Category talk:Philadelphia

Discussion
Having a separate page on the history of the county is fine, but maintaining a separate CATEGORY is duplicative. Get rid of the Philadelphia County Category.

This issue has been addressed, but no consensus has been reached in several different places:
 * Mediation_Cabal/Cases/1 11 2005 Philadelphia County and other Philadelphia Pages
 * Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_8
 * Requests_for_comment/Boothy443

I would like to build consensus, but am willing to subject it to a Dispute Resolution or arbitration.

--evrik 15:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again you are misresprenting your self and the discussion on this subject, the three pages in which you site are pages that you created in order to form a opinion that is faviobable to you, and your actions, but you did not site the opinions of other editiors that have been left on other pages on this subject:


 * Category talk:Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania
 * Talk:Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania
 * Talk:Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


 * Even in the CFD that you have cited, you were unable to get a decision in your favor, due to an no consensus, which defaults to a keep, which was to keep the category as is. You even chose to disregard the comments left on your on talk page, which you have removed but can be seen here which was made by another user. Your constant removal of the category form articles containg it, are noting less then edits in bad faith, and do nothing but show that your are attempting to force a merger by any means nessicary. Theirfor i reject any notion that you are trying to settlet this dispute threw any resolution process,, as the attempts to resolve it with you you have regected for the reson that they do not conform with your ideals.--Boothy443 | trácht ar 02:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the line is preety well drawn, in that you distort the facts. Regardless of discussion you continue to ingnore thre discussion and opinions of other editors that are opposed to your own beliefs. That you continue and have from the start, chosen to ingnore the provisions of WP:Merge, which states "Do not use the above tags to propose a category merger" and "After sufficient time has elapsed to generate consensus or silence, you may perform the merger or request that someone else do so." Five mins is not sufficient time, lets go to the diffs: This also goes with all of the canhes that you have made prior to and since the addation of the inappropate merge tag, which still sufficient time for discussion, nor have formed any kind of consensus for merge or change. Of coures you have now resourted to misleading esit summiries as well, considering their are to many diffs to list i will just direct other useres to the edit histories of the pages involved. From the start you have not AGF, and continue to act that way as well, and while i have also broken policy, i stand by my edits and my decisons in regards to the discussion by myslef and other editors. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It really depends where you draw the line. Since I feel you have been reverting my edits and since the category is inconsistent with other city/county categories, the pages should stay merged.evrik 05:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Revision as of 10:24, 18 January 2006 the user is depouplation the category:Philadelphia_County propr to any merge tag or request
 * Revision as of 10:33, 18 January 2006 the user puts the merge tag on Category:Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and attempts to merge the category
 * Revision as of 10:33, 18 January 2006 the user puts the merge tag on Category:Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania and attempts to merge the category
 * Revision as of 10:49, 18 January 2006 first comments by the user after tagging the aricle and trying to force a megre the only of the two pages in which he put a notice on after tagging the categories.

Philadelphia Related Pages




I am only talking about the Philadelphia County category, not the single county article.

Wikipedia lists Philadelphia as a consolidated city-county, Any article that doesn't belong directly in the Philadelphia Category and is related to the County, probably belongs elsewhere (like history).


 * Consolidated city-county

It seems to me that Wikipedia’s standard practice to have only a single category for conterminous zones.

I am not saying that the articles need to be merged. The Philadelphia County article should remain separate as there was a separate history until 1854. In this case, I think the articles are different than San Francisco County, California which redirects to San Francisco, California; Nantucket County, Massachusetts which redirects to Nantucket, Massachusetts; Kings County, New York which redirects to Brooklyn. evrik 16:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * Support evrik 19:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support The caounty vategory should be subordinate to the city.South Philly 01:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
No/oppose, this issue has been discussed extensively, at here, here, and threw your own failed and illadvised cfd here, all of which you have chosen and continue to ingnore, over the objections of other editors. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * -oppose - I now lived in and frequently visist Philadelphia and am very interested in its history as both a county and as a city. I am working on several articles to add since I have returned to the states.--Tombombadil 01:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE: As mentioned before, before the Consolidation Act of 1854, Philadelphia city and county were two separate entities with separate histories. To dismiss the fact that there were other municipailities it the county is deleting facts and I don't think that wikipedia is about OMITTING facts. --Moreau36; 2208, 4 february 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that the pages themselves are fine, as is the sub-cat. However, they should all exist under the category of Philadelphia and not Philadelphia Countyevrik 16:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

 * Neutral on this issue. Although I voted support in favor of the category merger in the CfD discussion, I was unaware of the prior distinction between Philadelphia County and the City of Philadelphia. Since I don't have a dog in this fight, I don't particularly care either way. Evrik, considering your repeated failed attempts to gain consensus on a merger, I don't see this happening anytime soon. I think it's time you just accepted that this is how it's going to be. Sorry.  howch e  ng   {chat} 17:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, your first step probably should be to open a Request for comment and see what others think.  howch e  ng   {chat} 07:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral, and sick of how this dispute is sucking away the time of editors who would otherwise be improving Philadelphia-related articles. Evrik, there is no consensus on this issue, there is not going to be consensus any time soon, and there is nothing that will benefit the subject more than letting the subject drop for several months to a year.  Please, swallow your pride and move on.  --CComMack 02:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Taking the bulls by the horn
I'm going to redirect the County category. South Philly 13:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed compromise
I like Moreau36's compromise. Let me flesh it out. Thoughts?evrik 21:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Merge or redirect the county category.
 * 2) list the county article under PA Counties category
 * 3) Have sub cats Municipalities under Phila category


 * Let me see if I can reword this (precision is more important than typing speed here):
 * Redirect Category:Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania to Category:Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
 * Include Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania in Category:Pennsylvania counties
 * Include Category:Municipalities in Philadelphia County prior to the Act of Consolidation, 1854 as a direct child subcategory of Category:Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
 * Do I have that right? --CComMack 21:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Supportevrik 21:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoa, wait a minute, I wasn't endorsing this plan of action, I was just trying to ascertain that that was, indeed, Moreau36's intention, especially with the third point. --CComMack 22:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - I support it as it is written. South Philly 01:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Overall:reject:part 1:reject:part 2:support:part 3:reject
 * Oppose--Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it holding?
Three days since the last set of reverts, is this compromise holding? evrik 16:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, being that this is still proposed, and a change is still disputed, yet you and your lackie implemented it shortly after it's proposal. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Who you calling a lackie? NonFreeImageRemoved.svg South Philly 04:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Clutter
Is anyone watching this category and weeding it? --South Philly 13:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I just weeded it. I put several articles in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania category in subcategories. Houses, neighborhoods and people should all go in subcategories, and only a few main articles should be here.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)