Talk:Worcester, Massachusetts/Archive 1

Bancroft School
Note by [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:57, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The following material was merged from a submission entitled Bancroft School. The material merged is the work of a single anonymous author, created in four closely-spaced edits on 5 Nov 2004 as follows: The Bancroft School of Worcester, Massachusetts, founded in 1901 is a K through 12 private school. It is located on Shore Drive, across the road from Indian Lake.
 * (cur) (last) 23:00, 5 Nov 2004 68.186.241.5
 * (cur) (last) 22:59, 5 Nov 2004 68.186.241.5
 * (cur) (last) 22:57, 5 Nov 2004 68.186.241.5
 * (cur) (last) 22:44, 5 Nov 2004 68.186.241.5

Sports
I copied the Worcester IceCats info to its own page, which is how the other AHL teams are organized. Econrad 20:49, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

County seat
Let's talk about whether Fitchburg is a county seat here, rather than perpetually re-reverting.

It seems clear that at some point in the past, Fitchburg was one of two county seats of Worcester County. Most recently, it is shown as a county seat on a county map produced by the Massachusetts Secretary of State's office in January 2004. There are two registries of deeds in Worcester County, one in Worcester ("Worcester") and one in Fitchburg ("Worcester Northern").

It is also clear that it is possible for a county to have multiple seats. (64.63.214.105 cites a page showing two such counties to buttress his assertion that no such counties exist; on that page, however, Worcester is shown as the only county seat.)

Now, I'm not arguing that Fitchburg is still a county seat; it may well not be, and given how it's population has dwindled, it probably isn't. BUT I'd like to see something a bit more authoritative than "I live here" or "my neighbor has papers that say...." Isn't there a page on the Sec. of State's website that lists county seats, and doesn't list Fitchburg (for example)? The date when Fitchburg stopped being a county seat would be an interesting tidbit to add to the article. ("Since 19xx, Worcester has been the only county seat...")

-Rjyanco 13:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I went looking for my own answer. There is a page at that lists Fitchburg as a county seat. So that makes two pages at the Secrtary of State's website saying Fitchburg is a county seat. Take it up with Bill Galvin if you want, but barring more authoritative information, I think we need to keep Fitchburg listed as a county seat.

-Rjyanco 13:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * FWIW, the 1911 EB refers to Fitchburg as "one of the county-seats of Worcester county". It is described the same way in my copy of The New Practical Reference Library (1916). The Columbia Gazeteer and  also lists it as as a county seat. So it seems that Worcester county may indeed have had two seats and that Fitchburg was one of them.  I'm not sure if it is accurate to use the present tense to describe it as such though. older &ne; wiser 15:02, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll be in Worcester over the holiday. I'll see if I can find someone on the phone who can give me an answer and, ideally, point me to some definitive document that I can go look at in the library or the county clerk's office.  If we eventually conclude that certain county functions are performed out of an office in Fitchburg, it would be worth editing this article and Fitchburg's to specify the division of duties.  (It may be no more than a branch office of the registrar of deeds in Fitchburg.) JamesMLane 16:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I am disappointed in User:Rjyanco's tone towards me. Frankly, I find it arrogant that someone would dismiss my nearly three decades of experience with Worcester because someone screwed up a list at the Secretary of State's office. Moving on, I am willing to accept that, perhaps at one point in history, Fitchburg was the county seat. But Worcester was the county seat when the county was dissolved a few years ago. Counties have only one seat at a time. Looking in my phone books from 1990, the Worcester County Commissioners were listed in Worcester (508-798-7700). This number is now disconnected, but a web search on this number further shows that Worcester was the county seat. 64.63.214.197 01:57, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Counties have only one seat at a time. So you're saying that the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, 1916 The New Practical Reference Library, and the Columbia Gazeteer all got this wrong? They all pretty unambiguously imply that at one time both were county seats. older &ne; wiser 04:19, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I don't know what criteria those sources used to determine what a county seat is. Maybe they conclude that because there is a substantial county office located in Fitchburg, it must also be a county seat. My straightforward criteria of the county is where the county commissioners met. Indeed, several offices are not in Worcester (the county jail is in Boylston, the county cemetery is in Paxton). Perhaps these sources keyed in on the locations of the superior courts in Worcester county, but superior court does not equal county seat. 64.63.214.155 05:11, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly no expert here; I just want to see the article have its facts straight. 64.63.214.197's information about the dissolution of the county sounds interesting, and I hope it is incorporated into the Worcester County article.
 * Concerning Fitchburg, allrefer.com, which purports to be based on the Columbia Gazetteer of North America (Copyright © 2000, Columbia University Press. / Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved) has Fitchburg shown as a county seat and has Worcester County shown with two county seats, Worcester and Fitchburg.
 * As for tone, 64.63.214.197, what tone are you talking about? The best I can find is when I was amused that you said "A county has only one seat" then cited a webpage contradicting that.  On the other hand, looking at the article's history, I see a comment about my change being inconsistent with reality, and a comment that data contradicting your belief, originating from the Secretary of State's office, must have resulted from an "underpaid government intern's misunderstanding..." Rjyanco 13:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to go with 64.63.214.197 on this one. I have found a Worcester Telegram and Gazette article from August 8, 1993, entitled "MANY TRIES ATTEMPTED TO 'UNSEAT' WORCESTER", by Richard Chiasson. It says Lancaster was initially preferred when Worcester was chosen in 1731; that many times the northern portion of Worcester County tried to break off into its own county (different proposals called it Lincoln County or Washington County or Webster County). Possible county seats included Petersham (briefly) and Fitchburg (often). The registry of deeds was split in August 1884; according to the article, the last attempt to split the county was in 1903. So, I'm going to delete the Fitchburg reference and the dispute. Rjyanco 14:06, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So, why is all this stuff in this article? Shouldn't the new "County Government" section be moved to Worcester County, Massachusetts? AJD 22:16, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * This information is here because Worcester is the county seat, and this fact should be noted here. Granted, the information beginning with "Because of the size..." should be copied over to the County article.  Yes, the distinction of being a county seat is almost entirely ceremonial today, but information about Worcester's historical status should remain here, under Local government.  EagleOne 02:22, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * I moved the "Because of the size..." to the County article, and moved the information about Worcester's historical status to the History section of this article. AJD 03:41, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For the record, neighboring Middlesex County, Massachusetts is currently listed as having two county seats. -- Beland 21:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Headings
I don't see any benefit to eliminating the h3 subheadings. As subheadings, they show up in the Table of Contents, and have their own edit bars. Normal Wikipedia style is to use h3 rather than boldfacing for subheadings. JamesMLane 09:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nicknames
I did a Yahoo! search for Worcester "Paris of the 80s" -wikipedia; this returned only seven hits. One of them, a passing reference from this article in the Phoenix, makes me think the phrase was a marketing slogan introduced by city officials years ago. It doesn't seem to have much currency as a nickname. Then I did a search for Worcester Wormtown -wikipedia; this generated 8,980 hits. I've removed the "Paris" slogan but substituted "Wormtown". JamesMLane 21:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)Ask any of the youths in worcester the nick name of the city and they will most likely tell you its "Wor-Town" not "Wormtown". It is noted as Wortown for the first 3 letters in the name of the city and also the drauma that go's on in the city (fights, shootings, stabbings, drug etc.) plus everyone knows somebody through somebody else in this city.


