Talk:Philadelphia/Archive 3

General

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

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

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

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

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

Images

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

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

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

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

Organization of information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

is a better way to interlink than

List of major companies in Philadelphia

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

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

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

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

1.

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

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

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

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

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

<quinlan> Vicious]: losing your cool never helps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New York, New York also needs to have the lists redacted. Thanks for pointing that out. --The Cunctator 06:57, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I suggest coming up with a guideline for which lists should be split out before proceeding to avoid future edit wars. Some of the lists that were split off of Phila seem to be too short to warrant separate articles. Daniel Quinlan 07:01, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

Yea, perhaps if a certain list can be built on, as in all of the collective members of the list have something in common and can provide a detailed explanation of what they all have in common, perhaps it can be split off.

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

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

The 20th century architecture of New York City includes numerous icons of architecture, most notably its striking skyscrapers.

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

is good;

20th century architecture of New York City:

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia is not a list repository. --The Cunctator

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lukobe 23:35, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

Nick Berg

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

Yeah, OK. But... West Chester isn't really a suburb of Philadelphia. ike9898 16:55, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

Wow, you guys to come to New York sometime, people way out on Long Island in excess of 60 miles would say they live in suburbs of NYC. - Robert Moses

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

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

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

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

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

WhisperToMe 20:38, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

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

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

My last word on the subject. The man was not a philadelphian => shouldn't be in the list (he should be on the list of famous West Chestarians!). Or maybe we should start listing candians and mexicans as famous Americans. Who knows? This not important enough to fight over, but it seems pretty clear to me...Philadelphians are from Philadelphia...where's the confusion? ike9898 16:16, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

People associate the man with Philadelphia, therefore he should be in the list of famous Philadelphians, with the note that he's actually from West Chester. We shouldn't list famous Canadians and Mexicans as famous Americans because nobody considers someone from Mexico City or Toronto to be from America. --Lukobe 17:38, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Some other people who are apparently NOT Philadelphians:

Todd Rundgren - famous Upper Darbyite
Grace Kelly - famous Villanovan
Reggie Jackson - famous Wyncoter
Richie Ashburn - famous Abingtonian
Kobe Bryant - famous Lower Merionian --User:meebly 11:53, Oct. 25, 2005

Keep the reference. Philadelphia is greater than the sum of its parts. For what it's worth, his dad appears to have moved to Wilmington, Delaware. - Sensor 11:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Center City

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

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

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

Well, technically, all neighborhood names are essentially informal - they have no formal standing in law, at least. But, yeah, I agree that there's no reason to call it "informal" - it is simply known as "Center City." john k 18:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

since other city districts have their own article I don't see why Center City shouldn't. MechBrowman 18:56, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the term "Center City" does have legal standing. For example, there is a Center City Special Services District, and Center City (specifically defined) has special rules for taxicab rates.Robert A West 05:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Cutting the Fat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Increasingly, Spring Garden Street is taken as the boundary between Center City and Northern Liberties -- notably the taxi regulations recognize that as the boundary, and apartments between Vine and Spring Garden are routinely advertised as being in Center City. Robert A West 05:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the History section is due for a cleanup, and also a bit of information about philadelphia after the 1800's. Plenty of things have happened since then. I'm currently working on filling in what I can for the neighborhood stubs. Thoth

MUSIC

please put some music history in here, thanks.

Logan Circle or Logan Square?

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

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

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

I personaly don't remember anyone calling it Logan Circle, at least not often, and all the maps I have and the Philadelphia Inquirer call it Logan Square. I think Logan Sqare is the more common usage, but I think its more important that its merged. MechBrowman 04:27, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible that the road configuration is called Circle and the park Square? --SPUI (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

This would seem a sensible way to divide it. The little marker in Logan Square/Circle itself calls it Logan Square, but notes that it is frequently called Logan Circle because it is now shaped like a circle, iirc. john k 06:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Sports

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

Merge with Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania???

