This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Not only that, but the rankings of the city are stretching it quite a bit. Talk about shameless self-promotion. These other cities always love to take it too far on their city's importance. Granted, Philly like Boston were important early on in US development and colonial development, but not so much now. Both cities love to compare themselves to NYC and try to win favor with NYC. Just be yourselves. Is Philly the 4th largest media market? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.93.188 (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Brad Lamson-Scribner? Is this correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.63.158 (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Page Name
Should'nt this page be named Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, not just Philadelphia? Will someone please move it?--CPacker (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. All articles for American cities, besides New York City (and I don't agree with that decision), include the state in the title. Why should Philadelphia be different? Yes, it's a historic city but so are Boston, Massachusetts and Los Angeles, California, yet both of those articles have the state included in the title. --Tocino 06:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. "City, State" is the standard used in thousands of U.S. cities and towns. Conventions work best when they are consistently applied. ·:· Will Beback·:· 05:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone may move it as you ask, but expect someone else to move it back again. To understand why, recall that this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Please read these:
Hope that helps. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the sentiments expressed at the requested move discussion linked above, and disagree with moving it again to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Philadelphia is a city of worldwide prominence, with a unique name making the title "Philadelphia" rather unambigous. The peculiarity of appending the subnational division to the name of an article of a globally important city with an unambiguous name seems to be unique to our US city articles; not even our Canadian city articles are named that way (cf. Toronto, Montreal). krimpet✽ 16:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep in mind this is the overwhelmingly dominant usage of "Philadelphia" in the world, and the fact that the city is likely more notable than the state it is in. (cf. Chicago).--Loodog (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, Boston is the name of another town and Los Angeles could refer to "The Angels" and have nothing to do with a city. Chicago is a play.
I like the article name as it is now. "Philadelphia" could refer to the place in Mississippi, or the Biblical Philadelphia, but most users of Wikipedia think of the one in Pennsylvania. Is there a disambiguation page? I will have to look. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I know thats Philadelphia PA, is not the only city qith this name, around 1100 BC byzance has a city called Philadelphia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.228.147 (talk) 09:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Note the line at the top of the article "This article is about the U.S. city. For other uses, see Philadelphia (disambiguation)." There were three earlier cities with the name and several others exist at present. - SummerPhD (talk)
Library
I don't think they are still planning to close the libraries. Can we remove this from the education section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtspcc (talk • contribs) 20:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
"Because Philadelphia lies in the northern end of this zone, some of its outlying suburbs, especially to the north and west have a humid continental climate".--Loodog (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any contradiction at all. It's clearly explained in the article. Philly is on the border line between both climate zones. El Greco(talk) 00:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Correct, since Philadelphia falls right at 32F for its January average. It is basically the boundary point between Cfa and Dfa. CrazyC83 (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
placement of the red dot on the map
When this image is viewed on the Philadelphia infobox, the red dot marking the city is over New Jersey. Shouldn't the map be re-colored, maybe without even a dot, but simply reddening the whole county? JesseRafe (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Distinction
What is the Neighborhood Between Spring gardens and Northern Liberties? zip code is 19123 Girard Avenue North Broad street East Spring Garden South North 5th Street West
South Street
I could use some help at hippies and Hippie (etymology), in regards to the Orions song "South Street", with the immortal line "where do all the hippies meet". Further documentation that this is an early (maybe earliest?) use of the word hippies has been requested by an editor. Any Philadelphia rock experts, etymologists, etc. here that can help out? 75.5.229.187 (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Photo montage
I'm afraid I have an issue with the Philly montage image, mainly in the use of poor quality images and two images that are a rather strange choice to use. The images of poor quality I refer to are the images of City Hall (low quality) and Independence Hall (shot through a window). The images of which I feel are a strange choice are the Rocky Statue and a SEPTA train. A train is nothing unique to a city, and the Rocky statue while not terrible can easily be replaced with other more iconic, or representative images. (Philadelphia isn't just Center City). Medvedenko (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
There are a lot of very bad images of Philadelphia on this article. Although I fear taking them down and replacing them will stimulate WikiAnger among some users. Melia Nymph (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
This new montage image blows —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.82.6 (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Nice photo but the current Philadelphia skyline doesn't have a Comcast Center under construction. We should really change this because the Center is a new symbol of Philadelphia. - tbone (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Abruzzo as a sister city
Abruzzo isn't a city, it's a region. Is Philly a sister "city" with the whole region or one specific city in Abruzzo?
It's the whole region, apparently. See [1]. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The skline 13 Image seems low quality, I believe that if one has a problem from the montage, they should simply make a better one. Houstontowers (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I think this whole issue has come down to a false dicotomy. I don't really hear anyone saying that either photo is great, just that it's better than the other one. With that in mind, I'm glad to hear the suggestion of a better montage.