 * Comparitively, there aren't that many "fights, shootings, stabbings, drugs, etc" in Worcester... and I don't think that many people know Worcester as "wor-town." As silly as Wormtown sounds, it's been a nickname of the city for decades, and a number of magazines, stores, and other noteworth establishments have it in the name.  Not as many people know Worcester as "wor-town."  As for "The Paris of the 80s," to my knowledge, that slogan was started by a t-shirt maker who thought it'd be funny (which the design is), and the line of t-shirts were variably successful around here (vintage look, another one with the infamous turtle-boy)...  To my best knowledge, nobody really ever called Worcester "The Paris of the 80s" seriously, although the Worcester Magazine seems to credit it with Joe Early, but I can find no further evidence of that.  He does have a knack for clever statements, but I don't know if that's one of them. Mike Murray 17:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have lived in Worcester my entire life, and noone has ever, ever called it "wor-town". (I am 18). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.20.149 (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

worcester is def known as wor-town to anyone under 30 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.227.147 (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is backup for calling it Wormtown, and this is Worcester Magazine using "Woo-town." I have heard Wormtown used a lot, and I wasn't even born here. __Just plain Bill (talk) 02:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not setting a very high bar in terms of sources for nicknames, but worcestermass.com is a personal website and is more of a rant than anything reliable for sourcing.-- Terrillja talk  02:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. How about the Worcester Magazine then? Doesn't take a lot of looking to see a lot of web-ephemera out there referring to Our Fair City as "Wormtown." The name seems to have been widely used for several decades. For me at least, it stands in the class of "obvious facts not well-recorded in scholarly literature." Do you think it needs a reference in-line in the article? __Just plain Bill (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, I see someone already did add it. While I've got an edit window open here, how about "city of seven hills" or "heart of the Commonwealth"? Those seem to be names made up in the Chamber of Commerce one day. Can probably find references up one side and down the other for them, but does anybody actually work them into natural everyday speech? Seems to me that real nicknames are given by the people, not proclaimed by boosters. __Just plain Bill (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed text about driving fast

 * Local enthusiasts often use it as a test road; the stretch between exits 4 and 5 is ideal for safe road driving beyond 100 miles per hour.

This is not NPOV. Moreover, it seems unwise to advise people that driving at 100mph on a stretch of urban American highway is "safe". -- Beland 21:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Neighborhoods
It would be nice if this article described the neightborhoods of the city. Am I correct in surmising that there is a section of the city called "Cambridge"? -- Beland 21:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Cambridge Street maybe but not Cambridge. The 'named' neighborhoods like Greendale or Cherry Hill are mostly a thing of the past--Lepeu1999 20:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I live in Worcester, am 29 years old, and I still refer to sections of the city as "Greendale", "The Summitt," "Quinsig Village," "Grafton St," "Vernon Hill," etc. And people I talk to, mostly my age, know EXACTLY what I am talking about. Oh, and that is correct. Cambridge is not a neighborhood per se, but there is Cambridge Street. The area would just be called "Cambridge Street" by locals. Hstrypcfr 02:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, I think that people still generally refer to different areas by neighborhood names -- Cherry Valley, Greendale, Main South, Vernon Hill, and so on. It is something that is more predominant amongst older crowds, but certainly not unknown amongst young people either. Mike Murray 17:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this list is that some of the names are the actual traditional neighborhood names that are used in common speech while others are just street names or cobbled together landmark names. There are also neighborhood names not on the list that have largely fallen out of use but still might be appropriate to include. Perhaps a separate page "Neighborhoods of Worcester" with a brief description and background of the traditional neighborhoods would be the way to proceed. SemblaceII (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * go for it. I have long believed this section does not belong on this page. it needs references and to be more than just a list of names. be bold and make a new page.--Found5dollar (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The predominantly Black area of the city was and continues to be known as the "Laurel-Clayton" neighborhood even though the majority of it was torn down and replaced with a large housing project during early 1970s.There is no mention of it ever existing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.216.152.234 (talk) 02:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

25th in population?
"It is ranked twenty-fifth in the nation for its size in terms of current population and economic growth."

Certainly, Worcester is not the twenty-fifth largest city in the country (Denver) nor does it contain the twenty-fifth largest metropolitan area (Cincinnati), yet this is what the sentence seems to say. This is in desparate need of rephrasing.Loodog 15:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * -I deleted it outright. It made no sense, and no one seemed to be offering any references to it. --Jleon 17:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Is it OK to pronounce it wor-ches-ter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.172.165 (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Only if you want the locals to beat you up. d;-) --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Entirely OK if you say it from a great distance, say Kalamazoo or Albion __ Just plain Bill 17:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Not true. We have a Greyhound Bus Terminal. We can travel.--Gopple 22:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Are these proper pronunciations?
 * Wistuh
 * Wurster
 * Wurstuh
 * Wister — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.172.165 (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The first (and maybe the last, depending on how you render the "r") might make a passable approximation. That first vowel needs to be pretty neutral, the way I hear it. I mean, if a kid from Chelmsford says "Worcester" where no one can hear him, does he still get beat up? __ Just plain Bill 11:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Also, Wuss-ter. (as in "wussie").--Gopple 21:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * wuss-ter (or close to it) is how locals pronounce it, and it is the pronunciation given in the OED and Merriam-Webster for the town in England from which it gets its name, and all other names therefrom, so that's the correct pronunciation. Listen to it at Merriam-Webster. - Centrx 07:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * depends on what part of the city you're talking about. Around Grafton Hill they say Wistah.  Wuss-ter is more a west-side pronounciation.--Lepeu1999 20:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This may be a difference in pronunciation that is general to all words. That is, they may very well pronounce the word "wuss" like "wis" or "fuss" like "fis"; certainly that is true of the r. —Centrx→talk 09:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope. Wuss is pronounced just as written as in "Only a wussy pronounces Wor-chest-ter."--Lepeu1999 14:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