I do not think that Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania should be merged into this article, because until all the townships and boroughs were finally brought into one entity, that is the City of Philadelphia, the County of Philadelphia has its own separate history, legally speaking. - CobaltBlueTony 18:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Totally agree, Considering that the two were separate government entities up until 1952 means their has been some semblance of history of the two subjects that is nor concurrent and could not easily be placed in the other article that would not confuse people who are looking for information of the subject. Also the bound ires of the two subjects in question were not as one until 1854 so what for almost 250 years their was a separate City and County of Philadelphia, and that the City of Philadelphia during that time, though the most important, was not even the largest part of of the county, some of the other boroughs and townships were by far larger. Also Philadelphia county has never been abolished nor has it merged with the city, something that would take an act of the state similar to the consolidation act of 1854 to abolish or merge the county with the city. Their is still a Philadelphia County, it just has no government structure, it in all of the technical sense disbanded it government and allowed the city to assume the services that it provided. And i am sorry but the argument that other city/county merged places, as in New York or Denver that don't have their corresponding county pages so why does Philadelphia have one, to me that just does not fly. --Boothy443 | comhrá 03:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Using New York's setup as an example, which I'm not sure why you're so against considering it works very well, Philadelphia County would redirect to Philadelphia, where it is already explained that the city and county are coterminous. The history section of the Philadelphia city article will need to be slightly reworked to include the additional information on the city's gradual expansion outward to the county lines, but that shouldn't prove a difficult task. I might even do it myself sometime when I'm less sleepy. In any case, this approach fills in holes in the city's article (why is there yet no mention of Philadelphia originally comprising what today is the Center City?), reduces redundancy, and ensures that every question the reader has about Philadelphia, being the area today known as Philadelphia, is answered in one place: here (and before some smart-ass mentions this: subpages don't count, silly rabbit). --Vladtheinhaler 01:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The city and county are one and the same and share the same borders. There was almost no information under Philadelphia County. The fact that the city and county are one in the same should be reason enough to have county redirect to city. San Francisco, CA, Indianapolis, IN and Miami Dade, FL are other examples of this. evrik 14:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Currently, the county and city are coterminous. However, under Pennsylvania law, the county still has a separate jural existence, even though it has no existence outside the city. It is not unlike the unique status of the City and County of San Francisco. For example, similar to the case in San Francisco, the city court is the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, and there is still a Philadelphia County Sheriff. Nonetheless, for all intents and purposes, the county is the city. At some point soon I am going to be bold and merge the Philadelphia County page into the City of Philadelphia page. - Sensor 00:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Well it noice to see the if i jump off the bridge everone should mentailty rule here on wikipedia. I am not going to waste my try to explain any thing to a buch of one tracked minded mergers, other then i will dispute any attempt to merge the articles, and the any merging of the articles i will revert in my being bold as a part of that dispute. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 02:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a pretty silly issue to have a revert war over, Boothy, don't you think? (Especially if 3RR ends up being violated over one link on this page.) Doesn't it seem we should be able to reach a consensus on this issue? - Sensor 22:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Consolidated city-county

Cities and counties, formerly separate entities, that have since merged and are now coextensive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_city-county Philadelphia is listed there ... evrik 19:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Well the good thing about wikipedia is that one can correct mistakes. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 20:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Gotta keep fixing your errors. evrik 20:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

There does appear to be a subtle difference between "truly" consolidated city-county governments like the City and County of San Francisco and the City and County of Denver, and Philadelphia, in that the county appears to be maintained as a separate entity. Here's a test: has anyone ever heard of it being officially called the City and County of Philadelphia? Denvoran 20:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

As a former resident no i have never herd of the City and County of Philadelphia. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 21:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I have not heard it called that either. In fact the only time I ever hear Phildelphia County mentioned is when the weather service makes an alert for the area. MechBrowman 21:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I am a former Philadelphia resident as well. Please note from my comments above that I never said that it was called the City and County of Philadelphia, or anything like that. My point was that City and County governments have merged, being one and the same, and the borders of the city are coterminous with that of the county. That's exactly what happened in San Francisco. And unlike other large cities with have subsumbed their counties, Philadelphia County still maintains a separate legal existence, which mainly comes up in the area of the courts and judicial functions. I don't think this needs to be a contentious issue. - Sensor 22:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding "that's exactly what happened in San Francisco"...I don't think that a "City of San Francisco" and a "County of San Francisco" ever existed apart from one another. Ditto for Denver. This is another reason why Philadelphia appears to be different - it became a merged city-county through an evolutionary process, while I believe SF and Denver existed as such ever since they were created. Denvoran 23:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Look at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_County

It refers righ to the city page. The same should hold true for Philadelphia. evrik 19:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Legal status of Philadelphia County

The following sections from Title 16 of the Unconsolidated Pennsylvania Statutes are instructive:

§ 201. Enumeration of counties.

