This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Philadelphia is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
I made extensive changes to the size and positioning of numerous images. Most thumbs were oversized (upright=1.1) for no apparent reason. I think an 1800px wide image panorama is excessive (I reduced to 1600px). I have a 1080x1920 resolution monitor which would not display the entire image. There probably is too many images in the article but I do not think I could get a consensus about which ones to eliminate. Personally, I like most of the images. Unfortunately, they get in the way. That is why I added a gallery of the historic paintings and engravings. I think it improved the section greatly. Also, the business of being a "Featured" article. An assessment from 2006 is of no use. There are plenty of references (200 may be too many) nor did not notice too many lists. The "Presidential Elections Results" table should go. P.S. I hope the changes I made did not require approval through this forum. I do not think I changed the content of the article, only the presentation which I agree is important.User-duck (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Castncoot, not a problem. I saw your query. I just lost a long answer on this flakey site and am now upset. Short form, I did not find a suitable image on Wikimedia and I will happily work with you to add an existing image to the article.User-duck (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Castncoot, I too am not a photographer and I have never been to Philadelphia. I am just a Wikipedian with a touch of OCD, trying to improve articles. The original problem was probably bullets running into images. Also, there are way too many images that are distracting and create a very long article that requires too much scrolling. Does a picture of a police car really add to the article? The traffic picture is an interesting addition thou. Maybe there is some quality nighttime photos.User-duck (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the work on layout, User-duck. Three large panoramas may seem like too much, but many city articles have 3 panos, such as NYC, Boston, Chicago, and Houston. An extra large gallery of 20 additional images is excessive when you consider that none of the other large cities have trailing galleries at all. Instead, they sometimes use small section galleries (like you did here) and composites of several images in 1 thumbnail. Boston, Houston and Washington are featured articles and seem to have done a good job spreading out most of their images, reducing text sandwiching which is the biggest concern here. Re: Castncoot's request - there are some nighttime skylines in Commons though many are old (10 years old) and lower quality, or fanciful HDR. There is currently only 1 really sharp, really high-res twilight image from 2016 that could be used instead of the current daytime view from the same location (the 3rd panorama). I just uploaded a very recent night skyline, from last weekend, taken at the same viewpoint as the current 2nd panorama. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Brian W. Schaller Thanks for uploading the new picture. I cropped it for a panorama and added it to the article. The skyline has changed significantly in 8 years, nice contrast. I really like the twilight image but one night image is enough and I do not want to replace a "quality image". Like I said, personally I like the images. I have never been to Philly and they add a lot to the article. No editor likes to remove an image that somebody else thought was important enough to add. Castncoot, I hope you like the new panorama.User-duck (talk) 09:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Although, now that I think about it, do we really need the second image any longer? I believe not. It is now redundant and outdated and no longer notable or pertinent, being without any particular historical significance, and superseded by the newly updated nighttime pano. I am going to remove it at this point, as it no longer serves a constructive purpose, and is excessive as a fourth pano. Castncoot (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
I liked the skyline comparison, BUT that is probably best done with a couple of daytime thumbs. I have NO issue with removing the panorama.User-duck (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Philadelphia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Are you suggesting that all of the above tourist sites be added in simple bulleted list form? Most of them are already in the text, except the shopping items which are more relevant to the Wikivoyage article; however, there is some precedent for writing entire articles about tourism in big cities and tourist site lists here in Wikipedia. If you want to start a new article like that for Philadelphia, ga head. Always keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a tourist-style guidebook and avoid promotional listings. I'm not volunteering to help with a new article. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thx. And with a name like that, it's got to be good! ;) At least they didn't call it 'List of sites of historic nature of colonial period of the city of Phila.'... Brian W. Schaller (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Should we add a mention of the Barnes Foundation in the Culture - Arts section? It is not mentioned, and is certainly more prominent than many of the theaters in the next paragraph.