How the heck did it end up being so strangely pronounced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.172.165 (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * English was pronounced differently back then. Some places changed their spelling in the New World (id. Hertford was changed to Hartford) to reflect their pronounciation, while others just changed the pronounciation (Berkshire is pronounced "Barkshire" in England), and lucky ones like Worcester kept both the same in the transition. Alex 22:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to pronounce it Wurster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.172.165 (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's the stuff! The sauce that comes in a bottle with an orange label, that is, that Moe Howard could never pronounce. May I inquire how it feels, to "would like to" say it that way? It's 'Wɘ stɘ. And while I'm at it, here's a tray of can o' peas. __ Just plain Bill 18:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't type the funkier IPA letters, so I can't fix it, but the IPA is wrong. It should end with either the insane upside-down r as a syllabic consonant, or with an r-colored vowel. The current transcription says there's a vowel sound between the t and the r, which I've never heard in this name or any other English word. (It also follows the annoying tendency of some pages to claim English contains the phoneme /r/, which is a trill, but that is neither here nor there.) 76.182.17.255 (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Easiest way to do it is to split it down the middle: Worcester = Worce-ster. It was probably originally pronounced with an audible "r" that slowly got dropped. 68.184.36.253 (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It is WISTA!! I lived here my whole life. You can't just come into a city and think you can change it's history!! Just because YOU can't pronounce it doesn't mean that people that lived there whole lives here can't!

Lets go all across the country and change the way local people pronounce their home town names! You do the city no good if you don't even know this simple fact! How many other facts do you have wrong here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.124.136.178 (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * While we appriciate how intensely you are fighing for a diferent pronunciation of Worcester than what is listed on the page, making unconstructive edits and demeaning other contributors is not the way to go about it. The majority of contributers to this page are from Worcester and know alot about the city. If you feel that something in the article is wrong, please duscuss it here in a calm manner. Also please sign your posts so that we know who is saying what.--Found5dollar (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll second that. "Wista" is a fair plain-text approximation of how some people from Worcester say it, but the city is big enough that not everyone talks the same here. Consider that YOU are also an editor of this page; wikipedia doesn't have an us/them thing going on, at least not when it's working the way I think it's supposed to. It works best when everyone collaborates in a civil reasonable way, which doesn't include putting rants on the article page. Help us out here. Like Found5dollar says, we live here too. __Just plain Bill (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Until a couple of years ago I lived on Wooster Drive. As in how Elmer Fudd would pronounce rooster (I'm no wonger hunting wabbits. I'm now hunting woosters"). And very close to how the Monster truck announcers pronounce the location of the frequent competitions. --Glenn L (talk) 07:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * English was pronounced differently back then. Some places changed their spelling in the New World (id. Hertford was changed to Hartford) to reflect their pronounciation, while others just changed the pronounciation (Berkshire is pronounced "Barkshire" in England), and lucky ones like Worcester kept both the same in the transition
 * The original English town of Worcester is very old and it was in existence when the rules of writing English were not widely known and so many scribes and monks (who were the only people who could write back then) often had no idea how to spell the names that they heard, they therefore made the best guess, based on their previous experience of other names. Many names were first standardised in the Domesday Book which was instigated by William the Conqueror back in 1086, and he was a Norman, and the people and lands he was taking-over were Anglo-Saxon, so many of the Norman scribes who compiled the book would have been unfamiliar with the newly encountered Anglo-Saxon place-names. Generally any name with 'cester' at the end is the same as 'chester' or 'caster' which originally meant that the town was centred on a defended building e.g., a castle or the Roman equivalent. So 'Worchester' would probably originally have been pronounced as it was spelt, but over time the locals (perhaps due to lazyness) changed it to 'Wuster'. This 'strange' pronunciation is also found in such place names as Norwich (pronounced 'Norritch' - originally 'North Wich'). Many English place names give now-forgotten clues as to what was originally situated at the site of a village or town, place names that end in 'ton' for example usually started out as a farmstead or similar small settlement of perhaps one or two families. In addition, the Domesday Book was what made surnames required by the authorities and so many families just took their surname from the town or village where they lived, hence surnames like Walton - from various Waltons in England, the name deriving from the name of the founders of the farmstead with 'ton' added.
 * Actually on second thought, the example I gave of the surname 'Walton' probably wasn't the most apt name to use as IIRC, the 'Wal' part of the name derives from the Anglo-Saxon word for 'foreigner' and is also seen in the English name of the country Wales, so the place name 'Walton' would have been a farmstead inhabited by non-Anglo-Saxons, i.e., members of the native Briton population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.82.36 (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

How come in the article it says its pronounced wuuss-ter where as the corresponding article for the british city says wuus-ter. Is there really a difference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.209.40.81 (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Not invented here: barbed wire
Barbed wire mentions an 1874 patent issued to Joseph F. Glidden of DeKalb, Illinois. Thomas Dodge of Worcester's first patent, for barbed wire, was in 1878. Glidden sold some patent rights to Washburn & Moen of Worcester in 1876. A New Yorker, Michael Kelly, invented a form of barbed wire in 1863 but did not promote it successfully. This timeline does not mention Worcester at all, but mentions French patents in 1860 and 1865.

The early history of barbed wire involved some patent disputes, with Glidden of Illinois coming out the winner in 1892.

