Talk:Rochester, New York/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Why was this page moved?

Why was this page moved? Is there another Rochester, New York? --mav 08:23, 24 December 2002 (UTC)

Rochester is also a place in Rochester, Ulster County, New York

(from the bottom of the article)

hth, -Martin 10:04, 24 December 2002 (UTC)

No comments

surprised to see that there haven't been any comments on this fine article. I was wondering who the principal author was?

user:dinopup

Archiver's note: there weren't any comments at the talk page when that message was written, because the old talk page (with the section above this one) had not been moved along with the article. The old talk page had also been blanked in 2003. Graham87 11:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to all the Rochester, New York fans for making this article so big, but now it may be time to put some material into some sub-articles.

Typo in transaction amount of $333,333,33.

The Robert Morris 1791 transaction amount of $333,333,33 must be a typo. Does adding one more '3' fix it? Or should the last comma be a decimal point? I don't know, perhaps the author has a primary source. user:lbukys

Just moved history section into a new page: History of Rochester, New York.

-Mattlary 04:52, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

ferry

could someone in-the-know write about the toronto-ferry? Kingturtle 08:44, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You mean the Breeze? The Rochester-Toronto ferry? There was an article in the travel section of the New York Times about the service. I could supply some details. -- Geo Swan 16:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there already is an article on the ferry. I got the name wrong. Apparently, the registered name is the Spirit of Ontario I -- Geo Swan 19:12, 7 January 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)

Actually there is a reason to remove the article on Midtown, since it's not going to be there anymore (in case you don't know, they're ripping it down to make room for Paetec Tower). However, I agree with the notion of an article specifically for Rochester area shopping centers, as there are several large ones scattered about Greater Rochester. Shame about Midtown being torn though, cool place it was...-EastOfWest —Preceding undated comment added 20:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC).

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)

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), 22:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC).

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)

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)

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: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)

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)

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)

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)

Image copyright problem with File:PrefSymbol-Shizuoka.png

The image File:PrefSymbol-Shizuoka.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Waterfordcrest.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no fair-use justification for its inclusion here. I will remove it. Powers ^T 14:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll remove Waterford too. Silly bot, could have mentioned them both at once. Powers ^T 13:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Cultural Trivia

I haven't play pick-up basketball in a couple of years. In Rochester, we used to play "21". This is a game in which every player plays for themselves up to 21, with free throws until you miss, and wrap-around at 20 if you get a 2-pointer. In Rome, NY, this game is called 'Chester, or previously Rochester. Card games seem to vary in popularity by region. I think Euchre, including clubs and tournaments, might be particularly popular in Rochester. -- RLV 151.190.254.108 (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the purpose of Wikipedia?

[Deleted by author.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejwinner (talk • contribs) 05:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" may help answer your question. --JBC3 (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

[Deleted by author.]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejwinner (talk • contribs) 07:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, Skippy, your little essay was just that -- an essay. If you want to re-write it in a neutral tone with actual references, go right ahead. But the content as you added it is completely unacceptable, no matter how true or false the facts within may be. Powers ^T 13:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

[Deleted by author.] EJW

Well the first sentence is wrong. The 208K figure is the 2006 CITY estimate. The metro area hovers above a million (2008 estimate = 1,034k). I don't know what the purpose of the 3rd party population figure is? ccwaters (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

EJW:If you feel like the article is lacking a neutral viewpoint, feel free to contribute cited, verifiable, reliable information by entering it into the article, not by writing an essay on your viewpoing and then tacking it onto the end of the article. That said, since the information you would disperse throughout the article will likely be like your essay, we ought to straighten that out first. --JBC3 (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

[Deleted by author.] EJW

Yeah, Rochester is just like any northeast city, people are slowly moving away. That wasn't the question: where does this best places link gets it data. Your first paragraph is focused around proving some white flight based off of its racial estimates, yet the census bureau's data shows it white % at 48.3 (census 2000) and holding at 47.8 (2005-07 estimate). ccwaters (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok... so the second paragraph, whats with "assuming the company does what it claimes<sic> to be doing", and using a 13 yearold headline from a defunct newspaper to propose that the area's media is in bed with kodak (quite honestly, I lived in the area at the time, and I didn't know that paper existed. I has initially confused as to why an Albany paper was mentioned). The quote from a lay-offed worker isn't achieving anything encyclopedic either. I haven't spent the time to analyze the school paragraph, don't know much about the city district. How long are we going to string this along? ccwaters (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Until ejw gets tired of it, apparently. The list of problems with this section he added is so long I scarcely don't know where to begin. First and foremost, any encyclopedic information there is in there should be incorporated into the rest of the article, not tacked on in a separate section after the sister cities. Second, the section is written in an essay style, not encyclopedic style. Third, it relies on primary sources to advance a particular thesis statement. The first two are potentially repairable. The third is unlikely to be so. Powers ^T 20:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably don't want to incorporate any of that until it meets wikipedia guidelines. --JBC3 (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

[Deleted by author.] EJW —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejwinner (talk • contribs) 00:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That's because it's a loaded question, and we're not rising to your bait. Powers ^T 12:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as aspects I personally would improve in this article (minus your "update" section): I would probably remove the entire neighborhood section: its all unsourced and subjective. The paragraph in the lead listing random rankings probably could go too. Otherwise, all i see are data listed just like any other city article: this is the city's geography, this is the city's demographics, this is the city's major employers, these are the colleges in the area, etc, etc. ccwaters (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

From 3O

The very first sentence of Wikipedia's verifiability policy clearly states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Wikipedia is not a soapbox or venue for publishing original research: all content must be sourced to reliable sources. In addition to verifiability, neutrality of content is of paramount importance. A Wikipedia article is not a coat rack to go into tangential topics. The form and style of featured and good articles about cities are generally reliable precedents and indicators of consensus and these articles should guide the development of content on this article. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a third opinion, EJ. I'm deleting your essay. ccwaters (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted my own comments; after considerable thought, I realize that I did not approach any othis in the right spirit. I apologize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejwinner (talk • contribs)

Truth, fact, verifiability

[Deleted by author.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejwinner (talk • contribs) 01:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Drop the persecution complex. First of all, the most important thing about any reasonable encyclopedia -- Wikipedia or otherwise -- is that we don't just put every available fact in an article. You complain "References to verifiable fact have been deleted". Yep, because those facts were irrelevant to the context in which they were inserted. The fact that High Falls is owned by an outside investment group is irrelevant; the company is still headquartered in Rochester. The fact that Kodak has eliminated numerous area jobs is important, but not to the section in which you placed that fact. The numerous references to race and ethnicity that you continually added threatened to violate our undue weight guidelines.

