Talk:Pittsburgh/Archive 5

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

Weird paragraph under Regional Identity

There's a strange and disturbing paragraph written in this section that was added by a disgruntled user about the "average Pittsburgh citizen". I tried to delete it but the text wasn't showing up when I wanted to edit it. If someone could remove this paragraph then that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.206.133 (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I reverted an edit like that late last night. The offending IP was blocked, which has now expired. However, they haven't edited anything (that hasn't been deleted) since. As of now, I don't see anything offensive in that section. I'll keep an eye on it though. Deadbeef (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Deadbeef for your efforts and to 216.165.206.133 for bringing attention to this. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 04:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Civic Arena Photo and Information

In its current state, the article describes the Civic Arena as the former home of the Penguins and has a photograph of the location with the description. However, the arena is currently demolished. Should the picture be removed in the article to avoid any confusion? Text could also be added to the description on the page that the arena has been demolished. 136.142.58.41 (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Seems like the photo should be removed with maybe a brief mention of it, following (not before) the Consol Energy Center references. Other clean-up needed: the "Other Highways" table - PA Route 850 is in the central part of the state, a long way from Pittsburgh. Also in this list is PA 88, but it's next to an icon for Rt 837. Also, I don't believe Rt 121 goes through the city proper. --Trep26 (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Good catch on the highways Trep26, I corrected both the image typo and the last route. As far as 121 it does traverse the city for about 2 blocks on the most northern segment (though some claim it "borders" the city) to me it is encyclopedic to include it (factually correct even if a technicality).
The Civic Arena image I'm indifferent on, I could see the reasons for an editor to remove it unless anyone has a good reason to keep it we haven't heard from yet . . . we don't have images of Three Rivers or Forbes Field after all nor should we. Good topic to bring up 136.142.58.41, sometimes the most difficult thing on Wikipedia is to keep things up to date after all the data crunching and citations. :-). Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 01:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Remove it. Demolished structures shouldn't be in the main Pittsburgh article. Could be replaced by a photo of the Island Sports Center ice. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I also agree that it should be removed. --Best, Weatherman1126 (talk) 03:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like I wasn't signed in... Seems like a consensus was achieved, so I removed the image and added the link to the Civic Arena wiki-page in the text. Rgrasmus (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Crime rates - City versus metro

Our crime rate table shows "metro" with per-100k numbers but "city" with raw numbers. We should make both per-100k. Also, note that the FBI crime stats page [1] only shows data for the City of Pittsburgh; we may need to remove the "metro" numbers completely if we can't find a reference for them. Nathant408 (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

FBI crime stats page: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-6 Nathant408 (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nathant408, the link you provide (it seems like the exact same link) is the reference for metropolitan crimes per 100,000. The reference for the city itself is off the wiki article but I have added it for comparison. Not certain the exact error you are seeing, as a quick check reveals both metro and city stats are per 100,000, the wikitable link does it correctly the number of those crimes divided by the city population cut by 5 decimal points, all numbers seem to be correct, none are raw from what I can see. If there is an error by all means clarify it here, we are very interested in providing accurate data. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 08:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Seems like I misread the FBI table -- after a second look, the city rate seems correct. Thanks for taking a look at it, and sorry for the false alarm. Nathant408 (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Glad you brought it up, even though the stats were correct I was able to provide the wikilink to the article wikitable on the 2nd look so you were correct that the numbers as they were could be better understood with a "blue link" or a direct citation (if it exists). Despite correct data it was helpful to get feedback on anything that could be misconstrued so we do appreciate you leaving your comment here! Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 02:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: I would like an improved sec...

69.174.58.188 posted this comment on 5 August 2013 (view all feedback).

