Talk:Scottsdale, Arizona
|
|
Good work in moving the contents from Scottsdale, Ortolan88. I wasn't confident enough in my knowledge of the USA to do it myself! I'll put the bit you removed here on the Talk page, just in case anyone wants to debate it, although I will say straight away that I personally have no interest in seeing it put back. -- Oliver PEREIRA 02:16 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
- "Nicknamed Snotsdale by many, this area hosts a variety of businesses, such as Soccer Express, Neiman Marcus, Starbucks Coffee amd the John Casablancas Modeling and Acting School."
Removing Pima name from first line.
I moved the Pima name down from being listed alongside the name Scottsdale, to be consistent with the Tucson article. A full discussion of that situation was held at Talk:Tucson, Arizona. kmccoy (talk) 00:29, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- This is inconsistent with policy. You will have to hold an individual vote for each case, and even then it isn't technically alright to let a local poll override preexisting policy.
- There is no policy on this matter other than the RFC that was held on Talk:Tucson, Arizona, and in which a number of interested parties joined. Perhaps you should call an RFC on making Tucson a special case, and keeping the first line names in these other cities. As it stands, the non-English names for these cities get more space and more explanation if they are included as I've done, rather than without explanation at the top of the article. I don't understand why you oppose including MORE information rather than less. Why can't we find a happy place, node? Why do you bring this issue up again after MONTHS of letting it rest? kmccoy (talk) 03:58, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I don't get it - you're the one who let my version stay but reverted it recently, and you're accusing ME of bringing it up again after months of letting it rest? Preexisting policy (naming conventions, style guide) is to do it the way I've done it. The RfC at Talk:Tucson, Arizona was a vote on which of two versions, which differed in more than one way, was better than the other. There was no sort of clause that people voted on that said "There is a certain principle here that should be held to all pages". If you want to make thing confusing and discriminatory, there needs to be another RfC which expressly states that it is NOT local and applies to ALL places on ALL continents, voting on whether to use your thing or mine. --Node 08:11, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)