Wikipedia

Talk:Rochester, New York/Archive 2

< Talk:Rochester, New York
Latest comment: 2 years ago by 207.118.235.29 in topic Demographics
Archive 1Archive 2

Here we go again

Latest comment: 14 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion

I see Beirne is at it again. Removing this information is not acceptable, for the many reasons I've mentioned in previous discussions. Every reliable media source treats this sort of information as relevant to the city of Rochester, even if the events and locations are not within the official city limits. This article can and should be about more than just what is inside the city's borders. The MSA article is too broad for much of this information, and the Monroe County article too narrow.

I went to the library to check and see how other encyclopedias handle this. Unfortunately, World Book was the only one I could find; none of my local libraries have Britannica or something similar. Anyway, World Book's entry on Rochester incorporates, without comment, several items that are not within the city limits, including RIT and St. John Fisher College. This is the sensible approach, and one which we should mirror.

-- Powers T 13:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, using World Book as a reasoning to do things here is not a valid rationale. This isn't World Book, so their standards of staying on topic do not apply here, nor can we really assume that they are some sort of encyclopedic standard. Further, printed encyclopedias are far more limited in what they can cover. I imagine they do not have articles about MSAs or even many of the counties, thus, they can justify a broader definition of the cities they cover. Remember, English Wikipedia has over 3 million articles. I doubt the World Book or even Britannica's published version has anything close to that many entries. In other words, we can afford to be more specific in articles than a published encyclopedia. While I don't think it's completely against Wikipedia policy to include the information about the metro's "College Town" ranking in this article in terms of providing a perspective of how the city's higher education schools fit in, I also understand the reasoning behind Beirne's removal, particularly in light of the many discussions on what does and does not belong in this article in the scope of the topic, the city of Rochester. In reality, it is definitely appropriate for the Metro Rochester article because it specifically states the ranking was for Metro Rochester, while its relevance here is obviously not as clear-cut. The education sections in both articles are pretty bare and lack any kind of depth (largely just lists), so while the fact is interesting in this article, it really doesn't add a whole lot or tell us anything beyond the fact that the city is part of a metro area that has a relatively large college student population. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
And for the record, the edit summary for my previous comment had a mistake: it should've read "World Book's definition and scope isN'T really relevant. Whoops! --JonRidinger (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The college town study was specifically about the MSA, that just happens to be named for Rochester, its biggest city. It is not about the city itself, anymore than it is about Henrietta or other communities with colleges in the area. So the MSA is not too broad for that, it fits exactly. For the golf, I put the info in the Pittsford article where it belongs. Regarding the scope, if you can come up with a valid definition of greater Rochester that is bigger than the city and smaller than the MSA, then create an article for it. That will keep the Rochester article from including things that aren't relevant to the city. --Beirne (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
You continue to claim that things outside the city "aren't relevant", but haven't backed it up with sources. My contention is that things outside the city are indeed relevant to the article on the city, and I have backed it up with a number of sources that discuss area happenings in the context of Rochester. Take, for instance, the LPGA Championship sentence, which which you removed because it's in Pittsford. Yet if you look at the reference that was attached to that sentence, what was the headline? "Rochester to Host LPGA Championship For One Year". Not "Pittsford to Host"... "Rochester". Such examples are legion, and they cannot be explained away as simple mistakes; they are deliberate choices made to refer not to Rochester's legal boundaries but to the concept of Rochester, a concept that this article must cover to be considered in any way complete. Powers T 19:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
As you well know, there was pretty overwhelming consensus in the Cities project that city articles need to stick to their actual boundaries per WP:TOPIC and that exceptions should be on a case-by-case basis and be very clear why they are connected. Simply saying because an article used Rochester as the host city really doesn't prove anything since Rochester metro can be and is also referred to simply as "Rochester". It's pretty normal for higher-profile events to state they are occurring in a larger city, when in fact they are actually in a suburb, since the larger city is more familiar to a broader range of people or they're simply using the city name to refer to the metro area the event is in (again, because of what is more familiar to most people). That still doesn't affect the scope of the coverage here or the reality of where the event really is. As far as the education section is concerned, though, it needs to actually be developed with more content and less lists, similar to many of the sections in the article. Each school in the city should have a small paragraph and even the mention of RIT could be elaborated on more. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
LtPowers, there may be a relationship, but what is it? In cases where there was a clear tie to Rochester, such as Wegmans and RIT being founded there, I was happy to put that in the article. But just because an article loosely refers to metro Rochester as Rochester does not prove any relationship other than being in the area, which isn't noteworthy. --Beirne (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
