Jump to content

Talk:Philadelphia/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Lacking sources?

I'm wondering why this talk page has the ((unsourced)) template and the main article does not. Any reason? Ufwuct 02:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the ((unsourced))template. It doesn't belong here. Vgranucci 19:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This article lacks critical content. Daphnekraus 20:23, 3 Sept 2007 (UTC)

Sports and 1980

The Eagles went to the superbowl on January 25, 1981. Does this still count as the city having all of it's teams play in a championship game in one calendar year? Even if it was in January, it was still 1981. Therefore, I'm not sure if it would be appropriate to say that all the professionsal sports teams played in a championship game in 1980. Because in 1980, the Eagles were not in the Superbowl. Anyone else have thoughts on this subject and if we should change the article or not?

Yeah, this counts. It was the 1980 season.--Cms479 15:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Separate Sports article

We really need to break out the sports section into its own article, since it simply takes up so much room. See Sports in Chicago, Illinois and Sports in New York City for models.Spikebrennan 19:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - it would be the best place for all sports to be mentioned leaving the popular ones in the main section. (Braxiatel)

The New York article seems a better model. In Chicago, they think "sports" means pro teams only. Don't they golf? NYC has stickball!--BillFlis 19:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
That's because stickball isn't important in Chicago. And it shouldn't be important in New York either!
If you don't mind me putting in my two cents, I have been monitoring this article from my watchlist. I wholeheartedly agree that the sports section should be spun off into its own article. The main article is already at 66kb, and trimming down sports can't hurt, and will allow Wikipedia to be able to give a fuller treatment to Sports in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 23:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, you named it! I took a stab at an outline. Have at it, gang! Yo, Mr. Rugbite, here's your chance, I even gave you a spot.--BillFlis 00:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, after User:BillFlis kindly created and moved content to the spin-off article, I have replaced the old sports content in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania article with a shorter (and somewhat rough) summary, as is the custom with spin-offs. Anyone, please feel free to revise and improve upont the summary I currently have in place. -- danntm talk 01:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Bravo to both [[User:BillFlis|BillFlis] and danntm! Spikebrennan 21:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Separate sister cities article

The sister cities section takes up a lot of space, probably out of proportion to the significance of this topic. I would suggest moving it to a separate article.Spikebrennan 21:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it just contained unneeded subsections. Why say something is several paragraphs when you can say it in one?--Medvedenko 03:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Notable residents

I removed the Notable residents section, it was overly large and similar city articles do not have one. I moved missing entries into List of people from Philadelphia. In the end this is easier than saying who and who can’t be in that section, and it reduces the article size considerably.--Medvedenko 20:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  1. Good going, such a lsit was accumulating cruft into the article and making the article to long.-- danntm T C 15:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Population rankings

In regards to Philadelphia and New York City the article states that the two cities are only around 80 miles apart from their downtowns (around 46 miles from their closest points), amongst the closest distances between two cities of over 1,000,000 population in the world, but Yokohama, a city of nearly 4 million, Kawasaki, a city of over 1 million and Tokyo, which has a population of over 8 million all border each other.

I believe that Phoenix has recently overtaken Philadelphia as the fifth largest US city. But I cannot cite a source.

Well then, why do you believe it? Sources are everything in an encyclopedia. Also, who are you?--BillFlis 01:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The population of Philadelphia County is now 1,448,394. This is according to the US census county population estimates released on March 22nd (http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/CO-EST2006-01.html). Since Philadelphia's county and city population are one and the same, Philly is now below the Phoenix city population for the same time period (1,461,575). If you still don't believe it, try checking out the Daily News (http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20070322_Philly_drops_to_6th-largest_U_S__city.html) Vegas cat 09:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pennsylvania

{{WikiProject Pennsylvania}} Thank you very much for your contributions, but in the future, could you please sign your messages with four tildes?--BillFlis 00:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad robot!--BillFlis 10:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

no note about recent population dip?

I noticed the population of the city has fallen recently? I would be interested to know some of the reasons why this might be.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.25.148 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • The population has been falling steadily since the 1950s, and because censuses are taken every 10 years, we won't know if there is a "recent" population dip until 2010. The population decline is thought to be due to deindustrialization, smaller household size, suburbanization, etc. Most cities in the Northeast and Midwest have shown similar population trends (Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, etc). Please see Demographics of Philadelphia for more information. Passdoubt | Talk 23:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    Passdoubt is correct, Philadelphia's population decline is part of the post-industrial population shift away from northeastern cities. In fact, the 2000 U.S. Census showed that the population decline was slower than expected between 1990-2000.-- danntm T C 00:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

News

Today, a utility malfunction has set off a fire in this city. It is all over the news. Several Office buildings had to be evacuated. Martial Law 21:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


Is the Article for Tourists or just Propaganda?

First it was the Boston article trying to pull CT into it's sphere of influence and overstating Boston's importance to the northeast which includes trying to make Boston appear to be important to CT. Now I am reading the Philly article which is doing much of the same, except they seem to be continung the trend of trying to include themselves in the NYC market. I thought that Philly was a stand alone city? Meaning that it does not need to be associated with another city or state in order for people to know what that city is. You guys have your own metro area and a different style. Sure you are close to NYC for major cities being near each other, but you are not in the NYC area and I would almost question the milage.

It just occurs to me that people from Philly love their city, but almost ALWAYS say things along the lines of "Philly is only an 2 hours aways from NYC," as if you are asking the question of why you are not down with NYC. Mayve it's because you are right next to NJ? NJ is NJ. I see Philly and more related to DC and even Boston. I see Boston and Philly as similar colonial cities. The funny part is, Boston wants to pull CT away from NY and Philly wants pull itself out of Philly and into NYC. Very odd. I guess that the NYC is just too powerful and it makes those from other spectacular cities not want their cities.