"I would like an improved section on ethnic population breakdown as well as a section on religious population breakdown." -69.174.58.188

The demographics section of the main Pittsburgh article gives racial makeup and a paragraph below gives European nation of origin make up. (Italian, German, Russian, Greek, Irish, etc.)
Currently there is no religious makeup article or section & I am not certain how useful that may be when considering the wide variety and "big tent" of those who refer to themselves as Christians, Muslims etc. as well as those that may claim a religion or were raised in one but do not practice, eventually the numbers start melting down back to the "square one" of something like "oh estimated to be about 2/3rd Christians, etc." There is a category listing of some of the congregations however, Category:Churches in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The authoritative source of this, the 2010 census, did not ask for citizens religious beliefs and all other private surveys do not have the authority to "force" people to respond. Even though there may be some good "estimates", how useful really is anything more detailed than 1/3 this and 2/3 that with 1/2 of the 2/3 being this subgroup. Even the US Census which is a massive 2 year long undertaking with the authority to compel everyone to participate is still not 100% in accuracy, no religious survey more accurate than some rough percentages can in my experience claim any kind of accuracy. Hope this assists you and let us know if you have further inquiry.

Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 20:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I added some information from the most reliable source I could find but as the numbers indicate over half did not report. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 03:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Multi-reference templates in use

This article uses {{Pittsburgh Film}}, {{Pittsburgh etymology}}, {{Pittsburgh Names}}, {{Pittsburgh history}} templates in the lead to create multi-references. To me, this is a deviation from standard editing procedure and the citations should be broken-out separately. For example, this is what {{Pittsburgh Film}} produces:


Any other thoughts?--GrapedApe (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

GrapedApe messaged me on this at my talk page, to summarize my thoughts are 1st the cites were initially intended for use across multiple wikipedia articles (some of which I'd like to create in the near future) as a way to ensure that (to me especially) references weren't 'lost' that could be useful on several articles. 2nd, as those references were added to the main article's lead a few spots became repetitive with citation-text word-citation-text word-citation-text word etc. and also 3-4-5 citations in a row. If an editor wishes to move a few of the less necessary citation templates lower on the article or add the templates to the other articles they were intended for I'd love to help. At the time I went off of "It is generally a good idea to keep the main reference (long version) in the body and only use the short "name" version ([1]) in the lead. This makes the lead much easier to edit. This also demonstrates the primacy of content in the body, and that the lead is only based on content and references found in the body of the article.". Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 13:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The short "name" version referenced in that policy means <ref name=NAME />, not a multi-reference template.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I was going more off the spirit or purpose of the guidelines. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 18:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

World record for bridges?

Currently, the articles reads that Pittsburgh has 446 bridges, which is considered "world record for cities." I would like to notify you that Hamburg, Germany, has 2,485 bridges, more than Venice, Stockholm and Amsterdam combined and is thus listed in the Guinness Book of World Record as "City with most bridges in Europe".[1]--84.119.221.1 (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

