Jump to content

Talk:Philadelphia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Article needs correction

There is a contradiction in the article. At the top of the article, it states that Philly was the second capital. Later in the article, it says that Philly was the first capital. This confusion might be due to whether or not New York City can be considered the first capital.

From http://www.nps.gov/inde/phila.html,

The U.S. Government under the Constitution began in New York City on March 4, 1789. In 1790 it came to Philadelphia, the result of a compromise whereby Southern congressmen agreed to support Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton's financial proposals in return for locating a permanent capital somewhere on the banks of the Potomac River. Philadelphia was named temporary capital while the new Federal city was being prepared.

Also, from http://www.yorkcity.org/history/index.htm

As Yorkers know, their City was the first Capital of the United States, it was the birthplace of the Articles of Confederation and it was here that the words "The United States of America" were first spoken.
In September of 1777 the Continental Congress, under threat of the advancing British, moved the location of the colonies' central government from Philadelphia to Lancaster. Since the State of Pennsylvania's Government was also located in Lancaster, officials decided that a move across the Susquehanna would separate the two sufficiently and the Continental Congress set up shop in the Town of York.
It was in York that the Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, proclaimed the first National Day of Thanksgiving, and signed the French Treaty of Alliance. All of these events occurred in the nine months York remained Capital of the United States - until June 27, 1778.

Also, note the following dates...

July 4, 1776 Declaration of Independence signed
September 1777 Continental Congress moved the location of the colonies' central government from Philadelphia to Lancaster
November 15, 1777 Articles of Confederation agreed to by the Continental Congress
March 1, 1781 Articles of Confederation in effect after ratification by Maryland
1785 Congress convenes in New York City.
Sept. 17, 1787 Constitution signed in Philadelphia
March 4, 1789 U.S. Government under the Constitution began in New York City

There were many cities that acted as "temporary capitals" for the colonies/U.S. Here's the complete list in chronological order that I pieced together (based on where Congress, Continental or Constitutional, was located). I think this list is complete, except for a few missing dates.

1. Philadelphia July 4, 1776
2. Baltimore, December 1776, fleeing the British
3. Philadelphia, March 1777
4. Lancaster, PA, September 1777, for only one day?
5. York, PA, September 1777, to use Susquehanna river as defense against British
6. Princeton, NJ
7. Annapolis, MD
8. Trenton, NJ
9. New York, NY
10. Philadelphia
11. Washington, D.C.

I think these are all the places that have any claim of being a capital of the United States. Of these, New York City and Philadelphia have the strongest claims of being the first capital. One question to answer is what constitutes being the first capital. Do we start the clock at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the Article of Confederation, or the Constitution. I think that the Constitution would be the key event because before that, America was really a group of independent colonies rather than a nation.

Also, I believe that New York City did not have the physical infrastructure (buildings, etc.) in place to be an actual capital for the newly formed government. I think it acted more as a temporary meeting place. Philadelphia did have a lot of infrastructure for the federal government because it was trying to woe the government into making Philly the permanent capital.

In my opinion, Philly should be considered the first capital of the U.S. because it had actual capital buildings that were used by the government after the signing of the Constitution. The fact that Philly was also used as the first capital of the colonies is not relevent in my opinion.

However, I am not a historian or an expert in early American history, so I don't want to update the article myself. Also, from my research, there seems to be a lot of contention about which city is the first capital. Would a historian or professor of history please comment on this issue and update the page.

Daniel Barbalace

See http://www.clearthought.info for email address.

Also Consider

Technically, George Washington was not the first president of the United States. There were presidents before him under both the Continental Congress (President_of_the_Continental_Congress) and the Articles_of_Confederation. However, today we don't count these presidents when assigning orders to the presidents (Washington as 1, Regan as 40, Clinton as 42, etc.). If we start counting presidents from the Constitution, doesn't it also make sense to start counting capitals from there?

- Dan

Danel B. and Dan, good discussion I say, thanks you both. I think need more referance, then deside whether cut remark Phila. ever capital of US. Is there def of "capital" means? I think it mean more than gov only wait place while run away. Otherwise, Air Force 1 is US capital sometimes. GW he not 1st prez? If put that, flunk citisen test! What name of real 1st Prez, please? BillFlis 01:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
My point being that we're getting a little far off from the subject of the article. How about a couple of whole new articles on "Capitals of the United States" and "Presidents of the United States", where all these confusing facts can be laid out in some detail. BillFlis 12:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

General

Great page, should we create a list of online resources local for Philadelphia? --Josowski 14:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Umm no we should not, see WP:NOT. --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought I would mention that, overall, this is a well-designed page. --Sensor 01:24, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't "West Philadelphia" be listed as one of the city neighbourhoods? It seems bizarre to me to have "University City" and not "West Philadelphia", especially given the history of the neighbourhood. --Flying fish 03:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The page is certainly short-changing Philadelphia's role and prominence in medicine and pharmaceuticals, esp in medical education. We can't let Boston's page get away with stealing all of Philadelphia's Thunder, can we?!Redneb 19:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I would agree that there should be a mention of the pharmaceutical/healthcare industry. Just thinking out loud but the major players to mention should be Rohm and Haas, Merck, UPenn. I am sure there are more but I can't think of all of them right now--Looper5920 02:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Ed Bacon

What's up with deleting the names of Philadelphians that you haven't heard of? As an example, Ed Bacon is a prominent and well respected urban designer, author of "Design of Cities" which is still taught in architecture schools and has been influential in the urban landscape of many cities. I understand that his son, Kevin, has appeared in some movies. Ed Bacon had much more to do with what philadelphia is like today than a cute movie actor who happened to be born there. I'd think that when discussing a major urban area, someone who had half a century worth of influence on the design of the city is worth listing, more so than a sports player or a musician or an actor.

I second that completely. It's ridiculous to delete him as a "superfluous detail" if you know anything about cities. I've reinserted him for the second time. People, just because you haven't heard of something doesn't mean it's not significant. This is a major figure in the history of modern American cities.~Sylvain 11/15/05
No it is superflourous detail, in fact its almost completely off topic. Yes he is important in design to the city, but he's not mentioned in that way. The paragraph is bascially two sentence biography. It contains his birth and death dates, it mentions a book he's written, might as well mention his son. If you would like to rewrite the section into who helped design the city, please do so. (Include references if you can) However, I will remove what is written here after I give a chance for a response (a few days). It is superfluous, it is off topic and it is rediculous to have an article about Philadelphia, PA suddenly turn into an article about Edmund Bacon before returning back to Philadelphia, PA. MechBrowman 03:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I disagree, i think the adding of a mention of Bacon, epically in how was his visions and plans in the 50'sand 60's have shaped the Philadelphia that we have today in it's physical makeup, is an important detail. The the way it is written, is totally out of context, and looks more like an advisertiment for the book, which has less to do with what was actually done in the city, but rather then a collection of his experience of his work into a philosophy of what he thinks city planning should be. Either way the paragraph needs to be rewritten, and i guess I'll take care of it. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Thats probably a better way to deal with the content than me just removing it. MechBrowman 05:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah that it would, and as soon as i get donw with the "five" other things i waanted to get to i'll get to it. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Made the changes, so it is less an obit now. Still could use more improvement and clarification. I also removed the caption text from the top of the section , which looks like it should have been in the picture, but even then it would have been a bit long a drawn out. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Images

The picture captioned "Center City Philadelphia" consists of a road with a few buildings in the distance. BO-RING!!! Is this really the most picturesque view anyone could come up with? Apart from anything else the picture could have been taken anywhere that has roads and buildings. Can somebody please replace it with an image that is a) uniquely Philadelphian and b) nicer to look at? Lee M 02:04, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)~

I agree that the picture could be better, it seems rather overcast and drab, though that's how it really looks much of the time, but otherwise this picture does capture the distinctive, east-looking view of the Philly skyline, clearly showing One and Two Liberty Place, City Hall (with William Penn aloft), and so on, not just "a few buildings buildings." It's as distinctively Philadelphian as a NYC skyline shot showing the Empire State building and, formerly, the Twin Towers would be distinctively NYC. So I think it should stay until we get a nicer-looking skyline shot. Although it might indeed be good to have pictures of the Museum as well. There's already an old drawing of Independence Hall, having a new photograph would be redundant. 68.162.81.209 21:00, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you're looking for a less boring picture of Philly, why not find a shot of the Philly Museum of Art, or a short of the Rocky statue at the Spectrum, or a shot of Independence Hall? Alba 04:10, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The picture is actually a NORTH-looking view from South Philadelphia

