Talk:Pittsburgh

Featured article for the 250th anniversary?

Seeing is how 2008 is the 250th year of the city of Pittsburgh, wouldn't it be great if we got this article up to Featured article status? I can't find too much history for this article in terms of review (PR, GA, FA), but I would think that it makes sense to begin getting the article up to meeting the Good article criteria first, and then nominate it for peer review, and then put the finishing touches on it before nominating for WP:FAC? In terms of a timeline, I would think we could get GA by March or April, do a peer review in May, and FA by July. Of course, it's a long process, and I can't really do this by myself. Anyone willing to help? Any suggestions on what needs to be added to the current, B-class article? Dr. Cash (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Some critiques for what it's worth:

1. The article has lots of good info, but it is way too long.

2. Someone better than I may want to revise it according to best standards.

3. It needs to be a better read, maybe have one bold, but talented soul do a comprehensive revision so the lexical style is the same throughout.

4. Leaving some of it on the editor's floor will hurt some feelings, but it doesn't need to be a book about Pittsburgh, maybe spin off some articles to other pages.

5. I deleted my other comments below because I was clogging the page.

Botendaddy (talk) 03:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

skyline image

File:Pgh17.jpg

old skyline image

I've removed this image from the infobox and nominated it for deletion because it appears to be copyrighted, and was stolen from the website gocarlo.com by Conk 9. I can't find any evidence that "Conk 9" is the owner of the gocarlo.com website, but his talk page indicates that he's "claimed" several images as his own work, which could have more copyright issues involved. Either way, the pgh17.jpg image also has the "Go Carlo" watermark still embedded in the lower-right corner, which is also indicative of image copyright issues.

Too bad, because the image is very nice. It's going to be hard to replace. Any thoughts? Dr. Cash (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The photo problem has been solved, and a new image has been uploaded that is licensed under CC and GFDL. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent shot, Dr. Cash.- It doesn't stick. (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

German immigrants 1847

FYI: de:Pferdsbach. --ST ○ 15:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced, poorly-worded, and horribly 'trivial' information removed

The following paragraph was removed from the 'government and politics' section. It is not sourced, and seems to be bordering on POV, and not to mention rather trivial. Lots of cities have budget shortfalls and financial challenges. Why is Pittsburgh's situation any different than anyone else?

Like many American cities, Pittsburgh has recently faced financial challenges and budget shortfalls. Although the cause of the city's budget shortfall is debated, many cite the success of the medical and academic sectors, since the nonprofits are tax-exempt. Despite the budget crisis, the city has continued to grow, as evidenced by the recent addition of the American Eagle Outfitters corporate headquarters, renovation of the former Lazarus-Macy's department store into high-end retail, office, and condo space, and multiple mixed-use towers under construction downtown. As further evidence of recovery from these fiscal problems, Pittsburgh had a $15 million surplus in 2005.

Media

I've reverted recent changes by an anonymous editor to completely destroy the media section in favor of a section with multiple second-level headings, very short text, little prose, and multiple tables. Such lists are acceptable for daughter articles, such as Media in Pittsburgh or List of films and television shows shot in Pittsburgh, but this article should focus on the prose; it will NEVER achieve either WP:GA or WP:FA status if all we have is a collection of lists and tables. Remember, we're writing an encyclopedia here, not assembling a collection of lists. It might help other editors to review some of the guidelines on US city articles, here. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

