Talk:Pittsburgh

Crime section: NOR synthesis, should be deleted?

Deletion consideration for the Crime section first paragraph remarks about "being high for a city of it's size" since no quote exists on the source material for this. It has been suggested that merely interpreting what a list of facts states is considered to be NOR and possibly synthesis. I am attempting to get clarification on this (been a number of days without response). I may be wrong discussing this prior to deletion of facts even though those facts may be synthesized since the consensus seems to be to delete facts first then "synthesize" a rationalization for it. You can join the discussion on the NOR and the apparent delete first policy here: Thank you for your time. [1] Thank you for your time.

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 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:

• You saw it here first: Pittsburgh's Nickelodeon introduced the moving picture theater to the masses in 1905 Timothy McNulty Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (June 19, 2005)
• Pittsburgh reinvents itself as the new Hollywood Alisha Hipwell CNN Money (August 7, 2012)
• 31st Street Studios in the Strip District wants to be L.A. East Maria Sciullo Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (March 4, 2012)
• Is Pittsburgh the New Hollywood? Fox Business (February 29, 2012)
• 4-star film studio coming to Strip District, Ann Rodgers Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (February 28, 2012)
• How Pittsburgh landed 'The Dark Knight Rises' Hillary Busis Entertainment Weekly (December 7, 2012)
• Operated by Gateway Entertainment Studios L.P., Marisa Murphy, 31st Street Studios
• Lights, cameras ... : Action at a new studio keeps Pittsburgh on film Post-Gazette (March 4, 2012)
• Pa. film studio to feature 'Avatar' technology CBS News (February 28, 2012)
• Pittsburgh filmography, Internet Movie Database|IMDb
• Pittsburgh Film Office filmography
• Is Pittsburgh The New Hollywood?, Melissa Rayworth Pittsburgh Magazine (January, 2011)

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".[2]--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 [3], 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)