I am no Philly guy, but upon reading the article I would ask myself (which I did. That is why I am writing this) "what has NYC's distance from Philly have to do with Philly?" I don't know. Maybe the author of the article could tell me. Maybe Philly is not as great as I would think of it if they desparately need to be seen as one with NYC. PA is not even on the east COAST you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.0.45.187 (talk • contribs)

I assume you are taking issue to the second paragraph. Maybe it should broaden its scope to inclusion in the BosWash megapolis. As far as specific claims you dispute: Google Maps states downtown-to-downtown mileage via car at exactly 100 miles. I haven't verified the 80 miles point-to-point, but I don't see it being erroneous. Of course its an East Coast city. It not west coast and its not midwest. The article never claims the city is "coastal" as I believe you are disputing: Either way I should remind you that the Delaware River is tidal up to Trenton, New Jersey and that Philadelphia is a major port. Just think of the city as having the fortune of a 30-40 mile long harbor. ccwaters 11:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Boy, now PA wants to be "Wall Street West." Is PA THAT hard up on trying to be down with NYC? I mean, it is not in the area and NJ or CT fits the bill for any back up. You would think that Philly(I believe the governor was Philly's mayor) would be the priority instead of worrying about NYC. PA, a wannabe NYC suburb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.167.146 (talk • contribs)

If you're offering suggestions on how to improve this article, by all means clarify. Otherwise please refrain from chatter: this isn't a messageboard. ccwaters 02:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

fifth or sixth?

Hi,

For the poster questioning the distances, use:

http://williams.best.vwh.net/gccalc.htm

to see the "straight line" distances between Philadelphia and New York (for both their closest points and their downtowns).

I believe we should say Philadelphia is the fifth largest city. Someone put a comment in the source code to not change this; so I won't; but as of the 2000 census we are the fifth largest city. I don't know how much faith we should put into the 2005 estimates; they could be wrong. I believe Phoenix or someone said that by their data Phoenix is still really the sixth largest city. I disagree with the way the Bureau tries to estimate.

According to the U.S. Census estimates (as of 2005), Philadelphia is still ranked 5th in population. Source: List of United States cities by population --Moreau36 20:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
True indeed, Look how the U.S. Census has underestimated Washington, D.C. and St. Louis, Missouri during the 2005 estimates count: [1] --Moreau36 21:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Then you're questioning the arbitrarity of the idea of "city proper". This does indeed overrepresent newer larger Southern and Western cities, and sell short older Northeastern cities like Boston, Providence, and Baltimore. This is an acknowledged flaw in the definition. It doesn't mean you can go reranking city proper populations based on a new scheme you think to be more indicative of the city's presence. Since the US Census bureau (the source of all our population figures for reasons of standardization) has now estimated Phoenix's city proper population to be larger based on strict definition, we have no choice but to report it as so.--Loodog 22:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I had forgotten; even the 2005 population estimate shows Philadelphia ahead (slightly) of Phoenix. I am going to change the rank back to fifth. The reason is the census has released NOTHING stating Phoenix is ahead of Philadelphia, whether the census, population estimates, etc. You can not put Philadelphia at number #6 if even the census bureau never said that. Plus, these estimates could be wrong (they are based on things like number of houses sold, etc.), which leaves room for error, so perhaps Philadelphia is really #5 for a long time. Based on that we really don't know, plus the census has not released anything stating Phoenix is ahead of us; I believe we should put Philadelphia back to #5.

If even the estimates don't put Phoenix ahead of Philly, I don't see how we can do so. john k 17:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move to Philadelphia. —Mets501 (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Truth of the matter is, Phoenix probably has already passed Philadelphia in population but the official count won't be known until 2010, so Philly can still be ranked 5th. But I think it also needs to be mentioned that cities like Phoenix, San Diego, Dallas, and Houston cover so much area that they eventually will have bigger populations than many East Coast and Midwestern cities. If those cities areas were cut down to, say, the area of Philly, Chicago, Baltimore, or Boston, their populations would be very small in comparision to East Coast/Midwest cities of the same geographic size. Basically speaking, its not an accomplishment to have 1.5 million people in 515 sq. miles (Phoenix), like it is to have 1.5 million people in 135 sq. miles (Philadelphia). Nor is it an accomplishment to have 2.1 million people in 579 sq. miles (Houston), like it is to have nearly 3 million people in 227 sq. miles (Chicago).

Requested move

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania → Philadelphia — The latter currently redirects to the former, and there's a dab page. This is a common name (cf. Rome, Paris, Chicago, etc.) -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

