Jump to content

Talk:Society Hill

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

Map request

[edit]

A map of the historic district's boundaries is needed. Cacw (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC) A source map can be found here. Cacw (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photos needed for sites in Society Hill on the Philly Register of Historic Places

[edit]

working boundaries

Walnut, Lombard, Front and 8th Streets

East-West Streets (listed North to South)

  • Walnut Street
    • 101
    • 111-135
    • 200-236
    • 400-436 (evens, south side of street)
    • 500-532
    • 600
    • 701-739 (odds, north side of street
    • 825-831
  • Locust
    • 200
    • 210
    • 220-230
    • 232-248
    • 281-293
    • 408-426
    • 440
    • 700-712
    • 713-723
  • Spruce
  • Delancy
  • Pine
  • Lombard

North-South Streets (listed East to West)

  • Front
  • 2nd
  • 3rd
  • 4th
  • 5th
  • 6th
  • 7th
  • 8th

**I don't know what you're looking for specifically(except for the Walnut Street addresses), but there are about 2 dozen photos within those boundaries here. They're mapped here BMK (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Standardizing Citation

[edit]

Is general citation format desirable in this and similar articles? Please let me know if I should not be using this template: 

<ref name="Encyclopedia of Philadelphia: Society Hill">{{Citation
 | last1 = Dowdall| first1 = George W.
 | author1-link = 
 | last2 = | first2 = 
 | last3 = | first3 = 
 | last4 = | first4 = 
 | title = Society Hill
 | publisher = The Encyclopedia of Greater Philadelphia
 | date = 2015
 | url = http://philadelphiaencyclopedia.org/archive/society-hill/
 | access-date = December 30, 2016}}</ref>

which looks like: [1] PHILA19106 (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, though the more specific cite web, cite news or cite book are commonly used. Also consider using archiveurl / archivedate / deadurl=no (or 'yes' if the original link fails) params (see [1] and [2] / [3] to check for/create archives) as ref links often die quickly. Using separate lines for each parameter is not often seen, though OK & easier to read/edit, in the basic non-visual editor anyway. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Dowdall, George W. (2015), Society Hill, The Encyclopedia of Greater Philadelphia, retrieved December 30, 2016

Geography & History/ Buildings & Libraries

[edit]

I tried to enhance the geography section, but I am dissatisfied with the result. I'll take another crack at it when I get a chance. Also, thinking about the penultimate paragraph under the history section that discusses historic buildings -- maybe the topic of historic/notable buildings warrants its own section. Finally, thinking about whether the libraries section should be folded into a subheading under the education section to complement another subheading of "primary education" for McCall and St. Peters. Any thoughts?

PHILA19106 (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems G-maps is just copying the Wikipedia article for most of its info so their map will eventually just be updated to whatever this article says about the boundaries - probably shouldn't be mentioned. Actually, the footnotes about the NRHP & PRHP boundaries were probably sufficient - don't want to confuse readers even more. As for the rest, WP:Be bold and do what you think is best! Brian W. Schaller (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Moving primary topic Society Hill, Philadelphia to Society Hill

[edit]

Per WP:PTOPIC, Society Hill in Philadelphia is a primary topic, that should have a hatnote guiding readers to Society Hill (disambiguation) to find the other uses. With respect to long-term significance of the term, Society Hill, Philadelphia has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term, and with respect to usage it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for the term “Society Hill.”

Unanimous indicators include search results and stats from:

While you may be correct regarding the primary topic, please do not move a page by cutting and pasting the contents. This disrupts the edit history which is required for attribution under Wikipedia's content license. Please see WP:RM for instructions on requesting a page move if you are not able to perform the move yourself. older ≠ wiser 17:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll try again. PHILA19106 (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, move requests have been made: Here PHILA19106 (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bkonrad, I think I requested the move properly (see above), and the request was removed and marked "done." But, I don't see a change. As I am new to this, am I am sure I am missing something obvious here, so I was hoping you could put me on the right track. Any pointers? PHILA19106 (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An IP editor removed your request. I have restored it. older ≠ wiser 19:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I am not sure what an IP is, and I definitely don't have confidence that I understand what is happening here, but I do truly appreciate that you restored it and your assistance generally. Thanks, again. PHILA19106 (talk) 03:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 September 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/c 18:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


