 | This is an archive of past discussions about Old City Hall (Toronto). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Untitled
Should be merged with Toronto. Or, if it can be expanded, renamed so as not to be so ambiguous. -- Scott Burley 06:49, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Fuzheado | Talk 06:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Well, we have articles about other buildings in Toronto, and this one is very well-known and recognizable. Obviously it has a bad title at the moment and does not really say much, but it could be expanded. (If I had a camera, and the building was not covered in scaffolding, I would take a picture.) Adam Bishop 07:15, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Has potential to become encyclopedic. Does need new title. Suggest "Old City Hall (Toronto)" Fg2 07:23, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
- With the present content, merge to Toronto City Hall, but don't redirect from the present title. If this article were to be expanded a *lot*, then it surely would be worth keeping at the name Fg2 suggested. ~leif ☺ HELO 08:49, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Move (don't redirect). I'm sure there are a fair number of buildings called Old City Hall worldwide. Average Earthman 10:15, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Merge and delete is not valid. I would say that a move is a good idea, except that there's nothing here. Again, it would take anyone else no time to overcome this content, and I don't know why we need to credit the person who thought of writing on the subject but didn't bother to do it. That's why I'd have to say delete, but I suggest Torontoans write something on the building in the Toronto, Canada article and create a redirect at Old City Hall (Toronto). Geogre 14:09, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Why isn't "merge and delete" valid? For a freshly-created article with a small number of edits by a single contributor, why can't the text be merged into another article and a manually-created summary of the history placed on the Talk page? That's method 1. Method 2, well, Improv says there's a way to merge histories but didn't say how... and after experimenting a bit with various sequences of deletes and merges and restores I think he's probably right but I don't quite have the technique down yet.
- Well, masked man who didn't sign, it is legal, if you do all that. :-) The reason I said that it wasn't a legal vote is that I gather that the back end of VfD, if you'll forgive the imagery, has folks doing the things that have been requested -- the deleting, the merging, the redirecting -- and forcing them to hand paste the histories in is something that VfD voters aren't supposed to require. That said, as I've indicated elsewhere, I would personally love to see "merge and delete" a possibility, but I think it's a GFDL thing, and not a logic thing. Geogre 05:10, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The correct term is Torontonian, if the article is to be moved, it should be Toronto Old City Hall 132.205.45.110 16:05, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Why isn't "merge and delete" valid? For a freshly-created article with a small number of edits by a single contributor, why can't the text be merged into another article and a manually-created summary of the history placed on the Talk page? That's method 1. Method 2, well, Improv says there's a way to merge histories but didn't say how... and after experimenting a bit with various sequences of deletes and merges and restores I think he's probably right but I don't quite have the technique down yet.
- Merge and delete or merge and redirect to Toronto. Should not be a separate article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:24, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Merge into Toronto City Hall, just as is done for other building names that apply to more than one building. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 19:43, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep a famous and historic Toronto building. More notable than some of the other structures in Category:Toronto buildings or Category:City halls. - SimonP 20:47, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
- Have formated and expanded the article. - SimonP 05:24, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Previous article title was the only dodgy feature. It should not be listed here. zoney ♣ talk 21:02, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Article has been moved to a more appropriate title; building is encyclopedia-notable. Keep as revised. Bearcat 22:02, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Encyclopedic, relevant, factually accurate, verifiable. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 00:47, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Article-worthy as it is, and I know that there's room for much more on the subject (pending research). Radagast 13:25, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a notable building. New title is an improvement. John FitzGerald
- Keep. It's a good start to an article. --YUL89YYZ 14:14, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. With new title, quite valid. It's a stub, but it's a building worth an article, and this is a good start. - Cafemusique 17:09, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
End archived discussion -- Graham ☺ | Talk 19:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)