Talk:Rochester, New York

Population

The Economy section says, "Because of Rochester's history as a high-tech city, it avoided the steep decline seen by other cities across the Great Lakes and Upstate New York in the 1970s and 1980s. Of the three largest metropolitan areas in Upstate NY (Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse), Rochester was the only one to gain population (albeit very small gain) every census between 1970 and 2000." This appears to be contradicted in the population table above it. Is the writer talking about the metropolitan area? Bolwerk 00:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Minimization of Fast Ferry

Ferry section is in serious need of rewriting as the ferry really isn't part of rochester anymore--other than a lingering bad memory.I believe this section is seriously out of date and should either be preserved rewritten into it's own document, or should be considerably reduced. -- B_cubed 2:02, 26 July 2006

The ill fated Ferry is a significant part of Rochester's recent history. The latest news, as of March 20, is that the Mayor has just cancelled a deal with the potential buyer Euroferries because of long delays in their purchasing the ferry.

Also--I've never heard the expression "fast ferry" to describe a bad deal as any kind of standardized phrase.

The removal of 'List of Noteworthy Rochesterians'

This list has been removed because it's a tangent subject that is starting to grow larger than the Rochester, NY article itself. All data has been merged with List of New York Rochesterians. Please make all future changes there. Also note that people added without explanation/links to specific active changes will be removed from that list. Travisowens@hotmail.com 21:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

city vs. conurbation

The literal mindedness of Americans when it comes to local political boundaries never ceases to amaze me. How about adding something about the whole of Rochester's conurbation (the metro as I think you would call it)? Plenty of work has gone into the article, but without this context, it is seriously misleading to non-American readers, giving them a totally false idea of the size of the "city" - "city" meaning "built-up" area everywhere else in the world. Wincoote 02:49, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What is this in reference to? What context would you like to see in the article? Perhaps we should define what communities are considered part of the Rochester Metropolitan Area; Brighton, Henrietta, Victor. If this is in reference to the removal of Geneseo and Alfred; both locations are far from the "City" of Rochester and also far from what would be considered the Rochester Metro Area.--Mattlary 04:21, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

It's a reference to what it says its a reference to. If you tell people in most parts of the World that Rochester has a population of 200,000 they will assume you mean the metropolitan area because that is the primary meaning of the word city in most of the world. Most of them won't know that it's actually the centre of a one million population conurbation if you don't mention it, and this is the sort of thing they will want to know if they have chosen to read about Rochester. The American usage of the word city if of little interest to most non-Americans. Wincoote 00:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've added a blurb about the Rochester metropolitan area. Keep in mind that in New York State, the word city has a specific legal meaning, with specific boundries, and that listing it's population as anything other than the population within those set boundries would be incorrect. --Mattlary 03:50, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Flower City vs Flour City

After seeing the page flip from The Flower City to The Flour City and back, I thought I should research and clarify. Although I couldn't find an example to share, the city logo which appears on the city flag has both terms around the logo as described here: [1]. --Mattlary 03:09, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

The early history of the city, as the main point for milling flour in western new york, yielded the nickname "the flour city". Later, with the proliferation of green houses and nurseries in the area, the nickname was cleverly changed to "the flower city". --b3x 19:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Midtown Mall

As a former resident of Rochester, I really don't believe that there should be so much informatoin about the Midtown Plaza here. I removed it once, but it was put back. A sort of compromise would be to make an article about it, and have it linked to.

There's nothing exceptional about the mall; the Rochester metro area has several other malls which are bigger and do more business. I would suggest putting up a list of the shopping centers in the area, and wikilink to an article which would give more info about Midtown plaza. Any objections? --BaronLarf 19:30, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

No objection here, was considering doing it myself... Ceejayoz 12:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done. --BaronLarf 16:04, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

The significant thing about the Midtown Plaza Mall is that it was the first indoor mall in the country.