One more point. If the article is to be about the concept of Rochester, where will the article about the city of Rochester be? It is a pretty important city and it seems like it should have its own article. --Beirne (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I didn't notice this discussion as it relates to my note above in the RIT section, I will repost it here: 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)
So now that I have read through what this whole debate is about and what the rules are for cities proper what we really need to do is to update the Monroe county and the metropolitan area pages and do a broad overhaul of what is included on what should be a pretty bland city page. Ideas?
The arguments are not nullified by Wikipedia's definition of a metropolitan area. I know good and well that metropolitan areas exist and that they are important. Just because they exist, though, does not mean that the city article has to be about them. The city itself is important, and if the article for a city becomes a metro article, then the city has no article of its own. In my case I came to the Rochester article wanting to read about the city of Rochester, and found it was full of things that aren't in the city. I had to go hunt on the Internet to see what was in the city and what wasn't to get a good understanding of Rochester. If the article itself is about the metro area there is no easy way to get to information that just pertains to the city and information is lost just to keep people from having to click a link. --Beirne (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Describing your specific encounter with the city of Rochester page something shocking came to mind. Honestly considering a ratio of interesting topics to look into that are inside the city limits versus those that are in the metropolitan area I doubt you actually found what you were looking for! This is coming from somebody who loves what the "city limits" offer; but I'm just being (jokingly) honest!
The problem here isn't the page or the links. It's the information contained in the links and the way that wikipedia prioritizes cities over metro areas in searches. This is the root cause of the main conflict that has come up here time and time again and I urge anyone who has a problem with it to bring it up as a City Project topic. As editors we can then go from there and trim down the city article and seriously beef up the metropolitan article. This will solve everyone's problems! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.8.121 (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The topic of the scope of city articles has come up a couple of times in the city project. I tried to start a discussion once, and then more recently LtPowers did and got some discussion. Most of the commentators were in favor of sticking to the city limits, but the group was pretty small and there is still no policy. --Beirne (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
In a related note Beirne: if you are going to remove information you should consider moving it to a historical subsection. Many of the points made that were counteracted by your deletions apply to information of extremely important historical implications that were indeed inside the city limits. I strongly urge you to do heavy research along with this to make sure you have your facts straight and fully referenced as much of this might be difficult from Ohio. Please include references in the edit comments if you are removing information as well so they may be checked and verified by other editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.8.121 (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I've added a couple of historic mentions in the city article, for RIT and Wegmans. It was after some discussion, I'll admit. RIT was obviously in Rochester before. It was harder to tell with Wegmans but it seemed likely from what I've read. Are there other companies that moved from Rochester to the suburbs that should be listed for historical reasons? I haven't done references when removing businesses but will usually say what community the business or other entity is actually in. I've never had a dispute from someone saying a company wasn't in Pittsford or Gates or wherever (except for RIT playing some hockey games in the city, which I did not dispute), they just feel that it should be included in the Rochester article anyhow. I have, though, started adding them to the article for the community where the business actually is, and I source it there. --Beirne (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You only have so much space to write an edit summary. Having worked with Beirne on other city articles in the past, I have found he will include an explanation on the talk page if it can't be explained in the edit summary. He is not, however, required to provide a detailed rationale for every edit or removal. As for historical context, not only does Beirne need references (which he usually has), but so do those who advocate leaving information in the article. If a company has a historical tie to the city itself, that needs to have a reference beyond a Rochester, NY ZIP code. There is no problem having a paragraph about the history of the city's economy that mentions past companies; the same is true for the education section and past schools. The problems here have been lists of companies and schools which include those entities which are no longer in the city of Rochester. These lists imply that they are currently in the city, when, in fact, some are in suburbs which, of course, have separate articles and are separate and distinct municipalities. And while there is no set policy specifically for cities, there is a general Wikipedia policy on WP:TOPIC and the discussion at the Cities project brought that up as a reason to generally stick to a city's physical boundaries and then add clearly relevant exceptions to that on a case-by-case basis in order to stay on topic. The topic here is the city of Rochester, not the general idea of Rochester or the metro area of Rochester. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