education

The daughter article on Education in Pittsburgh was eliminated because it doesn't make sense at this time and is far too short to be of use. We need to focus on improving the prose of this article, splitting out separate articles only when necessary. A separate article also increases the possibility of a POV fork at some point (although, in this case, the text was almost identical anyways). Plus, there have been less than 20 edits to the education article in the two years or so since it was created, so I think it's seriously premature. If content grows at some point, then it can be re-added. Also, having two separate lines at the top of a section, one for a main link and another for a see also link, violates the manual of style, and is bad form. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to specify what is "weasely language; edits took out a lot of specificity and added more unnecessary 'popular colloqualisms"? All edits I made are backed up by cited references and improved the description of the actual "character" of the institution. 1. "Pitt" is much more than a colloquialism, and referred to throughout the article without previous proper definition as the alternative name of the University of Pittsburgh. It is necessary to have somewhere in the overall article if it is not mentioned in the education section. It is also worth noting the founding date since Pitt is the oldest school in Western PA, and has been a part of the Pittsburgh community since the inception of the city. 2) A defining characteristic of Pitt is the massive research programs undertaken at the school. This research has a critical economic impact on the region and demands some mention. The other major defining characteristic is the focus on biomedical and health sciences, of which the schools of medicine, dental, nursing, rehab, public health and pharmacy are all nationally ranked (US News) and near the top of their fields in research expenditures and output (collectively #6 in total NIH funding with ~$450 million in NIH funding alone). The massively influence of the Pitt-affiliated medical center (UPMC), along with these schools and research programs, more than warrants the brief mentions that I incorporated for the "research" and "biomedical and health sciences". In fact, it would be derelict not to include their mention or not to indicate the research component of the University. 3) The highlighted programs were inappropriate considering their place on the national level. E.g., you cannot single out Asian studies over European or Latin American studies. It is more accurate to generalize the emphasis on international studies as a whole. In addition, information science at Pitt is more notable on a national level than Pitt's engineering, business or law, but all of those programs are notable regionally. I did not remove those mentions as I did not originally write this entry for the article. I only added ones that better reflected the actual "character" of the institution. Your reversion of the edit seem to indicate you either have some bias or lack familiarity with the institution. Seriously, WP:CON. If you want to take each line piece by piece and discuss it, I'm game.CrazyPaco (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Your original edits, I found to be poorly phrased, sub-par, and poorly thought out. It looked like you were just quickly adding crap to the article instead of actually thinking something through, which is why I reverted it. These new edits are fine, with some minor exceptions, which I have taken care of -- most notable is that Pitt is ranked 57th nationally in the 2008 US news & world report, not 20th, and that's what the citation indicates. Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting, because the new edits (re: Pitt) are exactly the same as the ones you originally reverted. BTW, it is not bad form to place footnote citations mid-sentence. See WP:ref tags. This is a stylistic preference that doesn't matter much to me, but personally I think it is more convenient for an individual that may be interested in more information on a specific point in a list, as opposed to having to dig through the footnotes manually. But, having them all at the end is appropriate as well. Also, the #57 ranking is overall university ranking, not public university ranking as I had listed. Doesn't much matter to me which is employed, but the text must be consistent with the ranking selected to be listed. I prefer "public" because it helps define how the university is generally categorized by nationally publications (as opposed to the actual state-related private/public hybrid that is its real classification), but I really don't care that much. If I was going for straight homerism, I would have used rankings like the Center for Measuring University Performance or one of the world rankings. That said, I'm reverting it to the #20 public university and changing the reference accordingly, which for US News direct source, requires a subscription to see [1], and since I don't own the actual magazine with the page number available, I will have to use an alternative source because you disliked the original one that conveys the exact same info but would assume that one knows the public/private categories. If you feel strongly about that and wish to revert, please remember to remove "public" from the description of the ranking. CrazyPaco (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, whatever. The changes (overall) were not the same, and seemed to me to be more POV-oriented. But I was looking overall and not just so much at the Pitt stuff. Anyway, I see how the rankings are now -- both 59 and 20 are technically correct depending on which metric you use, so that's fine. I still think that these US News rankings are pretty much ridiculous anyways, but many people seem to think it's like the bible or something?! I almost wish that wikipedia would seriously de-emphasize these things when writing information about colleges and universities. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you on the US News thing. I wasn't the one to insert the US News rankings originally, so I don't feel justified removing them because they are a metric readers are probably most familiar with, so I left it in and changed it to the public categorization for reasons noted above. Honestly, thanks for your help. I think the section, and article, is reading a lot better thanks to your edits.CrazyPaco (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Writing