For the current Wikipedia conventions regarding U.S. place names, see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements). For a discussion of changing this convention generally (i.e., rather than making exceptions to the convention for particular U.S. cities, see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/U.S. convention change (August 2006). Spikebrennan 18:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Consensus dictates convention, not the other way around. The convention itself won't change until the need for change is shown in practice on individual pages. Conventions are guidelines, and guidelines have exceptions. Kafziel Talk 17:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Adhering to the most common name by convention, and resorting to a contrived naming conventions as per the city, state format only when required for disambiguation (such as, in this case, for the lesser known Philadelphias), is not an exception to naming conventions. The day you dread is the day to which I look forward. As far as your US-centrism accusation - to the contrary, most other countries do not use the disambiguation form for their cities except when required for disambiguation. What is "US-centrism" is giving US cities "special" treatment in the form of using the disambiguated format even when there is no disambiguation issue to resolve. --Serge 16:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The rule for U.S. cities is what it is. The only two U.S. exceptions are New York City and Chicago-- not even Los Angeles, Houston, Phoenix, Atlanta, etc. make the list. The issue should not be local pride, but adherence to conventions that make sense. Besides: 'Philadelphia' already (sensibly) redirects to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and not to Philadelphia (disambiguation). For the arguments stated on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/U.S. convention change (August 2006), I believe that the 'city, state' general rule is appropriate, and I am not convinced that it is appropriate to depart from this general rule in the specific case of this article. Spikebrennan 17:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • This is circular logic. When changes are proposed at the guideline level, they are opposed for lack of sufficient precedent at the article level. But when changes are proposed at the article level, they are opposed for lack of support at the guideline level. Here, at the article level, is where these changes need to start; exceptions are always permitted, and if enough exceptions are made then the rule itself can be changed. Kafziel Talk 17:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Let me rephrase. I read the arguments at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/U.S. convention change (August 2006) and, after doing so, I was convinced that the general 'city, state' naming convention is sensible and appropriate. Since I am not convinced that there is a good reason for the Philadelphia article name to depart from the normal U.S. city naming convention, I oppose the move. I urge other participants in this discussion to read the general policy discussion and come to their own conclusions. Spikebrennan 18:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
        • So what would be a good reason to depart from the convention? Keep in mind that the uniqueness of the name itself doesn't matter, because "Philadelphia" redirects here anyway. It would be different if it redirected to the disambiguation page, but locating this at the current redirect won't marginalize the other Philadelphias any more than they already are. If it's sensible to skip the disambiguation page to get here (as you say it is, and I certainly agree) then it's equally sensible to skip the redirect. Kafziel Talk 19:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
          • You haven't convinced me that there's anything wrong with the status quo. Spikebrennan 19:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Huh? If you look at the old survey you keep linking to, you'll see me there. Note the part where I was the first one to vote in support of the status quo. Because, by definition, the guideline already allows for unlimited exceptions where appropriate. This is one of those cases. Kafziel Talk 20:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Again, I guess I was unclear. I meant to say that I am not convinced that there's anything wrong with the status quo of this article (i.e., having the article be named "Philadelphia, Pennsylvania" rather than "Philadelphia". Let me paraphrase from what I wrote at User talk:Serge Issakov -- (1) I happen to agree with the views expressed by those contributors to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/U.S. convention change (August 2006) that 'city, state' is the best convention for names of U.S. city name articles, notwithstanding the well-articulated arguments presented by you and other opponents of that view. If I had participated in the Chicago discussion, I would have opposed the move. I note that the end result of the aforementioned lively discussion was no change in the 'city, state' rule-- to my mind, this is evidence of the virtue of the general rule. (2) I really do happen to think that 'Philadelphia, Pennsylvania' is the best name for the article. There's a non-trivial number of other Philadelphias out there (including other geographic locations, the Biblical Philadelphia, the Tom Hanks film, and so on).Spikebrennan 20:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
              • Right, but as I said, they still need to be accessed from the disambiguation page, not from the redirect. An editor who links to "Philadelphia" for the film is still going to go to the wrong page, because it will redirect to the city anyway. Those other Philadelphias will always be a page away whether this is located here or at the current redirect. Believe me, I feel for all those places - I live in Florida, New York. But we don't kid ourselves about what the real Florida is. As I told you, and as you can see from the old (and, actually, meaningless) straw poll, I'm not an "opponent" of that view. I voted to keep the guideline as it is. Making an exception here in no way changes the standard convention, or I wouldn't be voting to support this proposal, either. Because the redirect skips the disambiguation page for this name, the only issue left is whether you would most commonly say, "I work in Philadelphia" or "I work in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania." There are no other technical considerations left. Kafziel Talk 20:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
              • In retrospect, the very idea of having a vote to decide whether to change a Wikipedia convention is preposterous. The votes and discussions there should be on how best to describe the existing conventions in English, or to ascertain what the conventions are, not determine what they should be. Where conventions are actually formed and evolved is decided here, on the individual article pages, one at a time. Wikipedia is a consensus-based organization that forms and develops conventions and guidelines bottom-up, not an authoritarian system like the military or even our legal system that makes decisions and changes top-down. That's a crucial distinction that opponents of this move do not seem to comprehend. --Serge 20:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
                • (with respect to Kavziel's comment about "I work in Philadelphia" vs. "I work in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania": I guess it depends upon whether I'm talking to someone in the United States, or in a foreign country. By way of further response to Serge, I understand what you're saying about the process of the evolution of Wikipedia conventions; it's just that I happen to agree with the city, state U.S. cities naming principle both in general and in the specific case of Philadelphia. My point about referencing the August 2006 discussion on the policy page is that if you're going to commence renaming discussions about various U.S. cities (like Los Angeles, California or Atlanta, Georgia, for instance), then I would urge you to reference the present convention and the August 2006 policy page discussion when doing so, so that the people on the particular city article's talk page are aware that there has been a discussion at a general level (which some people may find helpful in coming to their own conclusions). Spikebrennan 20:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • With all due respect, the understanding that you now say you have is inconsistent with the reasoning you gave next to your vote: "The rule for U.S. cities is what it is." In fact, referring to a guideline based on convention in a bottom-up decision system as a rule which implies a top-down authoritarian decision system is in and of itself contradictory to this understanding. --Serge 21:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Hroðulf points out above that there are "already thousands of incoming links to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania". When Chicago, Illinois was moved to Chicago, Chicago, Illinois was made into a redirect to Chicago. The same should happen here, therefore any link to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania will be redirected to Philadelphia. Then, with time, the [[Philadelphia, Pennsylvania|Philadelphia]] references can be fixed to point to Philadelphia, and the [[Philadelphia, Pennsylvania]] references can be changed to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania or just Philadelphia, as appropriate. But there is no hurry, since the existing references will not be broken. --Serge 14:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to "fix" redirects if they get you to the right place [2]. We do need to fix the 29 double redirects that will be created if this page is moved. --Polaron | Talk 16:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Reasons Philadelphia SHOULD be an exception