Now, I will tell you this -- if you had decided to come here and collaborate with the rest of us, instead of ignoring our policies and guidelines and writing long passages of misplaced, unbalanced, opinionated essays, you would have gotten a much better reception. You should ask questions and look for guidance instead of jumping in and declaring your position correct and trying to push your agenda.

If you're willing to do the latter, we welcome your reasonable comments here. If all you want to do is complain about how close-minded we are, then we're better off without you.

-- Powers ^T 12:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am deleting my own comments here. After thinking long and hard on the matter, I agree that I did not approach any of these issues in the right spirit. I apologize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejwinner (talk • contribs)

-- I have asked "Ejwinner" to remove overly controversial content. If our user names appear to be similar, it is because he was using a name I use at other sites where controversy is relevant. He also misused information I shared with him for purposes to which I can't agree. I have asked him to cease posting here until he understands what Wikipedia is all about. Ewnnrj (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

PAETEC Tower/D & C link

An issue of the democrat and chronicle is referenced but when you click the link is says error on line 83 or something; so it is not adequate. The article cannot be seen. I wanted to use it for my PAETEC Tower article, because that's what it's supossed to be about. Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Seperate Neighborhood/Cityscape Section

I created the cityscape page about a year ago with the intention of simply giving a brief rundown on the Rochester layout, however, thanks to some great contributions from editors it's morphed into a collaboration of detailed neighborhood descriptions and a nice picture gallery. However, it seems a bit lengthy to fit into one article so I'm wondering if a seperate cityscape or "rochester neighborhoods" section would be a good idea.-EastOfWest —Preceding undated comment added 19:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC).

I think it would be great. I'm actually going to put together a separate page on the 19th ward one of these days.Maniacmagee (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Image gallery

With this edit, User:EastOfWest restored an image gallery I had deleted as unnecessary. We have a link to the Commons category for Rochester already in the article, which provides plenty of images if we're just going to dump a bunch of them in the reader's lap. Images arrayed throughout the article and floating to the sides is what we should be doing; a huge box of sixteen images breaks up the flow of the article and isn't all that useful to the reader. I recommend it be removed, possibly to be replaced with a smaller selection of images placed within the Cityscape section prose. Powers ^T 02:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Due to lack of discussion, I've removed the image gallery. Powers ^T 13:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

comment

agreed Evilarry (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

With what? Powers ^T 19:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirect from Rochester

Since Rochester, New York is the most notable (and largest population) Rochester in the world, shouldn't Rochester redirect to it? Or is there not enough of a notability distinction? --Dan Leveille^TALK 20:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not really enough. There are too many other possibilities for what someone searching for "Rochester" might want to read. Powers ^T 15:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No, its often confused with Rochester, Minnesota, home of the Mayo Clinic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccwaters (talk • contribs)

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)

Looking around at Wikipedia pages for other cities, having such a list of companies is extremely unusual. Clearly, companies like Kodak are important to Rochester's identity, and in cases like this, such companies are included in the "economy" section of the page (see Wells Fargo in the case of San Francisco, CA). I think this list is entirely out of place, and yes, it's a spam magnet. I'm going to try to write an economy section with some of the major companies integrated, and get rid of the rest. The Rochester page is not the place for them. Maniacmagee (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I can second that -Phil5329 (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The spam problem is not abating. As per WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOTADVERTISING, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline, a company qualifies to be on a US city page if it has contributed significantly to the city's history or economy (even if it's not notable enough to have its own page). This probably disqualifies almost all of the listed companies, but at least the ones under the heading "Many other large companies have a significant presence in Rochester." I'm deleting that subsection. I will be back for more. Maniacmagee (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The remaining companies are not necessarily appropriate simply because they have corporate headquarters in Rochester. They should be in the page if and only if they have contributed significantly to local history or economy. This should be reworked into more than a list. Maniacmagee (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Prospective Lead Photos

I figure here would be a fine place to submit two prospective images for the main photo that both have superior clarity, show more of rochester's skyline and frankly are just better pictures, you can see them to the right (they are the nighttime shots). Feedback is appreciated. EastOfWest (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

RochesterNightLine.jpg

RochesterNightLine.jpg

RochesterNightLine2.jpg

RochesterNightLine2.jpg

I see both have been deleted as copyright violations. Powers ^T 15:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that if you upload anymore images you found on the web, that you should include the full url for a source. Just saying you found them on flickr without being specific, provides no means to verify the license you claim them to have. An even better suggestion would be to provide images you've taken yourself, rather than grabbing other people's pics off of the web. ccwaters (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2010 (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)

Not just New York State. Cities are defined by their legal boundaries (City limits), even though they may exist as part of larger areas (metropolitan areas, or they may local areas of influence like extra-territorial jurisdictions (ETJs). I don't think this is specific to the US. You may use the term 'city' in a general sense, but when discussing it here, as is the case with other cities' wiki pages, we are referring to a specific political subdivision, i.e. the City of Rochester. I think you're confusing what you may see as the common vernacular, with the common usage of the word city in describing geographic areas. In wiki, the latter should be the default. This isn't a wiki page for the word city in general, it's a page for a specific political subdivision. I think ti would be great to have more info about the metro area (especially the outlying colleges, being a SUNY Geneseo alum:)). In the context of the US, in the context of NY, using city in describing a political boundary is inherently correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.238 (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2010 (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)

I am bringing this issue up again. We should split this article into a Rochester, New York article (for things only Rochester city specific) and a Greater Rochester Area article (that can include things not Rochester city specific). Kingturtle (talk) 11:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to discuss it if we can start addressing some of the issues I've mentioned above. Powers ^T 16:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Rochester, New York metropolitan area ccwaters (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Too broad, I think. Powers ^T 20:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Monroe County, New York??? 20:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Potentially, although Victor is often considered part of the "Rochester area". Certainly Eastview Mall is usually considered one of Rochester's big shopping meccas. Powers ^T 21:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been cleaning Rochester-area items out of the article and just saw this discussion. The problem with including Greater Rochester items in the Rochester article is that then the city of Rochester does not have its own article anymore. Victor and other nearby cities have their own articles, but the Rochester article ends up being the Greater Rochester article. --Beirne (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

A number of my changes removing suburban Rochester items were removed, and I just put them back. The explanation for the removal was that the suburban information is relevant to Rochester and that places like Wegmans and RIT would also need to be removed. Just because something affects Rochester does not mean that it belongs in the article. Knowing that residents of the city shop at outside of town is not much more meaningful than the fact that many take vacations in Florida. Also, the articles for Victor or other nearby cities do not list shopping centers and headquarters in other neighboring communities, and neither should the Rochester article. If you want information on Greater Rochester than create an article for it. Regarding other businesses like Wegmans, if I missed anything that isn't in Rochester it should be removed, too. I know almost nothing about Rochester, so I was hoping to learn about the city from the article, but if non-city stuff is mixed in I can't tell what is actually true regarding the city itself. --Beirne (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If you only read about what's within the city limits, you're not getting the whole picture. It's absolutely impossible to talk about the city of Rochester in encyclopedic detail without describing its surroundings. "Rochester," in common vernacular, refers to much more than just what's inside the city limits anyway. I've been over this all before but still no one has addressed the concerns I raised. Powers ^T 23:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can't talk about Rochester without talking about its surroundings, you can't talk about Victor or Ogden or Gates without mentioning all of these businesses either. And Rochester in the common vernacular refers to Greater Rochester, and this is an article about the city of Rochester. If the Rochester article is about the area, then every community in Monroe County gets its own article except for Rochester. --Beirne (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you can talk about Victor without mentioning businesses in Rochester, because it's a suburb. Suburbs are, by definition, subordinate to the primary city within a region. I'm not saying the article's topic should be "Monroe County"; I'm saying that a complete encyclopedic description of Rochester necessarily must mention important cultural, economic, and political factors that may not be located strictly within the city's limits. Your vision of an article that has no mention of things outside the city would be a great disservice to our readers. Powers ^T 01:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

By expanding the scope of the article beyond the Rochester city limits, it make is impossible to determine what is in the city of Rochester and what isn't. I happen to be one of those readers, and knowing almost nothing about Rochester I found the business parts of the article very confusing. There is an easy solution, and that is to make a Greater Rochester article, as was suggested long ago. An in spite of what was written near the beginning of the section, we need not fear the risk of the reader flipping back and forth. If someone is too lazy to click on a link for clear and accurate information they do not deserve to read the article. --Beirne (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not fond of a 'let-them-eat-cake' attitude toward our readers. This article should give readers the full picture of Rochester. Let me give you an example: the Rochester Raiders. They have "Rochester" in their name but they currently play in Henrietta. Reliable sources, though, count the Raiders among Rochester's six professional sports teams. Even if you disagree that they should be included, I doubt we could find reliable sources that hewed to that view by excluding the Raiders from the list of Rochester's professional sports teams. Many other things will have a similar problem. Powers ^T 12:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but including suburban Rochester gives the readers a lesser picture of Rochester, because it gives them a confusing view of the city of Rochester. Regarding sports teams, even I understand that the city's team may play outside of the city limits and leave those in the article. Similar exceptions apply for airports and TV/Radio stations. Just because these make sense to include in the Rochester article, though, does not justify adding corporate headquarters and shopping malls outside of the city. Residents of a city do lots of things outside of their city limits, and trying to include them all just makes the article muddled and bloated. --Beirne (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting including "them all", though that's a nice straw man. But why include sports teams and airports and radio stations outside the city limits and exclude shopping centers and corporations? Powers ^T 20:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I give in on teams, airports, and radio stations grudgingly, but they are driven by the main city and need to go somewhere. The Raiders wouldn't be in Henrietta if Rochester did not exist. That may or may not be true of shopping centers and corporations. The same is true of the big airport and many of the radio stations. That is not necessarily true of shopping centers and corporate headquarters. Some may be there because of Rochester, and some may not. In any case, that deals with the dynamics of the Rochester area as a whole, and not just the city. Would Constellation Brands be in Victor if there wasn't a Rochester? It's hard to say. Maybe Victor cut them a good deal. Just because something is near Rochester does not mean that is there because of Rochester, and including HQs and shopping centers outside the city makes the Rochester article much less useful for someone who actually wants to know about the city of Rochester. Making a Greater Rochester article would not be a problem, and that approach has been taken for a number of other cities: Cleveland, Denver, Cincinnati, etc. There is even already a greater Rochester article of sorts that would a great place for all this suburban information. Putting it in the Rochester article deprives the greater Rochester article of useful information, and once it is in the greater Rochester article it won't be needed in the article about the city. --Beirne (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Greater Rochester usually refers to the entire Rochester metropolitan area that consists of 5 area counties; sometimes the term even refers to those five plus five more to make a 10-county area. That's far too wide a scope for talking about things that are considered "Rochesterian". No one in Orleans County considers himself a Rochesterian, but plenty of people in Rochester's suburbs do. Powers ^T

It would at least be more accurate than trying to add things that aren't in Rochester to the article on the city of Rochester. --Beirne (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I just reviewed part of the article and read the section on the Rochester Institute of Technology. As an ignorant reader I would assume by reading that section that RIT is in the city of Rochester. I opened the article for RIT, though, and found that it is actually in Henrietta. Now, the start of the Colleges and Universities section does say "The city and its suburbs", but now as a reader I have to know to read the top of the section to know whether a college might or might not be in Rochester. This is another example of how including the metro region in the article makes it harder on the reader to get the facts about the city of Rochester. --Beirne (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Not if it's written well. A Rochester article that fails to mention RIT is, frankly absurd, and the same argument you applied to the sports teams can just as easily apply to RIT. Powers ^T 16:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

For one thing, it isn't written well. The article blurs what is in the city and what is in the suburbs. While the effort could be made to fix up the article to make it clear what is in Rochester and what isn't, this should really be done in the Greater Rochester article. Then readers won't have to wade through information that does not apply to the city. RIT is not in Rochester, it just has the word Rochester in the name. Maybe it used to be in Rochester(I don't know), but it isn't now. It therefore does not belong in an article about the city of Rochester. --Beirne (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Absurd. Reliable sources -- which is what we should be using -- will all discuss RIT in a Rochester context. The same goes for any number of things that you want to exclude from this article just because they aren't within the city limits. The impact of these things do not end at the city limits, and we simply cannot pretend that they do. Powers ^T 12:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Show me a reliable source that says RIT is in the city of Rochester. There isn't one, so it shouldn't be mentioned in the article. The way things stand today, there is an article about Victor and Henrietta and Gates but not one about Rochester. If we followed your logic, the articles for those three communities and many more should be contain all sorts of information about companies, shopping, and colleges in the city of Rochester. After all, since Rochester is so much bigger than each of those communities then it will have a bigger influence on them than they do on Rochester, and we do not want to trouble the reader with clicking on the Rochester link. --Beirne (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

We're talking past each other. I'm not suggesting that we say "RIT is in the city of Rochester", so why would I want to show you a source that says "RIT is in the city of Rochester"?? I can show you sources that consider RIT a "Rochester college": [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Books: here on page 167, here in the introduction; and Rochester Institute of Technology: Industrial Development and Educational Innovation in an American City says "The history of the Institute is closely connected with the history of Rochester." Even the RIT Prospectus speaks only of Rochester, not of Henrietta. It is a gross disservice to our readers to discuss Rochester without discussing major contributors to its culture, history, and economy. Powers ^T 13:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The sources are incorrect, as we both know. The sources are using the term Rochester casually because few people outside of the Rochester area have heard of Henrietta. Just because they say it is in Rochester does not mean that it is, though. It would be perfectly fine to include RIT as a part of Rochester history, since it was in the city until 1968, but since an encyclopedia is meant to deal in facts it is not proper to include it in discussion of the present-day city. --Beirne (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The sources are not "incorrect". It's a tautology to say "there are no sources that say x because any sources that say x are wrong." And, as I pointed out, the sources do not say RIT is in Rochester! They say RIT is a Rochester college. You continue to ignore that distinction because doing so supports your point, but it's a very valid distinction. The former is, as you say, a falsehood, but that's okay because it's not what the sources are claiming. And you're also ignoring my point that things outside of a particular geographic area can be very relevant, culturally, historically, and economically, to that geographic area, and any discussion of that area would be incomplete without discussing those influential elements. Powers ^T 14:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

But we know that RIT is not in the city of Rochester. Saying that RIT is a Rochester college without it meaning that the college is in Rochester is playing loose with the English language. They should say something like a "Rochester-area" college to be correct. I do understand that in college guides and promotional literature no one cares about the geographical distinction, including me, but an encyclopedia requires higher precision. If RIT has an effect on the city of Rochester, then say what it is. At this point the ties between RIT and the city of Rochester appear to be ones of history and linguistic convenience. It will also have an effect on Pittsford, Chili, Gates, and other communities in the greater Rochester area, so it should be mentioned in those, too. Since Brighton is between Henrietta and Rochester, it should include RIT for the same reason as you want it in the Rochester article. Lots of things effect each other, but you can't list every effect everywhere. --Beirne (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

But the point is that the sources -- the sources that we should be using to write this article -- all consider RIT to belong to Rochester (not within its geographic boundaries, but within its sphere of influence and within its conceptual boundaries). We cannot say "well that doesn't count" because we report what the sources say. Anything else is original research; it is not our place to say "RIT has no relevance to an article on Rochester." Powers ^T 17:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it is original research to take a known fact, that RIT is not in the city of Rochester, and decide it should be listed anyhow. Also, I didn't say "RIT has no relevance to an article on Rochester." I'm saying that the relevance it has does not fit into the article, because unlike the location of the campus, relevance is a lot harder to define. Aside from the word "Rochester", nothing so far shows the relevance of the institute to the city. For all I know the students mostly come from elsewhere and the staff lives in the suburbs. The institute gets referred to as being in Rochester because of the historical name and because its address is served by a post office named Rochester. Post offices do not necessarily conform to city limits, so all we can say is that there are historical ties and a post office with the name of the city. I have already made my suggestion for the historical ties, and post office names do not define the city. --Beirne (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand "original research", as that's exactly what you're engaging in when you say "The institute gets referred to as being in Rochester because of the historical name and because its address is served by a post office named Rochester." You don't know that. You can't just ignore what sources say because you feel they're wrong, or because you think they're saying "RIT is in Rochester". Powers ^T 13:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand original research fine. Tell me what the sources say that I'm ignoring. What I'm saying is that the sources do not tell us anything about the connection between RIT and Rochester. Trying to create one is original research. --Beirne (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

All those sources I put up indicate a connection between the two. They may not be explicit about what that connection is, but the point is that RIT is considered to be a "Rochester college", that is, a college associated with "Rochester" in some form or another. The number of sources that mention Rochester in conjunction with RIT far outnumber those that mention Henrietta. The point is not to say that RIT is "in" Rochester, but rather that its association with the city is strong and a major part of both entity's identities. Powers ^T 22:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

And as I said earlier, the connection could just be history and a post office, which is not enough to merit inclusion of the present-day institute. While I could be wrong and there are lots of other reasons, there is not evidence in the sources to assume stronger connections. --Beirne (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I don't have a problem with something on the lines of "The Rochester Institute of Technology was founded in Rochester but moved to Henrietta in 1968 when it outgrew its original campus", assuming what I wrote is correct and sourced. --Beirne (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Since the discussion stopped I went ahead and removed a lot of non-Rochester city content. I moved a couple of sections covering the greater Rochester area to the Rochester, New York metropolitan area article.

RIT not in Rochester?

Is RIT omitted from this article because this article is about Rochester and not about Rochester Metro area?

