Talk:History of Pittsburgh

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is developed but not approved.
Main Article
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist. To update this checklist edit the metadata template.
 Definition History of Pennsylvania's second largest city and the steel capital of the U.S. [d] [e]

Pittsburgh article(s)?

Is it necessary to have two articles on the history of Pittsburgh? Both are approved but could be merged into one. Also, there is no article on Pittsburgh itself as I write this - perhaps the history articles could be copied there and cut down into a shorter history section, with room for non-history sections. John Stephenson 19:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

This is essentially a WP import: from 2007. There is some re-writing here, but not enough for my taste. Essentially what the CZ editors did back in 2007 was to approve a WP article. I'd prefer to see the approval status removed and the article re-combined with Pittsburgh, History since 1800 (also another approval of a WP article whose approval IMHO should be removed) to form History of Pittsburgh. You can see also in the edit history an edit war between Jensen and Sanger over the name of the article.
The "discussion" to split the article is found here:,_History_since_1800/Draft
Russell D. Jones 20:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree. As you're a History Editor, and the previous Editor is no longer active, I think your view is enough to start this process. Unless anyone objects, I'll try to de-approve and merge them in the next few days. John Stephenson 21:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
As part of the process, the talk pages should be merged too so that we don't loose this history of decisions... Russell D. Jones 21:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll have a go, but these pages are a real mess. I've just discovered that the articles actually started out at History of Pittsburgh (disambiguation), and then people have just copied-and-pasted everywhere. So whatever happens, we will lose some of the history lists. Perhaps it would actually be better to copy everything to History of Pittsburgh (disambiguation) and then rename that to History of Pittsburgh, in order to preserve the upload by the original author (who wrote it on Wikipedia and imported it from there, apparently). John Stephenson 21:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
That sounds like the right plan. The division at 1800 seems pretty arbitrary (as all historical periodization is on some level) to me. Russell D. Jones 12:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The link to the imported version is above.
John, in really thinking through this problem, I think I've hit on another solution. The problem is that by deleting the "history to 1800" and "history since 1800" articles we also lose the archived versions of those articles. A later author/editor will not be able to recover, for instance, the references that Jensen deleted on 1/15/08, because that version will have been deleted. A better solution would be to put redirects in on the "History to 1800/Draft" and "History since 1800/Draft" pages as this will preserve the versions. I think it would be okay to lose the version history on the main "history to 1800" and "History since 1800" pages as those versions are just administrative. Russell D. Jones 13:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, will try to merge them in due course while preserving the histories. John Stephenson 18:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Done, I think. I copied the material from the two /Draft pages to History of Pittsburgh and replaced the content of those two pages with redirects. The article is now a 'developed' draft. I have also moved some of the subpages here - basically, whichever was the fuller version in each case. Under 'Bibliography' I have moved the since-1800/Bibliography here and copied-and-pasted the content of the to-1800/Bibliography subpage there - please check this, all other subpages, the main article, etc. Also, I copied one of the Approval subpages - the other was a duplicate - so perhaps you could place a note there as Editor about merging and de-approving it. John Stephenson 21:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone through the pages, cleaned up stuff, added templates and notes to the archived talk pages, and have added a note on the approval page. Thanks John for all your work on this. Russell D. Jones 01:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit Histories

In recombining the article, the edit histories of the two divergent articles have been preserved at: