Talk:Prince George's County

Redirect?
I don't know that Maryland needs regions down to the county level. Should we redirect to Capital Region (Maryland)? -- (WT-en) Jonboy 05:05, 22 September 2006 (EDT)


 * I created it as a redirect to Capital Region (Maryland), I don't understand why it was changed.
 * The "summary" for the creation was #REDIRECT Capital Region (Maryland) and yet for the change it was covert redirect to region template. Does not need a rediredt - what was "covert" about it?
 * I suggest it be reverted back to a redirect; but if not, then it needs a instead - see Project:Votes for deletion. ~ 203.144.143.6 08:15, 22 September 2006 (EDT)
 * Personally, I'd rather not see it deleted. There's more to the county than the part immediately touching the Capital Region, and until the numerous small towns in it all get their own articles, it's a useful catch-all.  The same argument suggests that a redirect isn't to the point either, so let's leave it as is. (Incidentally, Montgomery County is another Maryland county for which the same arguments would apply; most other counties there really don't need separate articles, but I could make a case for that one too.) -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:44, 6 October 2006 (EDT)
 * The hierarchy I set up (err, stole from the Maryland Department of Tourism) for Maryland has PG+Montgomery=Capital Region. If you'd like to redefine that, it's a separate issue.  But as long as PG is part of the Capital Region, I think a redirect is appropriate.  If the Capital Region starts overflowing, we can sub-regionalize the Capital Region into Montgomery & PG, but for now I don't think that's necessary (unfortunately -- would that we had too much Maryland information!) -- (WT-en) Jonboy 17:58, 6 October 2006 (EDT)

OK, the Capital Region is now officially overflowing. (OK, unofficially.) By that, I mean with the addition of Brentwood, we'd either have to bump a much more significant city off the Capital Region page or have 10 cities. Therefore I'm undoing the redirect and moving Brentwood here. --(WT-en) Jonboy 06:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Prince George's County

 * US county created as a redirect - should such pages be deleted or kept? I agree with the comments in support of pre-emptive redirects on Project:Geographical hierarchy and Talk:U.S. counties (disambiguation), but there appears to be no actual policy. ~ 203.144.143.6 14:07, 21 September 2006 (EDT)


 * Keep: I have changed this by putting in a region template. It is much better to discuss policy changes prior to implementation. Suggest the proposal above by the anon be discussed and a consensus reached before setting policy. refer discussion to Project:Geographical hierarchy -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 14:20, 21 September 2006 (EDT)
 * It has been mentioned on the Talk:Prince George's County page by User:(WT-en) Jonboy that a county breakdown is not needed for Maryland, based upon that, I don't object to deleting or redirecting this. I just don't want to "turn on" a massive effort to redirect all county pages I suspected that was starting. I would hope we would discuss that and come to some sort of agreement on massive redirects before implementation. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 11:16, 23 September 2006 (EDT)


 * Keep/Redirect. This county often gets referred to as a location.  I could see someone saying "where can we eat in PG" and searching for this name. But I agree that this shouldn't spark a massive effort to redirect.  Clarke County, GA, to pick another place I've lived, is not some place that I think needs to be redirected.  -- (WT-en) Jonboy 21:28, 24 September 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep, at least for now. PG County (where I lived briefly) is fairly "urban," and a time may come when everything of interest in it is covered by some other article.  Until then, given the fact that places are indeed described as being in "PG," it's a service to the traveler to have the article around.  It certainly does extend far enough away from Washington DC that some things can best be described as being there, rather than in the Capital Region. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:39, 6 October 2006 (EDT)

Consensus seems to be to keep this. I'm archiving the discussion. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:38, 10 October 2006 (EDT)