Talk:Pittsburgh/Archive 1

message: * 84.99.185.200 made some additions to the History of Pittsburgh section, but none to the History of Pittsburgh article.  The section here is just a summary.  We have to keep the overall Pittsburgh article at a manageable size.  It would be more appropriate to expand the History of Pittsburgh article, or even the French and Indian War article first.
* In any case, there were some factual mistakes.  GW didn't help build Fort Prince George.  He actually met that party on the trail, as he was heading back to Williamsburg from his mission.  The French didn't finish Fort Prince George.  They dismantled it, and built Fort Duquesne, which subsequently they burnt, and Fort Pitt was built not on the exact same site, but farther from the Point.
thumb|center|250px|Shows relative positions of the sites of Fort Duquesne and Fort Pitt
*I think 84.99.185.200 has info and perspective to contribute, but he/she should get a logon, and edit the parent articles first (History of Pittsburgh, Fort Pitt, Fort Duquesne, Braddock expedition, French and Indian War and Seven Year's War).   Later changes can be rolled up to this article.Tomcool 03:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The history section here is a summary

message: As noted in several comments below, the Pittsburgh article had grown too large.  It was 46KB, where the recommendation under WP:SIZE is for 32 KB.  Some of the discussions, while of interest to specialists, were just too wordy and potentially boring to the general reader. 
The article also had passages with a boastful tone, which were in violation of WP:NPOV.
I overhauled the article today, spinning off new articles for sections that had grown too large, summarizing those sections in the main article, and toning down some of the POV statements.  In particular, if a passage claimed that "Pittsburgh has more widgets than any other city in the world," but lacked a good reference to back up the claim, I toned it down to, "Pittsburgh is a city of widgets."
I didn't do the Media and Education sections.  They're pretty good.  They could probably use some edits for conciseness, but I'll leave that to others.
Those who live near or in the city, please help with the Neighborhood section.
I believe that the new version is more encyclopedic, and gives us room to grow, both for the general Pittsburgh article and the more specialized articles.  I hope that this overhaul will be received with the positiveness with which it was done, and that all us Pittsburghers can continue to contribute to making this article, and its anciallary articles, better.  Let's shoot for a featured article, yens!
Tomcool 18:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice Work, though their seems to be something up with the sections at the bottom of the article and the edit button being pushed towards the center. Also the four see also sections in the media section, i woulder if it would not be a better idea to merge them into a article called Pittsburgh Media, or Media in Pittsburgh. Also when you start a new talk section best to start it at the bottom, helps with the flow, not a big problem though, but really nice work though. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 04:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhauled article for [[WP:SIZE]] and [[WP:NPOV]] 

message: I've "finished" writing the History of Pittsburgh article.  Now I'll slim down the history section of this article, which will give us more room to add info about present-day Pittsburgh.Tomcool 17:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul the History of Pittsburgh section and create a new article 

message: I would like to know how many of you would participate in a WikiProjects:Pittsburgh effort to regularly expand the scope and depth of the Pittsburgh region.  This project could take many forms, including but not limited to: Pittsburgh area sports, culture, schools, media, climate, history, ecology, environment, aviation, business, economics, law, etc.  Please leave a note below if you are in for it and what (if any) topics you excel in, if all just let me know you're looking to participate.  Thanks.
Hholt01 23:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: SPECIAL NOTE Call for WikiProjects:Pittsburgh

message: It seems that every other paragraph in this article starts with the phrase "Pittsburgh boasts ...."  I'd like to remind us that we're writing an encyclopedia not a promotional brochure to attract tourists or investors.  I suggest a little rewrite to tone it down a bit. At the very least, we can improve the writing style a bit. Crunch 20:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pittsburgh Boasts!

message: Could we change the picture to a night time one (maybe from light up night), the current one does not do the city justice.Monkeyduck 03:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture(s)

message: What is the source for the population figures? I think the source should be referenced in the article. Also, it is a little bit misleading to list the population loss of Pittsburgh itself, since the city of Pittsburgh is just a tiny portion of the urban area. Pittsburgh is surrounded by numerous townships which would have been incorporated into any other city. I think the population of the Pittsburgh metropolitian area should be listed next to the population of city itself. AdamRetchless 17:12, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Population

message: I removed the following from the mass-transit section
:If you are traveling inbound on any bus, train, or incline, you pay as you board.  If you are traveling outbound, you pay as you exit the vehicle.  As of 2004, the fare is $1.75.  Transfers, which are good on any Port Authority vehicle, cost $0.50, and are valid for 3 hours.  Students at some universities in the Pittsburgh area can ride the mass transit for free with a student ID.
#This information is too detailed for an encyclopedia article. If a person wants to know how to use this bus system, they should be directed to the PAT webpage.
#This information is inaccurate: The rules for when you pay do not apply to all routes, and the routes that do use that system only use it during the workday. I also suspect that the statement about universities is incorrect, as this deal is arranged by each university, and there are several universities in the area.
AdamRetchless 02:46, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  transportation 

