Talk:Old Ursuline Convent, New Orleans

Photos

Photos and/or photo uploads are needed.

• HABS photos may be available for this site.
• The 5 NRHP photos linked in article are taken by NPS employee, hence may be public domain.
• New photos would be helpful.

Title

Certainly this building was not the only "Ursuline Convent". There even used to be another one in New Orleans. Perhaps move to "Ursuline Convent, French Quarter" or something similar? -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Sure Infrogmation and I think it should be smaller. Problem : picture of the old convent in New-Orleans is not good : too far and no perpective. Are there better one we could use on flikkr maybe ? Nortmannus (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you say I think should be smaller. We have 108 photos of the Ursuline Convent in the New Orleans French Quarter here on Wikimedia at present. Feel free to substitute a better photo or add additional free licensed photos. Infrogmation (talk)

Ok thanks. I look Wiki commons. Good day. Nortmannus (talk) 06:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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.

Page moved to Old Ursuline Convent, New Orleans. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ursuline Convent → Ursuline Convents, French Quarter – Relisted. Consensus seems to be to move but the target is an issue. In looking at the article, is Old Ursuline Convent an option? If consensus is to split and you need an admin, leave me a note. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC) I brought this up on the talk page more than 2 years ago, so far no comments. The building which is the subject of the article is not the world's only Ursuline convent. Indeed it is not even the only Ursuline convent in New Orleans. (An alternative move to "Ursuline Convents in New Orleans" might be a possibility, with sections for each of the 4 relevant buildings, but since this particular building is the most famous and is on the US National Historic Register, I think an article on this particular building is appropriate.) Infrogmation (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Both the present title and the proposed title are abominable. There are many Ursuline convents in the world (see Ursulines). And there are many places called "French Quarter" – certainly more than that disambiguation page suggests. Why not Ursuline Convent (New Orleans), for heaven's sake? And the plural ("convents") is uncalled for. Noetica^Tea? 22:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
  • You oppose moving, even though you find the present title abominable? I don't quite follow that. Other titles are welcome. As to the plural, as I tried to explain, this is not the only Ursuline convent in New Orleans. There have been 4. 2 of the buildings no longer exist. The Colonial era building which is the focus of this article still exists as a building but is no longer a convent. The last still serves this function. Infrogmation (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd like to hear other suggested titles which would refer only to the Registered Historic building. As explained, "Ursuline Convent, New Orleans" can refer to any or all of 4 buildings, not just the proposed target. If you dislike "Ursuline Convent, French Quarter" as not specific enough, how about "Ursuline Convent, French Quarter, New Orleans"? Other suggestions? Infrogmation (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
    • You should not have difficulty following this, Infrogmation. I oppose the move because I oppose use of the proposed new title for this article. To support the move would be an endorsement of the proposed new title. As for the plural that you claim to have explained, I still think it is ridiculous. The first sentence of the article refers to a single convent, by use of a proper name: "Ursuline Convent, also known as Old Ursuline Convent is a historic Ursuline convent in New Orleans, Louisiana." (That needs copyediting. I'll attend to it.) As I write, nowhere in the article is the plural "convents" used; the mere fact there are several buildings mentioned does not argue in favour of a plural. If you think the article should indeed deal with several convents, edit it to do so. Or perhaps make another article that does so. But note: we do not have an article called Troys simply because archaeology reveals several stages in the history of Troy (we can speak of "an earlier Troy"), with various spatial distributions. Now, I have considered your alternative: "Ursuline Convent, French Quarter, New Orleans"; and I understand the reasoning. But if "Ursuline Convent" is to be treated as a proper name in the article, then "New Orleans" might indeed be a sufficient qualifier. Is there another convent anywhere in New Orleans called simply "Ursuline Convent", as a proper name? If there is, then I support the longer alternative title; if there is not, I stand by "Ursuline Convent (New Orleans)". Noetica^Tea? 01:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see, you oppose because you disagree with the target, not that you disagree the article should be moved. As I've said, I'm very open to other suggestions for titles. As to the plural, there are two other "Ursuline Convent"s in New Orleans I think might be either worth articles or sections of an article. I already have a few historic images of the one in the 9th Ward that was the Ursuline Convent in New Orleans for 95 years. I'm not sure, but think the one still serving a religious function (Uptown) has a proper name of something like "Ursuline Academy and Convent". The Shrine of Our Lady of Prompt Succor is on the grounds and still an important site of pilgrimage of local devout Roman Catholics. It's been something on my long line of things in my home town to get around to photographing and writing about eventually. Thanks much for your feedback. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Looking at the article and considering related subjects, I suggest we should have two articles: 1) Article about the building at Ursulines & Chartres Street in the French Quarter of New Orleans. When possible, we try to have separate articles on each place on the National Register, and this more than qualifies. 2) History of the Ursulines in New Orleans. General history of the Ursuline Nuns in New Orleans, including the four significant buildings of their history; some overlap but mostly separate subjects. Other thoughts? Infrogmation (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I spun off the history of the Ursulines in New Orleans into a separate article, History of the Ursulines in New Orleans. Infrogmation (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"Old Ursuline Convent, New Orleans" would be an acceptable name to me. Infrogmation (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Inf, my sincere thanks to you for such flexibility. I too support that option. How to proceed? I hope the closing admin will feel free to act on it, or to steer the process in such a way that the article can end up with that more informative and more consensual alternative (with either parentheses or a comma, I don't care). Noetica^Tea? 23:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"Acceptable", but I wouldn't call it optimal. "Old" as in 1750s (French Quarter) as opposed to "Old" as in 1820s (9th Ward, a different historic building). That's why I think having the designation "French Quarter" would be a useful and specific disambiguation. (A street name or address isn't useful here, since which side of the historic building is the entrance was changed while it was used as the Archbishop of New Orleans' palace in the 19th century). Again, "Ursuline Convent, French Quarter, New Orleans" (or some variation) is fine by me, and IMO less ambiguous than just saying "Old". Other suggestions still welcome. Infrogmation (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

After doing some work on buildings another option would be using the year for two buildings with the same common name in the same place. So we would have Old Ursuline Convent, New Orleans (1751) or a bit shorter Ursuline Convent, New Orleans (1751) for the bulk of what this article is about. The first building would then be at Ursuline Convent, New Orleans (1734) either as a redirect to that section in this article or as a new article and when written, Ursuline Convent, New Orleans (1824) and Ursuline Convent, New Orleans (1912). Of course Old Ursuline Convent, French Quarter (1751) could also be an option. I still don't know where this is going to wind up. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Move to somewhere, definitely, and redirect this title to Ursulines. Not particularly fussed about which of the various proposed alternatives is chosen, but there's no way that people looking for information on Urusline convents anywhere in the world should be directed here. Oh, I see Old Ursuline Convent, New Orleans has more or less gained everyone's approval, so I'll support that option too.--Kotniski (talk) 08:21, 13 October 2011 (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.