Nice entry but who is Brian Celio? no books on amazon of barnes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.40.167.2 (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Brian Celio may or may not appear to be a writer of significance. But why is he here? He was born. Has he won any awards? Probably. Are there any widely-respected critics lauding his work? I would think so. Why is the website where his book can be bought listed here? Is it really? Is this perhaps just an advertisement? We can only hope so. 71.236.71.40 (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I did research too. I found out that Exile Publishing is in fact a bona fide publisher (it has a registered publishing code, which the validity can't be argued). However, I also found out that Brian Celio eats babies and has a television with a remote control. Furthermore, the fact that there's numerous sites debating over who he is and how "significant" he is as a writer says something. He's obviously a newer writer who has built up some hype (and haters) and he is using pods like you all to further advance his name and book. Funny thing is, I asked several people in Pittsburgh if they knew Celio and Kuzneski. Not one person heard of Kuzneski but a few knew Celio and said they had read him, namely in local editorials, but not the novel listed. So obviously internet research shouldn't serve as the ultimate authority for what's really going on here. I call for a temporary stop of this madness before he eats your children. 72.220.189.41 (talk) 08:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As someone who bought the e-book version of Catapult Soul, as well as being a native Pittsburgher, I might be a bit bias when I say that he definitely deserves to be listed ONCE the book is actually published. My understanding is that he put the e-book version on his website as a way of letting people who already know him get to read it early, and of course to build anticipation for the actual release. Then he took it down once it headed into print. I was introduced to it by a mutual friend. So again, I might be a bit bias here. But my question is, what if he does in fact become a "writer of significance"? Will all the doubt about him be put to rest? Will those who have torn him apart without knowing who he is be banned from writing disparaging comments in wikipedia? It just doesn't make sense to me why one person is allowed to jump to conclusions that he is a self-promoting nobody, but those who think he is a legit up-and-coming writer aren't allowed to express their thoughts. And yes, Exile Publishing is a real publisher. I don't know why the references say San Diego but it is a small independent publisher in Pittsburgh that rents a space in a warehouse in the South Side neighborhood. Celio has stated to his readership through emails and on the website that Exile Publish is new and not completely established and that there are inventory issues that need to be worked out. But does that mean he needs to sign with Random House to garnish respect or can't he just be respected and admired for keeping it indie? Take a look at the beginnings of the majority of post-modern writers who were in the same boat. Again, I think this is a matter of people who judge success and worthiness according to the names attached to things, instead of the substance behind them. Gotchabad (talk) 08:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not trying to break any of the wikirules but let me clear this entire matter up. Nobody's references or opinions or research is right. Botendaddy was partially right in saying that there doesn't seem to be any independent cites for Brian Celio, so I agree, why list Brian Celio and his work as "encylopaedic"? But the real situation here is that Brian Celio might not even exist. I know heresay isn't the proper evidence for wikipedia but in this context it's a temporary solution for all this confusion. The heresay comes from forums, which I'm not allowed to cite because of the outside source rule, and from word-of-mouth which I can't elaborate on because of the same rule. However, I can say that the general rumor is that Brian Celio is actually a well-established author who is writing under that pseudonym and the biggest kicker is that Exile Publishing is also the guise of a well-established publisher. And all this for what? To start up the controversy we are slowling getting caught up in. Anyway, I went to "his" website and read everything on it. The sample chapters are indead well-written and it wouldn't surprise me if it was by the hand of a bigshot author, especially a post-modern author who would think it's clever and original to do such a thing. So yes, as of now, I think Brian Celio and Exile Publishing is just one big hoax. But we shall find out soon enough whenever the book is released. At that time, we'll have more information to make a final decision on what to do here for the sake of peace and rightness in the wikicommunity. So before anything else is said about "Brian Celio" we need to find out if 1) the book actually gets published and not just self-published/self-promoted, 2) if the book comes out, will we learn that Brian Celio is actually someone else (if so, that's how it should be listed on wikipedia), or 3) if Brian Celio is simply Brian Celio and a self-promoter then we will have to wait and see if he has any impact on the literary world. If he does, then he will have earned his place in wikipedia, but his articles would need to be written by those who haven't already displayed any favoritism, skepticism, or hatred for him, which means everybody on this talkpage is already disqualified because of the neutrality rule. The end. InstantMountain (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yinz vs. Yunz

