I made two changes to the basic titles which I would like to promulgate because time after time I couldn't think of which one to put something under and I didn't want to put the same things under both. I'm pretty new though and don't want to upset any applecarts. Comments are solicited.
First I combined See and Do to See and Do. After all does one see a museum or do a museum? Does one see a park or do a park? In fact it is hard to think of something one might do without also seeing it.
Second I combined Eat and Drink into Eat and Drink. This eliminates redundancy in most cases. The only times I can imagine that this distinction might have meaning is if one were searching for a non-alcoholic dining experience in an area where either was available (and this could be handled by a comment). Then there is the question whether WikiTravel should even get to this level of specificity. Most of the time the distinction is null. Try to find a "non-alcoholic" restaurant in Europe. Maybe MacDonalds, but then everyone knows that. Try to find an "alcoholic" restaurant in Saudi Arabia (I couldn't.) So this distinction between the two seems to me largely meaningless. Besides, aren't most of the interesting bars for visitors in fact in restaurants?
Third, though this is a mere detail, I find the term Shop preferable to Buy, though I have yet to use either. My guess is that people shop much more often than they buy and that to shop is the essence of what is usually sought by visitors.
William M Goetsch 12:03, 30 Apr 2004 (EDT)
Great article, but I'm not so sure about the bit on Fort Pitt and Fort Duquesne. I believe these were actually two separate structures, Duquesne being burned by the French upon their retreat, a stone outline of which can be seen at the Point, and Pitt being somewhat larger, some walls of which are still intact at the point closer to Downtown. 18.104.22.168 13:28, 7 Jul 2005 (EDT)
I'm working on a restaurant listing for Pittsburgh on my userpage (), and was wondering if this would be a place that could use the listing. It's nowhere near complete yet, still working on it, but just wanted to see if others were interesting in using/improving/etc the list in this space. Please leave a message on my talk page if you're interested. Thanks!
22.214.171.124 18:46, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)
Very interesting page however Pittsburgh Mills Mall is NOT the only Mill left in Pittsburgh. Allegheny Ludlum is very much still alive and running. :)
In the event Pittsburgh is destroyed, I will be the one to delete the article from Wikitravel. I wonder what would be the happiest day of my life - getting married, Pittsburgh being destroyed, or the Bengals winning the Super Bowl? -- Sapphire • (Talk) • 19:29, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
Getting married???? Ha! Good one, you silly man. OldPine 19:41, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
After being in Pittsburgh for several days I feel that there is a need to rework our "Neighborhoods" section into some "Districts" which will cover the whole city. I understand the desire to make neighborhood articles, but there are so many neighborhoods in Pittsburgh that we can't have an article for each one, and with what we have now we can't talk about attractions in smaller neighborhoods (where's the zoo in all of this?), so we have to combine neighborhoods into useful regions of the city (unless that neighborhood has so much stuff it needs to stay its own article).
Now, the Pittsburgh Wayfinder sign system is a good system to work from, because it's all over Pittsburgh. We already have articles for Downtown and North Side, those looks fine. Now I'm going to propose some changes, and if anyone is familiar with Pittsburgh please tell me what you think:
I don't think Mount Washington works well as an article on its own. It's got the inclines and some restaurants, but can you sleep there? Are there other things to do? Is there much shopping? So I think Mount Washington and South Side should be worked into a new article to cover everything south of the Monongahela and Ohio rivers. But here's a problem: what would we call this article? I think there would be difficulty in calling the article "South Side", since when people actually say "South Side" they're referring to the specific neighborhood across the river from Downtown. Another possible name is "South Hills", which I got from Wikipedia, or perhaps "South Side-South Hills". What do you think?
How about we create one article for the East End, and incorporate Point Breeze, East Liberty, and Squirrel Hill into it (since all three of those articles are looking pretty small)? East End would also include other neighborhoods like Highland, where the zoo is. But Oakland will stay as its own article, since its got lots of stuff.
Strip District and Lawrenceville will stay their own articles. However, Bloomfield and Shadyside, which will also stay as their own articles, will be listed under the Greenish-Brown area which covers the Strip District and Lawrenceville. I'd like to do this because I actually saw a Wayfinder sign which had that Greenish-Brown color for those two neighborhoods.