Doesn't seem to make sense to include a discussion of UR or MCC then either, since most of their campus area is outside of the city of Rochester as well, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.247.201.135 (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I took RIT out for that reason. I left MCC in because I understood there was a Rochester campus, although that could probably be clarified in the article. I understood that UR was in the city of Rochester, but if it isn't it should be pulled out. --Beirne (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

RIT was originally in the city of Rochester and moved (end of the 60ies, if I remember correctly) into the suburbs of Henrietta which still belongs to the Rochester metropolitan area. The MCC is located in Brighton, another suburb. The University of Rochester is located at the Genesee river south-west of downtown but, I think, still within the city of Rochester. Independent from this, I suggest to refer to all of them within this article as they are strongly connected to the city of Rochester and as this article represents not just the city of Rochester but also to some degree its associated metropolitan area (see the introduction). --AFBorchert (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The article should not represent the metropolitan area, as the the city of Rochester would have no article of its own. There is an article on the Rochester, New York metropolitan area and includes the entire original college section from the Rochester article. I included a mention of RIT in the city article, saying pretty much what you said. Since it has historical ties to the city and people will assume that it is still in Rochester, I made a short note of its history in the city and its relocation to Henrietta. For the MCC I looked and it has a campus in the city, so that is also mentioned. As far as I know the University of Rochester is in the city limits. --Beirne (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

After thinking about it for a month, I'm afraid my position remains unchanged. "Rochester", as a topic, is much more than simply what is within the city limits. The concept is much broader than the mere geographical area encompassed by the city. It is a huge disservice to our readers to pretend otherwise. Powers ^T 14:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

What about the readers who want to learn about the city of Rochester? If Rochester becomes a broad topic beyond the city, then a major city will lack its own article. The Rochester, New York metropolitan area article covers the topic of the Rochester area that you would like. --Beirne (talk) 14:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it does not. The Rochester metropolitan area covers five or seven counties that include cities as far-flung as Geneva and Batavia, none of which are considered part of "Rochester" by anyone except the Census Bureau. Powers ^T 17:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll phrase it differently. The Metro Rochester article covers Greater Rochester in a way acceptable to Wikipedia. While the counties in the Census version of Metro Rochester may not be what you consider to be Metro Rochester, Wikipedia requires using valid secondary sources for information, and that is the most objective secondary source. To redefine the city of Rochester as some ad-hoc metro area just because you want is a form of original research. Defining Rochester by the city limits relies on government-determined boundaries and considering Metro Rochester to be the census are relies on another government-defined definition. These are valid Wikipedia sources. If you can find a valid definition for some in-between form of Metro Rochester then go ahead and create an article for it, otherwise the only place for metro information is the metro article. --Beirne (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Beirne is right on here. Local opinion of what constitutes Metro Rochester is largely irrelevant since it really cannot be sourced whereas a Census Bureau definition definitely can. While locals can be a great resource in helping articles on Wikipedia, particularly in finding offline sources and providing more public domain images, we must always think as Wikipedia editors first and not just as locals to a particular city. What that means is that we shouldn't allow personal or local ideas and interpretations to creep into an article unless they have valid sources. Simply stating that because a local considers an entity inside the city of Rochester when all sources clearly show it isn't in the city limits is an example. These are Wikipedia articles about a specific city so they need to conform to Wikipedia standards which means reliable, third-party sources. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

We went over this before in an earlier thread. I provided a number of sources that consider RIT to be a "Rochester college" or "Rochester university" -- which doesn't, as the straw man goes, mean that they consider RIT to be within the city's limits, but rather that they recognize that there is an ongoing relationship between the city and the university that remains relevant and notable to any discussion of either, even beyond the historical physical connection. But Beirne's preference is to ignore that because this article should be about only what is within the city limits and nothing else. I say that interpretation of the article's scope, rather than respecting what reliable sources indicate, actually ignores what reliable sources have to say. Powers ^T 14:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't ignore the association, I added a note mentioning RIT's historic ties to the city and said that it is now in Henrietta. I wrote: "Note: The Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) was founded in 1829 in Rochester but moved to Henrietta in 1968." This clearly explains the tie between RIT and the city and is verified with a reference. The sources that describe RIT as a Rochester college or university do not explain the nature of the ongoing relationship to the city. Since no relationship is described, then there is nothing to say in this article from those sources. As far as I know the relationship is due to RIT using a post office with the Rochester name and Rochester in the name of the institute. This is not enough to merit any details beyond what I wrote in the article. If you can find documentation that describes more relationship details than what I wrote then it might make sense to add them but so far there is nothing to more about RIT to put in the article. --Beirne (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It's just an example; there may not be much more that needs to be said, though something comparable to what's in the UofR section wouldn't be inappropriate. I don't think we should get overly focused on RIT when there are a number of other items that should be mentioned that aren't. Like Wegmans, Paychex, and PAETEC. And come on, stuff like this is little more than whitewashing; the reason Rochester has such a high number of deaf people has very little to do with the program at UofR and very much to do with NTID. The fact that NTID is in Henrietta is irrelevant to the fact that it has resulted in a large deaf population in the area around Rochester. Powers ^T 23:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I talked about RIT because that is the topic here. My point would be the same for Wegman's, Paychex, and PAETEC. They aren't in the city and there isn't anything to say about them in an article about the city of Rochester. If you want to make the point that the NTID has drawn a lot of deaf people to the city of Rochester and can back it up then put it in the article. Saying that it has resulted in a large deaf population in the area around Rochester would belong in the articles on Greater Rochester or Monroe County. I took out the wording that the NTID was in Rochester, which was a false statement. --Beirne (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Only if you mean "Rochester" to mean only the area within the official city limits! I respectfully ask you to STOP removing information from this article until this dispute is resolved. You're only aggravating the situation by continuing to take these unilateral action to make the article conform to your vision. Powers ^T 13:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course I mean Rochester to only mean the area within the official city limits. There is no other clear definition. And yes, I'll stop removing items that aren't in the city for now. I've been doing it for a month or so and was in the habit. --Beirne (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I still see the line being blurred between Metro Rochester i.e. the "Rochester area" and the actual city of Rochester. It would be one thing if an article didn't already exist on Metro Rochester, but one does. Additionally, we have already gone over why a particular ZIP code is not a valid reason for a particular location. ZIP codes do not necessarily follow city boundaries (rarely do they at all), so something could have an address in one city and actually be in another, making it completely inaccurate. If this were an article about things within Rochester, NY ZIP Codes that would be different, but more or less this article's boundaries are definied by the physical boundaries of the city of Rochester just as the New York article is defined by the state of New York's boundaries, not a ZIP code. As for the deaf population, mention of why Rochester has it is certainly appropriate (NTID). Stating that NTID is in neighboring Henrietta is hardly irrelevant since it is factually correct and identifies the source of this phenomenon as an outside entity. Nothing wrong in showing how a city is affected by things outside of it. Berine's not saying we can't mention anything outside the physical city limits, but we have to be careful that we make a distinction between things that are in and out of a particular city. We had a similar discussion in regards to Alamogordo, New Mexico as the city is affected in a major way by nearby Holloman Air Force Base (largest employer of local residents, brings in hundreds of other residents to live there who live off-base) but the base is clearly not inside the city limits, a fact that must be made clear. Further, as you said above, the large deaf population is not restricted to the city of Rochester, but the "area around Rochester". --JonRidinger (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

