Difference between revisions of "Talk:Belmont-DeVilliers"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (Talk:Belmont-De Villiers moved to Talk:Belmont-DeVilliers) |
(moed article) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
*I noticed. My personal feeling is that we maintain correctness and have "Belmont-Devilliers" redirect to the current page, as is already so. I see a lot of sources that say "Belmont-DeVilliers", almost as if they are recognising that de Villiers is not one word but squishing it together anyway. I think the current presentation is most correct, but I'm not going to make a fuss if it bothers you. '''[[User:Dcosson|dcosson]]''' ··· '''[[User talk:Dcosson|talk]]''' 07:48, 30 April 2007 (CDT) | *I noticed. My personal feeling is that we maintain correctness and have "Belmont-Devilliers" redirect to the current page, as is already so. I see a lot of sources that say "Belmont-DeVilliers", almost as if they are recognising that de Villiers is not one word but squishing it together anyway. I think the current presentation is most correct, but I'm not going to make a fuss if it bothers you. '''[[User:Dcosson|dcosson]]''' ··· '''[[User talk:Dcosson|talk]]''' 07:48, 30 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
::Maybe it's the hyphen connecting "Belmont" and "De," while "Villiers" seems kind of detached off to the side, but it just looks funny to me. Maybe I'll get used to it. Let's leave it for now. --[[User:Admin|Admin]] 09:13, 30 April 2007 (CDT) | ::Maybe it's the hyphen connecting "Belmont" and "De," while "Villiers" seems kind of detached off to the side, but it just looks funny to me. Maybe I'll get used to it. Let's leave it for now. --[[User:Admin|Admin]] 09:13, 30 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
| + | :::I've gone ahead and moved it to Belmont-DeVillers. I think that is a fair compromise as it addresses both the need to separate De and Villiers by maintaining capitalisation and it also addresses the Belmont-De thing... '''[[User:Dcosson|dcosson]]''' ··· '''[[User talk:Dcosson|talk]]''' 10:02, 30 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 15:02, 30 April 2007
I know the official name of the street is "De Villiers," but I've had a hard time finding any source that doesn't call the neighborhood "Belmont-Devilliers" (including the City website). Any thoughts? How do we reconcile two prominent-but-different spellings? --Admin 00:14, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
- I noticed. My personal feeling is that we maintain correctness and have "Belmont-Devilliers" redirect to the current page, as is already so. I see a lot of sources that say "Belmont-DeVilliers", almost as if they are recognising that de Villiers is not one word but squishing it together anyway. I think the current presentation is most correct, but I'm not going to make a fuss if it bothers you. dcosson ··· talk 07:48, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
- Maybe it's the hyphen connecting "Belmont" and "De," while "Villiers" seems kind of detached off to the side, but it just looks funny to me. Maybe I'll get used to it. Let's leave it for now. --Admin 09:13, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