Two questions seem to come up re the lead image: single, iconic image (ex: skyline) or montage. If we take a skyline shot as the primary choice for the iconic shot, the montage seems a better choice, IMO, because we could include the skyline as part of the montage.
I say we should come up with a better montage. I think simply asking, broadly, for one is asking for yet another entry in the "it's good but..." category. My theory has us building a wish list of 4 to 6 types of images to include (ex: skyline), get specific (from what direction?, day or night?, recent or historic, etc.), get the shot and make the montage. Thoughts? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I could not agree more, but I am still confused of what is bad with the Philadelphia montage in comparision to other cities, (e.g., New York, Los Angeles, Chicago. Houstontowers (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
There are a number of concerns:
1) Low resolution/grainy (esp. Ciy Hall)
2) SEPTA train (not in any way unique to Philly)
3) Bad skyline photo (lose the bridge & condo billboard at the very least)
4) Dated skyline photo (Comcast still under construction)
I would add:
5) While Independence Hall is somewhat iconic, I'd say the Liberty Bell is a better choice.
6) Looks like Rocky has a pole growing out of his head. May just a shot of the Art Museum w/ the steps would do the same job.
7) I would prefer the skyline at night and the Parkway during the day (spring, if possible).
8) While I "get" including Ben, I would have opted for the bench statue at Penn or the one at the Franklin Institute. Do non-Philly folks immediately know the one shown is Ben?
My gripes with the current skyline photo are pretty basic. With Liberty Place and City Hall out of view and Comcast only partially complete, it is missing a lot of the basic elements of our current skyline. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
And as for the comparisons, I'd say LA is pretty good, Chicago is OK, NYC needs a better skyline (and I would do Times Square at night). - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, so someone photoshopped Image:Skyline 13.jpg to address one of the concerns. Now we have Image:Philly_skyline.jpg with an artist's rendering of the completed Comcast Center. Weird. Anyone want to photoshop a new angle so we can see City Hall and the rest of Liberty Place? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, Photoshopping is not appropriate. I like Image:Philadelphia skyline from south street bridge.jpg The only problem with that picture is the railing which can easily be cropped. We can make a list of four or five other things to include in the montage and pick the best pictures to use. Medvedenko (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Population
Population needs clarity, the city has not had over 2 million people since the 1970's. Also we need a history and traditions section in seperate areas respectfully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't say that there are over 2 million, it says that there are 1,449,634 as of July '07. It's perfectly clear, if you take the time to read it. And what do you mean by "traditions" needing a seperate section? What traditions are you referring to? Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Someone should update the article to reflect the census bureau's revision of the 2008 population estimate to 1,540,351. The numbers need to be changed as does the history section which reflects on the population loss over the last 50 years. It should be pointed out that the decline has been reversed and the population has grown between 2000 and 2008. For that matter other wiki articles dealing with the largest US cities should also be changed to reflect the updated numbers. 147.140.233.16 (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
wikipedia needs more information
Why I was trying to do my essay I came across a problem wikipedia has not enough information.I was trying to write about Philadelphia and I couldn't find any facts about what natural resources PhiladelphiaPA has.That's why I think whoever make wikipedia should learn stuff and put ALL the information not just a little information.Bye for now from Hannah Graybill a reporting genius who will help all you people who are wimps who are scared and won't stand up for themselves express their feelings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.10.23 (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
New Montage
Hello all,
I recently uploaded a montage to use as the header image for this article. In addition to a different angle of the city skyline, it also included a few notable local places which is why I thought it would be a good addition however the image was removed shortly thereafter. Though there was an issue of the image's size on the page, a Wikipedia editor dealt with it before it was removed by another user. I'd like to find out if there was anything else about the image that needed to be changed or why it been removed. Thanks.
I'm assuming that you are referring to the montage labeled "Philadelphia_landmark_montage.jpg". While I cannot speak for the editors who removed the picture, I can give my thoughts. They are: (1) the choice of Geno's Steaks and one of the Parkway fountains are somewhat questionable when when prominent landmarks such as the Liberty Bell and the Art Museum are not included, and (2) the image of the skyline is hazy and focuses on the maze of streets in the foreground and not the buildings in Center City in the background (I'd also call it ugly, but that's pretty subjective).