That's interesting, will investigate this, but it seems both cities have RSs claiming "world's most", I wonder then what jurisdiction or bridge definition they might be using. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 22:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Indeed quite interesting. Reliable sources are only as good as the underlying definition (and quite worthless without). I found another listing [2], where any kinds of bridges (road, rail, pedestrian, over water, road overpasses etc.) have been taken into account. This puts New York City as #1 in the world, at 2,891, followed by Hamburg (2,496), Los Angeles (2,442), Berlin (2,100), Vienna (1,716), Amsterdam (1,539), Hongkong (1,455), then other US cities like San Diego, Chicago, Philadelphia (same US state as Pittsburgh, btw), Nashville, Memphis, Detroit, Kansas, Minneapolis, Jacksonville, Milwaukee, Atlanta and Miami until finally, at #23, Pittsburgh is listed at 715. Ok, the list is compiled from several sources (and my personal guess is that there is insufficient data for many places in Southeast Asia), but all US entries are referenced to data provided by the National Bridge Inventory database. In this light, I'd consider Pittsburgh's claim quite well proven wrong.--137.248.134.8 (talk) 12:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I did some more research. The "Pittsburgh has 446 bridges" claim is referenced by [3], where it reads that this means that the city has "three more than former world leader Venice, Italy." And this is where, in my opinion, the mistake is located: Venice simply did not hold this record at all. It's a common misconception that Venice was the city with most bridges in the world. I'm from Berlin, and here every tour guide will tell you the fun fact that there are more bridges than in Venice. Of course, this is because Berlin has an area of 900 sq km, compared to the historic center of Venice at only 7 sq km, but with 345 bridges. Go figure.--137.248.134.8 (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! It may be helpful to register as we can't tell if this is one person or two or even more writing these comments (and without talk pages nor any other edits). The link you provided on the 12:42 post is interesting but very much not a RS, besides its obvious OR there is a massive & obvious error on the Pittsburgh stats. That said there may be more research needed before a claim can be listed like this encyclopedically. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 20:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Marketdiamond, I've once been quite an active Wikipedian, but have decided to retire. Nowadays, I'm only active on a few occasions when I find something that in my opinion needs to be improved. Here is another source which I would call reliable: It's in German, and the key fact is that there are 1,102 bridges in Berlin (which is more than any source claims for Pittsburgh; the "bridge definition" used is "under maintenance oversight of the local authorities") [4] Also, as Bridges and tunnels in New York City claims that there are "over 2,000 bridges and tunnels", it's a fair guess to assume that there are at least more bridges than the 400-700 of Pittsburgh. I won't interfere with Pittsburgh's Wikipedia article any further, just would like to point out that to me, the world record claim seems to be unfounded.--37.24.169.207 (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I thank you for these sources & your views, as I concluded on my last post there may be more research needed before a claim can be listed like this on Pittsburgh's article. Not certain what your situation is but it appears like 3 separate users are leaving comments here (all their very first edits) what you say has a valid point but please be aware of a "creep out" factor (whether justified or not) in the future, it can be unnerving having what appears to be multiple anonymous and 'new' users all show up with the same view but no history nor talk page. Please be assured that your contributions are not taken as "interference" but appreciated, it would just be more comforting to know who is contributing (level playing field and all). Technically that is not required but I am sure you realize how much more gravitas your comments will command if such things as sockpuppetry are never crossing minds :-).
I would have mentioned this earlier but I was not certain of who or how many I was answering, the first link provided actually lists Pittsburgh twice with two separate counts, that is what I was referring to as the "massive and obvious error". As said earlier there should be more varied sources before a claim like this is made on Pittsburgh however and please don't hesitate to contribute in the future. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 20:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggested Section Splitting/Trim down article

I disagree with the section splitting proposed however there is some room to trim down poorly fitting and sometimes repetitious syntax that appears like it has been thrown together over months and years. A few parts of the article even have the same thing expressed in two areas between what are obviously add on minor edits as time went on. The (ibids) edits I made took nothing of substance out of the article but trimmed down and compacted the important ideas in the sections. For basketball I even added the women's programs that were absent from the article.

My view is that most every topic still should belong on this article but if other editors wish to trim down the language or syntax that alone can streamline the article to roughly match the bytes of say a St. Louis or Los Angeles while retaining all the topics presently on the article. Thank you. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 20:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

If you have a minute, take a look at St_louis#Sports and Los_Angeles#Sports. The sports section on those pages (and most other city pages) are far shorter than the sports section on the Pittsburgh main page, which runs for about 4-5 pages. Other than major league sports and Division 1 college sports, much of this material could be moved to the Sports in Pittsburgh article. Barryjjoyce (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment & suggestions. Pittsburgh is a very different city, and this is beyond the typical yinzer caricature sports fan.
  1. I see the Sports in __ articles for those cities and others are below 22,000 bytes while Pittsburgh's sports article is currently almost 70,000 bytes and was over 157,000 bytes before a big section was spun off into its own article. Having a few more sections under sports would be encyclopedic for a city/region that has more than double the data on its sports page than other cities.
  2. Tho I see you & others are trying to trim sports sections in a lot of city articles your 2 examples of LA and StL don't compare much at all with Pgh IMHO, StL lost its NBA, MLB and NFL teams while LA lost both NFL teams with equal yawns by fans of some of those teams. This is even more striking when one considers that Pgh went from a top 10 TV market to barely in the top 25 in the last generation, while StL fell slightly and LA grew, per capita Pgh is much more devoted and focused on its major league teams then many cities larger than it, heck we even had a mayor that sued New Orleans for trying to take one of our teams.
  3. Aside from fan support considerations, the area practically invented modern basketball championships, college basketball, pro football, pro hockey, golf with major innovations in all sports at all levels, and that isn't even considering the first televised football and basketball games as well as broadcast (radio) in general. Pittsburgh takes its sports like Boston takes its college degrees or New Orleans takes its cooking. Having that reflected encyclopedically on the main article of the city isn't only acceptable but necessary IMHO.

Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 02:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm removing both tags on the article page related to this discussion. I think it can be taken care of here by regular discussion. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The size of the Pittsburgh article has been hovering around 170kB - 200kB bytes for the past few months. The guidance from Wikipedia:Article_size says that 30kB - 50kB is ideal for readability, and that any article over 100kB "almost certainly should be divided." The Pittsburgh article is much longer than the articles for other cities of comparable size (see eg, Cincinnati). The art in wiki editing is not to compile as much info as possible, the art is to select what to include and what should be split off (or deleted). I'm not going to get into a prolonged argument or edit war over this, but in its current state the Pittsburgh article has so much info that it is unreadable. Barryjjoyce (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Your overall view that the article is too long I share and find convincing. Thus my recent edits explained on the first post of this thread. My objection is that any of the current sections be moved wholesale from the main article. As I stated earlier I think a simple run through of the article on syntax, repetition and sentence structure (with very minor deletions of some extra or not-really-relevant data) will bring the article down to a more reasonable size. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 01:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

obsession with livability

Only in Pittsburgh do people have a fetish about some corporate sponsored best or most livable city poll. These polls are biased. They don't consider that unemployment/underemployment and low wage jobs are rampant, evictions and mortgage forclosures are escalating and more and more are falling into the ranks of the poor with less and less social benefits available due to defunding and privatization by finance capital. Pennsylvania's unemployment rate is skyrocketing especially among the youth. One in four Pennsylvanians earn poverty wages based on the annual report, released On August 28, “The State of Working Pennsylvania 2013,” authored by Mark Price and Stephen Herzenberg, who both hold PhDs in economics. Social wages have been terminated and slashed creating austerity like Pittsburgh has never seen before. So a $179,000 for a house is a mute point when fewer people can even afford a home. Pittsburgh is especially hard hit.

Pittsburgh has one of the worst particulate pollution problem in the country. In 2008 it ranked #2 in short term particulate matter second only to Bakersfield, CA. Currently it ranks in the top 7 in STPM and in the top 8 in Year Round Particulate Pollution, the only city outside of California in the top 9 and top 8 respectively.

Pittsburgh's mass transit system doesn't even make the national rankings and has been cut by 34% according to PAT. Mass transit is a major factor contributing to living standards,well being and safety. $789.00 in rent is not cheap especially when there are few livable wage jobs and many who are employed are paying half or more than half of their take home pay to private property owners. As for culture the average worker cannot afford to expose themselves and children to the arts. A $15.00 Pirate ticket doesn't count.

Other cities don't even talk about their rankings or "image". Pittsburgh has less and less to offer and more and more to boast about, apparently. As for health care, it is part of the service sphere. Under capitalist relations of production the service sphere takes on a parasitic tendency. Even in those areas of health care that are truly needed like emergency care, fewer and fewer people can afford it. There are no social service networks for those under 65 and injured or sick and don't have a car. People have to pay exploitative taxi rates just to get to the grocery store or walk and breath in the exhaust from passing commuters.

Pittsburgh is effectively a police state. It's one of the most overly patrolled cities and metro areas in the US. It is thinly disguised as "crime" prevention but it is ever in reality a form of oppression of the working class to protect private property i.e. monopoly merchant capitalists, banks, courts etc... Try walking in a south suburban neighborhood after 8 pm and sit on a bench with a cup of coffee. Police swarm around like flies on sugar.

Pittsburgh still has a lot of good to offer but let's play the livable city polls down a bit. There are many millions and even billions of people in the world that live in disaster free areas that doesn't make their cities "livable". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.250.100 (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
    • You're late for your radio show 98.239.250.100, but did sincerely enjoy the WP:SOAPBOX. Ratings are encyclopedic tho I've heard arguments on why that is wrong, it still is...both.
    • As far as the pollution rankings, you and the ALA are 100% correct if you want to talk about the article on Glassport, Pennsylvania, but this is Pittsburgh's article. The ALA might know all about lung/health science but somebody needs to send them a map. That said, just like all other "rankings" the ALA's ranking is once again encyclopedic and listed in the article, wrong: yep, encyclopedic: yep. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 03:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Structure

