Talk:Fountain square

Splitting and Merging
How about some discussion about this? I don't think it's necessary. Maybe if this article grows to four or five Fountain Squares it might be useful, but even then, I like the idea of a general article that says "A number of cities around the world have public spaces called Fountain Square. And here are a few." Otherwise, we're going to need to keep it as a disambiguation article anyway. --Tysto 12:49, 2005 August 4 (UTC)


 * There's LOTS of places with a "fountain square" (I just found another one in Evanston, Illinois, and there is one in Bloomington, Indiana, as well). The per-location articles should be split out and this article replaced with a disambiguation.  The splits can either be called Fountain Square (name of place) or can be merged into the appropriate place article.  Maintaining this article as a multifurcated main article is simply unworkable in the long term. Kelly Martin 14:34, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

There's LOTS of places with a "fountain square" (I just found another one in Evanston, Illinois, and there is one in Bloomington, Indiana, as well). And let's add Bowling Green, Kentucky. I found another one in Baku, Azerbaijan. . Seriously, split the article already. Kelly Martin 14:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * And let's add Bowling Green, Kentucky to the list.  And I've found suggestions of Fountain Squares in Lombard, Illinois, Waukegan, Illinois, Houston, Texas, and Tuscaloosa, Alabama (although I think that last one is an apartment complex).  Kelly Martin 14:48, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

People, people, people, Person, person, person, let's be reasonable. There are towns that don't have their own articles. Why should every Tomtown, Dickville, and Harryopolis Fountain Square have a separate article? As with everything else, we should only document the notable ones separately, with maybe links to the main articles where lesser ones are mentioned. --Tysto 19:51, 2005 August 4 (UTC)


 * There are actually very few towns in the United States that do not have their own articles. I personally think these sections can reasonably be merged into the locality articles (they are too short to deserve their own articles) or into an appropriate subarticle (e.g. Neighborhoods of Indianapolis).  Maintaining this article as anything other than a disambiguation, however, is rather bizarre.  And for you to dismiss Baku (the capital city of an entire nation) as an example of a  "Tomtown, Dickville, and Harryopolis" simply defies description.  Kelly Martin 12:18, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to the assertion that there are "LOTS of places," not to the example of Baku specifically. I wouldn't think that the fountain square in Baku is actually called "Fountain Square" except as an English translation. IMO, merging the specific information with its respective city is preferable to separate articles, but I still think the subject warrants a Fountain Square article that is more than just a disambiguation page, similar to town square. Incidentally, my example of towns stems from my project to photograph towns from the air. Out of about 100 towns [I've photographed] in Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky, 12 (all very small and probably unincorporated) aren't included in Wikipedia (yet can be found in Yahoo maps). --Tysto 04:59, 2005 August 7 (UTC)


 * The content in this article as it stands right now only addresses two cities, Indianapolis and Cincinnati. The content definitely should be split and merged into the two articles Cincinnati, Ohio and Indianapolis. --Eric Forste (Talk) 22:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Your righteous indignation has moved me. I've merged the Cincy and Indy text with their respective articles, added mention of all the towns mentioned above (including noble Baku), and genericized this article in preparation for moving it to "Fountain square". --Tysto 16:28, 2005 August 10 (UTC)


 * Responding to a request for comment is more of a chore than an opportunity for righteous indignation. Thanks for doing the bigger chore of splitting and merging. --Eric Forste (Talk) 08:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

My question - though belated - is this more a definition as it is written, or an encyclopedia article? Skoblentz 20:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)