The State shall be divided into the following sixty-seven named counties, as now established by law: Philadelphia, Bucks, Chester, Lancaster, York, Cumberland, Berks, Northampton, Bedford, Northumberland, Westmoreland, Washington, Fayette, Franklin, Montgomery, Dauphin, Luzerne, Huntingdon, Allegheny, Mifflin, Delaware, Lycoming, Somerset, Greene, Wayne, Adams, Centre, Beaver, Butler, Mercer, Crawford, Erie, Warren, Venango, Armstrong, Indiana, Jefferson, McKean, Clearfield, Potter, Tioga, Cambria, Bradford, Susquehanna, Schuylkill, Lehigh, Lebanon, Columbia, Union, Pike, Perry, Juniata, Monroe, Clarion, Clinton, Wyoming, Carbon, Elk, Blair, Sullivan, Forest, Lawrence, Fulton, Montour, Snyder, Cameron and Lackawanna.

(Emphasis supplied)

§ 210. Counties divided into nine classes.

For the purposes of legislation and the regulation of their affairs, counties of this Commonwealth, now in existence and those hereafter created, shall be divided into nine classes as follows:

(1) First Class Counties, those having a population of 1,500,000 inhabitants and over. * * *

Section 13. Abolition of County Offices in Philadelphia

(a) In Philadelphia all county offices are hereby abolished, and the city shall henceforth perform all functions of county government within its area through officers selected in such manner as may be provided by law.

(b) Local and special laws, regulating the affairs of the City of Philadelphia and creating offices or prescribing the powers and duties of officers of the City of Philadelphia, shall be valid notwithstanding the provisions of section thirty-two of Article III of this Constitution.

(c) All laws applicable to the County of Philadelphia shall apply to the City of Philadelphia.

(d) The City of Philadelphia shall have, assume and take over all powers, property, obligations and indebtedness of the County of Philadelphia.

(e) The provisions of section two of this article shall apply with full force and effect to the functions of the county government hereafter to be performed by the city government.

(f) Upon adoption of this amendment all county officers shall become officers of the City of Philadelphia, and until the General Assembly shall otherwise provide, shall continue to perform their duties and be elected, appointed, compensated and organized in such manner as may be provided by the provisions of this Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth in effect at the time this amendment becomes effective, but such officers serving when this amendment becomes effective shall be permitted to complete their terms.

From the provisions cited above, the following should be clear:

Philadelphia County still has a cognizable legal status under Pennsylvania law.
Philadelphia County is the one and only First Class county in Pennsylvania, as it is the only county with a population in excess of 1.5 million.
The Pennsylvania Constitution abolished "all county offices" and provided that the City of Philadelphia would "perform all functions of county government", which includes the several various county offices required by Pennsylvania law, including the sheriff, prothonotary, district attorney, and the like.

This is what distinguishes Philadelphia County from some other large cities which have swallowed up their counties. The county still legally exists but yet has no legal functions whatsoever. It is not a consolidated city-county, because by the time the county offices were abolished, the city was the county, and the county was the city. This is in contradistinction to, say, the Unigov concept in Indianapolis, the Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government or the "two-tier" system in Miami-Dade. - Sensor 22:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Just to follow up with what sensor said about the leagal status

The following section from Philadelphia Home Rule Charter - ARTICLE XI. Severability and Acts Superseded sepecifialy parts of the following sections:

Section 11-100 Severability.'

