Talk:Phoenix Shot Tower

message: From the article:
:"Charles Carroll of Carrollton...laid its cornerstone."
A structure without corners has a cornerstone?  I believe in these cases it's called a "foundation stone".  Can anyone confirm? 12.22.250.4 20:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Round corners? 

message: This paragraph is a verbatim copy of text from http://www.ce.jhu.edu/baltimorestructures/Shot%20Tower/shot_tower.htm, except for my capitalization of "City":
:"In 1921 the tower was purchased for $14,500 by the Union Oil Company, which planned to tear it down and put a gas station in its place. After strong objections by the community, by 1928 enough money had been raised to purchase the tower and present it to the City of Baltimore."
Even though the information has a source citation, it still should not appear in the exact same form as the original source unless it's presented as a direct quote.  That's called plagiarism. 12.22.250.4 20:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio? 

message: The second name of the Shot Tower and that of its owning company appears both as "Merchants' " and as "Merchant's" in the article.  The NPS has it both ways on different pages, and an LoC article linked to one of the sources has it as "Merchants' ".  Can anyone confirm the correct form? 12.22.250.4 20:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Visited the Phoenix Shot Tower yesterday and learned it's been apostrophesized inconsistently throughout the history of the tower, even while the tower was in operation. I'd be inclined to say there is no proper form. Shmuser (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Merchants' " or "Merchant's"? 

message: The main title of this article is the "Phoenix Shot Tower." This may cause some confusion, because this landmark is in the city of Baltimore, not Phoenix. Very few Baltimoreans currently know this structure as the "Phoenix" Shot Tower. The subway station at the location is simply called "Shot Tower." The article instead should be titled something like "Baltimore Shot Tower," with mention that it is also known as . . .
I would go ahead and make this change, but I first want to get some feedback. Sebwite 16:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's confusing. Instead of Baltimore Shot Tower, Shot tower (Baltimore) or Shot Tower (Baltimore) seem better to me, so we're clearly discussing a specific instance of a thing instead of creating another proper name for it. In fact, that latter name is where this page originally was created. It was later moved to its present page-name precisely because that's it's official name. The magic of #REDIRECT allows one to find it at that alternate name (and creating another redirect at Shot tower (Baltimore) might be a good idea. DMacks 19:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never knew that it was called this until I was creating articles in which the Shot Tower had to be mentioned, and I discovered it when I was having trouble getting them to link correctly. Sebwite 19:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Phoenix Shot Tower" as title of article? 

message: Article moved away from official name to a colloquial reference. --evrik (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur that this was not a good move. Either use its official name or use its generic name with a parenthetical disambiguation. I have no objection to redirects from colloquial well-known unofficial names (of the redirects aren't working or are diffiult to link, then that is the problem that needs to be solved directly in its own right). DMacks (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Using the name "Phoenix" in the title is confusing. This is a name people most associate with Phoenix, Arizona. I had trouble finding this article initially for this reason - I have visited this landmark on multiple occasions, and I never knew it was called the "Phoenix" Shot Tower.Sebwite (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly the point of a redirect: you don't have to know the formal exact name. DMacks (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: A shot tower is not capable of creating large diameter lead shot, let alone shot of sufficiently precise diameter to be used in rifles or pistols.  Shot towers were built to manufacture small diameter lead shot for shotguns, to be used for hunting small game and birds.  They did not manufacture military ammunition: military usage of small lead shot was trivial, restricted to "foraging" ammunition used to supplement issued rations on the frontier.
Bullets for use in rifles and pistols might be produced at a shot tower site, but the shot tower itself had nothing to do with such production.  Bullets were cast in molds, not dropped from a height into water.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.166.3 (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persistent misinformation about shot towers