It looks like some of the very early manufacturing happened in Worcester, but I haven't found anything to justify saying it was "first invented here." __ Just plain Bill 03:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Notable - Born In Worcester
I reverted a deletion of Jerry Azuma and Alisan Porter. The deleter noted that Azuma no longer plays in the NFL and that Porter was "only born there" (which I'm pretty sure is the standard for the "Born in Worcester" category). In terms of Azuma, I think that his retirement shouldn't change his notability. He still has a Wikipedia page and he was a big part of the Chicago teams during his playing years. --Gopple 05:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Simply being born in Worcester is so trivially and tangentially connected that it does not belong in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are others in that section that should be removed as well, and the section renamed. Alisan Porter, specifically, moved away from Worcester at the age of 13. —Centrx→talk &bull; 06:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think accomplished folks - athletes, scholars, actors, politicians, scientists, etc. - are often claimed to be "sons of" or "daughters of"...a particular place. Almost every city that I randomly thought of has a list like this (either "born in" or "resident of"), which to me seems to be a general wikipedia practice to include this information (Omaha, Seattle, Hartford, Baltimore). At least for me, I find it informative and interesting...and not quite as random as you seem to. The fact that Porter left the city when she was 13 doesn't change much...Does it matter that Babe Ruth left Baltimore when he was 19? I'm not so sure. They still seem pretty proud of him. --Gopple 20:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Putting a bunch of people in a list in a separate article is another matter entirely, but there too, the more people you have and the less related they are, the less useful the list becomes for finding people who are more important and more related. Note also that, while it is common practice, such as in the Hartford, Connecticut section, to have a Notable natives section that list people like Mark Twain and Harriet Beecher Stowe, who first lived there substantially and have historic houses there reserved about them, the other less notable and tangentially related people are mostly added by anonymous passers-by (for Hartford, more than half were added by a single anonymous user, ). See also Concord, MA, where it is not appropriate to have baseball player Tom Glavine, who was merely born there and grew up somewhere else, alongside Louisa May Alcott, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Henry David Thoreau, etc., who are truly historical notable persons and who actually lived there most of their lives and did famous things there. —Centrx→talk &bull; 06:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I would only point out that the Hartford section also includes Dwight Freeney (NFL player) and Mark McGrath (who was only born in Hartford, but grew up in Los Angeles. I don't have a vested interest in requiring Alisan Porter to be on the Worcester native list. That said, on the overall level, I do like having the list, with all the notable people who have that connection to Worcester (born or raised or live there). As for Porter? My best (?) argument would be that her 'notability' ("Curly Sue") took place when she was a Woo-Rat - I remember the only reason anyone went to see that movie was become a hometown girl was in a big movie...so, whatever that means. Unless there is a major reason to get rid of it, I would respectfully request we keep the folks up there as status quo...at least until there is a movement to change all notable-city-dweller information. Is that fair? --Gopple 05:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it dilutes the meaning and usefulness of the list when people only tangentially related are put together with people who are really connected with the town, and it would I think expose the unimportance of the list to separate out a section of "People not actually related to the town but happened to be born there and then moved at the age of 6 or were only born in the hospital or actually lived in a suburb, etc." I do think that Dwight Freeney and Mark McGrath do not belong in the Hartford list. —Centrx→talk • 00:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Should Worcester be a disambig?
I'm a tad confused. Why is the default page for "Worcester" the English city when Worcester, Massachusetts has nearly twice the population? Wouldn't a disambiguation page be more logical? 24.199.113.215 09:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, and I would not even object to having Worcester, MA as the default page considering its population. scskowron 09:15 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Worcester" should be the disambiguation page simply because there are so many. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

A raw population comparison is not the only criterion that enters into how article names and disambiguation issues are handled. For example, even though Worcester, MA is larger, it's not clear that it's more famous than Worcester, UK; internationally, the name "Worcester" by itself, without any further geographic markers like a state or country name, is vastly more likely to conjure up mental images of England than Massachusetts. I'm not even convinced that everyone in the United States would necessarily think of Worcester, MA first, either. Bearcat 05:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Vastly more likely? Mike Murray 17:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And how do you propose we determine what is more famous aside from population? Scskowron 18:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we clearly need a poll here. Things to keep in mind: The criteria is: Does "Worcester" have one primary usage that the majority of people mean when they say it? If not, we put the two on equal footing and send "Worcester" to disambig.
 * One city being the first does not guarantee being directed to (See: Boston)
 * One city being the largest does not guarantee being directed to (See: Jersey)
 * One city receiving more google hits does not guarantee being directed to

To disambig Short of a Euro-centric or US-centric viewpoint, I don't think the overwhelming majority of people mean one or another.--Loodog 17:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Poll


 * I'd support Worcester being the disambig page. There is no clear evidence either is the most common meaning.   Black Harry  (Highlights|Contribs) 17:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, there is currently a debate at Talk:Worcester about this.  Black Harry  (Highlights|Contribs) 17:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Founding question
Among many other question left unanswered by the History section, who founded the city and why? -- Beland 05:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Additionally It has been my impression that the polar seltzer plant and black market activities also are a major role in the economy of worcester. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.174.177 (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't know about black market activities. Polar Beverages has been added. Elizabeth Johnson Tsang 19:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Pepkoka

Nicknames
I know a lot of people who refer to Worcester as "Woo". Is this appropriate to add to the nicknames on the Wiki page? If so, can someone find a source? Scskowron 23:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Another nickname for the new underground hip hop culture is "Wor-Town" insteas of "wormtown" which the name was given for the punk rock culture and later was given the name for the slummy gimeyness of the city. It is now mostly known as Wor-Town for the first 3 letters being W-O-R and also the drauma in the city. Everybody knows somebody you know through somebody else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.116.84 (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * But some still call it "Wormtown." I have heard this term used, though not often, and seen it around the city. There even is (or was recently) a store with the name "Wormtown."  I havent driven by there in a while, so I am not sure if it still exists, but it was within the last 5 years that I saw it.  So I think Wormtown still applies. Hstrypcfr 02:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Woo is pretty popular, and I've never heard of Wor-Town ... but ... I dunno, I'm not part of the punk rock culture.Mike Murray 17:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

3rd in New England?
I saw a news report that Worcester has recently overtaken Providence by 199 people in an updated census to become New England's second-largest city, not third. Raime 22:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * First, there is no census in 2007. Whatever you saw is an estimate.  Second, estimates are crude to the point of 199 people is well within the margin of error.  Nevertheless, you are correct by latest estimates.  I will change it.--Loodog 23:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you are right, it was an estimate. Providence is denying the results that it has slipped to third place by saying that the estimate is inaccurate. Raime 03:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact is census estimates are notoriously unreliable. As in "thousands of people" unreliable.  The US census actually put Providence at 176k in 2003, 178k in 2004, 176k in 2005.  Do we really believe the city's population fluctuated by 2000 people in one year?  Ever since 2001 Providence and Worcester have been too close to call from estimates.  It will take the 2010 Census to know that.--Loodog 03:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that it is fair to go by the latest published Census data from 2006, that places Worcester ahead by roughly 200 people. Of course, it is just an estimate but it is also the most reliable estimate that we have on populations. Mike Murray 15:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, absolutely we'll go by it which is why I've changed the article. If we're going to use estimates we have to use latest estimates.  I'm just not happy as Providence native.  I even included a footnote in the article to avoid misleading people.  Anyway, this is how it shall be.--Loodog 17:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As a Worcester native, I am very happy. Bob Kerr, one of the long time editorialists for the ProJo, had a few funny remarks when asked about it.  I don't even think Worcester is on the radar screen anymore Mike Murray 17:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, an article claiming 2001 was the sad year, when the 2000 census data was Worcester: 172,648, Providence: 173,618. Providence had been passed since 1980. Though it is funny just how much of a penis contest it can be to the people they decide to quote, "I don't even think Worcester is on the radar screen anymore." "Never mind radar screens, we’re on a whole different frequency."  It's like 12-year-olds trash talking.  It ain't exactly like either is a world city.--Loodog 01:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Loodog, I'm not quite sure why a question of fact devolves into a rivalry over who has the largest penis. Please help me to understand your point of view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pepkoka (talk • contribs).