In the Dialect section, the article speaks of locals as "Yinzers" and refers to the name coming from the word "Yunz". Yinz vs. Yunz seems to be preferred primarily based upon which neighborhood you grew up in. Let's avoid a heated argument about which is "correct" by citing one as a variant of the other.--- It doesn't stick. (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"Yinz": 99,100 Google Hits. "Yunz": 32,400 Google Hits. Not the most comprehensive or scientific method, but it should start us off. Ever wonder why you are called a Yinzer rather than a Yunzer? The word really does change from neighborhood to neighborhood, but Yinz appears to be more prominent.--- It doesn't stick. (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yunz?

Actually, the term is a contraction of "you ones" and might be better spelled "you'nes"(similar to y'all). Pluralizing the pronoun is easier in Philly, where they just say "yous." --NameThatWorks (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"Youns" is considered proper in the local dialect. It is plural only. "Yins" is considered substandard. To be called a "yinser" is a disparaging remark. "She sure was a nice girl, but she was a yinser".

It's also possible that youns is a contraction of "You" and the Germanic plural "ens." The isogloss for "youns" extends Eastward to near The Pa Dutch region. Y'all is a Southern equivalent. The isogloss for "y'all" runs through southern Pa near Uniontown.

Census 2000: Demographics: Race

An unsigned editor changed the racial makeup of Pittsburgh as cited in the Census 2000, but did not change any references (i.e., he changed the numbers listed, but still credited it to the 2000 Census. I've checked online and the numbers as given originally do accurately reflect the census (see http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US4261000&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_QTP5&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U ) If the editor has updated numbers from somewhere else, it seems to me they could be inserted, but the reference would have to be changed as well.--- It doesn't stick. (talk) 19:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Introduction section

I just created a new Wikipedia account, and as of this morning I've went through and revised the main introduction section of the Pittsburgh entry. The old one had some ambiguous language and some irrelevant information such as the fact that Pittsburgh has shrunk from 671,000 people. That seems to be a point of view statement as most American cities lost population after WWII as the nation suburbanized.

Also, I added some economic data with proper links to back the information up. Pittsburgh has been one of the few cities to actually grow jobs during this national jobs recession, and I believe the story of the collapse of steel industry and Pittsburgh's economic resurrection is a story key to its history and key to any article written about the city.

Hopefully the cleaner, more relevant opening will be well received by those who frequent Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bj82 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Government and Politics

I don't think it's fair to say "President Roosevelt whose New Deal began the recovery from the Great Depression". It's very hard to say the New Deal brought the United States out of economic depression when GDP growth did not completely resume until World War II. It should be rephrased to say the New Deal created new jobs or provided more government social welfare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwenger (talk • contribs) 01:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

merge Climate of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania into this article

If you look at the daughter article's history, there are less than 50 edits over there. Furthermore, the content of said article is virtually identical to this one, save for an image that isn't really of Pittsburgh anyway (a suburb). There really isn't a reason for a separate article on the climate of Pittsburgh, and if you look at the examples set by other major US cities, there isn't separate climate articles (just subsections in geography). Dr. Cash (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

After almost two weeks and no objections to this proposed merger, I am doing it now. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Temperature and Precipitation sections

The numbers in the "Temperature" section disagree with the numbers in the table above it. I propose to just remove the "Temperature" and "Precipitation" sections entirely, since they only restate in paragraph form the information that is already available in the much easier to read chart above. Sbs9 (talk) 09:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Koppen Climate Classification

I have provided an article from a peer-reviewed, refereed journal which has Pgh in the Dfa classification. This also agrees with every less-reliable source I found on the internet, and agrees with the earlier versions of this page. If you are going to change it, you need to provide some evidence other than "because I'm right." Preferably, more than one article from peer-reviewed, refereed journals. Sbs9 (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

On a very quick search, I find several references from German universities, though I can't speak for the journals mentioned (Meteorol Z. [2]and Klimastatusbericht [3]) and in either case they have the same data. (And this is cited by others, for example, the U. California at Berkley: [4]) My gut would be to consider this data valid since the journals are peer reviewed and they have been picked up by other academic sources. Not quite a smoking gun, but perhaps there is no such thing.