– Per WP:PTOPIC, Society Hill in Philadelphia is a primary topic, that should have a hatnote guiding readers to Society Hill (disambiguation) to find the other uses. With respect to long-term significance of the term, Society Hill, Philadelphia has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term, and with respect to usage it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for the term “Society Hill.” See Related Talk Page. PHILA19106 (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it feels like I am being trolled here, but I'll bite -- why is Society Hill not a primary topic, to you, under the guidelines? Assuming good faith from all, I ask how is this not overwhelmingly demonstrative that there is a primary topic here:
Unanimous indicators include search results and stats from:
Which of those favor NJ? None. Then what are you relying on to say NJ is the primary topic?
You say, "To me, it is the one in New Jersey." I can't think of a reason that is more illegitimate or rests more firmly on personal bias than that is grounded on your premise of "TO ME." Please reference a reason that might relate, even tangentially, to WP:PTOPIC and I (and others) will be more persuaded. PHILA19106 (talk) 03:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explaining this is overkill, but this Pageviews Analysis alone makes it very clear that Society Hill, Philadelphia (not New Jersey) is the primary topic. There is an order-of-magnitude difference between the page views. The average monthly views for Philadelphia in the past two years was 2033 versus 119 on average for New Jersey. That is more than 17 times as many monthly page views for Philadelphia, on average. Some months are much higher. July 2017, for example, Philadelphia had more that 27 times more monthly page views (2064 vs 75). Even the closest month was not close -- in March 2017, Philadelphia had more than 12 times more views (1797 vs 139). And that was the closest month on record.
This page view data makes it clear that Society Hill, Philadelphia is much more likely to be the topic sought when a reader searches the term "Society Hill," which is one of the two major aspects that editors commonly consider under WP:PTOPIC for determining whether there is a Primary Topic. Importantly, the justification from 100.35.73.190 -- that New Jersey comes to YOUR mind first -- is "the most commonly rejected criterion" under WP:NWFCTM. Society Hill, Philadelphia is the primary topic.
PHILA19106 (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No need to move. 100.35.73.190 (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Help needed with layout

[edit]