Latest comment: 4 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion
What do people think about updating the Philadelphia montage? User:Jleon is one of the expert designers of several city montages, I wonder if they'd like to contribute to designing a new one...? For one thing, the very top image (the skyline picture) is sorely outdated. What do peopke think about replacing it with this one?: Castncoot (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Brian W. Schaller, thank you for responding. There must be something we could use as a placeholder for now - even one of the images currently in the Cityscape section. Before those (the second and third cityscape images) were replaced, the current outdated montage skyline picture was actually one of them. IMHO, any replacement at this time would be better than the current montage. Would you be able to redesign a new montage altogether, by the way? I have no idea how to! Best, Castncoot (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Plenty of good images in the large Wikimedia gallery I gathered together a few weeks ago, after looking thru 1000's of poorer quality images thruout all the categories, ugh... Though the Wikimedia gallery is prominently linked in the Phila. article's gallery, only about 0.2% of article viewers click on it based on page views (~4700/day for article, ~10/day for gallery page). Seems either the readers are not interested in more photos, or they never make it to the bottom of a long page. ;)
Anyway, the only image I don't like in the current montage is the ugly sky shot of Indy Hall, and it takes up the most room too. The skyline's not bad except it's missing 3 recent skyscrapers. We can wait for someone to upload a good recent skyline, but the other choices are more difficult... stick with the 'big 5' like now, but better versions - B.Franklin, Indy Hall, Lib Bell, Art Museum & City Hall, try others, or crowd even more in to get 8 or so different sites like NYC does, though they'll be harder to actually see if they get too small. If you look at Los Angeles, it uses a template called 'Photomontage' rather than a single image pieced together in a photo editor. So, try the template & see what you come up with. Ball's in your court - be bold! :) Brian W. Schaller (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Brian W. Schaller, I felt that the entire old montage looked atrocious. In any case, I replaced the images using the photomontage template you suggested - the only problem is some needed size adjustment which I don't know how to deal with (I surmise you probably do). I know you felt the image I suggested here in this section is outdated, but at least it's from 2015, not from 2009! - it's meant to be just a placeholder, and I've tagged the caption with the year 2015 to clarify the timeline to the reader. Feel free to play with this, obviously. Castncoot (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Pretty good except the Penn shot is kinda dull. You'll need to use very similar aspect ratio images on same rows or blank space results; otherwise, the template would have to auto-crop somehow, but that might not look good so it doesn't, or it's simply not technically feasible. So, either choose a taller image (portrait style) on left, bottom or a wider image on right, bottom (would have to be a square image to match the current one at left, bottom). You could also use the crop tool to make a new version and then you'd be sure that 2 images on same row are identical ratios. I tried picking a few others from the gallery but couldn't get them to line up well & also be ones that looked good in smaller size. It's left to you for now. Good luck. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 06:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. This is the best I could do for now - perhaps this arrangement would be a good placeholder for the moment. Part of the problem was the unfortunately surprising paucity of notable images available for such a prominent city. I'm hopeful, however, that in the near future, you or someone else with similar expertise will be able to correct this situation. Best, Castncoot (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Nice work, Castncoot (talk) and Brian W. Schaller. I might suggest two tweaks: first, swap the City Hall and Liberty Bell images so that City Hall "faces" the center of the montage. And second, replace the photo of Elfreth's Alley, which really doesn't scan at postage-stamp size, with the photo of the Ben Franklin sculpture from the original montage (and swap its position with the Museum of Art photo). This would serve the double purpose of representing Franklin (though of course the UPenn photo is an allusion to his influence) and signifying Philadelphia's status as one of the world's great cities for public art. It would also add visual variety to a building-heavy grouping, and introduce a human form. PRRfan (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Brian's previous montage (before switching per the above suggestion) was actually better. The Liberty Bell with Independence Hall in the background is a stunning picture that should be displayed first. There's really no appropriate place for a human form in a city montage, and many Ben Franklin statues adorn Philadelphia. Best, Castncoot (talk) 07:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Maybe it's the request (by "Lionsdude148" at the top of this page) for an audio version, which is claimed to be "important." ;) I've been doing a lot of copy editing and updating figures lately, along with image adjustments, but this article still needs a lot of work, especially in the latter half as there's many "cite needed" tags down there. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Philadelphia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
The derivation of the name "Philadelphia" should state that it is based on the roots of two nouns, "philia", meaning "love", and "adelphos", meaning brother. The etymology currently in the article references "philos", an adjective meaning "dear" or "(be)loved" instead of "philia" - but it's really the roots of these words that were used to compose the name. Any comments (yes, no, meh)? AAIRON (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Some facts: The city was named after the ancient Lydian city of Philadelphia, in Asia Minor, featuring in the New Testament (Revelation 1.9-11). It, in turn, was named after Attalus II Philadelphus, by his brother, Eumenes II, of the Attalid dynasty. The epithet "Φιλάδελφος", from φιλέω (to love) and ἀδελφός (brother) signifies "he who loves his brother"; nothing else. An apt name for that city.