Unfortunately, though I have access to one of the finest research libraries in the world (Harvard), I can't seem to find either of those two journals above in their catalog for me to pull and verify that the articles say what the web sites represent they say. Perhaps those names are abbreviations for other names that I could find and if anyone can help, I'd appreciate it.

My gut says that Wikipedia and we should stay out of this. Let's rewrite the section to indicate that Pittsburgh is at best on a climatological boundary between two zones and that there is not scholarly consensus on which zone the city is in. JRP (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

temperature conversion

Um....7F is -14C not 4C. See here Image:Thermometer.jpg. 4C would be 36F. _{El Greco}^(talk) 22:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

But if you read the text, it is talking about a difference of 7 degrees F (which is a difference of 4 degrees C) not an absolute temp of 7 degrees. Mfield (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

table of suburbs?

The table that was recently placed in the article showing the locations of suburban areas in relation to downtown Pittsburgh seems somewhat flawed. Pittsburgh Int'l Airport should not be placed due west, as it is quite far from the city center. Also, McKees Rocks is placed north and west, and grouped with Sewickley, a town that it is moderately far from. McKees Rocks is due west of the city and should be placed in the table where the airport is, along with the name of another nearby suburb, such as Kennedy or Robinson. A suburb such as Emsworth or Ben Avon should replace where McKees Rocks is, next to Sewickley. 216.141.212.131 (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the suburbs table. It's horribly unaesthetic, incorrect and misleading, and doesn't add anything to the article. Wikipedia articles should not consist of a collection of tables and templates. There are significantly better ways of illustrating and discussing Pittsburgh's suburbs than slapping a table in here and calling it "done". Dr. Cash (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What presentation of Pittsburgh's suburbs would you consider acceptable, Doctor? What were the specific errors and misrepresentations in that table? If you can enumerate them, I'd be happy to fix them, as I think the list helps the linking of the article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

How about just discussing it in, oh, I'm going out on a limb here,... prose? Dr. Cash (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am discussing it in prose. You're discussing it in sarcasm. I'd love to have the list, but if you can't clearly express why you didn't like it, how can it be improved? -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Without any constructive or actionable feedback about it, I've replaced the suburbs table--though I relocated it to the bottom of the article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Table removed, again. Sigh. The table is redundant and serves no purpose other than wasting server resources by pulling yet another template enladen with more variables for processing. No wonder wikipedia articles take like ***forever*** to load.

The other problem with this stupid thing is that it's just plain not accurate. It singles out some suburbs while not including others, and it doesn't really reflect the true direction, instead horribly simplifying it to standard compass points. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a cute little nav box, but not too useful, especially at the bottom of the page. If people want to navigate from suburb to suburb, there's always the Pittsburgh metropolitan area article.--Loodog (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Requested move

There is currently a proposal on the table to amend the Wikipedia naming conventions for US cities to follow the AP Stylebook's suggested names. This would effectively move a number of US city articles currently on the list, so Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania would be moved to Pittsburgh. To comment on this discussion, please go here. --Serge (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Individual move proposal

Separate from the above referenced discussion, I propose moving Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to Pittsburgh. Unlike many of the other cities in the current mass discussion, Pittsburgh has no disambiguation page of article with "Pittsburgh" because the city has a unique spelling. The disambiguation page Pittsburg is a completely different word, and therefore not only does Pittsburgh most commonly refer to the city, it always refers to the city. Grsz^Review! 21:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Since "Pittsburgh" already redirects here, you have an identical argument to conduct as those taking place right now at Boston, Los Angeles, and that has already passed successfully at New Orleans.--Loodog (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

My argument here is that unlike those, there are no other Pittsburgh's. Grsz^Review! 21:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Erm, let's hold off on this for now and see what happens with the "mass move" discussion, which would effectively make an individual move proposal for Pittsburgh moot. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

