Talk:City of Palaces

From VfD:

Assuming that this isn't a copyvio, merge into Calcutta. Rick K 19:38, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

hm. We have pages for Second city and the Big Apple; on one hand this would seem to be a parallel, on the other I don't see anything here that wouldn't be better off in the main article. If there was something a bit more notable about the phrase or its history (as there is for Big Apple) I'd vote keep; as it stands I abstain. Jgm 19:52, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Information is of some value but I agree with Rick. It should be merged into Calcutta. Arevich 21:21, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Merge into Calcutta. - Kenwarren 21:37, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
Well, I just copy-pasted into the "City of Palaces" subsection that was waiting at Calcuuta and it seems fine. Edit it there and delete this orphan stub. Wetman 21:39, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC) comment moved off main vfd page. Rossami
Keep it separate. Link it to Calcutta. anon comment moved off main vfd page. Rossami
If merging, use the City Of Palaces page as a redirect though - Master Of Ninja 21:59, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Keep in its present form, just link it to Calcutta. No need to make the reader search Calcutta for the info. A tag line like "City of Palaces" or "The Windy City" or what-have-you serves as a nice point of departure for an article about the city proper. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:35, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Keep—obviously enough information to discuss nickname in its own right. Postdlf 13:17, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

calcutta is NOT the city of palaces... pl name 2 palaces that r in calcutta.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.99.55.27 (talk) 07:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]