This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
As indicated, Port Royal (Acadia) ceased to exist after it was called Annapolis Royal. Why does this article include the history of Annapolis Royal - there is already an article on that. It should stop at 1713 if not 1710? As well, why is there no reference to the
Habitation at Port-Royal? All the information that is in this article is already better presented in that article. This article really should be deleted or make the argument to change the name of the habitation article. --
Hantsheroes (
talk) 23:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Jamestown, Virginia ceased to exist when
Williamsburg, Virginia began it's history. Yet there are two articles for both. In 1755, the population of Port-Royal was deported, its houses and farms were burnt to the ground, changing its demography, its structures, and its very existence. Hence Port-Royal became a new entity called Annapolis Royal, with hardly any connection to the old Port-Royal. You will notice that this article contains the population of Port-Royal by year of it's existence, and the old map of Port-Royal as it existed back then. Talking to Ottawa University
Jacques Lacoursière, he definitely told me that a separate article should exist because of it's disappearance in 1755. As well, there are two references made to
Habitation at Port-Royal located across the bay in a different location.--
Charny (
talk) 05:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)reply
There is confusion in the wikipedia articles about Port Royal. I think there is grounds to move the content that is on the Habitation article under "Second settlement of Port-Royal (1613-1710)" that actually should be on the Port Royal (Acadia) article. The Port Royal (Acadia) article should begin when Port Royal moves from one side of Annapolis (Dauphanie) River to the other and then should stop when it is renamed Annapolis Royal in 1710, at which point Port Royal (Acadia) ceases to exist. The information about the Acadians at Annapolis Royal is already in the article on Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia. (The references to Fort Anne are inaccurate - Fort Anne never existed in Port Royal. The Acadians were deported from Annapolis Royal - not Port Royal. To further the confusion, there is a small community still called Port Royal, Nova Scotia where the habitation was (which was only labelled Port Royal in 1950), but this is not the community being referenced in Port Royal (Acadia) article.--
Hantsheroes (
talk) 04:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I agree with you that the Port-Royal (Acadia) article should begin when Port Royal moved to the other side and end when Port Royal was renamed Annapolis Royal. Okay, it was not probably called Fort Anne, but we know by the map that a fort existed and actually 4 forts were built by the French and Acadians. You're right, the Acadians were deported from Annapolis Royal and not Port Royal. However, I would have left the population count until the deportation, so that those referencing the article can see how Port Royal and Annapolis Royal had grown before the deportion. Today Annapolis Royal only accounts for about 481 people.--
Charny (
talk) 17:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I would be more inclined to put the population figures for Annapolis Royal in that article.--
Hantsheroes (
talk) 23:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Took the liberty of renaming this section to something meaningful (from "issues"), and formatted the sequence of comments. Hope that's OK. I'd say that it must be very confusing and unhelpful to anyone unfamiliar with the subject that there are so many articles about this place. Try to put it in chronological order:
Port-Royal National Historic Site: historic site est. 1605, in the modern town of
Granville Ferry. Nearby is an intersection marked on maps as
Port Royal. The latter has no legal status in local government and the postal address is Granville Ferry. The page is a permastub and should be deleted.