And that isn't going to well. The Opposes are coming up with any reason to hold it off. Grsz^Review! 04:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Climate

Please discuss here and reach consensus on the the current edit war over the correct climate and Koppen zone. This constant reverting has to stop now. Mfield (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Link to previous discussion on issue

According to The Weather Channel's data, all twelve months in Pittsburgh average above -3°C (January averages -2°C). By definition of a humid subtropical climate, according to the Koppen Climate Classification's page, it has to have twelve months with average temperatures of at least -3°C, and although Pittsburgh barely meets the criteria, it is still humid subtropical. Sbrown146 (talk) 03:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

We go with what reliable sources say, and the NationMaster source says otherwise. What you're doing is original synthesis – taking two pieces of information and linking them together to make an assumption: A+B=C. Wikipedia needs something that flat out says C is C, which NationMaster does. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 04:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence as to how NationMaster arrived at that conclusion. They obviously didn't calculate the climate properly, because I have seen multiple sources that say Pittsburgh's mean temperature for January is above -3°C, and none that say it is below. And again, according to Wikipedia's Köppen Classification article, a humid subtropical climate has all twelve months averaging above -3°C. That is the best way to determine a climate. The Köppen system lays out a clear set of criteria for determining climate, and there is nothing wrong with using that information, along with a reliable source like The Weather Channel, to calculate climate. Sbrown146 (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter! It's a reliable source that says humid continental. There is something wrong with calculating information on your own - it's called original research. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 17:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Other sources: [5], [6]. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 18:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine, then, I have a map from a reliable source [7] that says Pittsburgh is humid subtropical. And anyway, it is not original research, because anyone can use the criteria stated on the Koppen page to calculate Pittsburgh's climate, not just me. It's not like I went through a long complicated process to arrive at this conclusion. It's simple. Sbrown146 (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Taking a look at Boston, which is a featured article, it reads: "Boston has what may basically be described as something between a humid continental climate and a humid subtropical climate, such as is very common in New England. Summers are typically warm and humid, while winters are cold, windy and snowy."

Therefore I'd propose: Pittsburgh's climate can be described as between a humid continental climate and a humid subtropical climate, with warm, humid summers and cold, windy and snowy winters." Grsz^{11 →Review!} 18:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

According to Boston's data from the weather channel, it too would be humid subtropical. I do realize, however, that both Pittsburgh and Boston are extremely close to the -3°C isotherm, so they are both borderline. If we could phrase Pittsburgh's climate section something like Boston's, that would work for me too. Sbrown146 (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me for jumping in here, but NationMaster is a Wikipedia mirror; you cannot use it as a citation. Horologium (talk) 23:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Pittsburgh, Boston, and NYC should be described as humid subtropical, but I wouldn't want someone to think that they're hardcore subtropical. Press olive, win oil (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, you can't cite a Wikipedia mirror, and it might be better so say something like, "According to the Köppen Climate Classification, Pittsburgh has a humid subtropical climate, although its cold winters make it very close to being a humid continental climate." Sbrown146 (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC) So if we're all in agreement it's cfa, why don't we change it already? Press olive, win oil (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If NationMaster cannot be used as a citation, then Weather Channel shouldn't be able to be used either. Outside of its headquarters in Atlanta, The Weather Channel does not do any of its own meteorology or studies, it simply compiles data from many other sources and puts it in one spot, just like Wikipedia. (Jrw91284 (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC))

No, that is not correct. The Weather Channel cites their sources (all data are from the NOAA or one of its subsidiary agencies), and is a reliable source. Wikipedia (and its mirrors) are not considered reliable sources, because they are open wikis which can be edited by anyone. Wikipedia:Verifiability specifically states:

“ Articles and posts on Wikipedia, or other websites that mirror Wikipedia content, may not be used as sources. ”

If you feel that The Weather Channel should not be allowed as an acceptable source, feel free to take it up at Wikipedia's Reliable sources noticeboard. The data from TWC are available (in less convenient form) at most National Weather Service field offices. Horologium (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll not interfere in the debate any further, but as has been said already, the current source, NationMaster, is definitely unacceptable, as it is a Wikipedia mirror. We are using our own article as evidence (source) for itself... If you can't agree on what to use, then please remove the Nationmaster ref and add a "citation needed" tag instead. Fram (talk) 10:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

