court battles. Seems the modern art tyypes would like to alther the buildings, and architectural preservations have gone to court (more than once) to stop them. The art museum gets some attention among contemporary art afficianados, but the only things that draw numbers seem to be the Music Hall, the childrens Museum, and the Chinese grarden. I was there on a beautiful summer Sunday and it felt like a ghost town. A ollection of wonderful buildings in search of a purpose. Like Audubon TerraceElan26 (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26

My gut feel was that there were two articles here, one for the NHL and one for the Cultural Center and it's various institutions. Doncram did not agree, but spent the time digging into the details and in the end changed his mind providing convincing arguments as to why keeping them separate is a good idea. I realize Elan feels strongly that the article should be a single one named Snug Harbor. I believe leaving the Snug Harbor as a dab page is the right idea. Anyway, more than anything, I think we should all step away from this article for a few days and gain some perspective. dm (talk) 01:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's been a week and things have calmed down. I still think it's best to merge the two articles (why make people read two instead of one?) but it is admittedly a close call and since three editors, by my count, say don't merge, there seems to be no consensus to do so. In that case though, it makes sense to move the bottom half of "Sailors Snug Harbor" to "Snug Harbor Cultural Center and Botanical Garden". I just began a clean up of "SSH" but didn't move anything between articles. There also seems to be consensus to leave "Snug Harbor" as a dab. (I changed the name of "Snug Harbor, New Orleans" to "Snug Harbor (jazz club)" iaw WP:NC.) A minor question remains as to whether to move "Snug Harbor Cultural Center and Botanical Garden" back to just "Snug Harbor Cultural Center" (I don't think it's too important). I assume no one objects to moving "SSH" to "Sailors' Snug Harbor" (with an apostrophe on "Sailors"). Station1 (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Lots of points to cover. Let's see. I think we should merge to one article. Snug Harbor Cultural Center and Botanical Garden seems a bit wordy; I'd prefer something shorter, but this isn't a major issue for me. As long as all the other versions become redirects pointing to the real article, I'm fine with the name. I'm good with leaving Snug harbor as a dab page, and if it turns somebody on to put the apostrophe in the article name, I'm cool with that too. I guess when you boil it all down, the only issue in the bunch which I really have an opinion about is that we should merge to a single article. Just one editor's two cents. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

[I added the apostrophe to the title Sailors' Snug Harbor since there seemed to be consensus for that - just for the record. Station1 (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)]

Naming parallel

The institution most similar to Snug harbor is Wave Hill (New York). Note that it is also based on a pair of landmarked buildings, and also features a concert hall series, and botanical garden - albeit none as grand as those at Snug Hill. However, the rticle isnot called "Wave Hill House". It is simply titled "Wave Hill." Just as this article s=ought to be titled simply Snug Harbor'. Not, for example, the Wikipedia article Worcester, the title goes to the small city in England, not to the large one in Massachusetts, because, I presume, ot the historical importance. Likewise, Newton goes to Isaac, not to the city of 100,000 people in Massachusetts. Sometimes, the significance of one of several things with the same name so outweighs the others that we assign the simple name to the big deal place, which Snug Harbor is.Elan26 (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26

Wave Hill is called Wave Hill because that's its name; it's not a shortened version of some other name, like "Snug Harbor" is short for "Sailors' Snug Harbor" or "Snug Harbor Cultural Center". (Why it has a parenthetical New York after it I'm not sure; I think I'll fix that when I have time.) As to Worcester, that was a huge controversy. See the talk page. Station1 (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Chinese Scholar's Garden.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Chinese Scholar's Garden.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Snug Harbor's Tug of War

I found while looking for something else. Posting it here as a possible source for this article.

References

-- RoySmith (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

To add to article

Basic information to add to this article: exactly what the "Snug" in Snug Harbor means or refers to. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)