Over the years, the current mistranslation has been institutionalized, and few would dare question the silly received mantra, as you did. The etymological corruption has established itself in virtually all dictionaries. Informing the public is a losing battle. Just let them talk. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Not sure what you mean by "any of this". The ancient Greek is incontrovertible, as any Classical scholar could confirm to you. Philadelphia means "the city named after Philadelphos", and "Philadelphos" is the monicer of said Hellenistic Attalid king, meaning "he who loves his brother", as per even WP, article linked. Liddell-Scott's dictionary might be expanding on it, but, frankly, it is not worth "attesting": it is plain true. (As well as the tortured comically bad Greek etymologies of "brotherly love" and such.) Yes, I am contributing to the Ancient Greek WP project. [1] PS. If you scoured Liddell-Scott, you'd find the correct φῐλᾰδελφ-ος, and the irrelevant φιλαδελφία. Even though the latter may appear to be close to the city's name, in Greek it is very different, indeed, and the source of bad puns: the misplaced accent makes an enormous difference. It is unlikely Penn or his associates mistook that. "The city named after Philadelphos" is incontrovertibly the correct translation of Philadelphia.
By contrast, I have no attestation of "that" New Testament city giving its name to the American one, any more than I do for Memphis, TN, or Athens, GA. Penn knew his bible, and less important cities in it have made their way to upstate New York names... So a chapter-and-verse proof that Philly , PA, is not named after the ancient Lycian city in Asia Minor would carry its own burden of proof, no? In any case, at a minimum, a footnote should mention the point, to counter centuries-old (?) institutionalized misinformation. Perhaps you could undertake that, but I am not in an arguing or proactive mood. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Let me cut to the chase:
Currently, the article says "Penn named the city Philadelphia, which is Greek for "brotherly love," derived from the Ancient Greek terms φίλος phílos (beloved, dear) and ἀδελφός adelphós (brother, brotherly)."
What, specifically, do you want the article to say? What source do you have that directly supports that change?
(I am completely uninterested in what a dictionary or any other source says "Philadelphia" or "φῐλᾰδελφ-ος" or "φιλαδελφία" or anything else "means". This article is about the city in Pennsylvania. If reliable sources say Penn got the name for that city by rolling Boggle dice, Wikipedia should say the same. The article should not detail that this is plainly impossible unless reliable sources specifically and directly state this.) - SummerPhDv2.000:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
As I indicated in my original paragraph, "Just let them talk". I am not familiar with Penn's intent and how posterity has morphed and shifted meanings, so I do not specifically "want" the article to say anything at all. I reiterated known facts in this thread to help editors inform their understanding and stop splashing around spurious folk etymologies, even if they were Penn's, which, I suggested, I doubt. I am not sure the Popular Educator did not simply surmise Penn's intent when stretching the Greek. In any case, if those assuming responsibility for the statements made are comfortable with their match to reality, I am cool. Personally, if I did not already know that, as a clueless reader, I'd welcome reading a factual footnote pointing out the existence of the New testament city. The German WP article threads that needle more maturely. Just let them talk. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. We cannot add a "factual footnote" or otherwise improve the article without reliable sources.