But the thing is, reliable sources don't make that distinction, so neither can we. The sources just say "Rochester", and assume people know that they aren't just talking about lines on a map. You're taking an empirical view of the city that simply isn't supported by the sources. Powers ^T 13:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm taking an empirical view that is supported by the city of Rochester and the Monroe County Assessor. Just because someone says that they are in Rochester doesn't mean that they are. It may just mean that it is the name of their post office. I live in Ohio. If I got a P.O. Box in Rochester and achieved notability, could I be listed in the Rochester article? If we go by post offices, then a chunk of Henrietta should be excluded from it's article, and the history will become the history of post office coverage. I don't think this is what anyone wants. And we can't base things on assumptions. When I first read the Rochester article I understood RIT and Wegman's to be in the city of Rochester. I later learned I was misled. The article needs to be clear and not assume people know much of anything. --Beirne (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting this "post office" thing. I haven't mentioned it once, but you're arguing against it like it's my main argument. To me, this is a question of scope; is this about only what is within the city limits, or is it about everything that makes Rochester distinctly "Rochester"? The article is sorely incomplete without the latter information. Powers ^T 01:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm bringing up the post office because some of the places previously listed in the article have Rochester post offices, leading some people to assume that they are in the city. Also, I'm trying to figure out what might tie the businesses and RIT to the city and can't come up with much more than a post office name. To get to your point of everything that makes Rochester distinctly Rochester, though, you will need to define what that means. Wegmans', RIT, Paychex, and PAETEC are not in the city of Rochester, so it isn't clear that they make Rochester anything at all. They should not be listed as being in Rochester, because they are not. They should not be described in this article as being in Greater Rochester, because there is a separate article for that already. It's not the definition of Greater Rochester that you like, but it is the one defined by the census, a valid Wikipedia source. Also, just because something is in Greater Rochester does not mean that it has anything notable to do with the city. A while ago I added the historical mention of RIT, because explaining the background was relevant because of the college's founding and long history in the city. If Wegman's, Paychex, and PAETEC were ever headquartered in the city then they could be mentioned along with Xerox, Western Union, and Gannett. I took out the part about PAETEC moving to the city only because it was in a paragraph about a possible new tall building in the city that is now officially not going to be built. I suppose it could be mentioned that PAETEC is going to move to the city, although putting future plans in city articles is always risky because they don't always work out. --Beirne (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I am a little disturbed at what is going on with the Rochester, New York article located at /wiki/Rochester,_New_York. The arguments brought up by both Beirne and JonRidinger are basically nullified by wikipedia's own definition of Metropolitan Area based upon what is mentioned multiple times in the introductory paragraphs. Please read through what we have written. It actually uses the words "Metropolitan" and "Rochester area" multiple times within the introduction. None of this information should be included in this page if we are following wiki convention, right? But should we remove it fully? No. I am all for consistency and following scope of wikipedia city templates but we have to balance this with reader accessibility. Perhaps we can come up with a solution to this that works going forward. Let me identify the problem. When readers search for Rochester, New York although the second line states "go here for metro area" the article continues talking about a mishmash of ideas whereas the general reader would probably like to be directed to the metropolitan area page for culture, university and economic information which is sorely missing in the page dedicated strictly to the city limits. So my question is: How do we guide the reader to that while including the city information by wikipedia standards thereby removing extraneous information and thus making the _city_ page not look like a total wasteland of missing information. I propose if we are going to be picky about what is in the /wiki/Rochester,_New_York page we totally simplify and remove the flashiness and focus on directing the reader to the Metropolitan Area page if they are going to look for cultural information, education information, economic information, etc. Anecdotally, I must say that I am aware that some city centers (metro areas) that have strict cultural borders and there are some that don't. When an overwhelming majority of readers use wikipedia to search for information in this scope they are coming looking for information regarding the metropolitan area. The communities are connected even more than just culturally and economically. Nobody in Rochester separates it by the city limits except tax collectors. Politics, news, events, culture are spearheaded broadly by Monroe County. It is quite the disservice to readers to imply on what is the "front page" that the strictly what is inside the city limits is all that there is to know--and only have a small italicized link to another wiki page at the top. Can anyone state similar precedent? If it's like this in every other city with such a broad physical area with strong connections? Should we have a disambiguation page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.8.121 (talk) 07:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The airport several years ago

The article states: "In 2010, the GRIA was ranked the 14th-least expensive airport in the United States by Cheapflights. This was a large improvement from several years previous, when Rochester had some of the highest ticket prices in the country." I changed "several" to eleven, because several is vague but sounds a lot less than eleven. The source verifies that the ticket prices used to be among the highest in the country, but is from 1999, which is more than several years ago. A newer source would fix this, or putting "eleven years" or maybe "a decade ago" into the sentence. --Beirne (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

1999 is not "more than several". What I wanted to avoid was giving the impression that things started to improve in 2000. If you can find out when JetBlue and AirTran came to the airport, then a more specific figure may be possible. Powers ^T 13:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Eleven years ago is more than several, which I think of as under five. In any case that proves the point that the term is vague. We don't need to know so much when JetBlue and AirTran came to the airport, but new statistics of the sort that we have from 1999 and 2010. --Beirne (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but until we have those stats, vagueness is our ally. "Eleven" is overly precise. Powers ^T 15:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "eleven" is a bit precise, so I also suggested "a decade ago". "In the late 90s would also work". Or just "used to be". --Beirne (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I could quibble with each of those options, but I really think your interpretation of "several" is too narrow. Most recent sources (oddly) haven't been giving specifics but merely stating that the average ticket has dropped by about $100 since 1995. But that doesn't give the reader any context, because average prices may have dropped across the board; the rankings are much more illustrative. Powers ^T 14:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I looked around and got a variety of definitions of "several". Some say 5 or less, which fits my definition, but one says 3-100. These are all personal definitions but give a sense of understanding. From that, I would say several is either much less than eleven or so broad as to be meaningless in this context. For that reason I would tend to favor something like "used to be". Or say "around 2003" based on the comment from the airport director at the end of this article. I'd prefer a secondary source to a primary one, but it shouldn't matter in this case. --Beirne (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I still think this is an unwarranted level of pedantry, but I would be amenable to something like "As recently as 2003, Rochester's ticket prices were among the highest in the country, ranking 4th in 1999." Powers ^T 17:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. --Beirne (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Decline of Downtown?

