Talk:City of Palaces

From VfD:

Assuming that this isn't a copyvio, merge into Calcutta. RickK 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)