As for "pointing out the existence" of other Philadelphias, that's what the hatnote at the top of the article does. - SummerPhDv2.004:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
As long as we don't know William Penn's intention with certainty, I think it would be best to say Penn named his new city 'Philadelphia' after the hellenistic city of Philadelphia, in Asia Minor, mentioned in the New Testament (Revelation 1.9-11), doubtless bearing in mind the existence of a different though cognate Greek word, also transliterated in English as 'philadelphia' and meaning "love of the brethren" or "brotherly love". 87.67.31.82 (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
To say that Penn named the city after "the hellenistic city...", we would need a reliable source which directly states that. We do not have that source. - SummerPhDv2.020:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
In the Christian Bible, there is the mention of a town called by its Greek name "Philadelphia," famed in Christianity for being one of the first Seven Churches. It is established that Philadelphia's founders were concerned with Quaker scripture and doctrine, and thus its natural to infer that their choice of the name "Philadelphia" came from the Bible. So then we look for evidence where this is declared, but we also frown on those who say its unnatural to infer this, unless there is literal specific record, which could be missing for one reason or another, such as in jousts the Free World has with the aristocratic group. -Inowen (NLFTE) 05:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
It may be "natural to infer" something. It is, however, against policy to imply something not directly supported by a reliable source. Please see WP:SYN for more info. - SummerPhDv2.020:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Someone having a bad hair day? Original Philadelphia missing from article
There is no mention of the original Philadelphia in the article, or link to it, or place in new testament - one of the best known cities in it, which William Penn surely was inspired from as his reason for founding it, which was >religious< and his "a city on the hill quote" is also from the New Testament,which is (Matthew 5).
Although this is surely how the name Philadelphia came about, this is neither here nor there, as the first city to bear the name - the namesake - and why the name was widely known before the choosing of it (many places in the new world were named after old places- "New York", "New England", etc) would surely have at least >one line< in any article. Ie the first city to bear the name of the city Philadelphia was...
Worse yet, there isn't even a link to the original in the Philadelphia (disambiguation page), and the above link is a badly written article that goes out of it's way to mention the modern city by it's Turkish name and buries the historical (which arguably has little connection). This is a hatchet job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.42.179.151 (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
If you feel there should be a link from the disamb page, you are certainly free to add it. If anyone has a problem with your addition, they will correct it or discuss it there.
To add something here, though, you will need to cite a reliable source for the connection.
As to the name of the article, Alaşehir, please see Wikipedia:Article titles. If you feel a name other than the Turkish name should be used for the city in Turkey, feel free to suggest a move on the article's talk page. I would recommend reading the policy first, however. If you feel the ancient city should be a separate article, you can suggest that there as well.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
@Brian W. Schaller: Thank you for replacing the word "prevent" with "minimize" regarding homeowner displacement by the rapid pace of gentrification in the city. Because this is such a fundamental issue to the evolving identity of the city itself, I do believe it belongs in the lede, and then of course gets described more in detail in the appropriate section of the body, which is the ideal concept for lede statements anyway, coincidentally and fortunately. Best, Castncoot (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
A quick check of the other large US cities shows that their coordinates point to things other than their geographical center. Often they point to city hall, or to the first intersection back when the city was founded. For example, Chicago's original center was a ford across the Chicago River at what is now Damen Ave, and that's where the coordinates point. NYC's points to City Hall. Anyway, pointing to an ugly freight terminal minds me of something Emerson wrote. Abductive (reasoning)21:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
It seems that the precision of the coordinates, and the zoom level of the map (set via ), should suggest that it's more general than that, per MOS:COORDS and {{Coord/doc}}. Philly is about 12 km wide near the middle, by 35 km high at the corners, so precision of 0.01° (1.1 km) is appropriate. I'd stick the pin at 40°01′N75°08′W / 40.01°N 75.13°W / 40.01; -75.13 using:
Please don't believe those make-people-measure-the-object-and-engage-in-WP:OR directions at MOS:COORDS. For years the consensus has been to use DMS and D.dddd, with DMS.s and D.ddddd for very small objects such as statues. Also, actual sources override any notions people might have to do WP:OR. Abductive (reasoning)01:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
That, of course, is a bigger and longer-term issue than deciding where Philadelphia is. In my experience there are problems with so-called reliable sources, like showing too much precision, and inaccuracies in smaller features from old/poorly-maintained sources and public contributions not being well-researched. This is as much a presentation issue as anything, where (according to the MOS) we need to have some latitude in how to do it (i.e. there's a gray area between WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and work necessary for style, similar to what is done for other sciences like chemistry, pharma, astronomy, and math). I don't disagree that it's easier to just import GNIS or whatever and be done with it, but the resulting product is just not as good, which is why that language in MOS:COORDS etc. is there. It's a reasonable starting point, but why is it wrong to fix/improve on the data with sources as per WP:OGC, WP:OPCOORD?