Hi. I'm going through all the US Cities (as per List of United States cities by population) in an effort to provide some uniformity in structure. Anyone have an issue with me restructuring this article as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. I won't be changing any content, merely the order. Occasionally, I will also move a picture just to clean up spacing issues. I've already gone through the top 20 or so on the above list, if you'd like to see how they turned out. Thoughts? Onel5969 (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I've wondered and searched for some guidelines on order of sections before (not too extensively tho) so I for one would welcome a standardization with other US cities as long as nothing is added or deleted from the article. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 11:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Go for it.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I've done over 50 of these edits, @Marketdiamond:, and so far have never deleted anything, just strictly ordering. Only when I actively work on editing and adding to an article (e.g. Phoenix), or on articles where I'm watching (e.g. Dallas - where I revert suspected vandalism) do I delete. In the future, you can use the link above to find out the guidelines for US Cities (and in that link, you can find guidelines for cities in other parts of the world). And thanks, GrapedApe.Onel5969 (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Good job Onel5969. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 03:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting vote

I posted an interesting link over at the Wikiproject page. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 01:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Migration of Airport and Highways to other articles

I will sit on this for a few weeks, given the maturation of the Pittsburgh article with such additions as Health care and Utilities etc. and the concern about the article being too long I propose migrating all Airport information to either Transportation or Metro Pittsburgh articles and most of the Highway and Port info too. I'm on the fence about it but the deciding factor for me is we need some room on the main article and 90% of the transportation data isn't within Pittsburgh city limits. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 07:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done

Meetup

  Bfpage |leave a message  01:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion of adding a historical name that once was given to Pittsburgh because of high level of air pollution

While going through the key historical moments of significance pertaining to Electric Power Transmission on internet, I came to this website where it is mentioned that, "Stanley had been working in Pittsburgh which was Andrew Carnegie's steel town and had the worst air quality in the US, it was also known as "Sooty City", and this contributed to William Stanley's poor health." Then I further checked to confirm the validity of the fact.

Here are some links which suggest the use of a non-colloquial name given to Pittsburgh

This very fact, of being a polluted city at that time, seems to have led to unimaginable, unquantifiable consequences as it led to poor health of people of a time when art, science and technology were still developing, which could possibly have led to the poor health of persons with talent of significance either to mankind or to universe or both, in general, who would otherwise have contributed by discovering new knowledge, previously undiscovered, and subsequently achieved acclaim for the same, if they wouldn't have fallen sick. So, I strongly believe that the fact that Pittsburgh was called by public, Sooty City, is a significant and, more importantly, a verified fact and thus deserves mention on Wikipedia. So, I suggest to add to the article, references pointing out that the city once was called "Sooty City". I'll add the final version of the text after reaching a consensus with the editors who would want to suggest another version. Rishidigital1055 (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I feel the article does cover the status of the air 100-150-200 years ago and would not oppose some better primary sources that reference that in the history section of the article. However, I think you need to re-evaluate your logic if you are attempting anything greater then a sentence or two expansion or clarity in the history section. The first cite you reference is simply a google search of "sooty" with "city Pittsburgh", I come up with tens of thousands more results in google for "sexy", "smart", "best" etc. I would oppose using a google term search as evidence to call Pittsburgh the "sexy city" or the "best city". The other cite you list is an article about how Boston is becoming a "sooty city" with Pittsburgh and "sooty city" separated by 3 sentences let alone it not being capitalized as a proper nickname would have been. In a big way the news article you cite actually directly contradicts and neutralizes the original Edison Tech Center contemporary retelling where to escape "sooty city" he went to Boston. If there are verifiable, primary, and "proper" (capitalized) sources with this then I would love to see them, until that time it is interesting what I get combining really weird words with "Wikipedia" on Google, that though doesn't mean those terms are Wikipedia's nicknames. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 12:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Lede too long?