As much as I hate to add a negative aspect to an article on my favorite city in the world (OH NOES..POV!..kidding), I think that a discussion of the economic transition of the city over the years, in terms of the changing state of downtown, would paint an interesting picture of spatial demographic change and economic change (the transition from downtown in its heyday, to its current status.) in the City, and its potential future.

Having been gone for several years, I was somewhat saddened by the state of downtown, with so many fantastic old buildings vacated. I don't think an "Ohh, no, who will save teh downtown??" secti8on is needed, but it is a big change in the character of the city, and probably should at least be mentioned. The expansion into the suburbs and exurbs, while certainly not unique to american cities, had a profound impact on downtown Rochester, especially in the last few decades. It is an issue facing the city right now, and is notable in its scope. Would any current resident care to take a neutral crack at this? (this is a topic that has been a part of the pages of other cities with similar developmental patterns...). The brighter side is that Rochester continues to maintain vibrant communities like the East End, Monroe/Park ave, etc. I think it would give a positive insight to discuss both the decline of downtown proper and also the unique enclaves, and perhaps some local history on the whys and wherefores....Jbower47 (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like a good project, but it will take a lot of research. I don't have the time to devote to it at the moment. Powers ^T 14:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculousness

This kind of nonsense has got to stop. RIT athletics are covered in Rochester newspapers, aired on Rochester broadcast networks, and attended by Rochesterians. There is a concept of Rochester that goes beyond the city limits but is not as big as the entire county, and User:Beirne is on a one-man crusade to pretend that such a concept, such a definition, such an idea doesn't exist. It does, and it's why RIT is the Rochester Institute of Technology, why Wegmans is Rochester-based, and why "Rochester is not just a place; it is an ideal and a vision." Purging this sort of information from the encyclopedia is a huge disservice to our readers and does not further our goals. I'm all for making it clear when something is not within the official city limits, but that does not mean that nothing outside those limits can be discussed. Powers ^T 15:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I support this. I've lived for some time in Rochester, working at RIT, and in took me some months until I learnt that I actually resided in Brighton. If you walk from Brighton to downtown Rochester, you have no idea where Brighton ends and where the city of Rochester begins. Everyone living and working there refers to Rochester and would surely expect RIT and Wegmans to be covered by the article about Rochester. You'll find this also reflected similarly in the media. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You'll note that after getting a good reason for including RIT hockey was given I left the reference in there and only took out Hobart, which is an hour away. We're otherwise going over material that has been discussed over and over above and in the Cities Project, in discussions LtPowers has abandoned, so I'll refer everyone there. Note that there I include a reference from the Rochester paper putting Wegmans in Gates, and this will be a more accurate source than the Washington Post, which only needs to spak in generalities. All I'll add is that just because people don't know what is in and outside or Rochester does not mean that the lack of knowledge should be codified in the article. I would like to ask, though, LtPowers, what are our goals that you speak of? Are they the goals of Wikipedia? --Beirne (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Our goal is create an encyclopedia. The problem is that we are a generalist encyclopedia. A geographic encyclopedia would clearly focus on the political boundaries of the city of Rochester, the county of Monroe, and the Rochester MSA. But we are also a cultural encyclopedia, which demands that we also address the culture of Rochester, the spirit of what it means to be Rochesterian, as documented in reliable sources. That concept is wider than just the city limits, and that creates a conflict between the two competing goals. One goal demands we be geographically precise; the other demands we be culturally and perceptually comprehensive. Obviously, I favor the latter view, but I'm open to compromises that acknowledge that a tightly-defined Monroe County article isn't equivalent to the broader cultural definition of Rochester. Powers ^T 18:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

A lot of what you're talking about is very nice to think about but is a nightmare to actually put into an encyclopedic article. Go to your library and look up an encyclopedia article on Rochester from a "traditional" print encyclopedia and you won't find stuff about the "spirit of what it means to be a Rochesterian". That's not what an encyclopedia, Wikipedia included, is about. Instead you'll find general data about history, demographics, economy, etc. Articles are to give people a general, yet thorough, idea of a certain subject. For a city article, it's basically what to expect if someone would visit there, not try to make them feel like a citizen. Most of that is far too ambiguous and is what promotional websites are for. I think the scope of a city article was spelled out for everyone pretty well when you asked at the Cities project a little while back. In the end, consensus rules WIkipedia, not compromises. The current consensus is that city articles are basically restricted to their physical boundaries though exceptions can obviously be made on certain things in a case-by-case basis. The generalizations and blurring of the borders by some locals and outsiders can be found in pretty much every city and are largely irrelevant. Just because some consider something in a particular city doesn't mean it is or that all consider it as such. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what Jon said and will add some more now that I have more time than I did this morning. First, there may well be a concept of Rochester beyond the city limits. If an objective definition of it can be found it could be the basis for a Metro Rochester article. So far, though, the only formal definitions we have are for Rochester, Monroe County, and the larger metro area. Editors are not at liberty to make up their own definitions of something; that is called original research and is strictly forbidden by Wikipedia. And unlike what was said above, I do not claim that the greater Rochester you speak of does not exist, I am saying that it is not well defined. Also, I'm not exactly on a one-man crusade. While I've done the delections, other editors have sided with me in discussions here and in the Cities project. RIT keeps getting mentioned, but I expressly included it in the college section long ago, mentioning its founding in the city and its move to Henrietta in 1968. I have absolutely no problem mentioning it in this way because it is clearly tied to the city in the ways I described. I know of no tie between Wegmans and the city of Rochester, though, beyond one grocery store. Maybe it was founded there and left the city, if so that can be mentioned. Having something described as being in Rochester because of loose usage of the name is not enough to include it in the article. The source has to say something notable about that relationship. In the case of Wegmans, I would pose the question that was unanswered at the end of the discussion in the Cities Project, which is, "What should the article say about Wegmans?". And finally, you should understand by now that unlike what LtPowers said, I do not believe that nothing outside of the city should be discussed. --Beirne (talk) 06:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