Organization of information

I don't agree with the separation of the lists from the article. The article is less comprehensive without the lists. WhisperToMe 07:08, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Just because the content on Philadelphia isn't all in one overlong page doesn't mean that it's not part of Wikipedia's coverage of Philadelphia. When a page gets very long, it benefits both readers and editors when subtopics and side discussions are broken off into their own page. Wikipedia works through interlinks--the more specific the subjects, the more useful the interlinks are.

For just one example of the benefit, the reason I broke off the lists was that I was looking at the Kevin Bacon entry, and looking at the "what links here" page. By separating List of famous Philadelphians, the "what links here" was changed to make the link to Bacon more specific. The relationship between Kevin Bacon and Philadelphia, as explained by "What links here", is that he is a famous Philadelphian. This is only obvious because the list was separated from the main content.

If Wikipedia was a paper encyclopedia, then it would be true that it would be a good idea to have all the information on Philadelphia organized linearly together.

But Wikipedia is not paper, and by moving subordinate or digressive content to a distinct page everyone benefits.

The Wikipedia coverage of Philadelphia is not only that which is at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania--the content at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is a starting point. Of course everything needs to be interlinked. It's very true that

Major companies in Philadelphia include Aramark, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pep Boys.

is a better way to interlink than

But please don't reconsolidate text that has been separated from an entry of burdensome length. --The Cunctator 04:05, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Its not length, but KB size that is the deciding factor on Wikipedia. After I restore the thing again, please do not touch the article until we are done with the debate. There is nothing more you can expand on "Sports Teams of Philadelphia", for instance, until you get into the teams themselves. However, you CAN expand on Center City Philadelphia, which IS a reasonable division. WhisperToMe 04:38, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It is not KB size that is the deciding factor on Wikipedia, it is quality of the entry. See m:Wiki is not paper for numerous reasons why it is better to separate content than to merge it into one long entry. --The Cunctator 05:25, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, to an extent. This article is too long, but I believe The Cunctator split it up into too small of chunks. I would be happy to mediate the situation if you so desire. —Noldoaran (Talk) 05:31, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

1. 

<quinlan> I hate "Wiki is not paper" as an argument
<Vicious]> :)
<quinlan> it's a truism

2. Nothing has been finalized. Stop touching the main article until we reach CONSENSUS with our peers on this. WhisperToMe 05:30, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I did not use "Wiki is not paper" as an argument. If I did so, that would be incorrect, as it is a truism, as Quinlan said. What I did say is "See m:Wiki is not paper for numerous reasons why it is better to separate content than to merge it into one long entry." I referred to a discussion, not a four-word truism. --The Cunctator 06:20, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)


I do not appreciate the above out-of-context excerpt of my (frankly, offhand) comments on IRC as a sign of support for one point of view. It does not express my view on this article or this dispute. On IRC, I also said... well, I didn't say much else about why I don't like it as an argument, but I was in the middle of doing laundry at the time. Anyway, if I wanted to leave a comment on this article, I would have left a comment.

To be fair, I also told "Vicious]" (WhisperToMe): 

<quinlan> Vicious]: losing your cool never helps

Because I think that is what was happening here, but WhisperToMe didn't quote me on that. For future reference, if you want me to comment on an article, please ask me next time. Daniel Quinlan 06:52, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

Yea, if the article does need to be split, we need to figure out what to take out and where to put it.

And Cunc, DO NOT REMOVE the lists until consensus is reached over this. WhisperToMe

Whisper: don't even revert his changes until you 2 come to an agreement, unless he stops discussing it here. —Noldoaran (Talk) 05:45, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

I removed the page protection. Sysops should not protect pages they are involved in editing. Daniel Quinlan 05:58, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

I protected it because Whisper TOLD ME TO STOP EDITING the page. My protection of it was an implicit agreement with that demand. --The Cunctator 06:20, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

--- Whisper, There is no need whatsoever to shout at me. I had two reasons to separate the lists into separate entries:

  1. Because I believed the lists should be separate entries
  2. Because I believe the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania entry was too long, digressive, and interrupted by the frequent lists.