Midtown Mall was designed by a significant architect and deserves its own article. The "Rochester Area Malls" article that is proposed for the merge doesn't exist. Other malls designed by Gruen have there own articles -- there's really no reason to delete the existing article on Midtown. J. Van Meter 23:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Professional Sports

User:Empireroar has added the Empire State Roar to the list of professional sports teams in Rochester. I can find no reason why they shouldn't be on the list, except for a recent Democrat and Chronicle feature that specifically said Rochester has seven professional sports teams, not eight. The question, then, is did the D&C have a good reason for not listing the Roar, or was it just an oversight? Powers 20:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What are people's opinions about mentioning the Rochester Lancers as a former well-known soccer team? They have their own Wiki page for people who would like more details, but aren't even mentioned on the main Rochester, NY page. Perhaps a little comment like:

"The Rochester Lancers were a soccer team based out of Rochester, New York that played in the American Soccer League from 1967 until 1969 and the North American Soccer League from 1970 to 1980 at Holleder Memorial Stadium."

Something like this, which was taken from the Lancer's Wiki page, might be just enough to inform readers of more of our sports history, along with the mention of the Royals and the Jeffersons. Sercu70 15:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Sercu70

Syracuse DAB

Editors of Rochester, New York: I thought that you would be interested in looking at the talk:Syracuse page. Currently, a group is attempting to remove the disambiguation page located there in favor of the article for Syracuse, Italy. Seeing as this change might have precedence affecting other upstate New York articles, I hoped that you would be interested in chiming in. Thanks for your interest one way or the other. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Niro5 (talk • contribs) .

Proposed merge

I proposed the merge of Rochester NY slang because the article is very short (only 10 slang words; some of which can be removed), and thus doesn't merit an article of its own. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Obvious merge, yes. Powers ^T 00:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with merge. There already is a little info on slang here already. Bringing it all together would be ideal. Baccyak4H 01:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I know I haven't waited too long, nor have I waited for many votes, but I'm pretty convinced that the slang article was mainly created as an insult to Rochester. So, I added basically the only two terms unique to Rochester (from what I can tell… I don't live there so check out the previous versions of the page just to confirm) to the "Vernacular" section. Going to remove the merge tag now as I've just redirected the slang article to here. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Factual Inacuracy in Geography section

The Geography section states: Rochester is located at 43°9′56″N, 77°36′41″W (43.165496, -77.611504)GR1. Rochester is east of Buffalo and west of Syracuse. It is almost exactly the same driving distance from Montreal and Toronto, the two largest cities in Canada.

This is blatantly false. Toronto is 3 hours away and Montreal is more than 6.

mikemillerdc 02:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I moved it from the opening intro thinking it didn't belong there. But now that you mention it, it does seem quite a stretch. Since even if it were true, it might not be important enough or of the right nature for an encyclopedia, so I think it should be deleted. Thanks for pointing that out.

Update I did remove that content Baccyak4H 02:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Baccyak4H 02:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Companies

Do we really need all these barely disguised advertisement attempts of the "no so well known" companies? I'd suggest removing all of them, and limiting the section to the really big shots. Lupo 12:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

At least nearly all, I agree. Harris Interactive is debatablekeepable, and Zweigle might be, but otherwise most are clearly spam. One guideline we might use is remove all that do not have wikiarticles. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Also check the wikiarticles. I just removed one that had an article, but that was a blatant ad. I would refine your guideline to "keep only those that have wikiarticles that don't fall under WP:CSD and that you wouldn't want to nominate for WP:AFD." Lupo 15:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the companies that should not be removed should be moved - Zweigle is very well known in Western NY, even if it's not world-renowned. Harris Interactive is well known around the country if not internationally. It's not a household name like Kodak, but it's also not an obscure local company (I've done their on-line surveys for a number of years, and never realized they were Rochester-based). —Erik Harris 15:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I'll leave it up people from that area to clean this up. I don't know any of these firms. Zweigle's probably deserves a short article, and Harris Int'l already has a decent article. But I suspect most of those currently listed could go. What about Harter Secrest (pure adspeak, even), or MarketHOLD? Lupo 16:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'll do some obvious ones, and would not object to others removing some of the rest, as this also allows some others to plug for keeping them if appropriate. I vote to keep Zweigles, article or not. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

---

I took a shot and removed obvious ones. I also removed borderline ones but which only had some operations in Roc. I might add that both Heluva and Monro might be notable enough to keep here, although they are not of the same league as Harris, in my estimation. I kept some others that made claims of notability like "national", even though those claims were not sourced. The Sutherland one looks like spam but it does make a notability claim. I defer to someone who knows it better to improve the claim or to remove the listing altogether. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