It is the intention of the electors of Philadelphia that if this charter cannot take effect in its entirety because of the judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction holding invalid any part or parts thereof, the remaining provisions of the charter shall be given full force and effect as completely as if the part or parts held invalid had not been included herein. It is the intention of the electors that if any court of competent jurisdiction shall hold invalid any provisions of this charter transferring to an office, department, board or commission the powers and duties heretofore exercised and performed by an officer, department, board or commission abolished by this charter, the provisions abolishing such office, department, board or commission shall thereby become inoperative, and that in such event, such office, department, board or commission shall not be abolished, but shall continue as prior to the adoption of this charter. The remaining provisions of this charter shall in any such case be given full force and effect.

ANNOTATION

Sources: The Administrative Code of 1929, Act of April 9, 1929, P.L. 177, Section 2901.

Purposes: If any provision of this Charter is declared to be invalid, the remainder of the Charter is to remain in complete effect. While a declaration of invalidity of a transfer of powers and duties may reestablish an abolished agency, a remedy is available by way of amendment of this Charter.

Section 11-103 Certain Provisions of Consolidation Act Still in Force.

This charter does not supersede, but takes effect subject to and in accord with, unless and until the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is amended, and any legislation required by such amendment is enacted to provide otherwise, the following provisions of the act entitled "A further supplement to an act, entitled 'An Act to incorporate the City of Philadelphia'", approved February 2, 1854, P.L. 21, commonly called the Consolidation Act, namely:

"Section 1. ... the corporate name of the mayor, alderman, and citizens of Philadelphia shall be changed to 'The City of Philadelphia, and the boundaries of the said city shall be extended so as to embrace the whole of the territory of the county of Philadelphia, and all the powers of the said corporation, as enlarged and modified by this act, shall be exercised, and have effect within the said county, and over the inhabitants thereof."

"Section 41. The county of Philadelphia shall continue to be one of the counties of this Commonwealth, and all county officers, not superseded by this act, shall continue in office, and continue to be elected ..as... now provided by law, and be denominated officers of the county of Philadelphia; and all courts shall continue therein to exercise the jurisdictions and powers now conferred upon them by the constitution and laws of this Commonwealth; and the councils of said city, and the officers thereof, shall exercise all the powers and authorities of the superseded county commissioners and county board, and commissioners of sinking fund, and of other officers not inconsistent with this act, in such way and manner as by this act is, or by the city councils may be established."

ANNOTATION

Sources: See Acts cited in text of section.

Purposes: See Annotation to Section 11-101. Sections of the Consolidation Act of 1854, as amended, are stated in substance or quoted to emphasize that they have not been superseded.

Note: Not i left out Section 10, 12, 13, 38, and 39 as these are concerned with eletion, debt, and tax issues and not the legal status of the city or county.

--Boothy443 | trácht ar 01:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Why a merge?

Why is there so much eagerness for a merge here? While nobody disputes that Philadelphia County and the city of Philadelphia are now coterminous, I don't see why that should be the end of it. We have separate articles about London and Greater London, for instance, in spite of the fact that the two are, so far as I am aware, considerably closer to being identical than Philadelphia County and City are. Basically, looking at the Philadelphia County article, it looks pretty useful at the moment. As others have noted, prior to 1952, the two had separate functions, and prior to 1854, the city did no encompass the whole county. The whole history of all this is gone into in some detail on the Phialdelphia County page, which is appropriate. It would be inappropriate to go into this level of detail on the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania page, which ought to focus on being an encylopedia article about a major American city. It seems obvious that the clear answer to this dilemma is to maintain a separate page on the county in order to deal with the complex issues of city and county relationship that there is no particular need to go into great detail on in the main article. john k 00:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I am okay with having the County article exist. Boothy and I keep going back and forth about the category. I don't think the category should exist and that the category should be consolidated with the city.

evrik 15:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Truce ?

Let's bring in a third party or put this up to a vote. evrik 20:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I am in favor of referring to a third party. What, precisely, should be the issue decided? - Sensor 23:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

My only issue is the 'categories.' I think that there should not be a county category and that the Philadelphia County category should point to the Philadelphia, PA category. I can't speak for anyone else.evrik 14:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)