Whisper, you evidently disagree with the first, but agree with me that the entry is too long. Please break up the entry in a way you find acceptable.

Reversion without discussion of significant amounts of work which was done in a way in which you do not agree, but is not explicit vandalism, is rude because it takes minimal effort to revert, thus implying that the time and effort spent to do the work was of no worth to you.

But I will accept in good faith that you know of a better way to organize the content and that you find my arguments listed above completely unconvincing.

A proposal: If you fail to break up the entry within the next 24 hours, I will consider that you are unable to find a better way than what I did to break it up, and separate out the lists. I would be happy to work with you to do so if you can convince me why none of the lists merit separate entries.

Noldoaran, please tell me if you think this is a reasonable compromise. --The Cunctator 06:20, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Instead of having a bunch of small lists, why not have a List of Philadelphia-related topics? --Jiang | Talk 06:01, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Cunc, you might wanna look at other city articles as an example. New York, New York doesn't have any uber-long lists taken out of it (except for the list of mayors), but information on specific neighborhoods go in specific articles. While the information general to New York is in the New York article, the specific stuff dealing with the actual neighborhoods are in that article.

A better idea, IMO, is to first try to pan off two of the images to the right so that the article doesnt appear to be so large. If the article is still too large, find a non-list section that is extremely well developed, put it in its own article, and then make a brief overview of that article in the main article.

Even better would simply to add content. Perhaps dig up information about which city rivalries Phillies maintain, what cultural practices exist around the city, a detailed look at the road network, and the like. WhisperToMe 06:38, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

New York, New York also needs to have the lists redacted. Thanks for pointing that out. --The Cunctator 06:57, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I suggest coming up with a guideline for which lists should be split out before proceeding to avoid future edit wars. Some of the lists that were split off of Phila seem to be too short to warrant separate articles. Daniel Quinlan 07:01, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)
Yea, perhaps if a certain list can be built on, as in all of the collective members of the list have something in common and can provide a detailed explanation of what they all have in common, perhaps it can be split off.

The Museum list of Houston, Texas has only one on it because the rest of the museums are located in the Houston museum district - the list on the main article excludes museum's in the main district. Perhaps the sites of interest list can be broken up and whatever neighborhoods the sites are, then they are listed there. The site will then be listed next to the neighborhood in the list of neighborhoods. WhisperToMe 07:38, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

As a basic principle, you should avoid list-making in entries. Wikipedia is not a list repository. Rather, the significant items in some category should be mentioned naturally within the text. For example:

The 20th century architecture of New York City includes numerous icons of architecture, most notably its striking skyscrapers.
At the beginning of the century, the city was a center for the Beaux-Arts movement, with architects like Stanford White and Carrere and Hastings. New York's skyscrapers include the Flatiron Building (1902) where Fifth Avenue crosses Broadway at Madison Square, Cass Gilbert's Woolworth Building (1913) a neo-Gothic "Cathedral of Commerce" overlooking City Hall, the Chrysler Building (1929) the purest expression of the Art Deco skyscraper and the Empire State Building (1931) are all skyscraper icons. Modernist architect Raymond Hood and after World War II Lever House began the clusters of 'glass boxes' that transformed the more classic previous skyline of the 1930s. When the World Trade Center towers were completed in 1973 many felt them to be sterile monstrosities, but most New Yorkers became fond of "The Twin Towers" and after the initial horror for the loss of life in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks there came great sadness for the loss of the buildings.

is good;

20th century architecture of New York City:

is poor. Having long lists within the text of Wikipedia entries makes them worse, not better. If a list is too short to need its own page, it should not be written as a list. --The Cunctator 08:13, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Now, that example is a good example of what to do.

Yet, stuff like "List of Philadelphians" or "list of movies filmed at this city" or "list of neighborhoods" (more comprehensive information can be put inside each neighborhood) shouldn't be moved. Sometimes a list and a bit of text (e.g. text explaining the types of industry in a city before listing all of the companies based in the city limits) work out together. WhisperToMe 08:51, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No; lists within entries simply are poor. Specific examples of movies filmed in Philadelphia in a paragraph about such a topic is good--a bare list is bad.