I can say that I and everyone appreciates the effort you made, and I understand that it's quite difficult to come up with high-quality, public domain images of Philadelphia. But those are my thoughts. 72.81.120.38 (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Just a week ago the montage at at the top had many pictures, now it is changed back to the original, why, i preffered the montage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokingintherain56 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Montage picture
Can the IP user please explain why he/she keeps reverting other users edits on the more established montage picture? El Greco(talk) 21:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
IP removed it again, restored. Postoak (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Its screwing up the layout of the entire article. I'm reverting. ccwaters (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Sister Cities
I would like to suggest that we rename this section "brother cities", which is far more relevant than "sister cities" in the context of Philadelphia. --T.M.M. Dowd (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
No, sister cities is what they are actually called. We can't replace it with an inaccurate term just because you think it sounds better. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly and vehemently disagree, chiefly because the politically correct term is "twin towns", or "twin cities", or "twin conurbations", why do they have to be sister cities, as opposed to brother cities, or mother or father cities, or grandparent cities, or uncle and aunt cities, etc.? --T.M.M. Dowd (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
How is your initial suggestion of "brother cities" any less politically incorrect than "sister cities"? It seems it's just a matter of phonetic alliteration: cities get sisters, and towns get twins. Presumably, burgs and boroughs would get brothers.--BillFlis (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Do kingdoms get cousins? --T.M.M. Dowd (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Do regions get relatives? --T.M.M. Dowd (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Philadelphia's ward system, and the system preceding it
I'm assisting on the biography for Hamilton Disston, son of the saw manufacturer Henry Disston, who created the Tacony community. I concentrate on articles involving the Everglades, which is why I'm assisting on this, but the issues about Disston's participation in Philadelphia politics is causing me some confusion.
An obituary for Hamilton Disston from The North American says Disston was one of the "Big Four" in the city (with James McManes, David Lane, and William Leeds) "which held sway over the political field until its dissolution in 1890 when the new 'ward combine' was formed with David Martin as its head", according to the 1896 obituary. Several other obituaries state that Disston never ran for or held political office, though he remained a political adviser, giving his public support to several politicians active in Pennsylvania, national, and Florida politics. According to a simple website recounting the history of Philadelphia, the ward system was initiated in 1854, when Disston would have been 10 years old. So what is it exactly that the Big Four did? If anyone can assist with this clarification and offer a reliable source to give more information I would appreciate it. I have access to a university library, though I do not live in Pennsylvania. --Moni3 (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The big change in 1854 was the consolidation of all the Philadelphia County municipal governments into a single entity, the City and County of Philadelphia, which in various forms continues to this day, as does the organization into wards and divisions (i.e. polling places). Philadelphia is the only county in Pennsylvania with a consolidated government. I can look into the "Big Four" and post on your talk page what I learn this week. Meanwhile, Tacony, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania has some information about the Disston family annd the Tacony branch library that you may find interesting. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I also contacted the Philadelphia Free Library, hoping they could shed some light on it. And I found a page in a GoogleBooks search (not mentioning I hate using GoogleBooks...) in a book about Henry Disston and Tacony. The wording is similar but slightly different here, saying the Big Four dominated Republican nominations. Since this was the era of Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall, I'd like to know how this was done, if possible. You are welcome to reply on my talk page, though this is tangentially related to this article: the history of Philadelphia government in this article starts in the 1950s... --Moni3 (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I am well aware of the big gaps in the Philadelphia article and some of the related articles. Republicans dominated Philadelphia politics until new charter and the takeover of city government by reform Democrats after World War II.
As you mentioned, Philadelphia politics were very corrupt. In the late 1880s a group of citizens proposed a way to clean up city politics, and that was to shrink the number of departments in the city and put them under the direct supervision of the mayor. The Boss of the city at the time was James McManes and he was at odds with the the state boss Matthew Quay. Wanting to hurt McManes, Quay and Boies Penrose helped pass the bill in 1885 and it took effect in 1887. The bill did not help corruption, with David Martin taking over as the city boss from McManes. Medvedenko (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Hamilton Disston publicly backed Quay and publicly and from my understanding, famously feuded with McManes. Disston's artice is nominated for a GA right now, and should the reviewer ask for explanation of how involved Disston was in city politics, I would be unable to reply with any confidence. The majority of what has been written on Disston is about his development of Florida. --Moni3 (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Have you seen this book? Since he was powerful in Philadelphia political machine, I assume thanks to his time making friends in the fire department, he would have been putting friends and "business associates" into Philadelphia governmental positions. Why he seems to have been pushed out once McManes was I don't know. Medvedenko (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I had not, so thank you. ("Father of Florida"??? I wonder how many people that might be credited to...) It is not too different from what I gleaned from reading a few obituaries and other stories about Disston in the 1880s and 1890s. A source to say the city was under a boss system and Disston was one of them is a bit clearer. Newspapers of the day did not explain that in detail necessary, as I'm sure ongoing understanding of the political system was earned in some other way. I appreciate your assistance. Feel free to message me on my talk page or the Disston talk page if anything else occurs to you. --Moni3 (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you need any more information about the Big Four in Philadelphia? Anyway, I will be reading more about it today. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Not right now, although there is a possibility of Disston's article going to FAC. It was passed as GA earlier today. I predict if it goes to FAC the issues in the article about Disston's involvement in Philadelphia politics will have to be expanded. I am, however, not the article's main contributor and I will leave it to him to decide if he wants it to go to FAC. --Moni3 (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Infobox photo
