Talk:Sports in Pittsburgh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Pittsburgh (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pittsburgh and its metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Pennsylvania (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

International Hockey League[edit]

I took out the reference to the 1904 IHL under the ice hockey section. The link it used was a redirect to some homepage that only had a link itself and a few old photos in relation to Pittsburg(h)'s team. This seems like a good subject to explore, but like I said, the page it was linked to didn't seem like a good enough reference.Exoterrick 20:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Other edits[edit]

I overhauled a bunch of other stuff today. Didn't want to get too in depth since this should just be an overview page, but a lot of the prior stuff seemed kind of boastful, so I wanted to take that out when possible (being that this is supposed to be unbiassed). Feel free to whittle if necessary or correct mistakes. I did have two questions if anyone has answers:

1. I took out the reference to the 1914-15 Pittsburgh Burghers because I assumed they were talking about the Federal League Rebels. Does anyone have anything more about the Burghers? Are they worth mentioning here?

2. What are we pulling the 'swimming pool per capita' statement from? Is there a good source for this?Exoterrick 15:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


For some reason I seem to be under the impression that Pittsburgh had a (semi-)professional soccer team named "Dynamo" once - is that true? If yes, it should be added to the article. Mabuse 13:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Update: nope, it's a youth soccer team - Never mind. Mabuse 15:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


Why are the Colts missing from this page?? They're the oldest semi-pro football team in Pgh. --Write On 1983 05:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There are several teams in the Pittsburgh sports category that need to be added here. --Chris Griswold () 15:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. And I noticed the Colts page needs work. --Write On 1983 20:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


If you have a POV (point of view) that thinks data should not be included on this page I am more than happy to discuss that. To randomly delete valid and sourced data from wiki pages must be a brand new policy. As a responsible citizen of wikipedia striving to be good, I should start randomly deleting data on pages all day today. Oh wait, that would be bad. Happy to discuss us copying data to new pages (within reason), that is if those who are deleting data from this page can take a break from their busy days of reverting wikipedia back to 2003. Hholt01 (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's nothing about WP:POV, read the policy to get the specifics on what is POV. It's the fact that it is too specific to include such a list here. Those facts are included in each specific article about the school's football team where they belong. Grsz11 13:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree the list should be removed, WP:POV has nothing to do with this. This page covers many teams, including over 20 professional and a number of colleges. Why one or two should have such beyond depth coverage is far beyond me. That infomation should have its own article as does Pittsburgh Pirates seasons or Pittsburgh Pirates seasons because having seasons lists for over 20 teams is ridiculous and repeated info from other articles. Not to mention a list of seasons for every sport at every college mentioned (why should women's track at Robert Morris not be listed?) blackngold29 16:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Those lists were nice, but way to specific for this article and should not be included here. It cluttered the article and was way beyond the scope of this article. I moved your bowl table to Pittsburgh Panthers football#Bowl games. You may want to do the same for the other teams on your table. Besides that, WVU is NOT a Pittsburgh team and should not be included in an article about Pittsburgh sports. CrazyPaco (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

City of Champions[edit]

I believe that somewhere in this article should be a sentence saying that twice the city of pittsburgh has hosted two champion teams in the same year and is the only city to do it at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Steeler Nation Criticism[edit]

Please feel free to read & comment here. Thank you. Marketdiamond (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

New tables[edit]

Marketdiamond...I appreciate the effort, which seems to be extensive, but I have to be honest and, well, blunt and say that I think the new tables are a mess. I find them confusing, hard (if not impossible) to read, and ultimately unnecessary because this information should be at each team's homepage and the year-by-year records for a subset of multiple teams is well beyond the scope of what should be included in this article. They are also errors throughout the tables. The college championships are incomplete, which is understandable, since championships are entirely different in their nature from pro championships, but then they are also misleading to include these different levels of sports on the same table...and I believe this is true for the different levels of hockey as well. The eras the years are broken into, while I understand your intent, aren't sourced, and seem to constitute OR and the tables aren't consistent from era to era. The information is at the same time duplicative yet not inclusive of the information on the existing All-time Pro Franchise table I don't think they help the reader understand the topic at all, quite the opposite really. I would recommend the tables be eliminated or greatly simplified, but really think they should be eliminated, which I hate to say because I think you've put a lot of work into them. Links to the year-by-year history of all the teams records would be preferable if that is your intent, although I don't think that is necessary. If there is information that isn't available elsewhere, I would move it to the articles for those specific teams. In the least, perhaps the tables should be broken off into a separate list-type article and separated by sport (not era) and the multiple confusing abbreviations eliminated. CrazyPaco (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