Will Beback claims in the Survey above that "no one has given a reason why this city should be an exception" (to the city, state convention). Yet all of the following reasons have been specified:

  • The proposed name Philadelphia currently redirects to the current name, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (nom).
  • This is the most common name used (nom).
  • There is already a dab page for all other less common uses (nom).
  • Consistency with other major world city names, including New York City and Chicago (nom + survey).
  • Unqualified reference is an obvious reference to subject of this article (survey).
  • Disambiguation by state is superfluous (survey)
  • Standard treatment per widely used AP Style book [3]

Just because one may believe these reasons do not justify Philadelphia being an exception, that's just a matter of opinion, and why there is a survey to resolve it. But to claim "no one has given a reason" is simply false. --Serge 18:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Reasons Philadelphia should NOT be an exception

The only reason cited so far to not make this article be an exception to the convention is from Jonathunder who points out that doing so "will make it harder to predict where the article is". First, that's simply an argument that there should be no exceptions to the convention. Second, and more importantly, what he doesn't say is that it will make it harder for editors to predict where the article is, and, thus, this reason is irrelevant to article naming considerations since it violates the overall principle of Wikipedia's naming conventions as stated at WP:NC:

Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.

Avoiding this move because it would "make it harder [for editors] to predict where the article is" would be optimizing for editors over readers, and a violation of this overall principle. Exceptions to conventions is one thing, and are normal and expected, but violations of principles is something else again. --Serge 18:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Status

Currently it is 14-4 in favor of the move. That seems like a fair degree of consensus. Should we go ahead and move it? john k 15:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Now that the article has been moved, with time we should fix the links to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to be to Philadelphia or to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Click HERE to see a list of what still links to [[Philadelphia, Pennsylvania]].

There is little point to making edits for the sole purpose of "fixing" redirects. See Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. older ≠ wiser 18:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

It's a pity that the pictures in the article are so... brown and blah. Overcast skies, drab colors and grey buildings.

This picture is a step in the right direction, but it's grainy and has reflections and other flaws. It would be nice if we could get some pretty, clear, blue-sky-and-sunshine pictures. Spikebrennan 18:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree about what you say. For the skyline I'm not sure where one would go to get a picture though. Medvedenko 22:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I've got a whole bunch of Philadelphia-related photos at User:JVinocur/Images most of which are of the blue-sky variety, and several of which could probably be incorporated into Philadelphia pretty well. Of particular note, try this series that I offered up for the skyline image a while back but couldn't get much support for:
Image:Philadelphia_skyline-daytime.JPG
Image:Philadelphia_skyline-daytime-crop1.jpg
Image:Philadelphia_skyline-daytime-crop2.jpg
 — JVinocur (talk • contribs) 23:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Next time there's a bright, sunny, pleasant day, someone should take a good digital camera out to the South Street bridge and take some skyline photos from there. (It's a popular vantage point for skyline viewing). Other prime locations for photographing the skyline include the Camden waterfront (particularly from the Aquarium) and Belmont Plateau in Fairmount Park. I'm not much of a photographer. Spikebrennan 18:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Honestly the skyline panorama in the article couldn't be more unflattering for the city. It looks like a dustcloud is passing through! Somebody please take the prerogative and change it.--68.163.63.138 15:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey on proposal to make U.S. city naming guidelines consistent with others countries

There is a survey in progress at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) to determine if there is consensus on a proposed change to the U.S. city naming conventions to be consistent with other countries, in particular Canada. --Serge 05:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

However the proposal would allow U.S. cities to be inconsistent with the vast majority of other U.S. cities and towns, which (with a few exceptions) all use the "city, state" convention. -Will Beback 23:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

==Philadelphia Meetup==

Of interest to Wikipedians in travel distance of West Philadelphia; there will be a Wikipedia Meetup on Saturday, 4 November 2006, and possibly on a regular basis if there is sufficient response. See the meetup page for details and to RSVP.

(I realize that this marginally inappropriate for an article talk page, but a meeting of Philadelphia wikipedians could stimulate article improvements) ike9898 02:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Captions in infobox

The legend under the city flag in the infobox should be to Flag of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania but I don't know how to change it in the infobox. Spikebrennan 03:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks!
Rather than mess with the complicated code at Template:Infobox city, I just created a redirect at Flag of City of Philadelphia, so the infobox link redirects to the article. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Liberty Bell image

Our civic emblem-a broken musical instrument

It struck me that there's no image of the Liberty Bell on the home page other than in the Philadelphia Portal box. I can't think of where it would appropriately go, without seeming crowded.Spikebrennan 03:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Go for it, as long as you don't really call it a "musical instrument".--BillFlis 03:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
There are too many pictures on the Philadelphia page already. Medvedenko 23:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
True, but is it more important to have a picture of Crown Fried Chicken than the Liberty Bell? Spikebrennan 22:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with replacing content, an uneeded Chicken restaurant pic, a picture of Independence Hall taken through a window, or a picture of the Declaration of Independece. There are many possibilities. As far as I'm concerned there isn't a single thing in this article that doesn't need replacing. Medvedenko 04:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Tallest buildings in Philadelphia

I would like to see a list of the tallest buildings in Philadelphia. This is done for other cities in the U.S., why not Philly? Low and behold! On Thursday, Jan. 11th, 2007, The Philadelphia Inquirer did a story on the cover of section B on the Philadelphia skyline. Here is the list:

1. Comcast Center (2007) 973 feet (under construction - nearing completion)
2. One Liberty Place (1987) 945 feet
3. Two Liberty Place (1990) 848 feet
4. Mellon Bank Center (1990) 792 feet
5. Bell Atlantic Tower (1991) 739 feet
6. Blue Cross Tower (1990) 625 feet
7. One Commerce Square (1987) 565 feet
8. Two Commerce Square (1992) 565 feet
9. City Hall (1901) 548 feet (world's tallest masonry load-bearing structure)
10. Loews Philadelphia Hotel (1932) 492 feet
11. Cira Center (2006) 437 feet
12. Aramark Tower (1984) 412 feet
13. PECO Building (1970) 384 feet

Now, what do I have to do to get this included in the article on Philadelphia?--Buddmar 05:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)buddmar

  • There is a list of tallest buildings in the Buildings and architecture of Philadelphia article, which is linked in the Buildings and architecture section of the main Philadelphia article. I don't think it needs to be in both. I think the main Philadelphia article is too long and needs to be consolidated. The information already there needs to be communicated more effectively. 06:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • That list is out of date. The Inky missed 1818 Market Street, 500 ft, completed in 1974 and The St. James, completed 2004, 498 feet. Also PNC Bank, Center Square II, and Five Penn Center--all 490 feet and up. They shoulda checked Wikipedia!--BillFlis 13:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Also, the heights are wrong: Comcast Center's gonna be 975', not 973', and the Cira Centre's 434'. I wish they'd have gotten it right because it makes the Inquirer look like a two-bit paper (The Courier-Post?) and that's just not their style. I also wish the editors would have caught that. Think I'm wrong? Check here, here, and here. Let's just hope those mistakes are the only one's the Inquirer has...not counting the mass firing, but that's another thread for another day....EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 14:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone has vandalized this page, please take care of it, Im not sure how to. Its Under Colonail History Tgcomicman 22:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"Not formal tone"???

Alright, I'm not sure who flagged this as a "not formal tone" article, but since they didn't have the decency to at least address it on the talk page as to why, I'm removing it, simply because without just cause, it's unfounded. Give us a reason, and we'll definitely improve it. Until then, however, it's gone; it's just taking up space as-is. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 13:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

planned city

The article states (Philadelphia#Colonial) that "Philadelphia is one of the earliest examples of a planned city. Its rectilinear grid of streets [...] was its most noteworthy innovation.". I don't agree. Grid layouts are almost as old as urban history itself, and they were applied to (mostly colonial) cities through history. The best-known ancient example was greek Miletus (5th century BC): "Its gridlike layout, planned by Hippodamos, became the basic layout for Roman cities." (Miletus#Historical_Period), though the concept is much older ("The streets of the city were laid out in perfect grid patterns." Mohenjo-Daro#History, 2600 BC). --Magadan ?! 01:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been researching for a rewrite of the history section, and no source has said this was an early example of a grid pattern or an innovation, except maybe compared to other cities being founded in the Americas. Whenever I have the time to finsih the rewrite, that won't be there. (Unless someone finds a good source.) Medvedenko 00:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. The more unsourced material that can be removed from Wikipedia, the better, imho. Unfortunately, thats about 98% of the material in this project, oh well. --Tom 13:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The spanish conquistadores also used the grid pattern for their new cities, see Lima (1535) as an example. Even Havana (1515), one of the first colonial cities founded in the Americas, has a quite regular (though not rectangular) layout. Of course Philadelphia was one of the first major cities in today's United states which used this kind of street layout. The historic centers of older cities like Boston or New York (or Montreal and Quebec in Canada) have an irregular street pattern similar to those of european cities. --Magadan ?! 13:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Proximity to NYC

Why is this mentioned? 46 miles? I find that very hard to believe. If Philly were that close, it would be a part of the the NYC metro area! You guys in Philly, as well as Boston (I feel that you two have something in common, historically) need your own Identities. Philly needs to stop trying to put itself in with NYC just because it (Philly) is near NJ. NYC already has it's NY/NJ/CT region. Similarly, Boston needs to stop trying to force CT into it's New England region headed (self appointed of course) by itself. CT is not what you would like it to be. All of you stores (with Boston sports propaganda in them) cannot take it away from NYC. You two cities need to get a life and stop trying to leech off of cities that have nothing to do with you.--71.235.81.39 03:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You've raised the same point on a number of other talk pages (Talk:New England, Talk:Boston, Massachusetts, and Talk:New England Cable News) and in the same tone of voice. May I suggest you read WP:CIV before you get in trouble?
Atlant 00:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has too many rules. Try editing an article and everyone goes sick. Now you want people to stop talking about things here too?--71.235.81.39 01:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The civility rule is non-negotiable though, and if you continue to violate it, you will eventually be blocked from editing. Please consider this an official warning.
Atlant 15:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
This is strangely familiar to Talk:Philadelphia#Is the Article for Tourists or just Propaganda?. ccwaters 02:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
...and both ip addys trace back to the new haven area........ fyi i am from ct and always thought the tri state area was ny, nj, and norhtern PA, with CT always being considered a part of NE. doesn't matter. irrelevant. either way i have been taught, educationally and pop culture wise, that philly was a part of that area. (edited to sign my post) Kmccusker2
Yeah, I noticed the IPs. ccwaters 14:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to talk about things germane and useful to the article. "stop trying to leech off of cities that have nothing to do with you" doesn't suggest anything constructive and also puts local residents and tireless contributors to the page on the defensive, insuring that the point won't be taken seriously.--Loodog 03:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI: I verified the straight line between the SW corner of Staten Island (40.496334,-74.248728) seemingly most NE extent of the Poquessing Creek border (40.117301,-74.964156) at 45.96 miles via [4].
Google maps directions between those two points gives us 62 miles driving distance [5], with can be cut down slightly with adjustment (Roosevelt Blvd to Outerbridge Crossing?) ccwaters 16:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


