Talk:Act of Consolidation, 1854

Category

I don't think we need a separate category for the county. --evrik 15:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Split

Was considering that it might be a good idea to split of the sub sections on the areas into separate articles or merge into the relevant neighbourhood articles. I have no problem with taking care of the moves myself. Figure i put some feelers out before tagging the article, any thoughts? --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well i am tagging this article with my intentions to spilt the article up. The tag is misleading as i don't want to switch this into a disambig page, but spin off the sections on the separate into either the own articles or integrate them with existing article of the neighbourhoods that have supplanted them. IT could foster greater expansion of these sections and would downsizes the size of this article. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

A split makes sense to me. Maybe some of the sections could be moved to the coresponding neighborhood pages if they overlap. Coemgenus 11:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah thats what i ment to say above, some articles like Gernamtown and Manayunk have info already included. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think that the text about the act itself should remain, with a listing of the areas and their relevant links. evrik 20:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats the plan. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright so since their have been no objections to this proposal, i am going to move ahead with it, hopefuly i can get it done over the weekend. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok so i have started to spin off the articles, the progress can been see on {{PhilaCnty1854}}, woth all on the non-redlinks done, with the exception of Kingsessing. Once compee i'll remove the txtx form this article and replace it with the list. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Done, all have been moved to either corsponding existing articles that would be relevant, or new articles. The only one left off the list is Tacony, being that it was disestablished prior to 1854, absprbed into Oxford, Tacony info was moved to the Tacony article. Some one might want to go threw and check the article so the read ok, a lot of the txtx was archaric, also some one might want to check out Lower Dublin township, becides that their seems to be a dispute over it's name, though the going consesnsus for the name seems to be Lower Dublin, the info seems to be upside down in erms of it's borders, also the information seems not to take into case the establishmbet of Delaware Township. Otherwise this is done. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Modern boundaries?

I read between the lines (here and at the External links) that this established the boundaries of Phila. as they are today. If that is indeed the case, it would be nice to say so explicitly.--BillFlis 10:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The boundaries in 1854 are close to the modern boundaries, but were changed around 1866 (small part along City Line Avenue), surveyed in 1905 (Cobbs Creek), changed in 1906 (Cobbs Creek), changed in 1916 (to add part of Cheltenham), and changed in 1927 (near the modern-day airport). GeoMac (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Missing town

What about Hamilton Village, Philadelphia, History of Hamilton Village?--evrik ^(talk) 14:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hamilton Village was part of West Philadelphia Borough, Pennsylvania when the city consolidated. Medvedenko 17:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• OIC. Well, six articles link to it. --evrik ^(talk) 17:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

File:Philadelphia pre 1854 consolidation.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Philadelphia pre 1854 consolidation.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Act of Consolidation, 1854. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070101192729/http://ushistory.org/philadelphia/incorporated.html to http://www.ushistory.org/philadelphia/incorporated.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130104085513/http://www.ushistory.org/philadelphia/philadelphia.html to http://www.ushistory.org/philadelphia/philadelphia.html

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)