 * If you don't understand now, I don't think anything I can say will help.--Loodog 23:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

??? I sincerely ask a question. Please reply. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pepkoka (talk • contribs).


 * Loodog and I were talking about estimated city population, and then about how local newspaper reports internalize it, and it becomes a "penis contest." A "penis contest," or something similar, is a type of joke fixed around the concept that people who argue vociferously about estimated city populations may also argue about their penis, or as compensation for a small penis.  It's a joke, everybody gets it but you.  Mike Murray 03:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike -- guess I'm pretty stupid. Elizabeth Johnson Tsang —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so random number people are changing this again. Can some one throw in some sort of reference to the 2000 census or something referencing the margin of error in a census so that maybe they will stop once again.--Found5dollar (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent history additions
"At the Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology researchers [...] movement and the sexual revolution of the Sixties."

"David Clark Company, another innovating company [...] continues to innovate by producing the Shuttle Advanced Crew Escape Suits, which are worn by space shuttle astronauts."

This is too high a level of detail for a terse comprehensive summary of Worcester's history in the main article. If you wish to add this, please contribute it to a split off article like History of Worcester, Massachusetts where such detail might be warranted.--Loodog 21:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure why the Bathsheba Spooner scandal can occupy a whole paragraph but major scientific and technical achievements require 'too much detail'? Each of the subtopics I have proposed could be condensed considerably. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepkoka (talk • contribs)


 * Pepkoka, please sign your posts with 4 tildas like so: ~.
 * I made a modification to your trimmed addition. I just couldn't see how that fit into history.  It doesn't flow with anything around it since the two paragraphs have no transition sentences putting them in historical context of the city.  I moved them to economy.--Loodog 01:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Loodog, the last part of this section describes Worcester's history of industrial, social and commercial innovation. David Clark Co. and the Worc. Foundation flourished over 50 years ago, which is historical, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepkoka (talk • contribs) 01:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fine if it's put in historical context. E.g. "Toward the late 1940s, Worcester's economy shifted to research. In particular, the pill was invented here by so-and-so, and the David Clark Company produced the first spacesuits that are used to this day by NASA."
 * Without a segway it's a spaghetti article with no readability.--Loodog 01:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah. It's true that the writer needs to make clear transitions for the reader. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pepkoka (talk • contribs).

Dear Mr. Loodog, I re-inserted the paragraphs on Norton Company and the diner -- making clearer why they are significant to the city -- and the national -- history. Elizabeth Johnson Tsang 02:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)pepkoka

Worcesterites

 * REMOVED****

Citizens of Worcester are called "Worcesterites"

-Lived here my whole life and have never heard that..needs citation to stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * What have you heard citizens of Worcester called?--Loodog 19:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * People from Worcester are called Worcester natives or natives of Worcester. Others who live here are called people who live in Worcester.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pepkoka (talk • contribs).

Education
Albert Michelson and Robert Goddard were both professors at Clark University. Goddard received his undergraduate degree at WPI, and his masters and PhD from Clark. You can easily check these facts by clicking on the links to both men. Elizabeth Johnson Tsang 13:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Pepkoka

Move discussion
A discussion on a requested move that would affect this page can be found at Talk:Worcester. --RFBailey (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Politics
The "Politics" Section of this article just reads like a Notable residents section. Is anyone else in favor of moving this part to the Notable Worcest Residents page?--Found5dollar (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

since no one ever responded to this, i may start redistribuiting this piece of the article soon. --Found5dollar (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to revise primary usage guidelines
I've started a proposal to change dab guidelines at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation. If implemented, they would affect this article.--Loodog (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Museums
Sadly, the American Plumbing Museum has closed. Sigh. Elizabeth Johnson Tsang (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Pepkoka

Too much trivia, not enough notability
The entire article seems to cover far too much trivia and very little notability when considered from a NPOV world view. Worcester Lunch Car Company, American Wheelock, local poetry association, vast swathes of detailed commentary on subjects with only a passing notability value. In particular there is a focus on trivia which is not notable outside the United States of America. It is good that this trivia is woven into the article rather than in a trivia list, but can this article be slimmed down and the trivia removed to focus on the notable from a NPOV world context please? Andrew Oakley (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * NPOV world context? WTF? (What's That For?) Slimmed down in aid of what? Local character is local. From a great height, Worcester is a smudge, a blot on the landscape. To those who live here or nearby, the Summer Nationals are a big deal, as are the diners of Worcester. Not having a wikipedia page is not necessarily an indicator of non-notability, and on and on. I don't see your point. __Just plain Bill (talk) 11:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia requires that all entries must be notable and from a neutral point of view including that they do not have a geographical bias. Content on Wikipedia should be notable from that international standpoint. This article contains far too much content which is not notable from an international standpoint. In such situations, less is more and the article would benefit from being slimmed down to concentrate on its internationally notable characteristics. For example, whilst the Worcester County Poetry Association may be terribly important to local residents, it is not notable beyond that small community. Andrew Oakley (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Now that we are talking about it, i spent a fair ammount of time reorganizing the "Culture" section. While i was doing it i did not feel it was my place to delete any of the information, just reorganize it. I do think that the "Classical Music" through "Other" sections should be done away with or other wise intergrated. They were just extrenious bits of info in the former "Culture" section that i tried to categorize. I do feel that the list of "Museums", some of the "Performing Arts" venues and the "Landmarks" should be retained if only because some of them have thier own pages, but also because some are truly important institutions (i.e. Higgins Armory, and the Worcester Art Museum). I have also previously brought up that the "Politics" section is a sham and should be removed or reorgainzed into the "Notable Residents" section" but no one had responded to my post.--Found5dollar (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Notable, yes; items mentioned in an article should be notable. I just read the geographical bias bit, and found it completely irrelevant to the complaint here; I don't see where it says that we need to write the article so a Motswana would find every part of it riveting. No argument that it could use some careful pruning by someone who knows a bit about the area, but diners and the Summer Nationals ought to be retained as a key part of the city's identity, which is why I mentioned them above. __Just plain Bill (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The subject of an article must be notable. That doesn't mean that each individual sentence in the article must be notable.  We probably wouldn't have an article on the Worcester County Poetry Association but it can certainly be mentioned here.  Just plain Bill has done the tedious point-by-point response, so I'll say only that I'd keep everything on the list below. JamesMLane t c 10:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What about, to slim down the artical, espically the culture bit, we switch up the "Culture" sections a bit?We can create a "Notable Events" section where we can put things like The Summer National, StArt on the Street, the Oldest Music Festival in the US, the poetry Association, and maybe add some more like the First Night Celebration? That way all of the bits of info are placed more in context rather than just having their own little heading. Would that fix peoples problems?--Found5dollar (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Slim down" - yes, that is exactly what is needed, thanks! At the moment the article makes it seem that Worcester MA is just a "very large small town" with a hodge-podge of smalltown non-notable trivia, and the level of detail is so fine and so extensive that it devalues the importance of the city. I'd question the value of anything that doesn't fit the phrase "Worcester MA is famous for..." . I must admit that as a foreigner who is a frequent visitor to Boston MA, I've often looked at Worcester MA on the map and wondered what it is like and whether it is worth a visit. Currently the article is so full of fluff that I can't answer that question - the notable points are hidden in a sea of non-notability. What are the things about Worcester MA that would cause someone who's never heard of it to visit the town, or would come up in conversation with someone who's never been there? I get the feeling that Worcester MA might be an important US War of Independence location, but without specific knowledge of that country or period, the article buries any such notability in layers of trivia (eg. "Worcester served as a center of revolutionary activity"; how, why? What made it a centre rather than just another outpost? Or was it actually just yet another run-of-the-mill munitions depot; if so then its war role wasn't notable and it wasn't a centre of activity). Andrew Oakley (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Valid criticism for the most part, Andrew... along with the bit about "what's interesting or different to a visitor," I think there's room for what brings/brought people to Worcester, what it's like to live here or be a regular visitor from the surrounding area. The city fits somewhere in the middle of a scale running from London/New York to East Overshoe/Much Binding in the Marsh here, infrastructure of a 19th century industrial centre, with roots going back further to colonial times, which is about as old as any conurbation you find in the US.
 * Spots of blight downtown, great swathes of middle-class neighbourhoods, including a lot of three deckers; a mix of worthy architecture (Mechanics' Hall) and leftovers of poor planning (the downtown shopping mall); A relatively recently built motorway that bisects the city in strange ways; about a dozen colleges and universities, a medical centre that goes beyond the cutting edge of the state of the art, a thriving arts/cultural scene, for a variety of demographics/audiences, that the city fathers tolerate and claim to encourage (useful in presentations meant to attract development dollars.) Any Saturday morning I can, for free, get my eyeballs within four to six inches of a Rembrandt, and also view it from three galleries away, Here, there, and in between, it reads true. __Just plain Bill (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please visit and take a look. Lots here, and trying to explain it.Elizabeth Johnson Tsang (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Pepkoka


 * The trouble with "slimming" is that one person's fluff is another person's key datum. The auto show is a good example.  For some Americans, and probably even a few Britons, that's the main importance of Worcester these days.  For other visitors to the city, the auto show is important only to the extent that it creates traffic congestion that impedes their visit to where Goddard worked, and to his aunt's farm where the space age began.  I wouldn't object to breaking out a "Notable events" section, provided that the reorganization didn't lose any information.  As for the Revolution, I think the "activity" referred to was Patriot planning, agitation, and rabble-rousing.  I don't think there was any significant military confrontation.  After the Battle of Bunker Hill in 1775, the British garrison largely remained in Boston, and evacuated entirely in March 1776.  I'll hazard a wild guess that, for the rest of the war, no British soldier set foot in what's now Massachusetts. JamesMLane t c 15:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Aye, "creates traffic congestion that impedes their visit," feature or bug? In 1981 I happened to be visiting a friend in Harlesden the week before the royal wedding. I headed out of town towards Avebury and Swanage just in time to avoid most of the madness, point being: much attention to items at the pinnacle of notability can get in the way of accurately evocative descriptions of local character. Here's a bit of fluff: try saying "Doctor Robert Goddard, father of modern rocketry" five times fast. Not difficult, just comical. Sorry. __Just plain Bill (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

ok i just tried slimming it a little and consolodating the "Culture" section. I also added a bunch of links to things that IMO are important enough to Worcester, cuturally speaking, to warrant their own pages. I plan on starting to create these pages as soon as i have more free time.--Found5dollar (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

List of trivial items that should be removed if not justified as notable
--- I find point-by point rebuttals tiresome and tedious, but here goes anyway:
 * Worcester Lunch Car Company
 * American Wheelock
 * Worcester County Poetry Association
 * New England Summer Nationals car show
 * The entire "popular music" section (the Rolling Stones played here... so what?)
 * Most of the "Culture" section (in what way are any of these notable?)
 * "The oldest Music Festival in the United States" - er, that's hardly a notable claim when considered from a NPOV world view
 * The entire "Sports" section seems to be a long list of smalltime local heroes with no further notability
 * A couple of the supposedly notable residents aren't notable enough to actually have their own page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilandi (talk • contribs) 10:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Worcester Lunch Car Company
 * See my comments on diners above; they are still central to the character of Worcester, and likely will be for decades to come. This city played a significant part in the early spread of this new style of eatery "all over the Eastern Seaboard." It's a red link. So? That amounts to a request for an article on it, not an indication of non-notability.


 * American Wheelock
 * A red link to an early 20th century automobile manufacturer, article not yet written.


 * Worcester County Poetry Association
 * No comment. I know some of the contributors, and they're OK, but spoken word art is not something I seek out.


 * New England Summer Nationals car show
 * Takes over Main Street for several days, filling the city with vintage, classic, and otherwise interesting cars, not to mention the smell of baking tyres and the sound of hot engines. A big deal here, as I mentioned above.


 * The entire "popular music" section (the Rolling Stones played here... so what?)
 * The point of the Rolling Stones mention is not that they played here, but that most of the audience had no inkling of who they were about to see. How often did that happen?


 * Most of the "Culture" section (in what way are any of these notable?)
 * No comment at this time. Must read it more carefully before saying or doing anything.


 * "The oldest Music Festival in the United States" - er, that's hardly a notable claim when considered from a NPOV world view
 * Hmm. Let's see... This is the English Wikipedia, and the US holds a huge reservoir of English speakers? I won't say a thing about articles on cricketers I never heard of, nor care to. That would be a spurious and irrelevant argument, to say nothing of being politically incorrect, so I'll say no more about it. Again, my reading of the examples given of neutral world view seems a bit narrower than yours here.