(undent) The yardstick I usually use is that if they are notable enough, they should have their own WP page and that page would contain the link. If they aren't notable enough for their own page, then they're not notable to EL. It's probably a tad too brutal, but that's sort of where I start from. Obviously there are exceptions and this is not an ideal world. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Rochesterian Points of View

I notice the section that was recently added, and am unsure about whether this type of thing is really what a Wikipedia article should be about. In particular, this seems to be asking editors to go against WP:NPOV requirement. I just didn't want to revert it without some discussion happening. -- Alucard (Dr.) 00:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no question in my mind that this section does not belong. I will revert it now. Besides being unencyclopedic it most likely falls under original research as well. b_cubed 13:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Roads

What about rochester's roads???? worst roads in the country!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otis42o (talk • contribs) 21:22, 1 April 2007

Do you have a citable source, so we can include something about it in the article, or is this your opinion? -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 23:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like just someone blowing off steam in an inappropriate place (and also putting his comment in an inappropriate place - right in the middle of the talk page instead of at the end). Either that, or he's never left Rochester. :) Rochester may not have great roads, but they're better than those in many other places by any of the various measures you might use. —Erik Harris 13:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Could easily be, but I wanted to WP:AGF on it...  :-) -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 14:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

External links

The Best of Rochester links all take you to the same web page, which happens to be the current issue of the online City Magazine ... nothing to do with the best of Rochester for past years. Does anyone know what the correct links are, or if they are still available? Or maybe should we just delete this? Truthanado 16:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I dug through the site a bit and found the articles for the Best of Rochester lists, but the links from the articles to the actual lists just redirected to their main page... I suspect they may have been lost when they moved to a new web site design. The list for 2006 didn't even work, alas. I expect this will fix itself in November with the 2007 list :-) Rtucker 18:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Everyone! I feel that I have two links that would be beneficial to this Wikipedia page:

• Rochester Events
• Rochester Email

I realize that all the links are nofollow, so I am not looking for an increase for SEO/ SEM reasons, but I strongly feel that these links are very relevant to pople who have an interest in Rochester.

1) This Events Calendar is updated with ALL of the City events in a visually appealing "Month and List" calendar form. It is consistently updated with local events. 2) This website also offers Free Rochester Email, perfect for anyone who lives, works or plays in or around the City of Rochester. This is very relevant for people who have an interest in Rochester.

Please let me know your considerations. Thank you, --Gary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpalmerjr (talk • contribs) 15:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary, it may not be your intent, but when an editor comes to Wikipedia and only adds external links it is interpreted here as a form of Spam. An external link to an email resources is not pertinent to this article ABOUT Rochester, and the events calendar you're suggesting is splattered with "Ads by Google", which makes it look more commercial than useful. Does this make sense? Kingturtle (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Kingturtle, an external link to an email resource that is ONLY FOR Rochester, in this article ABOUT Rochester is absolutely pertinent. Free Rochester Email @THECITYOFROCHESTER.COM & @ROCHESTERMAIL.COM is ONLY FOR Rochester; and is definitely relevant in this article.

Also, the ONE Google ad, at the top of the detailed events calendar you referenced, is not an example of a website that is "splattered" with ads, as you suggested. This site provides relevant content that has Google ad support, one at the top and two on the bottom.

The site does this to support Free Rochester Email, a detailed Events Calendar, and comprehensive Movie Listings, which places THE ONLY TWO LOCALLY OWNED & OPERATED movie theaters at the top of the list, being the Cinema Theatre and the Little Theatre. Furthermore, the website is professional, maintained, updated and upgraded on a daily basis. Aren't these reasons why this External Link is relevant to this article? Gpalmerjr —Preceding comment was added at 12:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia isn't here to offer links to free email services: please read WP:EL. ccwaters (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Crime

Who deleted the Crime section that I wrote- someone revised it very nicely, then someone deleted it entirely! I used to live in Rochester- thank god not anymore. Let's stop pretending it's a wondeful city, hm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowkun980 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 11 May 2007