My mistake on NationMaster, I just took a quick look. Woops. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 14:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for discussing this correctly and ceasing the pointless reversion war. Mfield (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No, thank you, Mfield. You reverted an edit that could have started the same edit war. It would be easier to argue Pittsburgh being dfa if the Orlando comparison wasn't in there. I didn't spot that. Press olive, win oil (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

pittsburgh does not meet the requierments of -3 but how then can we include other cities like cincinatti, cleveland, chicago, indianapolis, new york, boston, columbus, and many others that are included in the (Dfa) classification--Dzd (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC) previous unsigned comment added by User:Dzd, 21:42, 5 December 2008

I don't think that the source you are using[8] is a reliable source for climate information. Mfield (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've looked on The Weather Channel's website, and Pittsburgh DOES NOT meet the requirements for humid continental (using the -3), and neither does Boston, Cincinnatti, Columbus, or New York City. Indianapolis and Cleveland are precisely borderline. Chicago is decisively humid continental. sbrown146 (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

ok then the koppen scale is incorrect because if you look on the koppen climate scale map the map pretty decicivly shows cleveland, indianapolis, boston, columbus, new york, and pittsburgh in the humid continental climate area and could you please explain to me your definition of "boarderline" --Dzd (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, using the definitions of the Koppen scale is far more accurate than using the map which was created by a completely different source. The map on the Koppen page, as agreed upon by many, is in many respects inaccurate. The true border between humid continental and humid subtropical should be further north than that map shows. And by borderline, I mean that the city's coldest month averages exactly -3, which is the borderline between the city having a humid continental and humid subtropical. sbrown146 (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

well then someone should go and change the climate section in the cities of cleveland, indianapolis, and boston which i may add is a featured article--Dzd (talk) 02:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes they should. sbrown146 (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

do any of you people actually live in pittsburgh becauese i do and it helps.--Dzd (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

ok i just realized something, i checked the weather channel too, and how is chicago humid continental when the coldest month there january is 0 degrees celcius or 32 degrees farenheight no one answered me do any of you actually live in pittsburgh.--Dzd (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

What does whether anyone lives in Pittsburgh have to do with their ability to discuss this matter? The primary criteria is reliable sources for the weather data not personal experience of it. Mfield (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

really nothing but i just figured it would help in you had some personal expereance in the climate you were tyring to discribe. because here it shore does feel like humid continental, it hasnt been above freezing in almost a week tommarows high here is 23 with yes more snow on top of the 2 inches allwready on the ground--Dzd (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you were looking at the average high for Jan, not the mean temperature. Check the Weather Channel again and make sure you see the mean for January. I'm seeing -4°C. sbrown146 (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

mfield i was just wondering have you ever gotten the chance to see snow

wtf? Maybe you should check who took the Pittsburgh panorama in this article. Maybe I have seen snow one time in one of the 6 countries have lived in, or one of the over 30 countries and 49 states I have travelled extensively in. Mfield (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

ok im sorry i made a mistake i was refering to the average high of chicago. i would be fine if we could say borderline between humad continental and human subtropical, and maybe if we could compare pittsburgh to eather boston or cleveland i would be fine with that--Dzd (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

yes finally ive found it a reliable source that has pittsburghs average january high at 35 and low at 19. that would be wpxi one of the news stations here in pittsburgh, and they have some of the best meteorologist in pittsburgh here is the site [9]--Dzd (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Folks, it is a BIG stretch to classify Pitt as exclusively humid subtropical.

Coldest Month Boston (January) Average High - 36 Low - 22 Cleveland (January) Average High - 34 Low - 19 Pittsburgh (January) Average High - 37 Low - 20

Yet according to wikipedia, Boston has a cross between humid continental and humid subtropical, Cleveland has a humid continental and Pitt is in the humid subtropical zone. It's stuff like this that causes some people to not really take wiki that seriously.