"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." I also disagree that the arguments are "nullified" by the Metropolitan Area article, especially in light of the subsection of Metro Areas in the United States. In fact, that article supports what I and Beirne have been saying. The city of Rochester is the urban core of the Rochester Metropolitan Area, which is specifically defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. That's something we can definitively cite much like any Metro area in the U.S. just as we can definitively define the boundaries of the city of Rochester, the topic of this article. It's when we get to article subjects like "Greater Rochester" that the definition will vary and not have that definitive source. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Companies

Latest comment: 13 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion

How can you leave out Wegman's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.154.56 (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Wegman's isn't left out. The article says that it was founded in Rochester and moved to Gates. --Beirne (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)



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

At least nearly all, I agree. Harris Interactive is debatablekeepable, and Zweigle might be, but otherwise most are clearly spam. One guideline we might use is remove all that do not have wikiarticles. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Also check the wikiarticles. I just removed one that had an article, but that was a blatant ad. I would refine your guideline to "keep only those that have wikiarticles that don't fall under WP:CSD and that you wouldn't want to nominate for WP:AFD." Lupo 15:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the companies that should not be removed should be moved - Zweigle is very well known in Western NY, even if it's not world-renowned. Harris Interactive is well known around the country if not internationally. It's not a household name like Kodak, but it's also not an obscure local company (I've done their on-line surveys for a number of years, and never realized they were Rochester-based). —Erik Harris 15:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure. I'll leave it up people from that area to clean this up. I don't know any of these firms. Zweigle's probably deserves a short article, and Harris Int'l already has a decent article. But I suspect most of those currently listed could go. What about Harter Secrest (pure adspeak, even), or MarketHOLD? Lupo 16:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. I'll do some obvious ones, and would not object to others removing some of the rest, as this also allows some others to plug for keeping them if appropriate. I vote to keep Zweigles, article or not. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
---
I took a shot and removed obvious ones. I also removed borderline ones but which only had some operations in Roc. I might add that both Heluva and Monro might be notable enough to keep here, although they are not of the same league as Harris, in my estimation. I kept some others that made claims of notability like "national", even though those claims were not sourced. The Sutherland one looks like spam but it does make a notability claim. I defer to someone who knows it better to improve the claim or to remove the listing altogether. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

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

It is a hard thing to subjectively form a boundary on...you almost need a panel of Rochestarians to decide:) Something like Zweigles or Abbots Custard are local favorites, and while they may not be in Tahou class of legend, they are certainly part of the culture. But then everyone has their own little favorite restaurant they'd love to add. (Mamasan's, if it still exists..., Java Joe's, etc.) I think, as subjective as it may be, a quick review of web sites about rochester would give a good idea of what is generally associated with the City on a universal basis. You're going to see Tahou's, Abbot's, Dinosaur BBQ, etc. pretty much at any rochester "fan" site:)204.65.34.238 (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ferry was not in the city of Rochester, should it be removed?