The originator of the thread was focused on the particular building the coordinates pointed to because the template is set (or not set) to zoom in too far and the coordinates, as displayed, imply more than the appropriate amount of precision, 1 second being ~30 m or less and 0.00001° being ~1.1 m or less. Also, the scale needs to be set to an appropriate level so when you click on the map, it shows the entire subject, not a single building or neighborhood. That doesn't work right with smaller places if the point is set to the city hall located at one end of the town, nor does it work for New York if you set the location to that of its capital, Albany (near its eastern border), nor does it work with the canonical location of Philly, as seen in the present case.
Yes, we should probably take this somewhere more widely-exposed if you're talking about changing the docs. Yes, the above is probably overly wordy. Sorry – I'm fighting a cold. :( —[AlanM1(talk)]—07:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
I too don't have the strength right now to try and improve the guidance. Let me just say that secondary sources, such as local newspapers, occasionally will run a story on the geographic center of their city. These take the tone of, "can you believe the physical center of the city is on Stockholm Street between Lafayette and Stanhope? In Queens of all places?" That is because a city isn't like a geographic feature like an island that has a geographic center. A city has a city center. Abductive (reasoning)03:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Idea: Google Earth placemarks have a "view" tab with co-ordinates and scale/zoom that is separate from the main location of the object, setting the position/scale of the viewportal. Perhaps that would be a solution, allowing the displayed co-ordinates to be defined as the seat of administration (e.g. state capitol, city hall), but, as a purely presentation/style tool, allow us to optionally set maps to center/zoom to frame the entire place. With the main location being a relatively small object (i.e. a building), the precision issue becomes moot, as ss.s/d.ddddd or ss/d.dddd would be appropriate. —[AlanM1(talk)]—07:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
So, the interactive map in the infobox is a bit... hard to read. The city is obscured while the surrounding area is highlighted. This could be fixed by replacing "type=shape" with "type=shape-inverse"
I changed Quimhneachain into Cuimhneachàin. This is correct without doubt. However, it could be that "na Gael" must be "na nGael". I am no expert in the very complicated Irish grammar. Anyhow, it is correct that the second letter of "nGael" is a capital. Handige Harrie (overleg) 16 mei 2019 12:41 (CEST)
Ok I've done a quick check of a view things, and while there's no real immediate grounds for failure (no copyvio that I can see, no tags, no edit warring) there are a couple of red flags. First, the citations in some areas seem to be lacking, with whole paragraphs of the history of the city being completely unreferenced despite several different claims. Second, the nominator of the article isn't one of the major contributors to the article. They have only made one edit to the article in the last two years that I can see, which was adding a ref to a citation needed tag immediately before nominating the article. I think I'll have to fail the article, but I'll still go through the criteria to see where it still needs improvement. OCL97 (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Spelling and grammar is all fine, layout not so much. A few choppy paragraphs throughout the article, an empty section at notable people, and there seems to be too many unnecessary subheadings where just splitting into different paragraphs would be fine. Not much that needs to be fixed, but it's not quite there yet. OCL97 (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Probably the worst aspect of the article. Like I said before, there needs to be a lot more citations in the history section of the article. I also did a random check of a few of the citations, and it didn't take long to run into a link that didn't work (the "inbound delegations visiting Philadelphia" link at the end of the article) and a link that redirected, showing a factual error in the article (the link to philly.com now redirects to inquirer.com but it's still mentioned in the article as philly.com). There's a lot of inconsistency with how the citations are formatted as well that needs to be fixed. OCL97 (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