Perhaps too boldly, I have initiated some new elements with the BIG map in the Geography section and the multi-map for transportation networks. While I see a benefit to the information provided in these formats, I am struggling because the article now looks very poorly formatted. Some of the problems are attributable to violations of Manual of Style conventions, like the width of images MOS:LAYIM. Much more work is needed on the layout, among other things. The Infobox despite some edits is still too long of a banner in my opinion. I will get to working on some fixes for the infobox and other elements. PHILA19106 (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the new map is nice but way too big, imho. Should have made an annotated image in Commons & a smaller image in article with a caption stating something like "Points of interest in Society Hill (text annotations in the Wikimedia page)" (linking the words 'Wikimedia page' - see Erden_Eruç#Atlantic_Ocean_and_the_Americas for an example). If you decide to leave it as-is, then the small map in the infobox can probably go, though you'd lose the neighborhood's orientation within Center City. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you didn't identify Washington Square and Independence Hall on the map - the latter's outside Society Hill though nearby buildings are marked. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 03:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing - only a few of the marked and linked sites on the new map (the Towers, a school & two religious buildings?) are even mentioned in the article, and then only briefly. Are you planning to expand on all of the marked sites? If not, the map should really be next to the items in the 'See also' section as it's mostly a set of links to related articles, at the moment. Please remember that Wikivoyage is the travel site where lots of tourist-style extras are normally included, not Wikipedia. You may be going too far if planning to list every historic building, site and point of interest throughout the neighborhood. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 04:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the very insightful feedback. I like your suggestion of putting the map in the 'See also' section. The other viable solution -- linking to annotations in a Wikimedia page -- would fall short of what I was hoping to achieve with the map. The genesis of the big map came from frustration with the Society Hill navbox. With 30+ articles for topics within Society Hill, a navbox should theoretically be helpful, but without some geographical context (a point on a map or an address) the resulting navbox was difficult to navigate or even read. The big map was geared to presenting related wikipedia articles as opposed to an exhaustive wikivoyage-style list of all landmarks and points of interest. Regarding the small map in the infobox, I hope to soon create a replacement to show neighborhood orientation -- a cleaner, more legible 2 or 3-level static map of County --> Center City --> individual neighborhood similar to this lay out for Coral Springs or this one for D.C. Finally, some sites on the map, like Independence Hall, were omitted because the wikipedia article coordinates were inaccurate or imprecise. I suspect that I will get around to fixing those as some point. PHILA19106 (talk) 10:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I like the current infobox map layout, with neatly selectable levels of detail, and wish it was used more consistently across Wiki articles. Few readers will need to choose the 'Show all' option (so the infobox is not really that long), instead selecting one level at a time until they get oriented, at least that's what I do.
The city map really needs an upgrade, in higher res with a better outline of the city boundaries, and not cutting off the far northern corner. That map is used in over 500 articles, though it appears to be a navigational aid for pilots since it includes many small airports and heliports.
I find that the multi-level static maps can be good but are often somewhat confusing, even in areas I know well, and are probably even more difficult for non-local and international readers to comprehend - maybe because they seem to lack any standard design. Oh well, do what you think's best, but please make the new map smaller soon or someone else probably will. ;) Cheers! Brian W. Schaller (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I put a couple annotations on your new map in Wikimedia, with article links & addresses. Two problems with annotations - you have to go to Wikimedia to see them (solved by a direct link from Wikipedia caption) & they are only visible in the 'preview' resolution, not in the bigger sizes! (ugh, forgot about that non-feature) The map I uploaded in the infobox is too small to annotate in preview size, so I tried yours. Hope you don't mind. It's just an example & can, of course, be un-done. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, again. I don't mind anything you are doing, and I am just grateful for the collaboration. Unfortunately, I am going to have to go dark for a while as I must divert my attention to a few non-Wikipedia obligations for a few weeks. I'll try to reach some interim resolution about the over-sized map by tomorrow and then revisit this and the city map upgrade when I am back from my hiatus. PHILA19106 (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced this is the only or best solution, but here is what I am going to try -- a preview versions thumbnail that links to a fully annotated and legible map in a List of sites in Society Hill page. Similar approaches can be found with in lists like List_of_monastic_houses_in_Gloucestershire, List of Roman sites in Spain or List of places in England. This use seem consistent with two purposes of list information (grouped by theme) and navigation (of wikipedia articles). The underlying question is whether this is the best way to organize data per WP:LISTDD. I think it is. However, I am not sure how to do this. The map in List of places in England is generated with this code: 

{{England Ceremonial Counties Labelled Map
 |prefix    = List of places in
 |IOWprefix = List of places on the
 }}

I just don't know how to do that or where to look or what it is called. PHILA19106 (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hiatus over already? ;) That's a template, which, if you don't already know, is used for standardizing repetitive wikicode, such as the {{cite web|...}} template. Anything starting w/{{ is a template call. Find it by entering "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:" followed by the name which will show the documentation, and then look at the code using edit mode. (text struck out b/c seems you must know this... see below) Anyway, I'm just gonna annotate the rest of the places on the big map & move it to 'See also' or maybe a new section called 'Points of interest' till you decide what else you want to do. A separate list article is good, if there's more than about a page full of single line links, but otherwise I'd leave it in this article. To me, one of the main ideas of Wikipedia is to get all the best stuff about any one subject on one page, eliminating lots of clicking all over the internet & Wikipedia too. Btw, did you notice the new map of the city I uploaded yesterday? That map was part of a template used in over 500 articles about city subjects. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 06:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, seems you have experience with templates as you used one in this article. Thought you'd used something like the following, but with much smaller rectangles (copied from Rocky Mountain National Park). Brian W. Schaller (talk) 07:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TrolliusSubalpine meadow near Sprague LakeMertensia, alpine zoneAlluvial Fan Falls, riparian zoneBighorn sheep, alpine tundraColorado River, riparian zoneCow elk, alpine tundraQuaking aspen in the riparian zoneMoose
Clickable examples of ecosystem elements
Also see National Register of Historic Places listings in Center City, Philadelphia and a new list I created at List of houses in Fairmount Park which both use a template that automatically maps all coordinates:
{{GeoGroup}}
As a user hovers over a marker in the map, the name at left is highlighted and clicking on the name at left jumps you back to the original article (not the article w/that name) where the coords are found, so may not be good for this article. Works best in list articles. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Society_Hill&oldid=1208546871"