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The whole section on Marine Transportation, referring to the Port of Rochester, does it belong here? The Port of Rochester is not in the city of Rochester. If this article is not about the metro area, it should not include that section. 112.64.219.193 (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the port is in Charlotte, which is a neighborhood of Rochester. Is this incorrect? --Beirne (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course it's part of Rochester; I don't know what the IP is talking about. Powers T 01:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The Port is located in community called Charlotte, which is part of Greater Rochester, but clearly out of bounds of city of Rochester. Following the general rule of this article, all mention should be removed, or referred to Rochester Metro Area.58.247.207.96 (talk) 04:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

No, Charlotte is a neighborhood within the Rochester city limits. You can read about the annexation by Rochester at http://www.libraryweb.org/~rochhist/v37_1975/v37i1.pdf --Beirne (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Sister cities

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

While the Sister Cities chart looks nice, I'm not sure it's appropriate. All be need to know are the cities and countries and the year it began; we really don't need to know the regions and certainly not the flags of the regions. See WP:MOSFLAG. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Powers T 15:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the city and district flags; I think the table works much better now. Powers T 14:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

New Photo

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello, I uploaded a collage made from other files on wikimedia commons, was wondering if anyone would favor it as a replacement for the current main pic, as it has a bit more diversity than a simple skyline photograph. Any feedback is appreciated. The photo is below:

 

EastOfWest (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I like it, but the cropping of the images seems a little forced. The quality was compromised (especially in the skyline photo) when you cropped them. Also, there's too much downtown and the borders are uneven.  Sub!  04:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead on your advice and redid the photo, with better cropping, quality and one less unneccesary downtown pic. Here is the revised version:

 

I think that I'll go ahead and substitute this in for the existing photograph, after all it is the same photo with a few extra pictures added in to give a better visual description of the city. It would be nice if anyone who disagrees with this move could notify me on the talk page before deletion. Thanks for input EastOfWest (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice work, but I think the skyline photo might be better as a photo if you cropped out some of the river, so the skyline did not appear right in the middle of the photo - some more sky?Parkwells (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Changes to lede

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It is long enough with four paragraphs, and the political situation of the major will change quickly. Moved that paragraph into the article, where there had been no reference to it before. It belongs within rather than in the lede.Parkwells (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

New Company

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to respectfully suggest to the editors at large that Tenrehte Technologies be added to the company list. This company recently came to my attention as a 2 year old start up that won the Best of CES (Consumer Electronics Show) in 2010 in the Green Technologies category. Due to fact the annual Consumer Electronics Show [[1]] is one of the largest electronics trade show in the world, and that this small Rochester company was up against the "who's who" in consumer electronics, this is a notable, albeit historic achievement. Butch (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No. The company list in this article is a short list of notable companies, It is not a directory of every company that is headquartered in Rochester. The CES showing is an argument more suited towards the company's AFD. ccwaters (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, the address of record is a residential neighborhood in the town of Irondeqoit. ccwaters (talk) 10:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

^ Savageau, David (2007). Places Rated Almanac (25th Anniversary Edition ed.). Places Rated Books. ISBN 0979319900.

Some skilled wiki crafter from above please fix this or destroy it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.112.151 (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to "destroy it". The citation is to the book, which is accessible via its ISBN. The link is a secondary factor and not critical to the reference. (It's likely he just let the domain registration lapse, anyway; his site at http://placesrated.expertchoice.com/ still calls itself "placesrated.com".) Powers T 15:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Rochester personalities

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

None to speak of, still among the living, and residing here in Rochester. If you'd like to try and prove me wrong, go ahead and knock yourself out. -- TLWS 74.41.81.126 (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you commenting on any particular aspect of the article? Powers T 17:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Companies/Shopping Centers City Limits