I'm assuming it wasn't cited properly... if you can cite a reliable source for the crime data, that would probably solve the problem... RTucker 15:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was removed because of a lack of citations - numbers like that need to be easy to verify, otherwise someone just comes along and changes them indiscriminately and we have no way of knowing which number was the correct one. Please feel free to re-add with a URL of the source. Don't worry too much about the formatting - one of us can convert it into the right citation, we just need the URL. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 15:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Various anonymous IPs are adding the text about Rochester being the "murder capital" - various editors are removing it. If it is to stay, we need a) a reliable citable source and b) it be be worded neutrally. Until we can provide the source, I don't see that statement as staying in the article. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 13:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Rochester has the highest murder rate in New York state, according to this source: http://www.rochestercitynewspaper.com/archives/2006/4/Rochester:+made+for+murder+ I think this might just be a little relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.79.37 (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

record high

i remember it being over 100 degrees in june before, where is this info from? 69.207.162.223 20:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The record high for june is 100. Its reached it, but never exceded it in june. The record high for july though is incorrect, it should be 102,(wich is the maximum recorded temperature in rochester) ive seen that record in multiple places including the weather channel. Enigmar 05:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Companies Again

Going back to our previous discussion, and since there was no major objection, I really feel that we should only be listing major companies, not "lesser ones", or ones with branch offices or factories. It is a magnet for spam. I am going to have a weed through of this, trying to be bold. We can discuss any specific cases here if you like, but that list is just too large for an encyclopedia, in my opinion. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 13:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: On review, here were the criteria I used: First, it must be notable enough to have a WP page - no point listing non-notable companies. Next it must actually have a significant presence in Rochester (not "the Rochester area") - that means a headquarters or a very significant operation, which can either be found on the WP page or the company website. If we do not do that, we're going to have listings for McDonalds and Walmart. I also tried to reformat it a bit so it was a little more prose-like, rather than just a list. Hopefully this meets with approval - I am more than willing to discuss these changes. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 13:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there are some problems with your criteria. First, while absence of a Wikipedia article on a particular company is evidence for non-notability, it's far from definitive; good points were raised above about a few companies that may actually be notable despite not yet having articles. Second, this article is very much about the area around Rochester, not just the city itself; if you restrict it to companies with HQs or major facilities in the city proper, Wegmans and Paychex would be eliminated. Powers ^T 15:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, maybe we aren't on the same page, here. First, notability - if a company doesn't have a WP page and is notable, then maybe it *should* have a WP page, or something should be done to establish notability when the entry is added. At the least I would hope some discussion on the Talk page. Second, locality: there are WP pages for each of the Rochester suburbs and we could list those there, no? The lead for the article specifically talks about the "City of Rochester" and has links to the suburbs. Do you see where I am coming from with this? Let's not eliminate the links, just move them to the place where they actually have their headquarters. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 16:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that we should have some threshold for notability; I'm just saying that "has an article" isn't necessarily what that threshold should be. There was some discussion above about some companies that don't have articles.

While there are indeed articles on the various Rochester suburbs, this article goes well beyond being just about the city. It's fine to say that this article should be just about the city, but it's just not true at this point. It's really about the whole area -- minimally, the inner-ring suburbs of Greece, Gates, Brighton, Henrietta, Irondequoit, and Pittsford. It talks about Paychex (Penfield) and Wegmans (Gates); RIT (Henrietta), Roberts Wesleyan (Chili), and St. John Fisher and Nazareth (Pittsford); TV stations with suburban studios; the pronounciation of Chili, Riga, and Bergen; Genesee Country Village and Museum; Letchworth State Park; Greece Ridge, Eastview, Medley Centre, and Marketplace Malls; etc. etc. If you think all this should be moved to another article on the metro area, that's fine, but that's not how it is currently. Powers ^T 17:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

A note about a split, if that's the way consensus goes: large swaths of the inner-ring suburbs have Rochester mailing addresses; for many of the things listed here, it can be hard to determine whether it qualifies as being within the city proper or not. =) Powers ^T 17:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again the list of companies is growing again. I don't live in Rochester so can't help with the notability issues. Maybe a local can try to police this a little? This list is always going to grow while it is there and this is not a Good Thing, in my opinion. Could we maybe find an article on major employers in Rochester and publish that? In my opinion, the lack of criteria for inclusion is hurting this. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk

I tried to pare it back a little more. It is not as concise as it once was, but still is a small improvement. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that as per WP:RED, just because there is no Wiki page for a given company does not mean it's not notable. Indeed, in cases like lists, they are desirable to have as they show areas where coverage might be needed. In particular, I'm thinking Sutherland should have been left on there. They're a global company with 17,500 employees in 6 countries, according to their web site. Dstumme 20:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, feel free to put back ones that can be shown to be notable; I know nothing about that company. I do think that having links to the companies' webpages here (as opposed to a WP page on them) is spam and inappropriate. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous changes to population count in infobox

In recent days, Rochester's population has jumped from 1,098,201 to 1,838,201 to 3,838,201. Now the last edit at least looks suspect, since they only changed one digit. Anyone got an actual source for this?

Googling around, looking for a source, I see several census sites that list the first number. I'm reverting to that, and adding a reference. Dstumme 13:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Image choice - Little Theatre

Hi folks. I took a picture of the Little Theatre on Saturday, before I knew the copyright status of the image already in this article was being resolved. I wanted to make sure we had a free image to use. Below is a gallery showing both images; which one is better for this article? (see also discussion at Talk:Little Theatre#Image choice Powers ^T 20:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• User:J. Van Meter's image
  User:J. Van Meter's image
• 
  User:LtPowers' image

• My two cents: The one on the left. Unfortunately, they both appear to have been taken at the brightest part of the day, and yours appears to be the more washed out of the two, though you managed to capture it on a clear day whereas the other appears hazy. "The best daylight for pictures is usually before 10 a.m. and after 3 p.m.". The tree in your photo is also a bit of a distraction. Another option is to just photograph it again on a clear day at an angle that's a little more head on. — DanielPenfield 21:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• For the record, the picture was taken at 3:26 p.m. Powers ^T 02:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• because it took me about a week to work out the correct licensing and contact the photographer for the proper release, i too say please stick with the current photo (on the left). J. Van Meter 23:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally like LtPowers' photo. Higher res and better quality. --Dan Leveille^TALK 01:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is a little washed out, but I personally like that better than the shadow. Powers ^T 13:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Rochester Professional Sports --- EMPIRE STATE ROAR

Previously, the following was posted above: "User:Empireroar has added the Empire State Roar to the list of professional sports teams in Rochester. I can find no reason why they shouldn't be on the list, except for a recent Democrat and Chronicle feature that specifically said Rochester has seven professional sports teams, not eight. The question, then, is did the D&C have a good reason for not listing the Roar, or was it just an oversight? Powers 20:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)"

ANSWER: Actually, there is a reason that the Roar, as well as dozens of other teams in Rochester's sports past, were not included.

With all due respect to the Empire State Roar, there is a distinction between amateur, professional, and semi-professional sports.

To be classified as a professional franchise, all players must be under contract to their respective employers/teams, receive direct monetary compensation for their participation in the event, and compete against other professional teams.

Despite the misnomer "Women's Professional Football League", the Empire State Roar is technically a semi-professional team. Players on the Roar pay for their own uniforms, subsidize their own travel, provide their own insurance, and are not financially compensated for their performance. Thus they are, by definition, a semi-professional team (not that there's anything wrong with that.)

If the Roar was to be included here as a Rochester professional team, then other men's semi-pro teams such as the Rochester Renegades and Monroe County Sting would also have to be included, as well as teams in other sports such as rugby's Aardvarks and Colonials.

There have been dozens of highly competitive semi-pro teams that are not included in Rochester's professional sports history such as the Rochester Raptors, Monroe Mustangs, Rochester Warriors, Rochester RoughRiders, Rochester Iroquois, Rochester Chiefs, the New York Tuck Tapers, the Lady Filarets women's basketball team, the Rochester Stars and Rochester American Giants baseball teams, the Rochester Varsity Giants, Rochester Kelly Celtics ... the list goes on and on.