Massimo Catarinella has changed the photo of the Philly skyline in the infobox. Comparing the previous one[3] with his choice[4], I prefer the previous one. It's more interesting and vibrant, and it shows off one of the rivers that have been so important to Philadelphia's history and development. The replacement, which is certainly quite detailed at its full size, looks washed-out in the infobox. I suggest we go with the previous one. Anyone else want to weigh in? PRRfan (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to say, that the former lead image was taken from exactly the same location as my panorama :). --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
It's a nice panorama; I enjoyed looking at it full-size. (I like your other shots on your own page, too.) I just think the former one works better in the infobox. PRRfan (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The former infobox picture was photoshopped to include the Comcast Tower (which, if you look at the original, was only partially constructed when the photo was taken). I prefer the former picture aesthetics-wise, but think we should stick to the current one for the reason this reason.72.81.127.81 (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I think we should use the more up to date one. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
My preference would be for the new one. I agree that it's a shame that the river is not included (it does seem a bit tightly cropped at the bottom) and I think it could do with a little more contrast, but the previous one is quite poor. Vibrant isn't the word I'd use. It's oversaturated, overly blue, and overexposed in the sky. It would be ideal to have an image that combines the composition of the old one with the detail and realism of the new one. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 16:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I like the old one's saturation, not to mention its superior composition. But if it was indeed photoshopped as described, then I would withdraw my support for using it in the infobox. PRRfan (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Because some of you prefer more foreground, I'm currently looking for a similar version of this panorama with more of it on my camera. So maybe I can fix this. I will also add some more contrast to the old one, since Diliff is right. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's an alternative: File:SchuylkillPhyladelphia.jpg
Looks good to me. Thanks. PRRfan (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Perfect. :-) You could well have a FP with that one too. Glad you found one with the river included as it adds a lot to the composition. You certainly seem to be getting good milage out of your travels recently! Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 20:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I created a better version of the last one. Taken into account is the fact that most of you wanted to see more of the Schuylkill river. I've also created a wider panorama, increased the resolution and corrected small errors. I hope you like the result :). --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Final Panorama
New image or old image
What has been going on here? I can see that Massimo has been blocked for 'edit warring' but by the looks of it, others were equally to blame and Massimo seemed to be the only one trying to get any discussion on this talk page... Anyway, my preference is still for his replacement. PRRfan, you state your preference for the old one but it's clearly oversaturated and unrealistic as a result. You might prefer it but it just isn't as encyclopedic if it isn't an accurate representation of the scene. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 21:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Diliff, I think you misinterpret my stance. I stated a preference for the old one[5], then was convinced by Massimo's recrop and rework to support the new one[6]. That yielded consensus on the Talk page to switch to Massimo's new image. If he has been blocked, it's a travesty; he (and I) have been attempting to support the new consensus image despite the poor behavior of several users, including User:Emy111 (who contributed the old, now non-consensus image), who have repeatedly reverted to the old imge without discussion or edit summaries. PRRfan (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I had a quick look at the edit summary at the time and noticed that both you and Emy111 had reverted, but I guess I missed the fact that it had happened before his rework. Apologies. It certainly seems like (within the limited number of participants) that the new image is supported. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 07:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
NEW IMAGE WITH BOAT SHOULD BE THE LEAD IMAGE !!!!!!!
I added this new image to stop the edit war. Massimo's image is not bad. I never said it was, however, it is lacking tone, and character. The lighting is bad which makes for a dull, uninteresting photograph. Plus the river which is an important symbol of Philadelphia is not shown completely. My new skyline photograph which I snapped yesterday afternoon should stay as the lead image.
The users of wikipedia should comment on this page and suggest which should stay as the lead image. As Massimo said, which I agree. let the users decide.--Emy111 (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Your incessant reverting without discussion wasn't at all helpful by the way, but I agree that this new image is much better than your old one, and possibly better than Massimo's. It's not as detailed, but you're right that it has a bit more tone and character. By the way, if you took it yesterday, you might want to look at the date/time on your camera, as the EXIF says 02:25, 10 July 2007. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 21:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
There is an error with the EXIF data. I can't figure out why. I think there is something wrong with my camera. The image was taken yesterday afternoon. The Comcast building wasn't even finished in 2007, and Feb, it would've been winter. In an EXIF Viewer program, in one spot it says yesterday's date, and in another spot it says 2007? Look at the image to verify date.
I think everyone is forgetting that my previous image was the lead image for well over a year! Massimo is the one who began the "edit war". I'm just making that clear. --Emy111 (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to start a debate about who started the fight, since it is childish and pointless. Somehow you just kick on seeing your own picture as the lead image of the article, which is fine by me. What we should look at though, is what is best for this encyclopedia. You did finally joined the discussion now and It did get you to take a new picture of Philadelphia, which is all the better for the article. Your old one was the lead image for over a year, because no one took the effort to upload a more descent picture to Wikipedia in the meanwhile. As for your new image, it has got more character due to the fact, that the picture/panorama is tilted, which makes it more dynamic. It doesn't make it more encyclopedic however. The quality is very poor. I'm sorry too say so, but it is grossly over processed. I'll do some shadow lifts on my version and process it some more to give it more tone and 'character' as Diliff suggested elswhere. Then it will up to you guys to decide, which one is more suitable/favorable. Gr. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
New version with improved tone. If you have suggestions for making this panorama even better, I would like to hear them from you.