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I re-added wegmans and shopping areas. Although outside of the city limits, all contribute greatly to the city. --Mattlary (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing indicates how they contribute to the city, and the article is about the city, not the metro area. Also, Wegmans is already mentioned in the economy section as formerly being in Rochester and now in Gates, so it shouldn't be in the bullet list. --98.102.176.173 (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok; this is fine. My argument was just that all of those locations serve city residents, and I missed that Wegmans is mentioned elsewhere. I will remove other references to locations outside of the city limits.--Mattlary (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Schools with Rochester addresses

Latest comment: 12 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

I just added St. John Fisher, Nazareth, and RIT to the page because they do have Rochester addresses (i.e., zip codes). All these schools list Rochester as their physical addresses—as does the USPS. I'm not sure why they are often referred to as being in Pittsford and Henrietta. Maybe there's some other way of determining "actual" location? Crowdsourced (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Post office locations are not generally considered to determine a landmark's actual location in geographical terms. RIT, for example, is indeed in Henrietta, a town and suburb south of Rochester. (In fact, the main Rochester post office is located in Henrietta!) However, I think your confusion is illustrative of the problem with trying to limit this article to solely what is within the city limits. "Rochester", as a concept, is much larger than just the legal city boundaries, and this article should reflect that. Powers T 16:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation, Powers. The distinction between postal code and geography makes sense. Do you know if there is a WP policy that gives us direction?

I'd argue, however, that going with geography limits the usefulness of the article to readers—just trying to learn about Rochester. For instance, if you're considering moving to Rochester for a job and have kids nearing college-age, you might want to know about the higher ed options. Not including what schools Rochester has hurts not only the article but also Rochester, if in my hypothetical, that person decides not to take that job. Maybe there's some compromise in this instance that other "city" articles have already dealt with? Crowdsourced (talk) 13:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I concur with you, Crowdsourced, and I argued similarly in the past. Unfortunately, this viewpoint found resistance from members of the Wikiproject Cities (see also this debate). Interestingly, nobody of those who want the information about the Rochester schools to be stripped appears to be from Rochester or to be familiar with Rochester. It just comes from the WikiProject which appears to enforce some strictness in this regard which I find unfortunate in this case. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
This information is already in Rochester, New York metropolitan area#Colleges and universities, Monroe County, New York#Colleges and universities, and Rochester Area Colleges—and perhaps elsewhere. Shouldn't those articles be referenced from the "Colleges and universities" section instead of duplicating this list in yet another place? I'm not even sure what the criteria for inclusion are—the list that appears in city of Rochester article as of this writing seems to be "all the post-secondary schools within the city limits (except the SUNY Brockport MetroCenter, Visual Studies Workshop, etc.), Henrietta, and Pittsford, but not Brighton, Brockport, Chili, or Irondequoit". -- DanielPenfield (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
We put information where readers expect to find it. The article about Rochester should include information on Rochester-area colleges, because that's what people reading about Rochester want to read. Should Boston#Education exclude Harvard because it's in Cambridge? Powers T 01:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Your example doesn't support your position:
-- DanielPenfield (talk) 07:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
How convenient that the major institutions all meet one of those criteria, isn't it? Anyway, try Lansing, Michigan#Education as a better example. Powers T 02:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Several points:
-- DanielPenfield (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
The criterion, as with everything, is what is found in reliable sources. When reliable sources say that, for instance, RIT is in Rochester, New York, that's a strong indication that we should be covering RIT in our article on Rochester. Powers T 01:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, it would be helpful for me to know what guidelines will guide revision on this topic (if there is one). I think that would give us some grounding to discuss. We can keep looking at other examples, but if there's a guideline, then we could take the discussion there and include others in the deliberation—because this current discussion is probably taking place on other articles. For instance, is there a guideline that stipulates that within the geographic city limits or physical address be used to determine location? Then there's the question of readers' needs. Sure, it's great that Wikipedia's contributors to city articles know the ends and outs of why some schools are and are not included, but that doesn't represent the casual user (or contributor, I'll add). And since only 6% of visitors to Wikipedia ever edit it, shouldn't the needs of the 94% be accounted for? My $.02. Crowdsourced (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I have yet to find any definitive guidelines. I was once directed to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities, but it's clear that opinion is pretty well divided. There is no site-wide consensus, sadly, on what exactly is the scope of an article titled with the name of a municipality. Powers T 22:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Latin

