Talk:Philadelphia/Archive 3

message: 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)
replies: text: I've removed the ((unsourced))template. It doesn't belong here. Vgranucci 19:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lacking sources?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sports and 1980 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Separate sister cities article 

message: 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)
thread_title: Notable residents

message: 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)
thread_title: Population rankings

message: 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)
replies: text: Bad robot!--BillFlis 10:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Pennsylvania

message: 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)
thread_title:  no note about recent population dip? 

message: 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)
thread_title: News

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is the Article for Tourists or just Propaganda? 

message: Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
* Support This makes perfect sense.  Anywhere one goes in the world, the name Philadelphia is understood to be the City of Brotherly Love.  While there are smaller cities named Philadelphia (like Philadelphia, Mississippi), a disambiguation could be made for that reason.  Other smaller cities in the US have single-named pages (Tampa, Miami, Denver, etc.) for the same reason; they all are world-renowned as the best (and sometimes only) example of a city with that name.  Therefore, I support this decision. EaglesFanInTampa 17:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * (Comment moved to Discussion section below) --Serge 03:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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 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)
thread_title:  Links to [[Philadelphia, Pennsylvania]] 

message: 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 
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)
thread_title:  Reasons Philadelphia SHOULD be an exception 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reasons Philadelphia should NOT be an exception 

message: 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.
* I just fixed such links on articles that start with A...  --Serge 16:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Fixing links after the move

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Survey on proposal to make U.S. city naming guidelines consistent with others countries

message: 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)
thread_title:  ==Philadelphia Meetup== 

message: 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)
replies: text: Go for it, as long as you don't really call it a "musical instrument".--BillFlis 03:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There are too many pictures on the Philadelphia page already. Medvedenko 23:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)
thread_title: Liberty Bell image

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tallest buildings in Philadelphia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Not formal tone"??? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  planned city 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed, and thank you.  —CComMack (t–c) 02:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Philadelphia#Neighborhoods|Neighborhoods]] 

message: Seventh or Eighth largest in the country? Sorry, no time to look up and fix this myself. Mdbrownmsw 13:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Medvedenko 14:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradict tag 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hamilton's financial proposals

message: 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)
thread_title:  Murders 

message: 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..." or "one of the largest" 
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)
thread_title:  Shopping 

message: 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.[]
The ref is to a page about furniture, so the ref definitely needs to be changed (back) to a  tag.  Beyond that, the statement could probably just be removed. Thoughts? Ar-wiki 22:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Colonial 

message: 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: . Lexicon (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "First capital of the United States" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Questionable section 

message: I'm going to remove this sentence since it seems rather trivial, especially for the intro section. Vgranucci 19:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its petty vandalism from User:192.173.10.181. I removed more. ccwaters 19:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Go suck an egg 

message: === 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: WP:NEO. ccwaters 01:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, OK, now that I can see as a good reason not to list it. — Lumbercutter 02:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ditto. You acted in good faith. — Lumbercutter 01:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nickname "Illadelph" being unduly reverted? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: WP:NEO. ccwaters 01:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, OK, now that I can see as a good reason not to list it. — Lumbercutter 02:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ditto. You acted in good faith. — Lumbercutter 01:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thread 1. No, per WP:NEO. 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Media

message: 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)
thread_title: Discussion to move Philadelphia to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

message: 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)
thread_title:  Distance 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Rank in British Empire

message: The French-language version of this article,  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Steal from the French!

message: 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)
thread_title: Drive on

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I can't think of a single place a fact like that would fit. Medvedenko 19:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <$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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Any ideas for adding this

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Highest point?