Jump to content

Talk:Drinking fountains in Philadelphia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arbitrary section title

[edit]

Some thoughts on drinking in Philadelphia. 1) I don't think Atlas Obscura is a reliable source, their FAQ states Anyone, anywhere in the world can add to Atlas Obscura. However, they do state all contributions to Atlas Obscura are reviewed by our editorial team.. Still, not the best source, imo. 2) Might be a good idea for us to start using {{in use}} to avoid edit conflicting. 3) How do you feel about converting the 'list of notable fountains' to table form? Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891:
  1. Agreed, but the statement it's sourcing seems readily source-able with something more reliable so it's just a question of finding that.
  2. Agree. I'm leaving it be for the moment due to impending off-wiki obligations, so feel free to put it {{In use}}} now.
  3. Unsure. What would the table entries be, besides name and date?
AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re to #3: probably 'name', 'date', 'image', 'description', and 'Ref(s). Mostly a way to 1) provide a merge target, if that's how the AFD turns out, and 2) ease of incorporating images, because it seems like we will have more images than can fit into the likely amount of prose. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie891, Ah, got it. Now agree, especially re: images (seems like there are a lot of nice PD images we can use). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly lots of good images! Do we consider this a RS? Eddie891 Talk Work 16:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891: Yes, I (we?) do. Published by Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission and ISSN 0270-7500 is held by 87 libraries. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, did I just ping you like 8 times by mistake? Sorry ……… AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC) [reply]
I got exactly zero pings! The world of pinging is completely foreign to me, so no idea why. There's no need to ping me on this talk page, either-- I'm checking in pretty regularly. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ready?

[edit]

Allright @Eddie891 and AleatoryPonderings:, this is starting to look reasonable. These are the remaining research notes that might be useful:

At this point I'd be okay with moving this out of draft space any time. There's more to do here, many juicy quotes and facts left in the Philly papers, but I'd like to get this live, then get the Horse Trough at 315 S 9th St AfD issue settled, then merge the Philadelphia Fountain Society article into here if that's still okay with you, Eddie. --Lockley (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm absolutely fine with merging the PFS article here, though there shouldn't be any content really in need of merging. I'd like to fill out the description section on some of the specific notable fountains without articles if we can. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 22:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
great! just let us know when you're comfortable releasing this. --Lockley (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of your heroic efforts, this is definitely ready for mainspace. Glad to have helped out on the edges. I think we have more detail on the Fountain Society here than in the original article, so a merge/redirect makes sense to me. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mainspaced it, all. There's still some work to do, but it's a workable article. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swann's Way (to an encyclopedia entry?)

[edit]

I don't think Wilson Cary Swann is notable outside his association with the Fountain Society. I propose removing the redlinks to his name here and in Philadelphia Fountain Society. Thoughts? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I've seen no indication of that. I also think we can redirect the fountain society article to a sub-section article here once we mainspace the article, given that the society was so inextricably tied to the larger topic. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. IMO Swann may deserve another two or three sentences here, since he appears to be the mastermind, but not a separate article. --Lockley (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello collaborators! Side issues aside (Swann and DYK) for a moment, it's important NOT to expand this article's scope to "all fountains in Philadelphia." For about five reasons. The article's current focus is on the philanthropic effort to make clean water available to citizens (and horses and dogs) by installing novel street furniture. Their immediate popularity in 1869 points to an unmet need. Their design requirements were (and are) obviously different from ornamental fountains: drinking fountains serve practical purpose, meant to be physically used, necessarily scaled down to human & horse & dog size, designed for interaction from anybody who walks up, a/o/t ornamental fountains designed to be aesthetically pleasing from 50 feet away on a no-touch basis. Nobody "needs" an ornamental fountain. @AleatoryPonderings: do you see the difference? Furthermore as a practical matter there are a LOT of ornamental fountains in Philadelphia with significant coverage in wikipedia already. Documenting & integrating that list with the existing material would be much work, and the result would be an article with less encyclopedic value than this one. Maybe there's something I don't understand. --Lockley (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly fine by me, we have enough for a stand-alone article as is. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lockley, Yes, I definitely see your point. My concern was mainly that, looking at this from a lay reader's perspective, it would seem odd to have an article speaking specifically to drinking fountains without a clear explanation as to why the focus was narrowed to that (especially given that the article is already about a specific city that's small by global standards). I think the best way to address this is simply to flag a bit more explicitly in the lede that we're focussing here on drinking fountains only, for the many reasons you detail above. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsidering

[edit]

Seems I spoke too soon re: Mr. Swann. See User:AleatoryPonderings/Wilson Cary Swann. He was the subject of an extensive contemporary biographical sketch, which I've transcribed from a PD source. I think we have enough now to replace the redirect (with a lot of reworking, of course.) If you like, feel free to edit the page in my userspace. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

[edit]

Perhaps Drinking fountains in Philadelphia to conform to Drinking fountains in the United States? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ok with me --Lockley (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Trough at 315 S 9th St picture

[edit]

It was the AFD of Horse Trough at 315 S 9th St that triggered the creation of this article to provide a merge target. So it seems strange that you have not used the really nice picture in that article. SpinningSpark 12:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark, I wasn't wild about the composition of this photo so I switched it out for File:GENERAL VIEW, TROUGH - Water Trough and Fountain, Ninth Street, Philadelphia, Philadelphia County, PA HABS PA,51-PHILA,668-1.tif, which I think is better-composed although it's in black-and-white. Feel free to revert if you prefer the one in colour. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't really agree that this is better composition, but I'm not going to revert you. Since there is clearly a great deal of age between the two images, perhaps there is room in the article for both. SpinningSpark 13:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I switched it back. I think the B&W is prettier, but the more recent one in colour has more encyclopedic value. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statements to rework/verify

[edit]

I just cut a bunch of this graf out of the article because it seemed important but I couldn't verify it:

Like Liverpool and London, the new fountains in Philadelphia proved immediately successful. As of 1880, the Philadelphia Fountain Society recorded 50 fountains serving approximately 3 million people and 1 million horses and other animals. The city became an example and model for later efforts to accomplish similar goals in other major cities across the United States, such as the temperance fountains (beginning in 1874), the National Humane Alliance fountains (constructed 1902–1915), and the Benson Bubblers of Portland, Oregon (beginning in 1912). Reformers continued installing such fountains throughout Philadelphia into the 1940s. Many remain.

Hopefully we can get some sources for the statements here that aren't in the article, but I haven't been able to find any in the usual places. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • AleatoryPonderings: Couldn't verify the bit about the city being a model. In fact the sentence I added from a book about the 1860s would suggest Philly was just a part of the wider trend. In other news, I found an obit of Wilson C. Swann after looking for far too long, so will incorporate that shortly. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 17:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lockley, AleatoryPonderings, and Eddie891:
Hi, folks. This is looking very good. I think the table could use a Designer/Sponsor column. You've hit most of the drinking fountains I can think of in the City, although I seem to remember one in the Northeast. == Best, BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Putting two and two together

[edit]

@BoringHistoryGuy: Is the fountain you just added the same one referred to in the block quote beginning as follows? I don't know Philly geography, but it'd be cool if we found the specific fountain that this quote refers to. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first fountain, so called, stands upon the side of the road on the west side of the Wissahickon … It is claimed that this is the first drinking fountain erected in the county of Philadelphia outside of the Fairmount Water-Works.
@AleatoryPonderings: Yes, that's it. I pass it every Sunday on my way to church. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing :) I'd been wondering which one that was ever since I pulled out that quote—thanks! AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AleatoryPonderings: I'm wrong, it's the William Leonidas Springs Fountain that I pass on Wissahickon Drive. Thought it might be the Fairmount Park Fountain turned into an exedra, but the Springs Fountain was built as a single unit. There's a possibility that the Lion's Head Fountain replaced the Fairmount Park Fountain. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BoringHistoryGuy, Well, in any event, thanks for finding File:First Public Fountain Fairmount Park (1904).jpg, which clearly is the same fountain referred to in the quote—it was such a delight to see the description match the photo. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AleatoryPonderings: You might be interested in the image I just posted. Best, == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images in table