Overall, this would create 9 districts articles: Downtown, North Side, South Side/South Hills/South Whatever, Strip District, Lawrenceville, Oakland, Bloomfield, Shadyside, and East End. PerryPlanet 15:10, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
I've only spent any real time in the areas under the first bullet, but I think you're definitely right to combine Mt Washington & South Side. I'd say just group them under South Side, since Mt Washington is south of the river. I don't know if that's a heretical thing to do, but if someone complains, changing district names is really easy.
I'll hold off on discussing the rest, since I really don't know anything other than the South Side (aside from the US Steel building, which may be my favorite skyscraper). (Why is it that I tend to only know south sides?) But I will say that 9 districts sounds like a good number for the city—I wouldn't go higher, maybe go lower if it makes sense to do so. Lastly, this is going to be extremely helpful (svg!). --PeterTalk 20:23, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
I've definitely spent a lot of time studying that Pittsburgh neighborhood map. It's so nice to see a good breakdown of neighborhoods. Anyway, working from that very map, I've put my proposal in map form to make it a bit easier to understand: Image:Pittsburgh districts proposal.png. PerryPlanet 15:27, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
Are subdistricts common? I see New York (city)/Manhattan is subdivided (boy is it subdivided!), but that's Manhattan. I would prefer to keep city articles as flat as possible. What does the amount of content look like if we just take the five colors as districts? Would that leave them too big? LtPowers 19:19, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
I think John is grouping them a la Washington, D.C.#Districts or Chicago#Districts. That is, group districts by color for organization's sake, but keep the hierarchy flat, without articles for the groupings themselves. Again, I don't know the city well (outside of the South Side, which I think you might be better off just calling the "South Side"), but it's a reasonably small city—you might want to first try some of those East End groupings as single articles, to see if they do need subdivision. --PeterTalk 22:55, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
Okay, that's fine. However, I'm not a big fan of having one of those districts (East End) a) split between two colors and b) non-contiguous. LtPowers 10:03, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
The reason why East End is split between two colors is simply because that's the way the wayfinder system works. The Greenish-Brown color is basically the entire northern side of East End, while the Orange is the entire southern side of East End. However, we can just use one color for the East End, and then explain the whole way the wayfinder system works and how it differs from our system. Or if you like, we can create an "East End North" and "East End South", whatever you prefer.
I'm willing to throw Bloomfield and Shadyside in with an overall East End article (that'll bulk it up a bit), but I haven't given myself a chance to really penetrate those neighborhoods yet so I don't know if it'll turn out to be too big. But if it does, I imagine it won't be too hard to reverse. On the other hand, I kinda want Oakland to stay on as its own article, because there's just so much stuff there. I'd also like Strip District and Lawrenceville to be separated from the rest of East End somehow, because they really are quite unique. But seeing how short both articles are, perhaps it would be best to combine them, say into Strip District-Lawrenceville? I've been through there and I'd feel comfortable combining those two.
I have to admit, since making the maps I've become fond of proposal #3. I think the reason why I didn't propose that layout from the start is because someone obviously went to some effort to make decent articles for Oakland, Shadyside, and Bloomfield, which in a way really shows neighborhood pride and I didn't want to cut that down. But the five-district system looks so delightfully simple it's now my favorite. Just to explain it further,
Downtown stays Downtown,
North Side stays North Side,
Mount Washington and South Side become South Side,
Strip District, Lawrenceville, Bloomfield, Shadyside, and East Liberty becomes East End-North,
Oakland, Squirrel Hill, and Point Breeze becomes East End-South. PerryPlanet 11:25, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
I like #3 a lot too—nice and elegant. --PeterTalk 21:08, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
The synchronicity with the wayfinder system makes it particularly appealing. If any of the five articles ends up too big, we can decide how to split them later. LtPowers 10:17, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
All right! However, I'm going to have to make a minor change: Shadyside actually goes with the southern side of East End, not the northern part, despite that one wayfinder sign I saw. Turns out if you actually walk through Shadyside, all the signs there are in the bright orange color. PerryPlanet 12:17, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
We need to create a West District. I feel as though all other Pittsburgh districts are represented except for the West. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RevenuePerformance (talk • contribs)
Do you mean split off a west district from the south side district? By the way, you can sign your comments by typing four tildes after your comment (~~~~). --PeterTalk 16:46, 6 February 2009 (EST)
If you mean creating a West End district, I think we could do that, but first I'd like to get an idea of how much stuff such a guide would have (how many attractions, places to eat, places to sleep, etc) so that we could get an idea of how useful it would be. But if by "West District" you mean the western suburbs and the airport area, that would technically be outside of Pittsburgh and go into Allegheny County for now instead. I'm hoping to get to creating articles for some of the suburbs around Pittsburgh (the ones with enough stuff to do, of course), but it's low on my list of priorities for Pittsburgh. PerryPlanetTalk 23:41, 6 February 2009 (EST)
OK, I realize it's not exactly within the city limits, but this article seems the natural place to put Kennywood. LtPowers 20:33, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
Sorry it took me such a ridiculously long time to reply to this...