Shifty Gears was a world-famous softball pitcher here in the 30's and 40's and his Kodak Park teams won multiple world championships, but they're not considered to be a professional team despite the fact that Shifty is a member of the Softball Hall of Fame. There were nights when the crowds were bigger at Shifty's softball games than at Red Wings games just a couple of miles away. Rochester Italia won the national championship in soccer in the 1960's, but it was a semi-pro club team, not a professional team despite the high level of talent and large and passionate following in the pre-Lancer days.

The Roar have been quite successful and their accomplishments are to be highly commended, but the team technically cannot be considered a professional franchise.

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.143 (talk • contribs)

Great information, thanks. Not that I don't believe you, but do you have a source for the information about the Roar being semi-pro? Powers ^T 12:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

--159.53.46.143 22:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC):Thanks, LTPowers. In the August 18th Democrat and Chronicle, the “Weekend Warriors” section featured Roar player Jessica Dunn, who confirmed that the players played not for money but for the love of the game…She explained that the players paid for their own uniforms and subsidized their own travel to road games among other things...Dictionary definition of a semi-pro team. Thanks for the comments.

FURTHER COMFIRMATION: In the November 14, 2007 Democrat & Chronicle article "Women play on local professional football team for the love of the game", Jim Mandelaro writes "Even though the word "professional" is part of the WPFL's name, the players actually pay to play. Second-year Roar members pay $600 and rookies pay $750 to cover flight and hotel expenses. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.15.183 (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

new user category.

FYI, there is now a Category:Wikipedians in Rochester, New York. Kingturtle (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Weather stats

Does anyone think that the weather stats should be removed. I don't think they are notable enough. The {{cleanup}} was placed because there are too many tables, and I somewhat agree that this table is pretty useless. Dan Leveille^TALK 16:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It could be summarized as prose; as it is, most people are going to just gloss over it and continue on. Buffalo has a nice graph which might do as a compromise. Powers ^T 13:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians in Rochester, New York

For those of you who don't know, and are interested, there is [[Category:Wikipedians in Rochester, New York]] for your userpage. Kingturtle (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You mentioned that two sections ago. =) Powers ^T 14:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I bet you I'll do it again in a few months after I forget that I did it this second time! Ack! :) Kingturtle (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup notice

How about some specifics on what you think needs cleaning up? I don't see anything more or less i need of cleanup than any other Wiki article. Please elaborate, or someone will rightfully assume the article is fine and the warning note can come down. Dstumme (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I put a cleanup specifically in the company section because it was becoming a directory. I didn't add the main one (I reverted it back when it was removed with mine). ccwaters (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Things to consider for cleaning up this article:

• Organization of topics
• Arrangement and consolidation of charts and images
• Proofreading
• subject-specific attention: Cityscape
• Address issue of too many lists: Consolidate or create off-shoot articles

Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The cleanup tag was removed after Funnybs removed a bunch of redlinks. Considering that a) redlinks are useful and b) redlinks weren't even one of the concerns listed by Kingturtle, I think removal of the cleanup tag was premature. Powers ^T 04:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Red tags make the wikiworld go 'round. I am not opposed at all the putting them back in. Kingturtle (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Greater Rochester Area

This article is about the city of Rochester. Non-city of Rochester specific information should be removed from this article. I propose moving it to the Monroe County article or starting a Greater Rochester area article. Kingturtle (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That won't be simple. The two are very tightly linked, and we risk forcing the reader to flip back and forth between articles to get the full picture, or, perhaps worse, repeating a lot of the information from the city article in the metro article. Powers ^T 16:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It is possible, though. See San Francisco Bay Area. Kingturtle (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't doubt it's possible, although I'm not sure if your example is analogous. There are three major cities (and numerous minor ones) in San Fran's metro area, so that city doesn't dominate the region the Rochester does its. For example, the San Francisco Bay Area article can talk about all the sports teams based in SF, Oakland, and San Jose; an article on the Rochester metro region, on the other hand, would have the same pro sports section as the Rochester article. Too much redundancy makes maintenance hard.

There's also the issue of defining the area. There are really several levels of cultural separation: downtown, the city proper, the city plus the inner-ring suburbs, all of Monroe County, the 585 area code, and the Rochester Metropolitan Statistical Area. In one sense, Rochester has just one shopping mall (soon to be zero); in another it has four or five. A lot of sources just refer to "the Rochester area" without really defining it. Questions will arise such as: is RIT part of Rochester? Is Victor a suburb of Rochester or of Canandaigua, and is Eastview Mall relevant to the Rochester economy? Could an article on the city of Rochester be complete without mentioning Wegmans?