Improved tone
thank you for writing back Massimo.
- I do get a kick out of seeing my image as the lead image, obviously you do too, otherwise you wouldn't have started an edit war with me.
- yes, your camera has slightly higher resolution than mine. i'm glad you paid more money for a camera than I did. congrats.
- my image is not tilted. i used a lens that does not distort, for the panorama. i suggest you read the page on perspective here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_(visual) , you obviously adjusted the "skew" in Photoshop for your image.
- my image is not over processed at all, it is 100% accurate of the lighting, coloring etc, of that point in the day. i shoot RAW, and do not saturate or do any HDR. i live a few blocks from that bridge so I know when to go shoot photos when the light is just right.
- i am glad you adjusted the "tone" of your image. it looks better.
- i appreciate your constructive criticism. thank you.
-Ed --Emy111 (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)--Emy111 (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
First of, I want to make clear that this is not personal (just so you get that, which I hope you already do). I don't get a kick out of it, I just want to have the best picture as a lead for the article (which was mine before your new pictures were uploaded IMO). My camera doesn't necessarily has a higher resolution, but I do use a zoom lens and make a panorama out of 10 or more photographs to create more detail. Also, the camera doesn't necessarily determines the quality of a photograph, the photographer does. The lightning of your picture is fine, I'm not giving you criticism on that. Your panorama however does contain a lot of chromatic aberration (CA). Look for the magenta and green lines alongside the buildings. Also, the panorama is thus far processed, that the various pixels together have formed bloggy artifacts (don't know how else to put it, but you probably get what I mean). It is most noticeable on the trees on the left (the leaves for instance). If you have shot it in RAW, I have no idea what you did to make it come out like this. It is I think reversible though. Finally, the perspective is distorted and most buildings are tilted. Just take a look ate the Comcast Center. If the building would be like that in reality, it would probably fall over. I've created a straightened version of your panorama. Though it is far from perfect (did it real quick), it does give you an idea of what it could look like. Distortion could also be the consequence of just stitching a panorama, certainly if you didn't use a tripod.--Massimo Catarinella (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree with massimo, there is a lot of chromatic abberation in your image (both the panorama and the single image - it almost seems like it's designed to be viewed with 3d glasses!) which isn't ideal and can be corrected somewhat if you shot it in raw. I think what Massimo meant by 'bloggy' is 'blocky'. It just seems a bit blocky, particularly in the detail of the trees. Finally, it seems you might have had inconsistent focus as the foreground seems sharp on either side of the riverbanks, but the boat seems out of focus. On second thoughts, no. It's even worse. You've falsified the panorama by pasting the boat from the single image into it. It's obvious because the boat is identical to the other image, and doesn't have the same sharpness of the rest of the image. Nice try, and it almost worked, but it's a massive falsification of the image and I could not support that. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 07:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Straightened version
I would like to offer my support for Massimo's image. I don't know much about photography or photoshop or any of the rest of the shit you guys are arguing about, so I can't write a paragraph about saturation and distortion and chromatic abberations or where the boat came from to support my position. I just think that Massimo's image is clearer and is a better representation of our skyline. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
--Emy111 (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I am really enjoying this photography debate. It is seriously making my work day so much more enjoyable!
I wonder how many of you out there viewing this actually even know anything about photography, or how to shoot a film camera, let alone a DSLR on its manual settings.
If you guys want to complaint about such tiny technical differences than, by all means, keep it comin!
I already 100% agree that Massimo's camera is newer, and technically better than mine. Who cares about the camera? I sure don't. Photography is all about capturing the moment. Not worrying about chromatic aberration (which i'm sure 99% of you guys had to go look up). Yes, my camera does not have the resolving power of Massimo's. Again... who cares.
I have no clue what you guys mean by "you need 3-d glasses"? Are you monitors calibrated? You sure?... Sure your sure??
I adjusted the linear perspective by taking Massimo's suggestion. I normally don't correct for this, but in this case I did the tiniest bit.
And in terms of the boat in the panoramic. I have about 100 shots from that day. Diliff - You weren't there and have no idea how long the boat sat there, or went by that spot, so don't make assumptions you know nothing about. Really, grow up.
If you all want to complain about Photoshop editing, lets all go buy medium format film cameras, shoot film, and scan it, so no manipulation is possible. Sound good?