[edit]

Not sure what the best way to manage this is, but it seems a little odd to have a specific column in Drinking_fountains_in_Philadelphia#Notable_fountains devoted to images and then have pictures in the "description" section as well. What do others think? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like it! extra protein, no extra charge! --Lockley (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

( Comment or view )
( Article history links:
)

Created by Eddie891 (talk), AleatoryPonderings (talk), and Lockley (talk). Nominated by Eddie891 (talk) at 01:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Both articles are new enough, long enough, well-written, and use citations properly. Earwig does not detect problems in either article: here and here. The hooks are short enough, interesting, accurate, and confirmed by inline citations. Cbl62 (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Green tick?

[edit]

This seems not far off from GA status at the moment. To my untutored eye, it looks like Drinking_fountains_in_Philadelphia#Temperance_organizations is the only section that needs a fair amount of expansion. What do others think? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look later today, AleatoryPonderings. Off the top of my head, I think there's still some confusion between fountains and drinking fountains in the 'history' section that could be cleaned up one of two ways: 1) remove it (not ideal) 2) rephrase it into a 'background' section and cut some (ideal). I'll give a full review from my involved pov shortly. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie891, No need to rush! Just a thought I had, given all the good work over the past week or so :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

AleatoryPonderings, BoringHistoryGuy: My comments follow below. I like to think that I know a thing or two about GA. Of course, do not feel obligated to (in fact please don't) institute these changes directly, IMO the best GA review is more of a discussion than passing down orders. See for instance a recent review of mine at Talk:Punic Wars/GA1. There's a lot to chew on, and I'll work to get through them at all. This article overall looks very nice, so take my comments with that in mind. There's still some pretty substantial work to do before it's quite at GA level, but it's doable, I think. Cheers -- Eddie891 Talk Work 23:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the background section can be cut somewhat. For instance, it's not clear what relevance "Allegory of the Schuylkill River" has on drinking fountains
  • "street furniture" is only mentioned in the lede. If it's relevant, it should be in the body as well.
  • ditto for the idea of fountains improving the public health. Actually, I think the article would overall benefit from more detail on why they felt the need to build public drinking fountains (best suited for 'history')
  • "as a crucial alternative to beer" imo poor phrasing, try something along the lines of "as an alternative to alcohol"
  • "And emerging animal welfare organizations" poor form to start a sentence of this construction with "And", imo
  • "to the dogs" Dogs are only mentioned once in the body, and I'm not convinced that's so much of an encyclopedic detail as a fun thing for humanitarians to tout.
  • Lede needs a sense of conclusion, it ends right now at the motivation behind building fountains, doesn't mention the actual building or the aftermath.
  • "water main on the other" " what's being quoted here?
  • "The idea of purpose-built drinking fountains was relatively novel" I don't see this in provided source? Also it seems a bit like editorializing unless we go into some more detail on the idea.
  • "and that city had 43 in total by 1858" Value? serves to throw of the chronology, imo
  • "was erected in 1854" you just talk about london in 1859, a bit of a jump back, which is not ideal. Maybe add the stuff about England to 'background'? Also, it isn't clear that we're talking about Philly here
  • "in 1884 as:" by who?
  • "In the 1860s, philanthropic groups and governments across the United States began to fund the building of water fountains, including the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in 1867 (in Union Square in New York City), and the Philadelphia Fountain Society beginning in April 1869." reads clunkily. Break it up, perhaps. Also would recommend shoving this into 'background' and cutting the bit about the PFS
  • "New fountains in Philadelphia proved immediately successful. They quickly proved their "utility and absolute necessity;"" one of these duplicates the other, unnecessarily
  • "PASPCA" Unclear what this acronym means
  • More detail should be added about what happend from 1920 to 2015. Preservation efforts? Destruction? You get the gist
  • "although many of them incorporate work by significant architects and sculptors" not in source given (that I can find)
  • "The Society reached out to Philadelphians," why? What did the membership mean? What was it for?
  • " (It was relocated to the south side of the square in 1916." would likely be better placed before the description
  • "The Society's first fountain went up in April 1869, adjacent to Washington Square, at 7th and Walnut Streets. A cast iron eagle perched on top, and below the plaque were two troughs, one for horses, one for dogs. (It was relocated to the south side of the square in 1916.) That same year, work began on two fountains for the 500 block of Chestnut Street, in front of Independence Hall. Prominent citizens such as John Wanamaker and Anthony Joseph Drexel provided funding to the society, and by July there were five operational fountains. Two years later, forty three fountains were managed by the society. Swann handled a large portion of the society's work, and by 1874 it had erected 73 fountains." very choppy, could be blended together with an eye for flow. For instance, why does "Swann handled a large portion of the society's work" come so late in the paragraph. Stuff like that
  • "The Society had challenges." not needed in the body
  • "the city budgeted some money for upkeep, but that practice was ended by 1880" --> "the city of Philadelphia provided some money for upkeep in the 1870s, but had stopped by 1880"
  • "The city was hard on its drinking fountains." what does this even mean?
  • "by Colonel Mark Richards Muckle of the Public Ledger" unclear whether Muckle was the link or the founder
  • "The two had " which two? two people or the two societies?
  • Temperance section needs expansion
  • There's just too much in the table to make it easily navigable. I don't think the NOTE at the top is helpful-- of course it will, perhaps {{incomplete list}} would be better suited. Standards for inclusion need to be defined, we cannot just arbitrarily list fountains, because it then ceases to be a list of "Notable drinking fountains" . Consider a 'gallery' section for the ones that there isn't much to say about them.
  • can we get a map of where the notable fountains are?
  • sources should to be double-checked for reliability.