Wikipedia is not a list repository. --The Cunctator

"List repository of loosely associated topics such as; quotations, aphorisms or persons (But, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into Wikiquote, Wikipedia's sister project."

In this case, the lists are well associated with the topic (being the city itself) WhisperToMe 23:11, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

WhisperToMe - the mention of New York is clearly in the context of cities. Using "New York City" as opposed to just "New York" is unnecessary. john 03:09, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and one last thing - The point of using that format was to link to Massachusetts and New York. WhisperToMe 04:46, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

The states weren't linked to. And why do they need to be? john 05:42, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Because one shouldn't have to click Boston to then click to Massachusetts when one could simply click Massachusetts. WhisperToMe 22:15, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

But Massachusetts isn't relevant to the article (at least at that point). Nor is New York state. john 05:12, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Even if they are hardly relevant, it is not a problem to link to them. This is seen all the time on Wikipedia. WhisperToMe 05:32, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

But it is basically worthless, and ugly. I see no particularly strong reason to do so, and "this is seen all the time on Wikipedia" is not a very good reason. That would be a reason to create links to anything. john 05:36, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Which is also done, John. Heck, if one figure hardly relevant to the topic in an article is mentioned, it gets linked. E.G. any mention of George W. Bush gets linked to just that - George W. Bush. WhisperToMe 05:46, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

But there is and was no mention of Massachusetts or New York State. There were just links to the cities, which were not piped. john 05:49, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

In the case of cities, Massachusetts and New York state CAN be mentioned, albiet only once. Also if other countries are involved, "United States" can be mentioned once. WhisperToMe 05:53, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

But why SHOULD they be mentioned? john 06:11, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Most people I know of on Wikipedia would most likely say yes. I would too. WhisperToMe 06:18, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I said why should they be mentioned. Also, please don't pretend to speak for other people. john 16:20, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

When mentioning United States cities, John, one almost always mentions the state on the first mention of the city! E.G. you don't write "The President went to Saint Louis" - You write "The President went to Saint Louis, Missouri", and then write "Saint Louis" after that. WhisperToMe 23:10, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Not true, depending on context. Per AP style, these cities may stand alone:

In the U.S.: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Hollywood, Honolulu, Houston, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Washington, D.C.

Internationally: Beijing, Berlin, Djibouti, Geneva, Gibraltar, Guatemala City, Havana, Hong Kong, Jerusalem, Kuwait, London, Luxembourg, Macau, Mexico City, Monaco, Montreal, Moscow, Ottawa, Panama City, Paris, Quebec, Rome, San Marino, Singapore, Tokyo, Toronto, Vatican City.

Lukobe 23:35, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, that's really interesting. (It's a bit odd to see "Washington, D.C." in there, though-- after all, it DOES have the region name in already!) Marnanel 01:17, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

Note among those cities Boston and New York, the two cities in question. Thanks for the list, Lukobe. john 02:53, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

That threading was completely insane. I reverted it. john 04:55, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Nick Berg

People from the suburbs of Philadelphia are often identified as being from there. I think Nick Berg should stay. WhisperToMe 00:34, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, OK. But... West Chester isn't really a suburb of Philadelphia. ike9898 16:55, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
Wow, you guys to come to New York sometime, people way out on Long Island in excess of 60 miles would say they live in suburbs of NYC. - Robert Moses

Yeah, it's rather far out, isn't it? I think most Philadelphians would not consider someone from West Chester to be a Philadelphian. john k 16:59, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

John, West Chester is also part of the Delaware Valley CMSA, as it is in Chester County. There are reports which say Berg is from Philadelphia (which are technically incorrect). Some Philadelphians may not consider him from the city, but outsiders tend to. WhisperToMe 18:41, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that doesn't mean it's genuinely a suburb of Philadelphia. john k 19:44, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Again, it is considered a part of the CMSA as it is in Chester County, and Nick Berg himself said "I am from West Chester, Pennsylvania, near Philadelphia" in the decapitation video.

In addition, these sources identify him as from a Philadelphia suburb. It is somewhat far away, but then again, that's urban sprawl for you.