-Ed--Emy111 (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Emy111, I hope that we can all agree that this debate will result in the Philadelphia article having a better infobox picture than it did before; so to that extent it's worthwhile, regardless of which photographer's work ends up being there. I have the following comments about File:Phila skyline pan copy.jpg: (1) I would recommend cropping from both sides, since it would result in the skyline being comparatively larger when the photo is viewed in thumbnail form (which is the way that it is going to be viewed most of the time, particularly in the infobox context). (2) A vantage point a little more to the right or to the left might be desirable: the vantage point that you've selected results in the City Hall clock face being totally obscured (a vantage point a few yards to the left of where you were standing may be able to fix that). Another issue with your vantage point is that the One Liberty Place spire appears to be coming out of the top of the Mellon Bank Center, which might mislead someone into thinking that the spire is part of the other building. A note about the lighting (and this is not so much addressed to Emy111 as to others who might be studying the picture): this image is taken from a position northwest of the buildings (i.e., facing southeast). Most of the buildings are aligned in a grid layout with streets running more-or-less north-south and east-west: thus, the elevations of the buildings that are in shadow in this shot are the north elevations of the buildings and so are always going to be in shadow.
I'll add here that there may be other locations from which to take a Philadelphia skyline photo and be able to get more of Philly's landmark buildings (such as City Hall and One Liberty Place) in the shot. South Street Bridge is currently not available, of course, but the shoulder of the northbound Schuylkill Expressway might be suitable. I mentioned the Art Museum steps to Massimo; he was in town for 4th of July and the steps were still blocked by the performance stage. The New Jersey State Aquarium is another possibility. Another might be the roof or a high floor of the University of Pennsylvania Hospital. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't care: as long as its not a collage image. ccwaters (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
@ Emy111: I do feel it is a pity, that you turned out to be a sore loser. Instead of being sarcastic, I would advice you to take the criticism with you and use it, so that your pictures can become better. Diliff is the photographer here on Wikipedia, has probably had numerous publications, is widely respected and operates on a professional level. He is better than some professional photographers I know. I'm a what I call professional amateur (not yet a professional, but getting there :) ). I sell my pictures, had publications (even in the LA Times) and I take technically solid images. So yeah, but of us know a lot about photography and are pretty good at making photographs (at least Diliff is). I can only speak for myself, but I shoot in RAW and totally on manual setting (You know, the M atop of the switch on your DLSR.). If you would have taken a little bit of time to read the exif data of my panorama, you would have known. Again, the technical quality of a picture is largely determined by the photographer! My monitor is totally calibrated and it is only a couple of months old, so nothing wrong here. Chromatic aberration is one of the principle known elements of photography, so no, I didn't have to look it up (I suggest you do that though, so you will use a different aperture of your diaphragm next time.). Oh, one more thing about photography, most good pictures don't need a lot of editing in Photoshop or any other program (mostly a little bit more contrast, saturation, sharpness and some perpective correction and your done). Photography is about capturing the moment, but also so much more. It is different elements coming together in a single image (Moment, technical quality, composition, etc.) and those all determine if a photograph is good or not. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Massimo, I do feel it is a pity that you turned out to be the loser. Your image is bland and boring.
I know you all think I did a ton of editing in Photoshop and I did not. I know you all find it so hard to believe that I took this photograph when the light was just right, and just by chance, there happened to be a boat hanging around.
I opened it, and did extremely minor level adjustments. Thats it.
Trust me, I don't believe in over manipulating in Photoshop. My favorite photos are taken with my Bronica medium format film camera with slide film. No manipulation necessary.
F8 is the optimal aperture for the lens I was using at the time, chromatic aberration is a result of my sensor not being able to resolve the light as well as yours.
Did I ever say you, Massimo or Diliff aren't good photographers? No.
Talk to you guys in a little bit!
We should all go bowling sometime? You guys in?
-Ed--Emy111 (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Compare the crops of the boat and ripples in both images - they're identical in every way. Fake. Now you're just being ridiculous and childish, and you're telling me to grow up? Clearly there was a boat there when you took one of the two photos. I'm not disputing that. The problem is that you decided to clone it onto the other panoramic photo. Or are you now going to claim that both the boat and the ripples remained absolutely stationary long enough for the people in the background and the cars and buses to change position? And are you going to claim that it was simply coincidental that the sharpness of the image suddenly becomes worse around the boat and its ripples? You've obviously falsified the reality of this image and you're still trying to claim that because I wasn't there, I cannot possibly use my intelligence and my photographic knowledge to call you out on it? As for the chromatic aberration, it's not to do with your sensor at all. It's almost certainly the lens. Either it's misaligned, or it's just a poor lens. Neither of which are capital offences, and even pro lenses sometimes show a little chromatic aberration, but the point is it can be and should be corrected. Sure.. Bowling. Feel like flying over to London? Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 15:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a good idea... lets all drink a bunch of energy drinks, and talk about what makes for a good photo...
Lets get all rambunctious!!!!
I never said there was 0% photoshop work...
I said I don't believe in overly editing images. The boat happens to fall in an area on the panoramic where stitching occurs while I was creating the panoramic. This is the reason that the waves vary.
