Talk:Henricus

Comments
See Henricopolis for duplicate article. What to do? MPS 14:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Page has now been merged into this one. (Unofficially; but I doubt anybody minded.) Please see that page's edit history for the genesis of some contents now incorporated here. Doops | talk 05:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

No relation to William & Mary
Thank you for declining to perpetuate the myth that the college proposed for Henricus is somehow related to William & Mary or represents its true beginning. There does not seem to be any evidence that the proposed college even operated (http://richmondthenandnow.com/Newspaper-Articles/Henricopolis.html), let alone that the existence of the proposal makes W&M older than Harvard, as W&M's website has suggested. --Editing 16:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Actual location of Henricus is unknown - article is incorrect
The actual location of Henricus is unknown. The article says it was found in the 1990's. Henricus Historical Park was founded during this time period, but not at the actual site. Brandon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.208.48 (talk) 13:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you sure about that? I thought everyone today agreed that the archaeology there (Farrar's Island) has proved it is indeed the original site. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Not agreed upon, there was a meeting there about a month ago (at the Henricus park) were it was recently debated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.187.39 (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

– Is there some reason for this title to not match the format of almost every other American town, city, etc.? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Henricus → Henricus, Virginia
 * Wolstenholme Towne → Wolstenholme Towne, Virginia

Or for Wolstenholme Towne not to? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There's plenty of reasons, here's just one.  The actual reason is that we have always tried to keep titles as succinct as possible, and use additional disambiguating language in the title only  where necessary, i.e. if there were another article that started out "Henricus".  The same would apply to "Wostenholme Towne", but I'm uncertain whether it is proper to discuss that article on this talkpage. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment while WP:USPLACE indicates what the nom is saying, these two locations are not current settlements, and existed prior to the establishment of the US. However, as is the case with Jamestown, Virginia, the colony of Virginia is used as the disambiguator term, so this isn't strictly a US place. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. It took me a while to decipher, but I finally found the footnote that explains why my Chicago example is a bad one, because WP goes by the AP stylebook where Chicago is listed as one of 30 cities that don't need a state name.  But I still prefer Henricus because it existed prior to the establishment of the US.  I still don't think we should decide what to do with Wostenholme Towne on this page either. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose As noted, they aren't actually US places, so there's no need to apply the unnecessary disambiguation mandated by WP:USPLACE. Jamestown simply needs disambiguation, and it's kind of sort of a modern place anyway. --BDD (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unnecessary disambiguation per WP:AT and WP:D.  --B2C 21:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Unless WP:UKPLACE thats precedence for former British colonies, I think that arguing that WP:USPLACE doesn't apply because it was abandoned before 1776 is spiting hairs. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.