I'm wondering if the last three sections of the lede should be moved out of there (or at least condensed) and merged into their respective subsections (economy, culture, etc). That would make this article more in line with similarly sized cities (Cleveland, Cincinatti, Baltimore, Charlotte, North Carolina, Portland,_Oregon, etc. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

What would your suggested condensed version be? You may wish to research the discussion on how the lede was put together months (or perhaps over a year) ago on this talk page. I'm all for streamlining and the lede is not a place to get into super detail, however comparing the lede to such cities as Cleveland, Charlotte, Portland OR etc. is faulty for many reasons. If population range was the determining factor in detail within a Wikipedia lede, China and India should be three times more detailed then the USA should be. Just a generation or so ago cities such as Miami, Atlanta, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington and Boston were beneath many metrics (some all metrics) when it came to Pittsburgh, some of those cities far below. To be encyclopedic the lede needs to be accurate with the economic, cultural, jurist, demographic, artistic, educational, medical status of the city from circa 1754 to circa 1992, as well as presently. I look forward to any suggestions and would love to improve the article if warranted. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 20:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not arguing for a direct correlation between population size and lede size; the other city articles I note all make mention of notable (mostly positive) things about their subjects, but in a more succinct fashion. Furthermore, it's apples and oranges to compare North American/European city articles to other articles given the difference in availability of English language reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm all for suggestions. The "Furthermore . . ." made me do a doubletake. But I agree with your point (my point before), population is 'apples to oranges' in all aspects. As long as we aren't attempting to fit a round Pittsburgh into a square Portland OR, Cleveland lede size template because in the last 20 years they match population tables I think we can come up with some really good ideas. Hopefully we can get a few more editors involved with the process here too. I am not aware of what your expertise is in, although it is kind of rough (still being stylized in parts) I would recommend the Pittsburgh Portal on this Day list, as well as some of the Pittsburgh related articles for any editor wishing to make the lede encyclopedic yet compact for the main city article. There are some cities in the population range of Charlotte, Cleveland, Portland OR etc. that really don't have much to offer for the most creative of lede editors, the hesitation by some editors very familiar with the Pittsburgh articles is that the current lede is not encyclopedic enough in that it leaves out too much of Pittsburgh history and contemporary facts. For a quick instance such a thing as Pittsburgh being the founding site of John Rockefeller's Standard Oil, and thus Exxon, Chevron, Texaco, Mobile etc. should really be put into the lede, perhaps hosting the first wired and then first wireless campus should as well. I state these just to make all here aware that Portland, Oregon and Charlotte may not be the best way to introduce a serious suggestion of shortening the lede. It has been said that thinking Paris or New York would be a better starting point. I can offer several reliable sources on that mental approach to this task if that might better the input. To me if there is a written lede suggested from an editor that is aware of the history, and present status of the city, that might be the best place to start a process like this. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 21:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Update: I looked over at some other cities ledes, and yes Pittsburgh is one of the longest, only Detroit and New York City are longer from what I've seen. Tho I don't feel any factual information should be removed I will toy around with keeping all the ideas but using tighter language, at least get it down to a St. Louis-Buffalo-Philadelphia-Dallas range. As I said earlier if an editor wants to tackle it that's cool too, but please have the understanding that much of the current lede material is representative of tons more encyclopedic facts. Pittsburgh should never be mistaken as a substitute for New York or Paris but I am sometimes shocked with how much people don't understand the city, I'll see if I can submit a shorter version in the next day or two. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 23:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm a big fan of the city myself (other than the weather and the traffic). I haven't had a chance to take a stab at making it more succinct, but a good place to start might be the last paragraph about "green" architecture. Sure, that deserves to be covered in the article, but in the lede? Probably not. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I did some improvements, will continue to parse and possibly relocate sections, I agree that the last paragraph is not perfect in some ways, will see what I can do micro & macro, suggestions welcomed. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 12:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Nice job! I doubt that it's necessary to condense it further than that. Hopefully that will allay some of the concerns expressed by a few editors that the lede was excessive. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of Pittsburgh

What is missing from the city timeline? Please add relevant content. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 11:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow

This article is one of the most beautifully written promotional pieces I've ever seen about a city. It's a monument to positivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.136.159.226 (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Remember to sign your posts ~~~~ and please consider registering at Wikipedia! I see that you do not edit much, but welcome all the same. When I first read your comment I took it as compliment even though I realized it may not have been meant that way. I hope you can gain more familiarity with the subject matter and can expound upon your concerns. Also, the most recent subject on the talk page should go at the bottom of the talk page, thanks. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 17:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
That is a problem, since Wikipedia is not a promotional service. -Coconutporkpie (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
First, the most recent comment here goes at the bottom of the page, this is why no one cared to respond to this comment at the top. Second, it has been 10 days with both I and an administrator looking at and discussing this page yet no specific text nor alternative has been offered on an article that has reached consensus over many years and hundreds of editors hard working contributions and citations. Third, to assume good faith in editors (especially editors that are brand new to an article/subject matter) it would be wise to attempt consensus over at minimum a few days on the Talk page prior to any kind of edit that you are repeatedly making to the article header. The ideal would actually be to discuss all changes on the talk page over the course of weeks or months until a consensus is reached. That is why what you are doing here is being viewed increasingly as vandalism. If you hope for an intelligent, measured, patient, specific, reasonable and respectful response to your concern please introduce that concern in an intelligent, measured, patient, specific, reasonable and respectful manner. Anyone can claim anything is something its not. A lot of editors have worked a lot of hours providing specific reliable sources and syntax at this article, if there is something dozens of editors (including several administrators) are missing please put it in terms we may best understand and assist with. Give us ample time to discuss and reflect on those specific items. Short of that some may tend to think what you are attempting to label has no seriousness behind it. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 16:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I also think this page, specifically the lead, has a lot of editorializing language. As an example, the second graf that calls Pittsburgh's industries "creative wealth," is a phrase pulled from a Carnegie Mellon press release (which is also not linked to properly and appears to be taken down anyway). Press releases are mostly a no-no for citing in Wikipedia, is it not? It is also probably more accurate to call it industry opposed to creative wealth, which is a pretty phrase but means nothing. Also: How livable a city is (top-level fact) and how many hotel rooms they have recently added (not a top-level fact) are not closely related and the latter should be removed completely. I am still quite new to editing and contributing but would be willing to work with someone to help minimize the bias in the page. Atjackiesnow (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Press releases are mostly a no-no for citing in Wikipedia, is it not?

@Atjackiesnow: The policy is WP:Reliable sources. Generally press releases should be avoided. Sometimes they are useful as extra verification for something also covered by another source. Some objective facts can be OK to source to a release if not controversial. e.g. date founded, number of employees, location of an office. and sometimes also (but sometimes not) facts like birthdate/year, height, weight, (maybe even race!). (I'm sure we can all think of times when age or weight is relevant, e.g. athletes. And we know people that fudge their age...) --Jeremyb (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
btw, WP:PGH seems kinda dormant. And the members section has at least one person that's listed as both active and inactive at the same time... --Jeremyb (talk) 05:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

University of Pittsburgh Wikipedia Visiting Scholar position

Of possible interest to editors of this article: University of Pittsburgh is accepting applications for a Wikipedia Visiting Scholars position with possible focus areas on Pittsburgh-related topics. Through the Visiting Scholars program, educational institutions provide experienced Wikipedians with remote access to their libraries' research resources. The Wikipedian is given an official university login and agrees to create/improve articles on Wikipedia in a subject area of mutual interest. The positions are unpaid, remote, and usually go for 6 or 12 months. If you have at least 1000 edits, an account at least 1 year old, and experience improving content, you're eligible. For more information see Wikipedia:Visiting Scholars. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Pittsburgh

Mimi is going to pittsburgh. There is Zoe in pittsburgh. There is Wasif in Pittsburgh. I'm coming to Pittsburgh with mimi. Pittsburgh speaks English. Help Special pages Page information Upload file What links here Recent changes Contact page Related changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.115.117 (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Pittsburgh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Abbreviation "Pgh."

I think that the info box should include the traditional abbreviation which is "Pgh." I tried to add this, but couldn't come up with a template that worked. Lyttle-Wight (talk) 03:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pittsburgh. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

steelers

the pittsburgh steelers were named after the "pittsburgh steel co." (now wheeling-pittsburgh co.) based in monessen/allenport (pittsburgh metro-area), as the man who 'named' them worked there. 174.107.134.81 (talk) 10:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Pittsburgh. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pittsburgh. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pittsburgh. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pittsburgh. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Pittsburgh. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pittsburgh. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Evaluation

I think this is a very well written article. All of the external links work and I think it is cool how Pittsburgh has many random sister cities. There is a lot of valuable information within this page.