 * The entire "Sports" section seems to be a long list of smalltime local heroes with no further notability
 * No comment.


 * A couple of the supposedly notable residents aren't notable enough to actually have their own page
 * No comment, but about that red-link thing again... __Just plain Bill (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Most of the "Culture" section
 * Most of the things in this section are DAMN notable. The Antiquarian Society is very important to the maintaining of American history. Worcester Art Museum is the second largest art museum in New England, and Higgins Armory is the only arms museum in the Western Hemisphere. Mechanics Hall is one of the classiest performance centers in the region. Really, even if people from far away have not heard of these things, they are important to the culture of Worcester, and well known to people throughout New England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.115.39 (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Canal district website
Looking for comment on this diff.

The Canal district website has been in and out of the article in recent days. I suppose someone could argue that it demonstrates a notably thriving scene in that area, but to me it looks like a new commercial site in the process of being pumped up, with major focus on listing restaurants and clubs.


 * I'm neutral here, don't really care if it stays or goes. __Just plain Bill (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm neutral as well. I say leave it, and keep an eye out to see if it turns into a more comercial site.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

History, Politics, Economy
This article still needs alot of work, most apparently in the History, Politics, and Economy sections. There are alot of missing cites, and alot of the information in the article is just randomly thrown in. I have begun working on trying to make things flow better and getting information under the correct headdings. If anyone else can find cites for information or help streamline information and get rid of the repetition in the article that would help alot. This article can become featured if we work hard on getting it there. --Found5dollar (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Neighborhoods 2
Should the new "Neighborhoods" section be kept? I dont realy see any problem with there being one, but not how it currently is. It isn't researched or cited or linked, and is just a list that would be completly useless to anyone that doesn't already know about Worcester. This section, if it is kept should be more prose-like so that instead of saying just "Greendale" it explains the where, the what, and the history of the neighborhood. What do others think?--Found5dollar (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of it, although it does look odd to have a bare list like that in the middle of the article. I'm willing to give it time, to see if anyone steps up and fills it out with some description or other relevant text... __Just plain Bill (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This section was deleted last year; I just restored it because I was looking for this information in this article. Rather than putting extensive descriptions here, we can also just link to subarticles; some already exist for a few neighborhoods.  I'm also adding some references to make the list less questionable. -- 17:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I created a new page called Neighborhoods of Worcester, Massachusetts using the listing (with a few slight modifications) in the Neighborhoods section on the page in the main Worcester site. A link has been added to Lists of neighborhoods by city. Can I go ahead and clear the section on the main page and replace it with a link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terageorge (talk • contribs) 17:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Higher Education not in worcester
"Anna Maria College, in the neighboring town of Paxton, Salter School, now located in West Boylston. "

neither one of these are actualy in worcester. Why are they listed here? I understand that Anna Maria is part of the Worcester Consortuim, but it still isnt in the city. I will get rid of them in a few days if no one has any objections.

--Found5dollar (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Go for it. AJD (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm adding it back. Boston's Education section includes such schools as Harvard and MIT in Cambridge, Boston College in Newton, and Tufts in Medford and Somerville. Anna Maria may be outside of Worcester, but its proximity to the city makes its an integral part of the list of Worcester colleges.Quentinisgod (talk) 06:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Harvard, BC, and Tufts' campuses all extend partly into Boston, and MIT is mentioned because it was located in Boston at an earlier time in its history. It doesn't make sense to list Anna Maria under the heading "Worcester is home to...". I'll compromise. AJD (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Can this unencyclopedic rant be salvaged?
I just took out a big chunk of text (diff) which was basically a rant about the ineptitude of some Worcester-boosting organizations, plainly original research written in a first-person perspective. To me it looks like the sort of opinion piece that belongs in the Worcester Magazine, not in this encyclopedia. Possibly some of it could be recast in an encyclopedic style, so I'll preserve mention of it here on the talk page, in case anyone cares to give it a try. __Just plain Bill (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Popular Music
Ok the "Pouplar music" section was just greatly expanded with no references. I do not want to just revert all of it, but it is desperatly in need of being wikified and referenced. If no one objects i will try to wikify it and prune a little. IF some one wants to see if anyof this is true and they can find references that would rock.--Found5dollar (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Are there any sources for the Politics section?
There's no sources at all for the politics section ... how are we supposed to know that any of the events stated in that section actually happened? Just hearsay? 72.39.210.23 (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have felt this way for a long time. A while ago i pared down that section, but i don't want to just flat out delete stuff if it may be true. Secondly, most of that isn't even under the right headdng, none of it has to do with the Politics of Worcester. Like i said i cut out a bunch before, but feel fre eto cut and edit more. --Found5dollar (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Politics section
The first part of the "Government" section is a word-for-word copy of the "City Government" on the official Worcester website (http://www.ci.worcester.ma.us/city-government). This needs to be fixed. QuidProQuo23 00:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"Congress Alley"
Under the section "Popular Music" some one inserted a bunch of stuff about "Congress Alley" i found a few fleeting references to this when i googled it, and when i googled the first line i found an exact coppy of it at another site ( accidents.legalview.info/local/worcester-ma-lawyer-attorney/ ) but for some reason i can not open the page. I am removing it and placing the selected text here becasue i am worried it is a copy vio. If this information is right, then a seprate page should be created for "Congress Alley," it should not be wound into the Worcester page

Worcester was the site of an experimental and highly controversial creative community comprising musicians, artists, poets and writers called Congress Alley in the late 1960s. Ultimately over 350 people were involved. The Congress Alley "district" encompassed roughly 0.6 square miles, bounded loosely by Highland Street on the North, Chandler Street on the South, Park Ave on the West and Main Street on the East. It was the subject of a popular song, penned by Stephen Martin and aptly titled Congress Alley. Originally recorded by Orpheus (see below), it has since been recorded by several other artists, including Lee Andrews (originally with the doo-wop group Lee Andrews & the Hearts). Andrews named the group that recorded the song Congress Alley, which was also the title of the album itself.

The soft-rock group Orpheus (Orpheus (band)), which recorded three albums and four singles for MGM Records in the late 1960s, was initially based in Congress Alley. All three albums and two of the singles charted nationally. In 1971 a reconstituted group, which also included several members of the Congress Alley community, recorded one album and one single for Bell Records.

The J. Geils Band was formed in Worcester in 1967. Several original members, including John Geils himself, Richard "Magic Dick" Salwitz and Danny Klein, were associated with the Congress Alley community.