There are quite a few American scientists that define a humid subtropical climate with an average temp as never falling below freezing. I propose we should just say that Pitt has "what may basically be described as something between a humid continental climate and a humid subtropical climate", just as it is written in the Boston article.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.241.185 (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC) 

Twin Cities

Isn't Pittsburgh supposed to be twinned with Charleroi in Belgium? Boothferry (talk) 10:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

world city status

i think think it should be mentioned that pittsburgh is a world city because of its economic and cultural influance on the world. pittsburgh is home to 6 fortune 500 componies tied for 7th most in the nation. pittsburgh is home to some world renound museums including the largest complete dinosaur collection in the world in carnegi museum of natural history.--Dzd (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

While Pittsburgh is highly regarded in many circles, it would not be appropriate to call it a World city without a reliable source describing it as such. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

pittsburgh is considered to be a "world city" by carnegi mellon university at [cmu.edu]--Dzd (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

First, you'd need a more specific link than that; second, CMU's notion of global city should be in line with this article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

pittsburgh meets all of the criteria to be called a global city except for a core population of 1,000,000 people but the metro area has 2,400,000 people.--Dzd (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You'll need more than that, including a source. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

source [10]--Dzd (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No where in there does it say "world city", and even if it did, Carnegie Mellon is not the standard used in World city.--Loodog (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

im sorry wrong wording if you must i meant "global city" and please if you will provide for me your "standard--Dzd (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Read the article.--Loodog (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

i did and pittsburgh almost perfectly fits in the criteria--Dzd (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It may fit many of the criteria, but describing it as one in the article without a reliable source referring to it as one would be original research. Mfield (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Etymology edited

I removed the following text from the "Etymology" section: The effort to remove the "h" from Pittsburgh was based on a national, even federal, movement to purge all German names from the country leading into World War One. Actual legslation at the federal level removed the "h", but it was restored after a few years due to a public campaign.

This is lacking citation and dubious as an explanation for the removal of the "h". De-germanizing the spelling would restore rather than eliminate the final "h". The real cause for the name change seems to be that the US Board on Geographic Names eliminated final "h"s on all place names ending in "burgh" in the US in 1890, but Pittsburgh's citizens preferred the old spelling and reverted to it eventually. Krazychris81 (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it is totally false, burg is German (Hamburg Duisburg Augsburg), burgh is British (Edinburgh Aldeburgh Jedburgh) 84.184.247.195 (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Holy Sites

Some spiritual Indian-American gurus have labeled Pittsburgh, "The Holy City of the West" Just as a dip in the confluence of three rivers--Ganges, Yamuna and Saraswat--in India is known to take away all your sins, a dip in Pittsburgh's confluence--the meeting point of the Allegheny, the Ohio, and the Manogahela Rivers--is known to take away all your sins by a growing number within the Indian-American community. This belief, though not yet widespread, represents an amalgamation of Indian Spirituality and Religiosity and Western New Agism belief structures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tru12345 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is the elevation listed as 1,223 ft.?

I'm curious as to why this number is chosen. Does Wikipedia have a policy that a city's listed elevation is always its highest point(if indeed 1,223 ft. is the highest elevation in the city proper)? I know Rand McNally and possibly other mapmakers will usually list a city with the elevation of its center of government, which in the case of Pittsburgh would be much lower given the location of the City-County Building in the Golden Triangle. Krazychris81 (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

About.com has the elevation at 1,223 ft. Not sure exactly where in the city that is; or maybe that's an average elevation. Wunderground.com has the elevation of Pittsburgh at 960 ft, which is apparently the elevation at their weather station in Forest Hills. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Art in Pittsburgh

Interested editors may want to check out the ongoing (February) event coorganized by Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art/Carnegie Museum of Art rules. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Fallout 3 Downloaded Content Package

I added in a revision to include this in the media/pop culture section [11], but it seems it has been reverted due to "uncited trivia". Since I'm not sure the proper way to cite things on here, I was wondering if someone can re-add in the bit about the DLC with the following citations. MTV Multiplayer 1UP Overview Page G4TV Thanks! RogueA (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)