Bwolfson95 (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)2/5/18

This article is well done. I am looking to edit the air quality and water quality sections. The air quality section has more information than water quality. Water quality is important in the Pittsburgh region and it could be useful to add information here. Furthermore, it could be worthwhile to separate it into independent sections for both air and water quality.

Mdrogotzke (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Get rid of the pullout quotes. They sound like they were added by city employees. 93.136.52.160 (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone know what this sentence is supposed to mean/say?

"America's 1980s deindustrialization laid off area blue-collar workers and thousands of downtown white-collar workers when the longtime Pittsburgh-based world headquarters moved out.[10] "

longtime Pittsburgh-based world headquarters of what company? It wasn't US Steel, because they never left. Is the writer trying to say that all Pittsburgh-based world headquarters moved out? That wouldn't make any sense at all.

This sentence needs help but I am not sure how to fix it because I don't know what the writers intent was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.74.185 (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Maps

@Danbloch: the maps that are "found in nearly every US city article" take up almost half the infobox. For Pittsburgh, there's a separate map for (top to bottom, left to right): the county within the state, city within the county, the city borders, city within the state, and city within the country. That counts to be 5 different maps - that's ridiculous, and more than most cities, really. {{maplink}} is new, but far better than the old pushpin or svg maps. For one thing, you don't have to redraw File:Allegheny County Pennsylvania incorporated and unincorporated areas Pittsburgh highlighted.svg, the map simply updates when OpenStreetMap updates. The maps are zoomable, letting you see street-level, national, and even global views of where the location is, all in one map. It's also easier and faster for the average editor to create, and brings Wikipedia into the 21st century with actually interactive media.

In fact, Pittsburgh as it was and as you restored it, actually has a maplink map, but it's poorly formatted, so it's off-center, has an unnecessary frame, and large bright red borders. These are all things I had fixed. And I brought it in line with other US cities, like Chicago and Columbus, Ohio that utilize these two mapframe maps to easily show a reader the city's boundaries, and position in the US, all while taking up far less room than is shown here.

I'm confused and frustrated you haven't seen how poorly the current maps are formatted and how much room they're taking up, while my new maps accomplish more, but are smaller, well-organized, and modern. ɱ (talk) 02:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ɱ: Okay, I don't agree with a lot of your points, and I really dislike the Chicago and Columbus layouts, which I find cluttered and nearly unreadable, but there's some merit to having an interactive map. How about if we split the difference? Keep the bottom map and add one interactive map. This is what Philadelphia and Cleveland do. If you care about my opinion, I think the settings on the Cleveland interactive map are better chosen than the ones on Philadelphia. Dan Bloch (talk) 02:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
See, this is the reason why your or my infobox map standards aren't enforced; there is no one right way to do it. I don't see how my two maps are "cluttered and nearly unreadable". There is less map clutter than the current iteration, and there's no text to read, just the city shape outline clearly visible, and a US map with the city location pinpointed. But alright, I will try it as you mention. ɱ (talk) 03:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
There, is that okay? The {{maplink}} formatting is much better. ɱ (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks. Dan Bloch (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay per my user talk, I switched it back. Still the left-hand map is slightly too zoomed in, but if you zoom back out to level 9, it cuts off part of the city name and looks worse. I've asked about a 9.5 zoom at Module talk:Mapframe; we'll see what happens. ɱ (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Pittsburgh guitarist

Some pittsburgh music history of Norman Nardini's previous band Diamond Reo. The late Robbie John's on drums. Mattygeetarross (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mdrogotzke. Peer reviewers: Mfiligra, Avatarfanx2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

grammar

"Both flagship hospitals annual rank as among the best overall in the United States, with UPMC being among U.S. News & World Reports' "Honor Roll"."

Correction: ...annually rank among the best..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.250.100 (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Changed all references from Heinz Field to Acrisure Stadium

As anyone who cares to edit this page would know, Heinz Field has been renamed to Acrisure Stadium. I edited all references to Heinz Field to now say Acrisure Stadium. It might be appropriate to include somewhere that Acrisure Stadium was formerly known as Heinz Field, but I will leave that up to other editors. Just wanted to make things accurate for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:CA00:9B70:9095:5754:6CC2:5017 (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:222nd Broadcast Operations Detachment (BOD) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-6
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pittsburgh/Archive_5&oldid=1168002403"