How about I make a Homestead (Pennsylvania) article? Kennywood is right next to Homestead, and there's a couple of malls and a water park there as well, so I think it's enough to justify an article. And then in the Pittsburgh guide we link to Homestead (making it clear that's where Kennywood is), in the Get out section and perhaps also as a blurb in the Do section? PerryPlanetTalk 20:23, 20 February 2009 (EST)
Sounds good to me. Five months ago I didn't have a good sense for where that sort of thing should go. =) LtPowers 20:55, 20 February 2009 (EST)
First one. I shot the first one, so I may be biased, but: Second one's color is definitely off. Its skyline is sharper, but at thumb size that's not so critical. That said, the first one isn't perfect; the sky is overexposed and home plate is covered. Still, it looks more natural/authentic. --Jtesla16 17:36, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
Second one. Well, obviously I'm biased because I uploaded the second one, but I like the second because the exposure is better and it's got a lot more detail, not just of downtown but also of the field. The overexposure in the first one was the main reason I replaced it in the first place. But if I'm the only one who votes for the second one then I'll change it back. PerryPlanetTalk 18:39, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
Third one. I think the colors in the one PerryPlanet uploaded were a bit too warm, so I cooled them down a bit. --PeterTalk 21:22, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
Third one rocks. --Jtesla16 21:39, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
Er, I was apparently doing the same thing at the same time as Peter, except I also rotated it a bit. I would have posted earlier but for some reason Wikitravel was being dog slow on my laptop. Mine's the fourth one up there. LtPowers 21:45, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
I think I still prefer the third one. I enlarged the two to 300px (see below) to see what it would look like at thumb size, and the third one has more clarity than the fourth. The correction in the rotation really doesn't come out at thumb size. PerryPlanetTalk 15:24, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
3rd, But I think it's getting a bit ridiculous arguing about number 3 & 4 --Stefan (sertmann)Talk 17:06, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
Peter and I were working on them at the same time; it's not like I was trying to upstage him or anything. LtPowers 17:09, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
Oh, and I think I figured out why mine has less clarity, as Perry noted. I was using Google Picasa for the first time and apparently when it does a rotation, it not only crops the image back into a rectangle, but it enlarges the cropped image back to the original size. That accounts for the lowered clarity; it's artifacts from the resizing. A properly-done rotation would be clearer but with slightly smaller dimensions. LtPowers 17:14, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
Well, I went ahead and replaced it with Peter's image. Sorry for causing all this trouble. I've always been a baseball fan, but I never realized just how much we Wikitravelers care about our ballpark images. PerryPlanetTalk 21:44, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
I have to ask (because I'm not sure of the answer), does it make sense to have a paragraph about green buildings in Pittsburgh under the See#Architecture section? I'm thinking no...Green building is great, don't get me wrong, but I don't think that sort of info is really of any help to travelers, and it's not something unique to Pittsburgh (I mean come on, every city has LEED-certified buildings cropping up). Or should we just leave it? PerryPlanetTalk 01:35, 2 June 2009 (EDT)
If the specific buildings are of note (and the David L Lawrence Convention Center looks like it is), then I think they would fit well in district "see" sections. If they're really notable, then I'd recommend mentioning them in the paragraphs above. But the short paragraph as written seems unintegrated into the travel guide, and is overly reliant on readers following the link offsite. Since it doesn't fit naturally in this otherwise cohesive section, I'd remove it. --PeterTalk 02:20, 2 June 2009 (EDT)
I study architecture and am sure that at least noting Pittsburgh's large number of green buildings would be of interest at least to architects/students who might visit. I just showed two of my archie friends around town this weekend, and they were interested to see some of those buildings (chiefly the convention center of course). I do think it is kinda a big deal even for the amateurs (considering our large number of green buildings, and yet our outdated "dirty" image). Ctoocheck 15:21, 2 June 2009 (EDT)
Sure, if you study architecture I'm sure it'd be of interest, but most travelers aren't studying architecture. And those that are have plenty of other routes to tap into this info, Wikipedia being a great one. And while Pittsburgh has it's fair share of green buildings, it's really not something I think "defines" Pittsburgh - Green building is the buzzword in architecture now, and every city has LEED-certified buildings cropping up. Do we need paragraphs about green building in every city article?
