User talk:Rich257/Archive/2008/August

Virpur (Rajkot)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Virpur (Rajkot), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Virpur. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Virpur a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is considered undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I could have moved the page but would I have moved it to "Virpur (Rajkot)" or "Virpur (Kheda)" since the information was on the same page? Therefore my decision was that it was best to create two new pages. Rich257 (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As Rajkot took up the bulk of the article, it should have been moved there, with Kheda split out as it was a fairly recent (and badly done) addition. Then the redirect made into the disambig page. Though, with it cleaned up, Rajkot isn't much bigger either now. :-P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

With the non-encyclopedic material removed I would say that there's little to choose between them, or little of value in either article, they are both stubs. Rich257 (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

On that, I would agree. Alas, I believe any city is considered notable for having an article just for existing, so not sure they could just be deleted. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)