Talk:Salisbury Rhodesia

This should be redirected to Harare because, essentially, they are the same thing. —Scott5114↗ 18:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirection Unecessary
Personally, I think Salisbury should have a column of its own as there is a lot that can be said about it that can't be said in the Harare section. Also, pictures from Salisbury days could be added, especially for those doing projects, or have a history with Salisbury in its prime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangwanani (talk • contribs)
 * Why couldn't that be added to the history section of Harare? —Scott5114↗ 18:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why should it? Is it so criminally wrong for salisbury to have a section of its own? Why MUST Harare have everything? Even if they ARE the same thing, you could still have a bigger section on Salisbury in its own place rather than in Harare. Surely people who search for Harare are looking for facts on HARARE not on SALISBURY. For those looking for facts/pics specifically on Salisbury and want only that will not want to read everything in the Harare section. Why can't it have a section of its own? There is no reason why it can't at all. Surely the fact that Wikipedia is edited by the public rather than professors in the different fields means that they aim for people to put on what they want therefore providing facilities for other looking for exactly the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.37.202 (talk • contribs)
 * Harare and Salisbury are one and the same thing. They are the same city, with the same history. As such, they should be merged. The history section of Harare is fairly short as it is, and could benefit from more information. And, since Harare and Salisbury have the same history (being the same thing), the same history would have to be duplicated in both articles, which is a pain for editors as well as users.—Scott5114↗ 21:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)