CP, thank you for your thoughts and suggestions. First I agree somewhat with all of them. I am open to some constructive edits (probably most effective to suggest them here first) to this list. I most agree that after nearly completing this it would be much better off on its own articlespace (list) which I will work on presently.
I appreciate your kind words on the effort and recognizing it and I am very aware that citations, sources and further corrections will be needed. I have a few more thoughts on your specific suggestions but I will reserve those for the list article, in part because I think it is a forest from trees consideration at work here as well. Much thanks for your thoughtful analysis on this. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 07:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Split proposal[edit]

Per CrazyPaco's suggestions and views, these lists may not be best for this article. Though I do feel the lists given minor improvements do belong on the wikisphere I tend to agree with CrazyPaco that if a separate article/list is accepted and validated on Wikipedia that these lists should move to that article/list. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 13:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I would split, but even with the new color coding, I think they are very difficult to follow. I still don't know how these are exactly useful for a reader or why it is necessary to consolidate all of these disparate sports together in tables. List of Pittsburgh Steelers seasons, List of Pittsburgh Penguins seasons, List of Pittsburgh Pirates seasons, List of Pittsburgh Panthers football seasons, and List of Pittsburgh Panthers men's basketball seasons already exist, while other season-by-season lists are a part of Duquesne Dukes men's basketball and Pittsburgh Power articles. For teams where list don't exist, and you have collected information, such list articles could be created or incorporated into their main articles and, IMO, that would make more sense. All List articles for Pittsburgh sports teams could be linked with a nav template if that is desirable, or linked from this article. It stills seems to me that it is too confusing and convoluted to try to throw them all together and I don't understand to what end it is needed. CrazyPaco (talk) 03:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
CrazyPaco, appreciation on the sincere analysis, however many wiki articles/lists can also be described the same way with the same conclusion from editors with similar views. I'm no exception. Thou my wish would be to remove it from the article to its own list soon.
For the specific concern on if what you refer to as disparate lists should be combined, this Sunday night I was in a Florida Panera's where the server started a conversation among different customers about their NFL team, so I say Steelers & the Bears guy immediately starts joking about the Pirates before he is interrupted by a guy who went to Duquesne mentioning the Penguins and Pitt. Might be a Fla diaspora thing but I've had others combine disparate fandom by location a lot. Anecdotals don't necessarily justify a wikilist but it should answer your reasonable concern.
Appreciation on allowing some time to see what the finished list could look like. I have some other thoughts on my logic behind things but I'll leave it be for now. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 18:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm in no rush. I think there may be better ways to convey the information that you are trying to without all of the the year-by-year listings, which I think is cramming in too much information into a single table with the result of your intended narrative getting lost. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree that there is a tension here between being inclusive for all teams of the 4 major sports and being easily read w/o symbols etc. As with many wiki article/lists thou it may not be for everyone, in some ways I am looking at this chart as a "forest view" from the trees similar in some ways to stock market "heat" maps here and elsewhere. Yes these can very much be Rorschach tests, however they are still useful. All your concerns are valid CP and if there are ways to improve the charts while being inclusive, I'm for it. I think your suggestion that only the main teams be included should also be made soon on that separate list page. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 18:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
After a month, I'm still not a fan of these charts, nor to be really honest, even their existence on the list article. But now that the list article does exist in the main space, I think they should be removed from this article and placed on the list sooner than later. Even while they are being worked on, there is no reason to have them taking up a huge amount of vertical space on this article while also being only partially duplicated on what is now their now primary list article. CrazyPaco (talk) 06:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)