Early in the 1970s former Congress Alley denizen Norman Schell founded the country-rock band Clean Living. The group, which included other Congress Alley alumni, recorded two albums and one hit single for Vanguard Records.

--Found5dollar (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation again
See the history, in particular a flurry of edits starting 2010 September 28. I am not entirely happy with "wŏŏs-tər" even though it somewhat agrees with the College of the Holy Cross source. There doesn't seem to be a mapping for "ŎŎ" in Pronunciation respelling key. The mapping for "oo" uses the vowel in "foot" as an example, not the "ooooo" of one edit comment. So, while "woos-tər" is reasonably close to being correct, it leaves too much room for misinterpretation by a reader unfamiliar with the respelling convention used here. Perhaps the respelling should be left off entirely. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's distinguish between the local dialect and the dialect-neutral pronunciation. If you pronounce it (phonemically transcribed in IPA) /'wʊs·tɜr/, you won't sound like you're from Eastern Massachusetts, but you also won't sound like you never heard of the place. You might even be a transplant from another part of the US. The pronunciation /'wʊs·tə/ is just the local way of saying /'wʊs·tɜr/. It deviates from the other pronunciation by universally applied phonetic rules of Eastern Massachusetts dialects. The same is true of another local city Woburn. It's /'wu:·burn/ if you're not from Boston and /'wu:·bɪn/ if you are, but it's never /'wo:·burn/. Bostoner (talk) 03:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Tornado
Is there a place the 1953 Worcester Tornado would fit in-line? Looks like it stood as the deadliest Tornado in America for 58 years...(being one day ahead of another one in Michigan that was worse). CSZero (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There is already a sentance or two about it in the "Climate" section.--Found5dollar (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I must've misspelled Tornado when searching through the article. My bad, sorry CSZero (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

"Three decker" vs. "triple decker"
Native speakers do say "three decker." I have met a few who insisted that the tetrasyllabic "triple decker" was incorrect. The Telegram and Gazette site seems to corroborate this with about 3870 google results for  opposed to about 62 results for . Two of the local free tabloids, incitytimesworcester.org and worcestermag.com, also lean that way. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

IPA pronunciation
Is the first R in "Worcester" never pronounced? The IPA suggests so.

I'm actually English, and the English city of the same name would never have the first R pronounced. However, Americans are more likely to be rhotic, and I'd be surprised if a rhotic pronunciation did not exist. Epa101 (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * New England is known for a higher proportion of non-rhotic speech than some other areas of the US. The final R in Worcester may or may not be pronounced; individual speakers may say that several ways, depending on audience and occasion. That said, anyone giving rhotic voice to the first R (e.g. Wurster or Worchester) will be marking themselves as "not from around here," where "here" includes most of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, with the variety of accents that implies. __Just plain Bill (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. Epa101 (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

""
The usage of Worcester is under discussion, see Talk:Worcester -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion on whether Worcester should become a disambiguation page has reopened. Please visit Talk:Worcester to add to the discussion.--Found5dollar (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Local Pronunciation
{https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Worcester,_Massachusetts&curid=99312&diff=777828297&oldid=777827629 this dif} by restored a good bit of accidental or incidental changes, but also restored the idea that "Worcester" is widely pronounced "Wisstah" locally, which is both badly sourced, and to my mind (as a former Wormtinian immigrant) simply wrong -close, but no cigar. The folk who reduce the initial short "U" sound to a near-"I" schwa -or a near-schwa "I", take yer pick - make other changes to the terminal syllable -"Wissteh", perhaps. Anmccaff (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * So you're saying the last vowel is also different. Which vowel would you argue it's closest to? Wolfdog (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Schwa, which some people would render as Wissteh as right above, perhaps better Wisst eh Anmccaff (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The final vowel is already transcribed as a schwa. Wolfdog (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * To begin with, have you listened to the "listen" button? Anmccaff (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Here's the "source" quoted.


 * Like the city of the same name in England, it's pronounced WŎŎS-TER. Thanks to that distinctive Worcester accent, you may hear WŎŎS-tah or WŎŎS-tuh or even WISS-tah.


 * This does not justify the articles blanket statement about "local" pronunciation - Worcester (/ˈwʊstər/ WUUSS-tər, local pronunciation: [ˈwɨstə] ( listen) WISS-tə) - at all.
 * Note that it does not say "the local pronunciation is WISStah", it lists that as the most extreme example. The wiki article, in effect is saying "The United States, local pronunciation "MURRikAH"..."
 * Next, note that the source is waybacked. One of the useful clues about something's accuracy -although it's only a clue, of course, and not a hard-and-fast indicator- is stability, if not of one source, then of a line of them.  Sometimes the reason a site stops promulgating an idea is because they've figured out it was wrong.  Anmccaff (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * At first you say that the source is inaccurate and that the local pronunciation is also inaccurate (but close). Then you argue that your new contention is that there are in fact a diversity of local pronunciations. I completely understand your argument about waybacked sources. Feel free to delete the source. Now the question is: Are you saying we should also delete the local pronunciation I provided (though you at first agreed to that it was very "close" to being right)? If you feel that makes for a better page, go ahead and delete that too. I am not personally wedded to the pronunciation and certainly not to the source. Wolfdog (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, glad to hear someone else who understands that sometimes cites die for a good reason, and zombifying them isn't always progress.
 * I"m not really changing any argument. There are a variety of local pronunciations, especially as the rhotic line creeps northward and eastward, and the source accurately noted that, even if it did go a little nuts of the far edges.  Some died-in-the-wool Wormtinians pronounce the word about as some Englishman might, with an R on the end.  More would say it like most Bostonians, R softened to aitch. Some would say it in different registers, and the accents that go with them.  But putting the most outre version as the "local" pronunciation isn't really accurate, and the .ogg file didn't capture what you'd often hear in real life. Anmccaff (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Ha... hopefully they're only dyed rather than died. Thanks for the explanations! Wolfdog (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * As always, I blame the spill chucker. Anmccaff (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Four Year Strong, a pop-punk band
Dunno if this really makes the cut for notability. Thoughts? Anmccaff (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Since there is already an entry in List of people from Worcester, Massachusetts for this band, I don't really think that it needs to be listed in the main article. $0.02 Pjefts (talk) 11:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It doesn't have to be included. The list doesn't have to be complete, since we already have the category, as Pjefts said. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 12:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

in regards to ethnics groups in the demographics section.
I've noticed that people keep removing the mentioned ethnic groups in the demographics section. I keeping wondering why people remove when it was already in the article. if someone could explain, that would be great. also, if any approves to restore it, let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:c602:4020:e89a:5bac:5115:105c (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)