AFBorchert said: "Everyone living and working there refers to Rochester and would surely expect RIT and Wegmans to be covered by the article about Rochester." The article is not designed to meet the expectations of the people in Rochester, it is meant to follow Wikipedia standards to make an encyclopedia for everyone worldwide. The problem with the article when I first saw it was that places like RIT, Wegmans, Paychex, etc. were described as being in Rochester or in the vague Rochester area. I only started cutting them out when I learned that I had been mislead. I know next to nothing about the city and was counting on accurate information and did not get it. It is better to have the article based on the truth than people's false expectations. --Beirne (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of User:Britishisles' changes have been reverted. Their changes involved including Penfield-based Paychex and Henrietta-based Pictometry as Rochester-based companies and making RIT sound like it is in Rochester by removing content rightfully placing it in Henrietta. --Beirne (talk) 08:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I have added Paychex and Pictometry to the articles for Penfield and Henrietta, respectively, and made sure they were in the Monroe County article. --Beirne (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't yet had a chance to examine print encyclopedias, but I'm confident that most of them will mention anything that is relevant to the concept of Rochester, rather than mentioning only things that are or once were within the city limits. There aren't many encyclopedias browsable online, but I note that the Cities of the United States encyclopedia does exactly what I promote. See http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3441802330.html where they bounce back and forth freely among city, "area", county, metro, and state, or http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3441802333.html where they mention things like Schoen Place in Pittsford (village), New York. Powers ^T 12:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

And here is Columbia Encyclopedia, which says outright "The city is the seat of the Univ. of Rochester, Nazareth College of Rochester, the Rochester Institute of Technology (est. 1829), St. John Fisher College, and a theological seminary." Now, to be fair, there are a few minor errors in the entry, but I don't think they invalidate the idea. Powers ^T 12:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

In regard to errors, like listing RIT and Nazareth College as being in Rochester, encyclopedias make mistakes too, and that is one of them. I would not want to hold the Columbia Encyclopedia up as an example of an encyclopedia to emulate. Also, reading the Columbia article would have led me to the same error as the Wikipedia article before I edited it, telling me that certain colleges were in Rochester that actually were not. Why is error being defended? Ignoring that point, though, Wikipedia has articles on each community in Monroe County, allowing for much more precision. The published encyclopedias have a limited number of articles, and try to broaden articles like the one for Rochester to get a bit more coverage in the articles that they have. This is not an issue in Wikipedia, where we can accurately put facts where they belong. --Beirne (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

But that's my whole point; it's not an error; it's an editorial judgment, that colleges can be "in Rochester" without being within the city limits. Isn't that what I've been saying this whole time? Powers ^T 17:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Either way, the effect is that it is an error. When it says that RIT and Nazareth College are in Rochester, a reader like me from Ohio takes them at their word and assumes that the statement is true on its face, and it isn't. If the article said that they were in Metro Rochester I would have no problem with it on an accuracy basis, and it wouldn't bother me at all in the Columbia encyclopedia article. I would consider it clutter in the Wikipedia article for the city of Rochester, but OK for a general encyclopedia with limited articles. --Beirne (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If the actual location is not clear, then it should be clarified, not excised. Powers ^T 19:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Now we are back to the issue of what relevance the things near Rochester have to the city of Rochester. I have asked a number of times what relationship there is between Wegmans and the like and the city of Rochester and have never received an answer. If there is a notable connection like with RIT then the college or business can be mentioned. Just being in the metro area, though, is not notable, as this is not the article about Metro Rochester. As User:Student7 pointed out will in the discussion you brought up in the Cities Wikiproject, it is important in Wikipedia to stay on topic, and Metro Rochester is off topic. --Beirne (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, in general I did not excise information, I put it where it belongs. I moved a lot of the metro content to theRochester, New York metropolitan area article where it belongs, and I have also corrected the articles for some of the local non-Rochester companies to indicate the community they actually reside in. I also added those businesses to the articles for their communities, so I have not only been removing errors from the Rochester article but putting good information in others. --Beirne (talk) 03:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As I've said several times, I'm not talking about the metro area, which is far too wide. I'm talking about "Rochester" as an area, which is not the metro area, and is not Monroe County. It's made up of all the things that people always associate with Rochester, like the several suburban colleges, like Bill Gray's and Wegmans, like Marketplace Mall and Piehler Pontiac and Seabreeze Amusement Park. They have relevance to the city because of all the many reliable sources that talk about "Rochester" in a sense broader than you like. Powers ^T 12:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that "Rochester" as an area is not the same as the city, Monroe County, or the census-defined metro Rochester. If you included Wegmans, etc. in metro Rochester, though, there are not factual issues. All of the places you list would fit in metro article fine, since they are in the area. Might someone looking for info on the Rochester area there also see some stuff on counties they don't care about? Possibly, but the article would be internally consistent and the user could read whatever matches their definition of "Rochester". If the Rochester area is added to the article about the city, though, it makes it difficult or impossible for someone to accurately learn about the city of Rochester. If you really want an article on your view of Rochester, I suggest you create one, call it Greater Rochester or something, and put in all your businesses and schools. Regarding the relevance of companies outside the city, we don't really know what people are associating Wegmans and the others with. Maybe the Rochester post office? Maybe greater Rochester? Without knowing that there is nothing interesting to put in the Rochester article. I'll ask my question again, what would you say about something like Wegmans in the Rochester article that would be notable? --Beirne (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite simply, that it is among the notable companies that were founded in Rochester, and continues to be both a major factor in the area economy and a point of pride among locals. Powers ^T 18:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Great! The fact that it was founded in the city is a good basis for inclusion and can be explained in that light, the way I did with RIT. --Beirne (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)