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is now a page at Vicipaedia, can someone add Latin to the languages on the side? Its at http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochester(Novum_Eboracum)74.34.5.164 (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Done Aulus Sergius Sulla (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

History section

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I realize there's a separate article on the History of Rochester, New York, but as currently written the History section of this article needs some elaboration at the beginning, in my view. A couple of sentences and then, bam! we're into 1803! If I remember right, for example, I believe that the first European settlement in what is today Rochester was a French mission... Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Ebenezer "Indian" Allan established a mill at the falls in 1788, but it was not well cared for; by 1800 it was in serious disrepair and it was totally abandoned and in ruins by 1809. It wasn't until 1812 that Rochester & Co. established a permanent settlement on the west side of the river. Apparently Enos Stone had a house on the east side when Rochester surveyed the area in 1811, but I haven't been able to figure out when that was built. The nearest French fortification was a short-lived one at Irondequoit Bay in the early 1700s. Powers T 17:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

/* Founding and early history */ immigration/foreign names

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Since one of the notable immigrants responsible for the growing of the nursing business, Georg Ellwanger, was from Germany, his first name spells "Georg" without "e" at the end (pronounced "gheh-ohrgh", not "dshordsh"). Possible he changed the spelling to the English version after coming to the States, but his birth name was definitely pronounced and spelled German. 92.75.75.167 (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Office of Innovation and Strategic Initiatives

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I wanted to include the City Government's "Office of Innovation and Strategic Initiatives", as much of their Big Data approach is something that the Wiki-population does well (if not better).

Here are some references:
OISI
Neighborhood Data Maps
ArcGIS Map The ArcGIS map is very sad. I think this could be done much better on a Wikia. Note that the context of several important systems are lost, like bus routes as one example.
Category:Maps of Rochester, New York

While many of these forms of data are privately held, copyrighted, etc., it ought to be possible to enlist these groups in contributing to a more accessible process, there might be a great deal of involvement by the local community and/or the Wiki community, and the ability to update information more often than annually might make for a strong attraction as well.

Since I'm not sure how to build a page around this part of the city government, or even the whole of the city government as a system of parts, I'm hoping someone has some ideas on the subject. Thank you. -- 15:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLastWordSword (talk • contribs) This is a signature, is it not? -- ~~~~ WTF??? -- 15:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)15:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)~~ That's just sad. Wikipedia:Signatures

Flag

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why was the flag of Rochester deleted from Commons instead of transferred? There are plenty of SVG flags here that aren't classified as fair use. Buffaboy talk 14:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

This article could use a shave

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi everyone,

I am an editor that focuses on Upstate NY (some downstate) cities, and on the heels of my work to help promote Utica, New York to WP:GA status, I'd like to help do the same with the Rochester article.

Rather than slowly editing the article as I did with Buffalo, I will work a little bit faster with this, cutting down on the crazy bulleted lists that could be in prose format. Buffaboy talk 21:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Rochester, New York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rochester, New York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

reference 74

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

reference 74 is out of date/dead link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.18.40.85 (talk) 04:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Rochester, New York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Rochester, New York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Rochester, New York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Rochester, New York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

History of health insurance in Rochester

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello dear Rochester experts,

I came here to check out this article because I never quite understood the unique tradition of health insurance coverage in Rochester and wanted to learn more about it. All I know is that, for many years, Rochester stood out from the rest of NYS by having its own separate rules, laws, and insurance plans that only pertained to Rochester. It was considered a very unique and exceptional zone in NYS. But that's all I remember. I was curious to find out how the Affordable Care Act has effected health insurance in Rochester, but there is no mention of any of that in this article. Would someone familiar with the topic add a section on it, please? Thanks! nycdi (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC) 