If you say so, but I am still having a hard time figuring out what NYC has to do with Philly. NYC media does not even mention Philly at all. There are no road signs that point to Philly either. It just sounds as if Philly cannot stand on it's own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.81.39 (talk • contribs)

I removed the 46 miles from NYC material. Maybe this can added in the body of the article but looks out of place in the lead. Thanks! --Tom 03:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, to respond to the IP troll, Philly doesn't need, nor want, NYC for anything; if you've ever been to Philly, you'd know that people who like Philly generally dislike NYC (like me), and people who like NYC generally dislike Philly (like my best friend). Philly definitely doesn't want to ride on NYC coattails, mainly because we're better ;-).
The reason for the 46 mile remark is only pointing out the fact that two of the largest cities in the country (NYC #1 and Philly #5) are less than an hour away, yet have two completely distinct lifestyles. It's to describe the apparent paradox that New Jersey has become, as it's a suburb of both cities, and points out that being that close doesn't always mean that it's all in the same metro area.
Trust me; we don't need the city you're so desperately trying to cling onto yourself; we've survived 300+ years without New York's help, and we'll survive another 300+. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 14:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Well said EFIT. I used to hate the Cowboys the most, but having lived in Queens, NY for 5 years and having worn my Eagles parka on the subway for all those years, my true hate is now for the G-Men!....E-A-G-L-E-S EAGLES!!!!!!! ps I sat in section 728 row 5 seats 4-7 at the Vet for many, many, many years :) GO BIRDS!! --Tom 14:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
On Mapquest, it shows Philadelphia and New York are 94 miles apart. I assume that's from one city's downtown to the other. I believe, however, the 42 miles mentioned above may be inaccurate. That seems very close. Even considering starting from the furthest point within Philadelphia's city limits to the first point arriving within New York's city limits, seems it would be over 42 miles.
I calculated that at 46 miles. See my post from march 8 just above. ccwaters 12:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

According to Google Earth, it is 80 miles or 130 km from Philadelphia's to New York's City Hall. This is a remarkably short distance and it definetely _is_ something worth to mention in this article. Philly is one of very few metro areas of the 5 million catgory being that close to an even larger metropolis. The only "couples" of cities on the planet i know being that large AND that close are Hong Kong/Canton (80mi/130km as well) and Beijing/Tianjin (70/100). So, the proximity to NYC is a unique geographic feature even on a global scale. --Magadan ?! 10:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be a smidge further between city halls, but its still not really that relevant. Your analysis is original research as well. anyways, --Tom 15:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Neighborhoods

I am taking out the list of named neighborhoods in that section of the article, not the link to the artice the list them. First of it is redundant with article list, also the seems to be no particluar reason why those are listed their, consdering that users just seems to come along and expand the list with their neighborhood of prefrence. If anything the section should not be a list. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 01:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and thank you. —CComMack (t–c) 02:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Contradict tag

Seventh or Eighth largest in the country? Sorry, no time to look up and fix this myself. Mdbrownmsw 13:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Medvedenko 14:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hamilton's financial proposals

"In exchange for locating a permanent capital on the banks of the Potomac, the congressmen agreed to support Hamilton's financial proposals." what were the Hamilton's financial proosal? 70.55.155.198 23:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hamilton wanted the Federal government to assume the debts of the states, a move opppsed by the southern states. Virgnia agreed to support Hamilton's plan after the capital was put on its border. Medvedenko 02:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Murders

I live in PA. Last year, as morbid as it sounds, our class counted the murder rate. Approx 2.5 murders a day. 69.67.229.84 03:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit current-eventsy, but my guess is that being the highest murder rate in the U.S. two years running (assuming nothing major changes in 2007) is going to have long-term ramifications on the city. Should probably be worth a mention. --CKeelty 23:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Shopping

I've looked over the Shopping section and the tone does not really strike me as being written as an advertisement, though it probably could use some clean up anyway. The statement about the Gallery still needs a ref, and I can't seem to find one outside a promotional pub that lists "America’s largest indoor urban shopping center, the Gallery at Market East..."[6] or "one of the largest" [7]

I added a ref to the shopping section which was tagged regarding King of Prussia's rank as second largest mall in the US. I was surprised to notice that in terms of store space (leasable square footage) KoP is actually larger than Mall of America, making it the "largest" mall. Does that bear being mentioned, or is it bordering on being "peacocky"? Ar-wiki 12:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have any specific complaints or reasoning for the "advertisement" tag? i've gone over the section numerous times, and although it could be worked on and cleaned up a litte, i see no blatant use of advertising. it seems to me to be a decent description of the popular shopping locations for residents and tourists--Klink05 15:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Colonial

The Philadelphia#Colonial section has a line at the end which after checking its reference, might bear being removed.

In the 18th century, it was one of the most important cities both before and after the American Revolution and was a center of style and culture.[[8]]

The ref is to a page about furniture, so the ref definitely needs to be changed (back) to a {{Fact}} tag. Beyond that, the statement could probably just be removed. Thoughts? Ar-wiki 22:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the invalid ref, and switched it to a fact tag. If it isn't cleared up in a week or so I think it's probably worth removing the statement. Ar-wiki 19:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I am going to remove the 'most important cities' line listed above, as it still has no reference. Ar-wiki 01:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"First capital of the United States"

I think a section should be inserted to explain that it is considered the first capital if one goes by the Continental Congress (either First or Second), or Congress under the Articles of Confederation. However, if one goes by Congress under the Constitution, the first capital was New York City. See the following link for more: [9]. Lexicon (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that's rather too much like legalistic hair-splitting to include in the articles on the nine cities that have been capitals, and is best left detailed in the article on List of capitals in the United States, which is linked at the bottom of the Philadelphia article.--BillFlis 10:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Questionable section

Removed from the Economy section:

Starting in July of 2009, Philadelphia will become one of only thirty U.S. cities to offer proton therapy for cancer patients, and only the third on the East Coast (Boston, MA and Gainsville, FL). A joint operation between University of Pennsylvania Health System and Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, the future Raymond and Ruth Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine (currently under construction at 34th Street and Civic Center Blvd.) will expect to treat upwards of 200 patients per day with this advanced treatment procedure.