A specific example of this, which also is partially to do with the first criteria, is the Television section of the article. The middle two paragraphs share only one reference between them, which has a dead link, and the sections are repetitive, including some information that's also found in the first paragraph. OCL97 (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thinking mainly about the History section here, there is information added that seems kind of irrelevant to the main topic of the article. The first paragraph talks probably in too much detail about where the Lenape went after Europeans arrived, and the second paragraph (which is entirely unreferenced) doesn't make an obvious reason as to why this information is relevant specifically to Philadelphia. The locations mentioned aren't all in the vicinity of Philadelphia, so most of the information seems to be tangential and could be summarized better. OCL97 (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Some images still need their public domain tags to be checked (File:Benjamin Franklin by Jean-Baptiste Greuze.jpg, File:1752 ( 1850 ) Scull ^ Heap Map of Philadelphia ^ Environs (first view of Phillidelphia State House) - Geographicus - Philadelphia-sculllobach-1850.jpg, File:The Birth of Pennsylvania 1680 cph.3g07157.jpg, File:University of Pennsylvania Medical Hall and College Hall 1842.png, File:Detroit Photographic Company (0757).jpg) OCL97 (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Still a fair way off being a good article I think. The article as a whole is mostly ok, the only problems that really need to be addressed are the length/relevance of some sections and the referencing, which given the length of the article could take a while.
@LivinAWestLife: if you're going to nominate an article in future, please make sure that either you are one of the main contributors to the article or that you've discussed with the main contributors whether or not the article is worth nominating. OCL97 (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Tamanend as a co-founder of the city with William Penn?
Since there have been no replies, I've also edited the following articles for consistency: Tamanend, Treaty of Shackamaxon, Pennsylvania, and Province of Pennsylvania with the edit comment: "the province/state was established by the king of England and granted to Penn; the peace accords did not establish the province/state, & the parties to those accords are not considered co-founders; a wp:rs directly stating Tamanend as a co-founder must be supplied since none supplied so far directly state Tamanend as a co-founder, or his peace treaty as a founding document." Brian W. Schaller (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Brian W. Schaller Hi, Im impressed that you have light knowledge of Tamanend, but the Turtle clan is the head clan, and Tamamend was the Principle Chief of the entire Lenape. Manhattan was also Lenape land. The King of England made up a document to scam William Penn, but William Penn was greeted with open arms, and the only agree made was the Treaty of Shackamaxon, agreeing to share the land in Peace. The Lenape didnt believe in ownership. Thats like owning water, or the air, which is now heavily polluted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldhistoryguru67 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Please read Chief Tamanend, by Gus Wiencke, especially paragraphs 3 & 4 under "Tamanend, A Village Sachem" (hint: he was not the principle chief of the Lenape)
So, the king scammed Penn, believing he'd be killed when he arrived? (he certainly didn't like Quakers) It's an interesting theory, but only your personal theory, which Wikipedia terms wp:or (original research), and is not allowed, and certainly not a basis to add Tamanend as a co-founder regardless.
Since the Lenape did not believe in ownership of land, exactly why and how would a Lenape man become a co-founder of a delineated land mass known as Philadelphia (he did not live within its colonial boundaries) and a state known as Pennsylvania (which was/is much larger than any area he had ever visited, or had any interest in), especially as the delineations were made for the purpose of establishing ownership and settling potential ownership disputes of the settled areas by the European people? Why would a Lenape even wish to be considered a co-founder of a European form of delineated land ownership, especially after his people were subsequently pushed west, and the land, sky and waters were polluted? Brian W. Schaller (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Under the politics section it says that "Democrats currently hold 14 seats including nine of the ten districts and five at-large seats, while Republicans hold two at-large seats and the Northeast-based Tenth District. ". This information is outdated and needs updated to account for the results of the 2019 elections in which republicans lost one at large seat to the working families party. It should be changed to "Democrats currently hold 14 seats including nine of the ten districts and five at-large seats, Republicans hold 2 seats including one at-large seat and the Northeast-based Tenth District, and the Working Families Party hold one at-large seat." Jdoebler (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The line "This official status lasted until the English capture of New Netherland" is cited on the History of Philadelphia article, but here a citation is needed. The citation from the history article can be used on the main article. 172.8.210.218 (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
With the release of the 2020 census data, the population of the City of Philadelphia should be updated. As of April 1, 2020, the population of the City of Philadelphia was 1,603,797.