This is not to say these problems are insurmountable, just that there is a lot to consider.

-- Powers ^T 21:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

accent

u got it all wrong

accent

u got it all wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.161.152 (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

population question

"This area, which is part of the Western New York region, had a population of 1,037,831 people as of the 2000 Census. As of July 1, 2005, this population rose to 2,039,028."

From 1 million to 2 million in 5 years? Can someone figure out what this is supposed to mean? Kingturtle (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect somebody was messing around with the page. I took out that info about the Rochester metro area having a 2 million population as well as the claim that Rochester is the second largest city in New York. These statements are clearly wrong.

Rochester, New York metropolitan area. ccwaters (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

A vandal came in and changed a bunch of numbers all in one edit, but Kingturtle only reverted one of them. Then when the vandal performed more vandalism, and its edits were reverted, they were reverted to the vandalized version. That's why it's important when noticing obvious vandalism to check for recent edits and revert them entirely rather than just repairing inaccuracies. =) Powers ^T 01:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead image poll

With this edit, Evilarry changed the infobox image from Image:Rochester1.jpg to Image:Rochester_DT_08.JPG. Evilarry's edit summary says the new image is higher res, but for a 250 pixel thumbnail that doesn't really matter much.

As far as I can see, the main advantage of the new image is that it shows more of the skyline (to the southeast). It also has better color. There are some disadvantages, though: more of the image is taken up by the river (while the river is important, having too much of it in the image isn't good composition, in my opinion), and vertical lines are not vertical in this image (everything leans about a degree to the left).

So here's a quick straw poll to choose between the two options. Please use the text Support with your signature (and a brief explanation if you like) under the option you prefer. If you know of any other options, feel free to propose them.

-- Powers ^T 13:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Rochester1.jpg

Rochester1.jpg

• Support, for reasons mentioned above. Powers ^T 13:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support, just like it better. Philatio (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support framing not right on the other pics, too much emphasis on the river and time warner's microwave tower. ccwaters (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support a better lead picture in my opinion VerruckteDan (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Rochester_DT_08.JPG

Rochester DT 08.JPG

Rochester_DT_082.jpg

Rochester_DT_082.jpg

(N.B.: added June 25) Powers ^T

• Support Evilarry (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC) I believe your issue can be remedied quite easily and the increased resolution and building count is more appropriate.
• Support Bofis (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2008 (EST) Very nice shot of the skyline now with the bridge and without the Xerox logo on their building.
• An Artist at Work! 71.185.136.220 (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Great depiction of the current Rochester, NY skyline. Would appreciate an evening photo.