message: While I didn't make the edits (I'd rather have the discussion first), we as a community need to be more aware of comments like "Pittsburgh is widely believed to be right behind San Francisco as the steepest city in the United States."- I am not sure that view is "widely held" or has any factual basis at all.  It is more of an observation- one that I can certainly vouch for as I too live in Pittsburgh- but lacks any factual merit. Or "Pittsburgh has done remarkably well in the face of the Steel Industry collapse."  1st- I am not sure that is true at all-  The city is currently bankrupt and is on a sort of probation under a special act of the Pennsylvania government.  Pittsburgh has lost nearly half its population since the industry collapse.  The property values in and around the city have decreased (relative to inflation) steadily over the past two decades.  My point is we must be careful to abstain from this "colorful" type of writing when attempting to create encyclopedia articles.  Let's stick to the facts.  Comments, suggestions?
:The first point I don't have a problem with, I'm sure we could get a few sources in support if it came to a debate. The second issue is clearly POV but seems to have been fixed already. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:26, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
:As far as the most scenic hills etc. I would vote to definetly keep it in.  There are several citiations on how Pittsburgh has more scenic outdoor stairways then Cincinnati and San Francisco combined, here is a good intro to how Pittsburgh is the "San Francisco of the east": http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05300/595569.stm
Hholt01 23:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how the article you cite indicates anything at all with regard to Pittsburgh having more outdoor stairways, or more outdoor "scenic" stairways.  It just says it has a lot of outdoor stairs, as do many cities.  It does not even give a count. In any event, the term "scenic" is extrmely subjective.  Who defines "scenic?"  And while you're talking about steep cities, I believe the good citizens of Seattle might have something to say about their steep city's exclusion from this list.  Would it not be sufficient to just say that Pittsburgh's terrain is steep and that it includes a number of outdoor stairways and trams?  Why is it always necessary to state a supposed ranking and superlative? Crunch 20:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I made small, though not minor, edits to the first para's claims that Pittsburgh has one of the top medical schools and the best organ transplant units in the world. The quoted sources for this were the University of Pittsburgh's own website and PR.  While the claims may be true, we need objective third-party sources, and preferably mutliple, non-commercial (ie., not US News) sources. Anyone can, and would, like to say that their hospital and medical school is the top and best in the world.  Wikipedia seems not to be the place for cities to promote themselves in this way. If the claims are true, the sources should be available. Crunch 20:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More NPOV: We're not the Chamber of Commerce or Convention and Visitor's Bureau

message: This article should be expanded to have information about the neighborhoods of Pittsburgh: Shadyside, Oakland, South Side, etc. Also, Pittsburghers, help me write Station Square. Andre (talk) 21:36, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
:Actucally it would be best to have seperate article on the hoods, their is a List of Pittsburgh neighborhoods that is in need of some help. --Boothy443 | comhrá 03:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not actually from Pittsburgh, I've just been there. However, I'll try my best to help. Andre (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neighborhoods 

message: It grat that the article is growing, but their are some setions that need to be watched as getting to big, and could be in line to be pared down and split off, Sports and Museums, arts, and entertainment, they should be fine for now, but just in case, also if anyone out their knows any Pittsburgh history ro such be nice to see an expansion, I would but i am a bit rusty on the subject.  --Boothy443 | comhrá 03:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cutting the fat 

message: Edinburgh = /ˈɛdɪnˌbrə/ ...
Pittsburgh = ??? 
How is the burgh pronounced? --Abdull 12:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Originally it probably would have been like Edinburgh, but today the the burgh is just pronounced berg. Ddye 12:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Wait a minute.  Since when are California University of Pennsylvania, Penn State University,  Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania, and Washington & Jefferson College considered to be in Pittsburgh???  Western PA, yes.  Pittsburgh, no.
I want to update to this article but I would love some help.  What's a better way to organize it?
The first part would be to remove all non-Pittsburgh related items.  That way, we can rebuild this site from a solid foundation.  Let me be clear:  I would NOT remove anything that I wasn't for sure was an incorrect fact on Pittsburgh.  I don't want to piss anyone off cause there's obviously people who are putting a lot of time into this.  I just think the key topic (Pittsburgh) is getting lost.  Anyone with me?
:I think you have brought up so valad points, and i dont see any one, so far, objectiing to your changes, at least you have the worth of running it by and seeking the opinion of other editors, before making such a major change as you are proposing. Personaly i would say give it a go, though i would not out ever refrence to WPA items that are outside of the city limits of the burgh, but instead put the focous more on the burgh and mention the others that play a role in the metro area. But you right about PSU, which is in Central PA and is closer to capital, and some of the others. So all i have to say is register an account, it's better that way, and give it s shot. If your sill unsure, post how you want to change it here , and see what kinda of a responce you get. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 07:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure where the PSU reference came from (PSU New Kensington, PSU McKeesport, PSU Beaver and PSU Fayette yes but if someone put the University Park campus that needs to be left off) you all are missing something according to the Federal Govt. Pittsburgh is a 7 county metro, that would include Washington & Jefferson, Cal, Slippery Rock, St. Vincent et. al.  Neilsen defines Pittsburgh in media terms as even larger (11 county I believe and into W.V.) and the local govt. organizations have an even larger.  Another quick question, we should really STOP THOSE W&J, CAL and SLIPPERY ROCK kids from using the Pittsburgh International Airport, watching KDKA, and being counted in the census and nielsens, I mean they aren't in Pittsburgh . . . says us, says the feds, media, and others with PhDs those students would be in Pittsburgh.  Hholt01 00:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pittsburgh is not a 7 county metro.  If it were then cencus data on Washington and Canonsburgh and any other cities in the 7 counties would not be avaliable.  7 counties may be the Pittsburgh REGION, but not the city.  The City of Pittsburgh is only Downtown, Oakland, North Side, South Side, Shady side, and a couple other neighborhoods.  City proper is only downtown, but city limits include many other neighborhoods, but is NOT 7 counties.  No city spans multiple counties.  I would like the link to this page where you found the "7 counties" definition.  Even if, for some reason, they were defiening the city as 7 counties, I think it shoudl be disregarded because that is misleading to readers.  A college 30 minutes from the city should not be listed as being in the city.  I think, however, that the cencus is defining a region and not the city.  If this were true, then wouldn't that make Pittsburgh larger than Philly?--Jimktrains 01:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education 