This seemed too detailed to be noteworthy. -- Beland 22:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Revisit Population Estimate

The article offers a population based on the 2005 estimate, but ranking by the 2000 numbers. Doesn't the 2005 estimate (provided by the US Census Bureau) still put Philadelphia ahead of Phoenix? The footnote about being ranked fifth in 2000 shouldn't matter. That data isn't up to date. If that were the case we wouldn't offer the 2005 population estimates. San Antonio would be ranked ninth if we went with 2000 numbers. If the Census Bureau is willing to provide updated numbers lets make sure we use them. -- Longhornsguy07 12:55, 01 June 2007

Go suck an egg

I'm going to remove this sentence since it seems rather trivial, especially for the intro section. Vgranucci 19:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Its petty vandalism from User:192.173.10.181. I removed more. ccwaters 19:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nickname "Illadelph" being unduly reverted?

Thread 1. No, per WP:NEO.

I noticed that several times the hip-hop nickname "Illadelphia"/"Illadelph" was added (at various times to the infobox nickname list and to the article lead) but was reverted as "vandalism". Although I agree with removing it from the lead (because the lead isn't the place for a list of all nicknames), I don't see why it shouldn't stay in the infobox nickname list. Even if other editors don't think that it's notable enough, they should say that instead of saying that it's "vandalism". Clearly it was a good-faith edit, not vandalism. The person who added it felt that it belonged there. I also think that it's well known enough to be notable. — Lumbercutter 23:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

All the other nicknames listed there have authoritative sources (dictionaries or encyclopedias). They used to have citations, too, but they've evidently been edited out. I know because I provided one for "Quaker City", which someone claiming to be life-long resident had never heard of and kept deleting. Does "Illadelph" refer to the whole city or just to its hip-hop culture/scene? Do we need to add "Fluffya" too?--BillFlis 17:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:NEO. ccwaters 01:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow, OK, now that I can see as a good reason not to list it. — Lumbercutter 02:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Not sure which time that was reverted as 'vandalism' by looking at the edit history. But I wasn't looking at every edit. I think the beef with the anon editor is that first there was no sourcing and then it keeps getting added back with no discussion and with smart ass edit summaries. I think at some point, the editor adding this is no longer acting in good faith. At that point I might term it as vandalism. But again, I am not sure which edits you are referring to.Montco 02:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
One of the edits was an undo with summary including "rvv". It was "Revision as of 2007-06-08T06:13:05". I think there was an earlier rvv reversion too, but as I'm trying to step through the edits the server is taking forever for each step and this is now moot anyway, so I am desisting. It is moot now, as I think that you are correct, and I am satisfied that "Illadelph" falls under WP:NEO, so I am not worried about it anymore. The reason I cared originally was that I thought that the anon was unfairly getting the bum's rush for a good-faith edit, but after all those counteredits where his good faith fell apart, he can defend himself without my help going forward. — Lumbercutter 23:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I contributed to the confusion. The list of nicknames had existed for some time before anyone added "Ill...", which I could not find in any authoritative sources (Sorry, but I don't trust the "Urban Dictionary", which seems to contain all kinds of unedited nonsense). It sounded very negative to me so I reverted it, perhaps too off-handedly, with a "rvv" summary. Can anyone offer a citation better than "I've lived here all my life and ...."?--BillFlis 01:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I would have passed it off as vandalism when it first appeared. I don't think you need to apologize. ccwaters 01:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. You acted in good faith. — Lumbercutter 01:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thread 2. However, possibly in a discussion of hip-hop under "Culture".

I'm starting to think that "Illadelph" is too well established within hip-hop to put the neo- in neologism, as it were. After all, it's been over a decade since The Roots' Illadelph Halflife made Billboard's Top 40. However, since "Illadelph" isn't well known among people who don't listen to hip-hop, it wouldn't make sense in the article lead or in the nickname field of the infobox, where it would be divorced of the hip-hop context. The appropriate way to mention it would be to develop the coverage of Philadelphia's influence on music in the "Culture" section (which is currently very sparse), and explain that in hip-hop subculture, Philadelphia is known affectionately as Illadelph, a play on the hip-hop sense of the adjective ill. I don't have the passion for this topic to spend time on doing that task (I already have two grades of to-do list with backlogs queued, one resigned to wishlist status due to scarcity of time to spend on Wikipedia). But I am suggesting it here for anyone who does have the passion about this topic. — Lumbercutter 00:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


Media

This section is getting too long. I suggest that most of the content be moved to Media of Philadelphia.Spikebrennan 15:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Why no mention of infamous WIBG radio? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.166.216.78 (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Crime

Camden was the 2004 AND 2005 winner of the Prestigous "Most Dangerous City in America" It's a shame too, used to be such a nice city years and years ago... =(

Discussion to move Philadelphia to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Over at the naming convention page, a discussion has been started about moving Philadelphia back to the city, state standard. All views and inputs are welcomed. AgneCheese/Wine 05:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Distance

Most notably, the King of Prussia Mall, the second-largest mall in the United States[32], is thirty minutes away from Center City.

Using driving time to convey distance should be avoided. I'm guessing that it's not actually a 30-minute drive all the time, just when the roads are clear. How many miles away is it? Funnyhat 04:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Google maps puts it 19.1 miles from City Hall (the basic geographic center of Center City). Do we need mileage? Isn't it sufficient just to say "located in the Philadelphia suburbs?" --CKeelty 23:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That mall is quite a driving distance from center city. If it's 19.1 miles it must definitely be as the crow flies. I would even argue that King of Prussia is not actually a "suburb" of Philadelphia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.166.216.78 (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

More Pictures

are available at my userpage. I have added some of these to appropriate articles. Spikebrennan 14:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Tourist brochure of a shopping section

An anon removed the tourist brochure being called the "shopping" section, and was reverted. His point stands. Other cities do not have sections dedicated to their local malls. This information is more appropriate to wikitravel.--Loodog 22:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I wish it were true that no other cities have sections on their malls, but the exceptions are few and dwindling. I agree that it's ins't appropriate. If the malls are notable enough for articles then we can list them, but suburban malls outside of city limits should probably be omitted even from a list. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was the one who reverted the first removal. I just wanted to respond as follows:
  • I am fine with this info moving to Wikitravel and leaving Wikipedia. Actually, I had never heard of Wikitravel before now, so I'm glad to learn something new.
  • I agree that bland cookie-cutter suburban shopping malls and their ilk are not notable, and therefore should be left out of Wikipedia (except of course for a few like Mall of America and King of Prussia Mall, which have unique notability [or notoriety]). And certainly the idea of throwing in shopping-related stuff that's outside the city of Philadelphia is dumb.
  • That being said, however, it was not the malls that I wanted to save from deletion; it was the discussion of the Philadelphia-specific icons such as the famous cheesesteak joints (Geno's, Pat's), Italian Market, et al, which people do in fact make a point of seeking out when they visit Philadelphia. This type of city-specific shopping/restaurant info probably is notable only for large cities; a suburb usually doesn't have any famous iconic shopping spots or restaurants. But large cities sometimes do.
  • I do agree that the tone of the section is too booster-ish and not encyclopedic enough. I just didn't want all of the content to disappear.
  • So in sum, I am fine with this info moving to Wikitravel. One suggestion I would make, though, would be to keep the following little bit (or something like it) in this article, because plenty of WP readers (such as me before tonight) have never heard of Wikitravel:
    ==Iconic markets and restaurants in Philadelphia==
''For other metro-area shopping, see resources such as [[Wikitravel]]''
* [[Italian Market (Philadelphia)]]
* [[Geno's Steaks]]
* [[Pat's King of Steaks]]
* [[South Street (Philadelphia)]]
* [etc.]
— Lumbercutter 02:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Rank in British Empire

An editor just removed the sentence "It was arguably the second largest city, behind London, in the British Empire", with a comment in the edit summary that "it was about 13th". However, this page from the Smithsonian magazine says Philadelphia was the third-largest city in the British Empire, after London and Dublin. This page, fictional but apparently well-researched, says third behind London and Edinburgh. But National Geographic says second-largest. The state of Pennsylvania says second-largest English-speaking city in the world; were they then speaking Gaelic in Dublin and Edinburgh?--BillFlis 12:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


Steal from the French!

The French-language version of this article, [10] is featured on the French wikipedia. Although I can't read French, I can see that the article has different images-- some of which can be appropriated for this article or other Philadelphia-related articles. Spikebrennan 15:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Only the maps don't have appropriate equivalents on the English page I think. Otherwise the page already has plenty of pictures.Medvedenko 17:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Drive on

Not sure where to put it, but G.N. Georgano, (Cars: Early and Vintage, 1886-1930. {London: Grange-Universal, 1985}). says Henry Morris & Pedro Salom built electric cars in Philiadelphia, beginning in 1894; built the 1895 Electrobat (!), which opereated as a taxi in New York, Boston, & elsewhere; formed Morris & Salom Electric Carriage and Wagon Company, which was sold in 1897 to Isaac L. Rice, & later became part of Pope's empire. Trekphiler 01:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Any ideas for adding this

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/philadelphia_unattractive1_dc;_ylt=AlYNnGJZFW3l6AN2EEtmLfXtiBIF I think that the lead might be undue weight, but it is definitely worthy of inclusion.Die4Dixie 05:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

They took a poll asking people's opinions. How does that make anything an encyclopedic fact? Seems to violate WP:NPOV on the face of it.--BillFlis 12:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't think of a single place a fact like that would fit. Medvedenko 19:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
<$0.02>I agree. It's really just miscellaneous trivia, which, yes, we could add, if this article had a "Trivia" section, but those are discouraged, and we're best without one.</$0.02> — ¾-10 23:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Commonly held views about a subject are worthy of inclusion, but if we are so adamant about its non-inclusion, then I will bow before the consensus Die4Dixie 21:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

Highest point?

The article says that the highest point in Philadelphia is at the intersection of Germantown Road and Bethlehem Pike. I recall that Germantown Road rises for another half-mile (give or take) as the road goes northwest. Would someone please double-check the proper highest point in the city. 141.199.102.30 17:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Its steady downhill from Bethlehem Pike down to the Creek near Chesthill Hill College. http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?lat=40.07683&lon=-75.20615&datum=nad27&u=4&layer=DRG&size=l&s=50 ccwaters 18:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Google Earth agrees. From Beth Pike to the hospital it feels psychologically like a fairly gradual, nearly level walk (although it actually drops >25ft); then past the hospital, it feels steeper. Maybe that's why you were thinking it wasn't downhill till out past the hospital. — ¾-10 23:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philadelphia/Archive_3&oldid=1091628199"