Discussion

• Evilarry, you changed the text I wrote above. That is highly frowned upon. Please don't do that. I've restored the original image that was under discussion, and added your revised image as a new option. Doing it the way you did it is confusing to your fellow editors. Powers ^T 23:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• As regards resolution, I don't see the relevance (as I stated above). For a 250px thumbnail, the full resolution of the image is irrelevant. I appreciate the cropped and rotated photo and think it's a strong improvement over _08. I think I still have a preference for the framing of Rochester1.jpg -- the rightmost building in your image is farther from the others than it looks, and it doesn't seem to go with them. Also, I think there's a bit too much sky. Still, that aside, it's a great image and I wouldn't mind if it was the lead image of the article. Powers ^T 23:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• leave my image up then, stop propogating your image. as i've said, people always click on the images, therefore it is prudent to have a higher resolution, greater detail, more current and better color photo available.Evilarry (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)??
  • Um, pardon me? First of all, it's not "my image" in any respect. Second of all, I'm not propagating it, and certainly not repeatedly. I replaced your image (the initial, less well framed and angled one) once, after there was no opposition to the replacement for almost an entire month. How this constitutes "propagation" that I need to "stop" is beyond me. I don't appreciate your tone, and would request that you try to be a little more collegial in your interactions. Powers ^T 01:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
• I really couldn't careless about your extreme sensitivy and exageration. The image was taken on 5/25, I put it online only to have you take it down without good cause your own personal preference does not constitute proper motivations to replace someones contribution. If you believe two weeks equates a month, I believe you should probably go back to basics before you mess with my contributions. If you take issue with the content, you could have actually run a legitimate discussion and sough input. Furthermore, I revised the image to meet your concerns in an attempt to appease your complaints. Obviously there is no pleasing you so I ask that you leave my image and contribution alone. I've requested administrative assistance going forward. EODEvilarry (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Larry: He did seek input, that's why this section of the talk page was created. It looks like it sat there without opposition for quite some time(2 weeks, 1 month, whatever). Also, I'm not making any accusations, but please be aware of WP:SOCK. ccwaters (talk) 07:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I wasn't going to actually take a side on the pics: but I can't help but notice that your pic gives the false (??) impression that the tallest structure in ROC is a microwave tower. ccwaters (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Its at Time Warner on Mt Hope and its 265' tall [2] ccwaters (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry I wasn't clear; I did replace the image on June 14, but there was no opposition until nearly a month had passed from the time I brought it up here. Is there something you find illegitimate about the discussion I started? You'll also notice I haven't touched the lead image since you made the revisions, so I don't understand how you can conclude that "there is no pleasing" me. Obviously I've done something to offend you, but I can't for the life of me figure out what. Powers ^T 17:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
• Given that the other accoutns and IP supporting me are not mine, and are legitimate accounts to my knowledge, you can take your assertions back regarding the SOCK. No one seems to realize that the issue is, 1) a photo has been up there for some time, 2) I replaced it on May 25th, only to have it replaced again immediately with the older existing photo with the lower resolution camera that previously existed. As for your ability to determine a depth of an image, i'm sorry that you can't distinguish foreground from background. my only objective is to provide a higher resolution, higher quality, and more detailed representation of rochester for those who may want to see the city. Powers it bothers me that you can legitimately prefer a really blurry, over exposed and noisy image over something twice the resolution with no critique of the quality of the image. Given that I've provided most of the images on the Rochester Wiki I care about the quality of the images presented.Evilarry (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm aware of foreground and background: I'm saying the photographer needs to be aware of it too. ccwaters (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) The image was not replaced "immediately". You placed it on May 25; it was removed on June 14, after no objections to its removal were raised here on the talk page in over two weeks. How is that "immediate"? As for my preference, it's based only on the framing of the image. I prefer the framing of the original image, but I prefer just about everything else about yours. I even said, in reference to yours: "Still, that aside, it's a great image and I wouldn't mind if it was the lead image of the article." Indeed, I haven't touched the image since June 14. I'm not sure what more you want from me. Powers ^T 13:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• I'm going to retake the shot using a 70-200 L glass lens with a circular polarizer and graduated ND filter. I think this will provide an image with a far improved sky. I will take multiple versions, and use a 400mm lens to try to get an even better shot. I can also shoot a 18mm super wide if desired.Evilarry (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Redlinks

I guess I should mention here that I removed the link bars around Places Rated Almanac and Expansion Management because I did not like having the red in the first few paragraphs and it appears that those two are not referenced anywhere else on Wikipedia. Thus I do not believe anyone will be creating a page for them any time soon. Anyone disagree with my decision? -Philatio (talk) 05:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted before I checked here. I personally don't think there's anything wrong with redlinks. Perhaps the reason they're not linked to elsewhere on Wikipedia is because other people removed them as redlinks. =) Redlinks help expand the encyclopedia. I figure if they're important enough to reference, they're important enough to have articles. Powers ^T 12:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I too am a redlink supporter. Don't fear the redlinks. They are our friends. I can understand why you might not like to see them in the opening paragraph. Can we find another place in the article to put that information? Kingturtle (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

spam in RIT section

why is 60% of the RIT paragraph taken up by a for-profit enterprise? does anyone care if I delete all parkpoint references? 67.240.168.198 (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what being for-profit has to do with anything, but yes, there's probably a lot more to write about RIT than an edge-of-campus private development whose impact we have yet to determine. Powers ^T 13:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Custard

What is the fat content in Abotts frozen Custard like one scoop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.32.49 (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)