WhisperToMe 20:38, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

The US Census isn't the be all and end all. According to the US census, Baltimore and Washington are in the same CMSA, so that one might then say that Harford County, Maryland is in the Washington area. Except that nobody says that. Obviously, the case with West Chester is somewhat different. john k 22:19, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

That's because CMSA's can be divided into separate MSA's. For instance, the BWI area can be divided into "Washington", "Baltimore", and "Hagerstown" MSAs. The Philadelphia area can be divided into the "Philadelphia", "Atlantic City", and "Wilmington" areas. But Chester County is squarely in the "Philadelphia" MSA. WhisperToMe 22:23, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

My last word on the subject. The man was not a philadelphian => shouldn't be in the list (he should be on the list of famous West Chestarians!). Or maybe we should start listing candians and mexicans as famous Americans. Who knows? This not important enough to fight over, but it seems pretty clear to me...Philadelphians are from Philadelphia...where's the confusion? ike9898 16:16, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
People associate the man with Philadelphia, therefore he should be in the list of famous Philadelphians, with the note that he's actually from West Chester. We shouldn't list famous Canadians and Mexicans as famous Americans because nobody considers someone from Mexico City or Toronto to be from America. --Lukobe 17:38, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Some other people who are apparently NOT Philadelphians:

No, Grace Kelly was born in Hahnemann Hospital and grew up in the Kelly mansion in East Falls (on Henry Ave., now part of Philadelphia Univ. campus, I believe). http://www47.homepage.villanova.edu/charlene.mires/tours/kelly.htm I think that makes her a thoroughgoing Philadelphian. BillFlis 22:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Center City

Why does it say downtown is "informally" known as "Center City?" That's all it is known as, and all the government literature and city codes refer to the downtown area as Center City. If it has any other name I don't know what it is, so perhaps the "informally" should go. There are of course Philly things that have informal names, such as the Market-Frankford line of SEPTA being informally known as "the El," but Center City is not one of them. 68.162.81.209 21:03, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You made a good argument. I would go ahead and change it if I were you. In case you are new to Wikipedia, you should know that it is ok to go ahead and make a change if you think it will improve the article. If a change is controversial, it might be important to get a consensus first, but I think in this case you could just make the change. ike9898 21:25, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

spikebrennan I think that Center City should have its own page-- it is an entity unto itself, rather than simply a group of neighborhoods.

Well, technically, all neighborhood names are essentially informal - they have no formal standing in law, at least. But, yeah, I agree that there's no reason to call it "informal" - it is simply known as "Center City." john k 18:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
since other city districts have their own article I don't see why Center City shouldn't. MechBrowman 18:56, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the term "Center City" does have legal standing. For example, there is a Center City Special Services District, and Center City (specifically defined) has special rules for taxicab rates.Robert A West 05:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Cutting the Fat

I was looking threw the article, and besides it's over it's size limit i thought that it could be cleaned up a bit. Their are three sections that i believe need to be shortened, moved to their own article or both.

Philadelphia in film and television, i think i brief blurb about the city’s importance in the are should be noted under a bigger section about the city's arts and culture, with the main part moving to it's own article.

Famous past and present Philadelphia residents, great list of people, but their problem i see it their are a lot that aren’t really known well outside of the Delaware valley, and if they are they a bit compartmentalized to their specialty. Propose moving to new article, so can be further expanded as needed, with listing on article of Philadelphians with a world/nationwide appeal, and a link to new article.

List of Philadelphia Neighborhoods, move to a new article with link from page.

Transportation, just kinda blurb it up and add a bit more to it, i.e. bridges, airport, port and stuff, and move to a new article to be expanded further.

Comment would be nice and is requested, for the mean time I’ll abstain from any changes, but I’ll start on the new articles. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 10:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The "New" article are at Philadelphia in film and television, List of people from Philadelphia, List of Philadelphia Neighborhoods (which needs more cleanup, such asl linking the blurbs with hoods in seperate article), and Transportation in Philadelphia, if anyone wants to take a look, (fyi same as on page). I was also lookig at Category:Philadelphia, PA and noticed that that also needs to clean up as well, but i'll get around to that. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 10:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since there is an article called List of people from Philadelphia do we really need the list in the main article? Especially one so long? It takes up alot of space and doesn't seem too important. MechBrowman 04:43, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia: I would add that that Philadelphia was founded in October 1682 (usually given Oct 27, 1682). The date listed, 30 July 1727, is the date Philadelphia was incorporated as a city. PA Historical and Museum Commission Nikko

Great information, Maybe a suggestion or two....