Partly done: I've updated the population to 1,603,797 per the source. I have not reviewed the other demographic data. I may take a peak at this later when I'm more available presuming another editor does not finish and/or close this request. Thank you! ––Sirdog9002(talk) 21:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
The Parks section is very short and just mentions Fairmount Park; it isn't particularly notable enough to be its own section. Thoughts on moving it to a subsection of Geography -- similar to what New York City does? It would seem to fit nicely there alongside the description of the city planning and five parks/squares, etc. Another option is a subsection of Culture? Cstanford.math (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The text "Northeast magalopolis" needs to be corrected to "Northeast megalopolis". The link is fine. Although this could be a typo, I suspect it's the result of vandalism. VaporTraces (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Unions aren't based in the city and aren't that popular in it especially by comparison, which should be noted and reflected in how prominent they are indicated. Wennyd (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The first sentence of this article is missing a conjunction between the second and final elements in its list. It should read “Philadelphia, often called Philly, is the largest city in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the sixth-largest city in the U.S., and the second-largest city in both the Northeast megalopolis and Mid-Atlantic regions after New York City.” It currently reads “Philadelphia, often called Philly, is the largest city in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the sixth-largest city in the U.S., the second-largest city in both the Northeast megalopolis and Mid-Atlantic regions after New York City.” 73.193.140.234 (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The image gallery has six images with eight descriptions. I think I could bring them into alignment, one way or the other, but I don't know Philadelphia well enough to be confident. It appears that this edit by TheLionHasSeen changed the gallery but not the caption. JamesMLanetc06:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Do we really need the picture of the Naked Bike Ride? I'm not against the event being mentioned, but having the image seems a little much. Is there a consensus among the editors approving that this image is not shocking or explicit? 2601:640:8A00:1A0:951F:2DAA:7A86:B648 (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Removed from here and also from List of tourist attractions in Philadelphia after the issue was raised on WT:BIL by 47thPennVols. Seems purely WP:GRATUITOUS; yes "Wikipedia is not censored", but that just means if you start searching for articles with words like "naked bike ride" in the title, you should not be surprised to find pictures of naked people on bicycles. The image doesn't belong here, though it can still be found on other, more relevant pages. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
The Articles of Confederation were not adopted in Philadelphia.
Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This article is incorrect when it claims that the Articles of Confederation were adopted in Philadelphia. At the time of their adoption, Philadelphia was occupied by the British. Because of this, the Articles of Confederation were adopted in the Continental Congress's temporary capital of York, Pennsylvania. Please edit to correct this. Machoooooooooo (talk) 07:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change the caption on the photo of Ferris' painting of Penn with King Charles II from "William Penn (holding paper) and King Charles II depicted in The Birth of Pennsylvania, a 1680 portrait by Jean Leon Gerome Ferris" to "William Penn (holding paper) and King Charles II depicted in The Birth of Pennsylvania 1680, an early twentieth-century painting by Jean Leon Gerome Ferris"
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Idea: Google Earth placemarks have a "view" tab with co-ordinates and scale/zoom that is separate from the main location of the object, setting the position/scale of the viewportal. Perhaps that would be a solution, allowing the displayed co-ordinates to be defined as the seat of administration (e.g. state capitol, city hall), but, as a purely presentation/style tool, allow us to optionally set maps to center/zoom to frame the entire place. With the main location being a relatively small object (i.e. a building), the precision issue becomes moot, as ss.s/d.ddddd or ss/d.dddd would be appropriate. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Run n Fly (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Partly done: I've updated the population to 1,603,797 per the source. I have not reviewed the other demographic data. I may take a peak at this later when I'm more available presuming another editor does not finish and/or close this request. Thank you! ––Sirdog9002 (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect PhillyD and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 20#PhillyD until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 14:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Done – macaddct1984 (talk | contribs) 19:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)