You of all people should know that when stitching together a panoramic shot, you have to subtly manipulate the image to attempt to get the stitching correct. This is where the human ability to "edit" comes into play.
Creating a panoramic shot takes ten times more effort in Photoshop compared to opening - lightly massaging, then saving 1 image.
Chromatic aberration is def. affected by both the sensor and the lens.
--Emy111 (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
You're still obviously lying. Two reasons: The boat isn't in the same location relative to the trees, nor is it the same size/sharpness relative to the overall scene. Also, if it were true that the single image was simply one frame from the panorama (as you seem to be implying by brushing off the duplication of the boat as just a minor stitching issue), then the clouds at the top should match up, but they don't. They've moved significantly between the two images suggesting you took it at a different time. The boat would not still be there. If that isn't overly editing images, I don't know what is. I completely agree with you that there is an element of manipulation inherent in panoramic stitches, but I would never try to fake it like this. And you're still wrong about chromatic aberration. Perhaps you'd like to consult the article and have a little debate on the talk page there. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 16:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Diliff - you surely are a radical dude!
--Emy111 (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I was drawn here by the FPC (now withdrawn) and followed this debate from afar but now I must step in to try to solve this discussion which is getting nowhere. While I agree that Emy's composition, with the river on the foreground, is better than Massimo's, everything else in Emy111's picture falls appart. The boat is clearly photoshopped (exact same boat, but everything else is different, from traffic to passer-bys, from forests to cloud) and the CA is painfully obvious even on my shitty monitors (big green vertical lines at the left of each building). But this isn't important, everyone can improve (and having better material obviously helps). What matters to me the most is the way Emy111 keep lying/denying even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Emy, this will lead you no where. We're not trying to judge you, we're not attacking you personally and as I say you will have others occasions to shoot better pictures. But please accept the fair critics and counseling of others experienced photographers such as Diliff. Ksempac (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh boy oh boy oh boi!!!! --Emy111 (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
So, for those doubters out there, I took another set of images, from my batch of 100, not used in the other panorama, and I created another completely new panorama, which is below.
I think some of you have forgot how a panoramic is made in Photoshop... you take several images and stitch them together. Excuse me if the waves , boat, etc, were in an area where stitching occurred. So, just to ease the minds of all you restless souls out there, I used a shot where the boat was more in the distance to avoid all confusion.
Again, I'll be the first to say it is not razor sharp, and does have a tiny bit of chromatic aberration, but it's as sharp as my camera and lens allowed, which I used a brand new nikon 35mm 1.8 shot at f8.
All constructive criticism is welcome.
By the way... Diliff - from above... I never knew you were such a boating enthusiast?
--Emy111 (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)]
--Emy111 (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
You're still falsifying it. Please just give up on trying to include the boat in the panorama. It clearly wasn't there at the time you shot it. This time it's even more obvious that you've faked it. There's a very large difference in sharpness between the boat/water and the rest of the scene, and there's an awful transition on the very bottom of the image, near the left bank. I'm not going to support your image. It has potential, but you clearly have demonstrated the inability to take Wikipedia seriously. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 06:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow, you complain more than a woman.
The skyline shoot that day lasted under 10mins. It was really quick. The boat was there... I snapped off around 80 shots. On the other side of the bridge (behind me) is the dam, so the boat couldn't continue going forward. The dude boated up, sat there for a little bit, then went under the bridge, then turned around and boated back toward the city, and away...
I am not falsifying it.
You make it seem that a panoramic is taken with 1 shutter capture.
A panoramic is taken with several images taken within the same time frame. The image I used for the boat was taken within that time frame, using a tripod, going left to right across the skyline. How to you create your panoramics? Do you use Photoshotp>Automate>PhotoMerge? I dont... I do it manually... Ya know... the way it used to be done before Photoshop CS.
I'd describe your approach as heroic, but also a little silly. Your method is about the equivalent of drawing a straight line through a set of points by eye, rather than using linear least squares or a similar approach. Similarly proper panorama software can provide an optimal solution for a set of data points, and use the data to correct complicated image distortion, something that is practically impossible to do by hand. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the boat is not as sharp as the rest of the image. Who cares. You guys are worrying way, way, way, way, way (i'll say it again, WAY) to much, about such tiny stupid details.
- The colors are faked (they are not)
- The boat is faked (it is not)
- There is too much chromatic aberration (eh, there is some)
- There is crappy stitching or transitions to make the pano (nah)
- If you don't support my image, then good for you. Don't play if off like you're "the man". You have some really nice pics, i'll 100% admit that. Big deal.
These new pics are awesome shots, with awesome lighting, and the sky was amazing that day. Both the pano, and non pano versions are good photographs. They show the city in a good light with a good feeling.
If you want to spend your entire day worrying about technical details, go work for dPreview.
If you still wanna complain about everything, I'll see you on that bridge with my medium format film camera... we'll snap off some real photographs together, hold hands and sing Kumbaya.