I don't have any problem with mentioning that such-and-such building is a green one (like in the listing for the convention center in the Downtown article), I just don't see the need for this paragraph. PerryPlanetTalk 18:06, 2 June 2009 (EDT)
Well, it is not an exceptionally long paragraph...maybe the length can be cut a bit...but in any case I think it would at least be nice to mention something of it. It does not "define" us, but, considering our reputation as a dirty city, it highlights the fact that we are not, we do in fact have a very large number of these buildings. Do what your heart tells you. Ctoocheck 18:55, 2 June 2009 (EDT)
I think the last paragraph of the History section already does a good job of clearing off the "dirty" image. Anyway, cutting the length of the paragraph wouldn't really help - it already doesn't fit into the rest of the text, cutting the length would probably just make matters worse. PerryPlanetTalk 19:08, 2 June 2009 (EDT)
Yeah, it's not the length that's the problem, it's the flow. Would it be possible to integrate the most relevant information into the existing paragraphs before it? --PeterTalk 12:26, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
There's an enormous amount of info just on Oakland in the EEnd-South district, and there's also quite a bit on other neighborhoods. Do you think it might be a good idea to make Oakland a page of its own? It is the "second downtown", after all. Ctoocheck 17:35, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
Hmmm...for the moment I want to see where it goes. Right now I think it's holding together pretty well. If it gets too long, we can always break it down later. PerryPlanetTalk 20:16, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
Does this article cover only the exact city limits? I recently stayed in Green Tree and it's surrounded on three sides by the city but it's its own borough. Is a new article in order for Green Tree? LtPowers 13:12, 2 December 2009 (EST)
Hmmm...tough call. It's not that far out, but any Pittsburgher basically considers anything past Mt. Washington outside Pittsburgh proper. I think I would just put it with Robinson Township, since it's along that same highway and hotels along there like to mention their proximity to the airport. PerryPlanetTalk 17:39, 2 December 2009 (EST)
I don't like tossing it in with Robinson, since it's clearly a separate borough and is probably more recognizable than Robinson anyway. LtPowers 11:40, 3 December 2009 (EST)
More recognizable? At least Robinson has the mall with the IKEA - what does Green Tree have? But I guess that's beside the point - if you want to create a Green Tree article, feel free, I just can't really see it having much in the way of content. PerryPlanetTalk 13:46, 3 December 2009 (EST)
I'm probably wrong, it's probably just my own foreign bias for boroughs (New Yorkese "villages") versus townships. =) LtPowers 17:45, 3 December 2009 (EST)
According to Wikipedia, Green Tree, while it is a "borough", has a population of 4,700, compared to Robinson Township's population of over 12,000. I guess Pennsylvania's classification system is a little screwy. PerryPlanetTalk 00:12, 4 December 2009 (EST)
Well, population is hardly the only measure, although I take your point. Still, putting Green Tree content in Robinson would be odd since they're not even adjacent, and the hotels in Green Tree don't have "Airport" plastered all over their names. =) The real barrier to a Green Tree article is that I don't think there's anything to do or see, really. It's just houses, hotels, and a few commercial areas. LtPowers 09:38, 4 December 2009 (EST)
True that. Maybe we should approach this matter differently...perhaps a "West Allegheny County" article, to cover all these little communities that on their own wouldn't amount to much. So Green Tree, Carnegie, Robinson Township, Coraopolis, the airport...It's not our usual way of doing things, but the way we're handling these kinds of suburban and rural areas on Wikitravel now aren't really doing the trick. PerryPlanetTalk 13:16, 4 December 2009 (EST)
I seem to have bit myself in the back with this one, given how hotels that are in Green Tree keep winding up in Pittsburgh articles. I've added a Green Tree article for the time being. PerryPlanetTalk 12:41, 26 February 2010 (EST)
"The South Side Flats neighborhood has the most popular and diverse bar scene, and is said to have more bars per block/capita than almost anywhere else in the U.S. Most bars are along a mile-long strip of E Carson St. between 7th and 29th Sts."
I can't find much to back this up. Though it is certainly within the realm of possibility.