1) the history section on the
Annapolis Royal page should be simplified to contain no more than 3 to 6 paragraphs of history, and instead refer to a new history page (see 2)
2) the
Port-Royal (Acadia) page should be renamed something like "History of Port Royal / Annapolis Royal" where it can contain the full history of the settlement from 1605 to modern times (this is common pactice in wikipedia for civil entities with lengthy histories)
3) the
Port-Royal National Historic Site page should focus only on the habitation and the NHS, with only light reference to the larger history and instead refer to the main article on the "History of Port Royal / Annapolis Royal"
4) the Port Royal hamlet could be kept (but I'd prefer not), but care should be taken that it stays on the topic of being a rural hamlet in Annapolis County and doesn't start to grow and take on content that should be the pages 1, 2 and 3 above, which are of national and international interest
HISTORBUFF (
talk) 22:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
tldr agree with the above with the following comments:
The idea here is that articles should focus on what they are, whether an historic site, a civil entity, etc. so, to reuse your numbering
2)
Port-Royal (Acadia) agree we need a bucket for the history, and would need a name change since it was only Port-Royal until 1713. Name needs further consideration.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
As indicated, Port Royal (Acadia) ceased to exist after it was called Annapolis Royal. Why does this article include the history of Annapolis Royal - there is already an article on that. It should stop at 1713 if not 1710? As well, why is there no reference to the
Habitation at Port-Royal? All the information that is in this article is already better presented in that article. This article really should be deleted or make the argument to change the name of the habitation article. --
Hantsheroes (
talk) 23:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Jamestown, Virginia ceased to exist when
Williamsburg, Virginia began it's history. Yet there are two articles for both. In 1755, the population of Port-Royal was deported, its houses and farms were burnt to the ground, changing its demography, its structures, and its very existence. Hence Port-Royal became a new entity called Annapolis Royal, with hardly any connection to the old Port-Royal. You will notice that this article contains the population of Port-Royal by year of it's existence, and the old map of Port-Royal as it existed back then. Talking to Ottawa University
Jacques Lacoursière, he definitely told me that a separate article should exist because of it's disappearance in 1755. As well, there are two references made to
Habitation at Port-Royal located across the bay in a different location.--
Charny (
talk) 05:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)reply
There is confusion in the wikipedia articles about Port Royal. I think there is grounds to move the content that is on the Habitation article under "Second settlement of Port-Royal (1613-1710)" that actually should be on the Port Royal (Acadia) article. The Port Royal (Acadia) article should begin when Port Royal moves from one side of Annapolis (Dauphanie) River to the other and then should stop when it is renamed Annapolis Royal in 1710, at which point Port Royal (Acadia) ceases to exist. The information about the Acadians at Annapolis Royal is already in the article on Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia. (The references to Fort Anne are inaccurate - Fort Anne never existed in Port Royal. The Acadians were deported from Annapolis Royal - not Port Royal. To further the confusion, there is a small community still called Port Royal, Nova Scotia where the habitation was (which was only labelled Port Royal in 1950), but this is not the community being referenced in Port Royal (Acadia) article.--
Hantsheroes (
talk) 04:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I agree with you that the Port-Royal (Acadia) article should begin when Port Royal moved to the other side and end when Port Royal was renamed Annapolis Royal. Okay, it was not probably called Fort Anne, but we know by the map that a fort existed and actually 4 forts were built by the French and Acadians. You're right, the Acadians were deported from Annapolis Royal and not Port Royal. However, I would have left the population count until the deportation, so that those referencing the article can see how Port Royal and Annapolis Royal had grown before the deportion. Today Annapolis Royal only accounts for about 481 people.--
Charny (
talk) 17:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I would be more inclined to put the population figures for Annapolis Royal in that article.--
Hantsheroes (
talk) 23:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Took the liberty of renaming this section to something meaningful (from "issues"), and formatted the sequence of comments. Hope that's OK. I'd say that it must be very confusing and unhelpful to anyone unfamiliar with the subject that there are so many articles about this place. Try to put it in chronological order:
Port-Royal National Historic Site: historic site est. 1605, in the modern town of
Granville Ferry. Nearby is an intersection marked on maps as
Port Royal. The latter has no legal status in local government and the postal address is Granville Ferry. The page is a permastub and should be deleted.
1) the history section on the
Annapolis Royal page should be simplified to contain no more than 3 to 6 paragraphs of history, and instead refer to a new history page (see 2)
2) the
Port-Royal (Acadia) page should be renamed something like "History of Port Royal / Annapolis Royal" where it can contain the full history of the settlement from 1605 to modern times (this is common pactice in wikipedia for civil entities with lengthy histories)
3) the
Port-Royal National Historic Site page should focus only on the habitation and the NHS, with only light reference to the larger history and instead refer to the main article on the "History of Port Royal / Annapolis Royal"
4) the Port Royal hamlet could be kept (but I'd prefer not), but care should be taken that it stays on the topic of being a rural hamlet in Annapolis County and doesn't start to grow and take on content that should be the pages 1, 2 and 3 above, which are of national and international interest
HISTORBUFF (
talk) 22:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
tldr agree with the above with the following comments:
The idea here is that articles should focus on what they are, whether an historic site, a civil entity, etc. so, to reuse your numbering
2)
Port-Royal (Acadia) agree we need a bucket for the history, and would need a name change since it was only Port-Royal until 1713. Name needs further consideration.