Sound good?--Emy111 (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)--Emy111 (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Pfft, real men shoot large format. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm no photographic expert, but Emy111 shot a big hole in his credibility by reverting multiple times [7], ignoring entreaties to enter the Talk page discussion [8][9], declining even to leave edit summaries [10][11][12], engaging in sockpuppetry (98.114.67.10, at least, is one alias [13] under which he reverted [14]; others may include 68.81.60.140 [15] and 76.99.21.22 [16]) -- and then falsely accusing Massimo of starting an edit war [17]. (Not to mention belatedly joining the discussion with an oddly emotional outburst [18], then ultimately resorting to insults [19].) Perhaps some of this was done out of ignorance of Wikipedia customs, in which case I hope Emy111 learns from this and becomes a more constructive editor, but it all undermines his defense against allegations of photographic trickery. I can't support using his images for the infobox. PRRfan (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Not being an expert on photography or photoshop, I had no real opinion on whether or not the image was doctored originally. Looking at Emy's latest image, even I can tell that that boat was photoshopped in. My support for Massimo's picture before was simply because I thought it looked nicer and was a better representation (a violation of WP:ILIKEIT I suppose, but what are you going to do?). Now, I offer my full support to Massimo's image because Emy's has obviously been extensively doctored. Between this, the lies, the edit warring, the constant sarcasm and the personal attacks, it is hard to understand why you're even here, Emy. You should be ashamed or yourself. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Ashamed? Are you kidding me?
I created an awesome image the other day! I'm gonna have it printed and framed in my apt.
Every time I walk past it I'm gonna think of our conversations and wish you guys could be there with me so we could sit down, sip some tea and discuss our feelings.
Again, the image is a 100% true and accurate from the other day. It is 100% not fake in any way shape or form. The panoramic was built out of several shots I took back to back.
Believe what you want. I don't really care anymore.
--Emy111 (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I have been watching this in the background. The issue is not how good or bad the photographs are. Photojournalistic integrity is of paramount importance for wikipedia articles to be credible. You can't make something up with photoshop and then claim that it is what happened in reality. That is the problem, not some attack on your ability to produce a pretty picture. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe we can take Emy's "I don't really care anymore" as bowing to the otherwise unanimous consensus against his image and for Massimo's. I've lost track of just which one that is; Massimo, would you kindly make the necessary edit? PRRfan (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
An encyclopedia would not paint such a blatantly biased picture. Only a democrat would have the audacity to write an entry such as this, and pass it off as an impartial description of the city. This article needs MAJOR modification, and I would be more than happy to provide the balance that this left wing, Germantown native neglected in composing this entry.
I (not a Democrat) think it looks pretty balanced right now. Is there something specific that you see as unbalanced? Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder to me. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 11:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
When you say "only a Democrat would write this," are you suggesting that Democrats shouldn't be allowed to edit articles? I don't see anything unbalanced about it personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtspcc (talk • contribs) 20:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia is a photo scavenger hunt and free content photography contest to be held all around Philadelphia aimed at illustrating Wikipedia articles.
Scheduled for Sunday, October 4, 2009, the check-in location will be at the Drexel University quad (between Chestnut and Market, 33rd and 32nd) at noon, and the ending party and photo uploading (location to be announced) will be at 6 PM. To reach the Drexel quad, walk south from Market Street at 32nd Street into the campus.
To justify my adding of the nickname "The Illadelph": within the hip-hop community it is among the dominant names for Philadelphia. See google news archive search: [20], it even turns up a few times in google scholar: [21]. An interesting question...did this term originate with, or pre-date the album Illadelph Halflife? I don't know. But it's use clearly extends beyond references to the album, or to The Roots in general. It's used casually in some random contexts now, like these two references in sports: [22], [23]. Here's even a mention in the Yale Daily news, showing that the stuffy Ivy-leaguers have picked up the term: [24], albeit while discussing hip-hop. Cazort (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
This nickname was removed again without any comment here, and I added it back. The first source given, [25], refers to the fact that this term is used regularly in philadelphia weekly--searching their site verifies this: [26]. Google shows this term appears widely, even in google news archive search, in a number of different sources: [27], and that search is omitting the term "halflife" so it's not just references to the well-known album with that name. Also, the term "Illadelph" refers only to the city of Philadelphia, unlike the nickname "Birthplace of America" or "The City of Neighborhoods" which also are nicknames of other cities. The number of google hits for "Illadelph": [28] is roughly five times those for the official motto "Philadelphia maneto": [29], and I'd hardly suggest eliminating the motto! Cazort (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Location comment
LOCATION:Plilidalphia is located 39'57"12"north and 75'10"12"west....... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.152.88 (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Updated Census estimate
Can someone update the current population estimate?
It looks like Philly's population is currently estimated at 1,540,351 according to the Census Beuro. This stat could also be updated on the page List of United States cities by population Thanks!