  As a resident of the city for the last 7 years I have never heard of this.  I have a standard plan offered by my employer who is located in the southern tier and have had no problem with having my insurance accepted by doctors in Rochester

Hobbes345 (talk) 04:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Minimization of Fast Ferry

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Ferry section is in serious need of rewriting as the ferry really isn't part of rochester anymore--other than a lingering bad memory.I believe this section is seriously out of date and should either be preserved rewritten into it's own document, or should be considerably reduced. -- B_cubed 2:02, 26 July 2006

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

Also--I've never heard the expression "fast ferry" to describe a bad deal as any kind of standardized phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B cubed (talk • contribs) 6:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC) yo its vlad vlad.vp7 follow me on instagram'

At this point in time, the ferry is just a bad memory. I feel it only needs a mention as having existed briefly. The details, while interesting, are not really relevant to Rochester's current transit system. I believe the best solution is to create a new document about the ferry and move the documents there. Hobbes345 (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Rochester has an interesting history of curious means of transport which are all no longer in use, beginning with the Erie Canal that crossed the Genesee River across the Broad Street Aqueduct. Later this opened the opportunity for the Rochester Subway which is likewise gone. Ferry services existed long before the ill-fated Fast Ferry. The Ontario Car Ferry Company provided a link from Rochester to Cobourg in the time from 1907 to 1950 (see [2]).
Regarding the Fast Ferry we have already two related articles, both about the relevant companies: Canadian American Transportation Systems and Bay Ferries Great Lakes. However, I wouldn't eliminate the ferry line from this article. Even if it appears to be “bad memory” there is still an ongoing discussion about a possible new ferry line: Payne, George Cassidy (7 September 2018). "Why not try the fast ferry again?". Democrat & Chronicle. Currently, the option of a Toronto–Niagara line is also explored: Filey, Mike (6 July 2019). "THE WAY WE WERE: Floating idea of eco-friendly cross-Lake Ontario ferry". Toronto SUN. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I am not advocating completely removing the ferry from the article, just trimming it a bit. I don't think this is the appropriate article to go into all the details of it. This should have more of an overview. Hobbes345 (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Copy Editing Review

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am starting to do a review of the article to improve the readability and sourcing. On my first pass, I intend only to make changes to make the article easier to read and understand, as well as flag items that need citation. I am not aiming to change the content of the article at this time, just improve the quality of what is there. Hobbes345 (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Revision to Nightlife Section?

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The nightlife section reads as though it were written by an overzealous tour guide. Many of the language is overly editorializing and adds unnecessary emotion to the article. Is there any objection to some revisions to this section? It could easily be trimmed down or at least made more professional.19acomst (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

None here. As a resident of the city, the descriptions are correct in my experience, but it definitely needs to be sourced and written in a more neutral tone. Hobbes345 (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I've updated the nightlife section to (hopefully) have a more encyclopedic tone. Should the tone banner now be removed, or are there other parts of the article that need edits? MassAffected (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

revision to charter school section?

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The entirety of the charter schools section (under the Education header) reads as though it's an advertisement for the listed charter schools. Is there any objection to the paragraph at the lead of that section being removed (or heavily edited) to preserve a neutral tone on the article? Also, I'm not sure if it's entirely appropriate to have the contact info for these schools. If so, should the contact info/addresses for all of the other listed schools (public or otherwise) be listed as well, to keep everything fair? Barrybluejeans (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the advertisement blurb at the beginning of the charter school section, and also edited the table listing the charter schools to be more similar with the other sections. Barrybluejeans (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that was indeed a blatant advertisement. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Demographics

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Somebody messed up the population history. 207.118.235.29 (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rochester,_New_York/Archive_2&oldid=1192254333"