Downtown does not refer to South Philadelphia. It is called South Philadelphia, or "South Philly" in the vernacular. Downtown is synonymous with Center City, though most Philadelphians use the term Center City.

Center City does not refer to the central business district (the Market Street corridor in the high teens and twenties). Center City refers to the rectangle formed:

-on the south by South Street -on the north by Vine Street -on the West by the Schuylkill River -on the east by the Delaware River

Calling Center City the central business district overlooks an important feature of Philadelphia: Center City is not only home to many businesses, but also an extraordinary number of true urban residences. Philadelphia features walkable, inhabited residential neighborhoods in the heart of the city.

Also noteworthy are Philadelphia's excellent historical, vernacular and stylized urban architecture.

(I also agree with another respondent that) the list of prominent persons excludes a number of politicians, artists, performers and historical figures. Throughout history, Philadelphia has been the birthplace and home to founding fathers, abolitionists (and slave owners), painters, sculptors, jazz greats, TSOP, urban American restaurant culture and countless others things, people and movements. Limiting the cited list of famous Philadelphians to post-war popular performing artists and musicians neglects too much rich and interesting history.

Again, an excellent information source, and perhaps a little better with some additions....

Increasingly, Spring Garden Street is taken as the boundary between Center City and Northern Liberties -- notably the taxi regulations recognize that as the boundary, and apartments between Vine and Spring Garden are routinely advertised as being in Center City. Robert A West 05:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I think the History section is due for a cleanup, and also a bit of information about philadelphia after the 1800's. Plenty of things have happened since then. I'm currently working on filling in what I can for the neighborhood stubs. Thoth

MUSIC

please put some music history in here, thanks.

Logan Circle or Logan Square?

There are currently two pages that refer to the NW square in Center City: Logan Circle and Logan Square. I created the first one; the second was created the day after mine, after I forgot to correct all the links. When referring to the five original squares, the Philly page still says "Logan Square." My belief is that "Logan Circle" is the common usage today, and all square references should be changed to reflect that.

If there are no objections, I will be merging the two Logan pages into Logan Circle and changing Logan Square to a redirect. I want feedback on the proper name for the park so we can fix this conflict.

--Pastricide 03:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I personaly don't remember anyone calling it Logan Circle, at least not often, and all the maps I have and the Philadelphia Inquirer call it Logan Square. I think Logan Sqare is the more common usage, but I think its more important that its merged. MechBrowman 04:27, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Is it possible that the road configuration is called Circle and the park Square? --SPUI (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
This would seem a sensible way to divide it. The little marker in Logan Square/Circle itself calls it Logan Square, but notes that it is frequently called Logan Circle because it is now shaped like a circle, iirc. john k 06:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The park that is Logan Square remains in the shape of a square with 20th Street serving as the Western border, Race Street the Southern border, 18th Street the Eastern border, and Vine Street the Northern Border - within this square there is a section of the Benjamin Franklin Parkway that forms a circle and this section of road is what is known as Logan Circle. Visit Logan Square and you will see the park area continues outside of the circle - if you can't do this pay a visit to Google's Map site and view the Square from either the satellite or map view and I am certain you will see the same as it is fact and not a matter of opinion. As for the name by which the location is known to our fellow citizens - I am sure that it has been called by both names but I believe the majority refers to the area as Logan Square. Merging the Logan pages was an excellent idea. 70.16.157.86 23:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)JI

Sports

The article mentions that Philadelphia hasn't had a major championship since 1983. I thought the Phillies went to the World Series in 1993 even though they lost to the Blue Jays. Also the 76ers played in the NBA Finals in 2001 even though they lost. I think the article should have said Philadpelphia hasn't won a championship since 1983.

Spikebrennan 16:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC) I suggest a separate "Philadelphia Sports" article with a link. The sports info that can be left in the article could include events and traditions unique to Philadelphia, like the bike race, the Penn Relays and the Dad Vail.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philadelphia/Archive_1&oldid=1141042838"