message: I searched the above terms on Google, in quotation marks, and came up with the following results:  "poor man's San Francisco" = 577 hits counted (54 actual), "East Cast's San Francisco" = 67 hits counted (13 actual).  Further, the search of "East Coast's San Francisco" turns up references to Provincetown, MA, Norfolk and Asbury Park, NJ as well. Most of the Pittsburgh references in the search are just mirrors of the wikipedia listing.  
Having lived in both Pittsburgh and San Francisco, I've heard the term "poor man's San Francisco" used in both places. I've never heard Pittsburgh described as the "East Coast's San Francisco." I don't prefer "poor man's" to "East Coast's" for any derogatory reason. I simply think it is a much more common reference.  Also, while it is in Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh isn't anywhere near the east coast.
Both phrases have been placed and reverted in the "Geography and climate" section.  I don't want to start a revision war. Does anyone have any comments?
:My comment is, really, who cares? I think it should be stricken altogether. We're talking about Pittsburgh, not San Francisco. I recognize that some people may refer to Pittsburgh in that manner, but I've lived in Pittsburgh for six years and have never heard anyone use either term to describe the city. Let's identify Pittsburgh for what it is, not what we hope it to be. ClarkBHM 15:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Poor Man's San Francisco" v "East Coast's San Francisco"

message: As far as the 3rd or 7th or top 10 cloudy cities, I could see describing this in a weather subsection (off the main page) but I don't see the relevance of it as a climate topic.  Most weather stats only list, avg. high, avg. low, avg. precipitation, Pittsburgh though for sure in the top 10 on cloudy days per year is not as rainy as many other cities (last I checked we were in the top 25 or so).  A precipitation rank might be more relevant.  I just don't see the point it letting people know that we have lots of clouds, true we can't devolve into an advertisement for the city but we shouldn't be helping any would-be detractors either.  That is why I removed the whole sentence.  It would be similar to stating that the Steelers were the 7th best team in 1989!  And this matters because? Just my two cents interested in the other opinion, I would vote to take it off, we aren't a contender for #1 (not top 3) and it is a very ambiguous, non-major, weather stat (Pittsburgh is #9 for days with snow/rain mix etc.) To include it in a climate sub page would be more then appropriate but it doesn't strike me as a summary stat for the climate.Hholt01 21:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cloudiest 

message: Should there be a mention of the late 19th century name change to 'Pittsburg' somewhere in here or in the 'History of...' section?  I really don't have a good idea where to plug it in (even as an almost throwaway comment) but thought it should be mentioned in some context.Exoterrick 18:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well thats kind incorrect, i think. I have allways been told that pittsuburgh had allways used the spelling with the H, and the the goverment, wanted to changed it to without or something. Depending on how it was used, if the non H was used by the city officaly then in the article, if not, then in the hisroty, but it needs to be sourced out, to get the reason correct. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 06:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No, Exoterrick is right.  There was a period w/o an H.  Pennsylvainia station was build in that period, and has a stone enscribed "Pittsburg."  I'll look up some stuff and try to work it into the history section.--Jimktrains 13:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: FWIW, This page claims the period with no "H" ran from 1890-1911.  It may not suffice as proof alone, but it may help? -- --Dsteckelberg 03:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a bit of both, the Feds normalized all 'burgs in the country to drop any h or ough in the 1880s or 1890s.  The official federal spelling was "Pittsburg" another source of this is the 1909 Pirates World Series posters, banners, pennants with "Pittsburg" on them.  Many, many, many in the city shunned this and continued spelling things "Pittsburgh".  In the early 1900's Senator Oliver (whom Oliver Avenue and the Oliver Building downtown are named for) got a waiver from the Feds to allow Pittsburg to add back the H in every official way.  Strangely enough, it is those that complied with the feds and didn't fight back by keeping the "h" that lend historians the most help in dating undated documents and archives since any complied document without the h narrows the dates that it could have been done.  Some institutions though never ever changed the way they spelled their hometown, feds be damned. Hholt01 05:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pittsburg