Comments

[edit]

Thanks for your comments, @Eddie891:. I see you spent some time on them. I'm surprised that a GA review could ever amount to "passing down orders" or an obligation on anybody's part to make changes right away, or at all. Also reading through your 29-point punchlist, written in second-person imperative, I'm not picking up any flavor of cooperation among equals. Also a surprise.

How come we're handed a todo list? Does a GA reviewer outrank regular editors like me? How does that work, please?

I had a look at the GA reviewer instructions. Actually there are no qualifications necessary. Anybody can write up a GA review as long as they're signed in and breathing. One of the very few rules is that reviewers are disqualified by making "significant contributions to the article prior to the review." That only makes sense. You don't want people grading their own papers right?

But wait that's you! Since you launched this article and helped build it, you would be disqualified from reviewing it after a real nomination. I'll choose to take your 29-point list here seriously because you've done some work. Others may not. Nobody has to.

Turning to your list, speaking as your equal, most of your 29 points make sense. Some of them are highly dubious. A couple would have been faster to fix than to document for somebody else to fix.

This one comment about dogs scrambles my brain every time I read it: "Dogs are only mentioned once in the body, and I'm not convinced that's so much of an encyclopedic detail as a fun thing for humanitarians to tout." Are you... accusing somebody of being a sneaky humanitarian? Who touts for fun? And therefore we can't mention dogs in the lead? I absolutely cannot untangle what you think is wrong, but I THINK you did a simple binary consistency check between "# of dog-mentions in the lead" vs. "# of dog-mentions in the body" instead of making the harder qualitative assessment of "# of dog-mentions actually needed".

A meaningful GA review would concentrate on those harder assessments. We need to know whether we've told a reasonably accurate and balanced story overall. How could we ever know that? Hmmm well in this case ideally my first move would be to find an architectural historian from the locality, a subject matter expert and tour guide, somebody willing to collaborate, who maybe (this is just a hypothetical!) had already researched & posted extensively on the same topic in wikipedia, who would even have (really stretching the hypothetical here) the personal grace & commitment to go outside in a freaking pandemic and take and post multiple new photographs for it, so we could get their opinion about the strengths and weaknesses of this article in fuller context. That kind of resource would be AMAZING. That would be meaningful feedback. If only we had access to somebody like that. And if we knew how to respectfully engage them. As equals. --Lockley (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this Lockley. I certainly don't mean to say that all of my suggestions are good-- in fact I'm positive they aren't. That's where the collaboration comes in. I've provided a list of ways that I think we can improve this article. If it turns out that the ideas are all terrible, I still feel we're better for having considered them. At the end of the day, they are only suggestions. I had no intention to seem like I was better than you or any other editor. I was just spitballing ideas that I thought might help improve the article.
With relation to your last point, I've actually emailed Bill Double, the author of A Modest Fountain on the Square, and am looking for a way to contact Jim Mclelland, to ask them both for feedback on the article, and ideas on how to improve it. Of course, they cannot be expected to get back in a day, or even at all, so I guess I'm sorry for posting those comments above before waiting for a response. I genuinely only want to improve the article, but please let me know if you don't think I'm helping, and I can move on to other projects. All the best, Eddie891 Talk Work 11:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lockley and others: Bill Double responded to me, here's what he said: I have nothing to add to these carefully documented and well written entries [this article and Wilson C. Swann]. They should both interest the general reader and provide a solid factual foundation for further research. I guess that's promising? Eddie891 Talk Work 16:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eddie891. I can't imagine a better endorsement from Mr. Double. Thanks to you for reaching out to him. His "nothing to add" is beginning to ring true AFAIC, except for the fix suggested by @AleatoryPonderings: to make the Temperance Society section more complete. Ideally that bit would be better integrated back-and-forth with the Temperance fountain article, which doesn't mention the rather conspicuous Catholic Total Abstinence Union Fountain or the Sons of Temperance or Philadelphia at all. (That article also suffers from a case of structural Americentricity, since the Brits are first in the timeline but rank 2nd in the article, and wouldn't Canada have a temperance fountain or two, etc., but that's a different problem.) IMO that's the major concern with the article as it stands now. Other opinions welcome. --Lockley (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benson Bubbler

[edit]

Curious, why is Benson Bubbler mentioned in the See also section? Seems tangentially related to me, as a Portlander. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related: Once more standalone articles are created for individual fountains, Template:Fountains in Portland, Oregon might serve as a nice template for a Philadelphia template. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Benson Bubbler link removed. --Lockley (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: Thank you for the compliment. It is turning out well. And I appreciate your suggestion about the template. I don't know that we'll ever have enough stand-alone articles, but it's a good idea if/when we do. Best, == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC

Cresson Memorial Horse Troughs

[edit]

@Lockley: I think your sleuthing has established the original locations of the 3 Cresson horse troughs:

Broad & Erie (no longer there)
Broad & Windrim (no longer there)
Broad & Oregon (still there)

The Cresson horse trough at 3rd & Spring Garden is not original to that site, according to the WHYY-FM article.[1] So it likely came from one of the first two locations, although we may never know which.

The diagonal avenues cutting thru the Philadelphia street grid tend to be major arteries, and leave triangular traffic islands. The W.P.S.P.C.A. often seems to have chosen these for their troughs. Smart ladies.
Best, BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to you, @BoringHistoryGuy:, for developing this inventory, and actually going out and taking good photographs. That counts as dedication. And look what you've turned up -- among other things, three Calders, and the stories of rich ladies trying to help the firemen's horses they see in the street. I like this article for being rooted in thoroughly 19th-century concerns & approaches. Let me know if there's any more specific sleuthing you're particularly interested in. As to further answers I still hold out hope for that thesis we talked about, with maybe a previous inventory completed (although I can't put my finger on the author's name at the moment). all best! Lockley (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lockley: Thanks to you for doing the research; I mostly did legwork. I'd like to get a photo of the ancient Roman sarcophagus (repurposed as a horse trough in 1879) before it gets buried under leaves. I have a source that states that a granite fountain -- perhaps the Lion's Head -- was located north of Rittenhouse Street. That would put it at or near the Henry Howard Houston exedra at Harvey Street.[2]
Best, == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Drinking_fountains_in_Philadelphia&oldid=1207038584"