Talk:Worcester, Massachusetts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for Worcester, Massachusetts: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Requests: Cityscape passage, more GFDL/PD images of the city
  • Verify: Every section (citations needed when necessary)
  • Expand: Culture

Contents

[edit] 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: (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

 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 [[Indial Lake (Massachusetts)|Indian Lake]].
 {{stub}}
 ==External Links==
 *[http://www.bancroftschool.org/ Bancroft School]

I will now do minor cleanup in a separate edit. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:57, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A new Bancroft School page is up and functioning. It has grown beyond its initial stub status which was the reason it was merged into this entry. --Gopple 22:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [1] 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 [2] and [3] also lists it as as a county seat. So it seems that Worchester 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≠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≠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 [4] and has Worcester County shown with two county seats, Worcester and Fitchburg [5].
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.[6] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Neighborhoods

 Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Pronunciation

Is it OK to pronounce it wor-ches-ter?

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

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?

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.

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 • 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, [7]). 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 • 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)

[edit] 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:
  • 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
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.


Poll

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)

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)

[edit] 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.

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

[edit] 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.

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
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) 23:25, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

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

[edit] 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 72.74.129.69 (talk) 18:57, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

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).


[edit] 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

[edit] 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)