Talk:Boston/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

High Cost of Living

The article states "Boston also struggles with gentrification issues that have led to the city having one of the highest costs of living in the United States." While many areas have Boston certainly have experienced or continue to experience gentrification, this statement seems out of place. First, the verb "struggles" suggests that gentrification is evil. Second, the statement implies that gentrification is the sole cause of the high cost of living in Boston. I think a better introductory statement, if any is included, should simply be that Boston has one of the highest costs of living in the United States, which is factual rather than speculative.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.128.49.65 (talk • contribs).

Sure. Feel free to change it to something better.--Loodog 20:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-sequitur

The current article reads "Through land reclamation and the municipal annexation, Boston has expanded throughout the peninsula and has become one of the most culturally significant cities in the United States." Land reclamation and "the" municipal annexation ("the"?) across the peninsula is not obviously related to Boston becoming one of the most culturally significant cities in the US.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.233.88 (talk • contribs)

Agreed, I tweaked it. Next time, why not just do it yourself? It's a wiki... --barneca (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we do appreciate the deference you show by posting this on the talk page first, but, in general, feel free to make any changes to the article. If someone dislikes your edit, (s)he won't hold it against you.--Loodog 16:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Biotechnology: A Notable Niche, at Best

The current article claims Boston's economy is based on "technology--principally biotechnology", but that is not backed up by the facts at all. Biotechnology is a niche industry and no city's economy is principally based on it.

Actually, citydata.com has some nice info on the specific percentages of an economy's distribution. I'm throwing a pie chart up there.--Loodog 22:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Pie chart up. There you have it. Biotech would be under education and healthcare, which comprises 17% of the city's economy.--Loodog 22:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Is biotech really significant ? Assuming the piecharts 17% education and healthcare includes biotech, as a boston resident who works in biotech, i know that education, non biotech research (lincoln labs) and healthcare are very big indutrys in boston which implies that biotech is not. More generally,there is tendency amongst the media and politicians - almost a common wisdom sort of thing - that biotech is important, perhaps related to politicians such as the former speaker of the house getting large paycheck private sector jobs in biotech. Biotech, like all industry, looks for cheap labor; there was a recent article in the boston biz journal about a biotech outsourcing high skill chem jobs to india; a trend likely to continue biotech is also likely to be fewer jobs then electronic implants (electronic implants for blind people) which is strangely neglected by the politicians there is also the long term failure of biotech to generate returns for investors on an industry wide basis.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.220.64.105 (talk • contribs)

page protection for front page article??

I don't know how no one requested page protection for this article before it went to the front page, but this is awful. The page is vandalized every 10 minutes. I've requested full protection on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Please help me press the issue. If any admins are reading this, please give the page full protection immediately.--Loodog 15:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

So far, they're denying it. This is absurd. If anyone feels the same, help me out on the request page.--Loodog 16:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This does not warrant semi-protection, yet alone full protection. For a mainpage article, it's not even getting that many hits. Furthermore, anon editors have been making constructive edits; even in the last 30 minutes. It's being heavily watched and if things get out of hand, it may be briefly semi-protected. But we're nowhere near that - Alison ☺ 17:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, a high visibility page gets a lot of vandalism, but it also gets a lot of attention from editors who end up making constructive edits. I will confess that my first reaction some months ago was also "protect mainpage articles" but that would throw out the good edits along with the bad, especially if it were a blanket policy. Kingdon 21:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

We only have a few more hours left, before we switch to the next article. The level of vandalism here is manageable, and declines at this time of day (kids in the U.S. are coming home from school, eating dinner, etc.) - User:Aude/adminactivity. It may pick up again after 8pm EST when we switch to the next article. --Aude (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It's well into June, school may be out for the summer soon (if not already) We will see vandalism drop over the summer. --Aude (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Climate information

Someone placed a {{fact}} tag on the following statement. Hence, I moved the passage here until someone can find a source for it.

The weather in Boston changes rapidly. It is not uncommon for the city to experience temperature swings of 54 Fahrenheit degrees (30 Celsius degrees) or more over the course of a couple of days.

Pentawing^Talk 00:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Errr ... good luck for that. I live in Boston, and a 50+ degree swing, while not unheard of, is damn uncommon.  RGTraynor  14:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to let You Know

There is a proposal over at Boston (disambiguation) to have the Boston page (currently a redirect to this page), turn into the disambiguation page. To view this proposal go to Talk:Boston_(disambiguation)#Requested_move. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 16:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It was properly defeated. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 18:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was absurd. I don't think Brits are the least bit surprised or confused to find this page when they type "Boston" into wikipedia.--Loodog 21:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The demographics on this page are one-hundred percent true my source is this page: http://www.cityofboston.gov/bra/PDF/ResearchPublications//New%20Bostonians%20No.%20609.pdf, look at page 8. These demographics come from the city itself.

Shortening Beacon Hill

This article says that Beacon Hill was shortened in 1807 and that the State House sits atop the shortened hill. But the State House was built in 1787. Does anybody know the correct information?

Are you referring to the Old State House that's down the street from the current building? MarkinBoston 20:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Walter Muir Whitehill, in "Boston, A Topographical History", says the new State House was built in 1795, "on the southern slope of the hill, with the ancient peak...rising behind it." The summit was taken down later, in stages, over several years, and the State House came to be on the new crest. Illustrations in the book show the process. Hertz1888 20:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Boston (Lincolnshire)

Well there you go again , you lot at Wikipedia, not only are you not tracking cross-language indexing, you are also not tracking obvious historical-geographical indices. Boston, the original Boston, befindet sich in Lincolnshire. SO, when I enter the query text 'Boston' in Wikipedia, how come there's no mention of Boston Lincolnshire?

This Boston is overwhelmingly the most common usage, but, rest assured, your English usage is also given note here:

1. There is a mention in the history section: Boston's early European settlers first called the area Trimountaine, but later renamed the town after Boston, Lincolnshire, England, from which several prominent colonists emigrated.
2. There is a note at the very top of the page: "Boston" redirects here. For other uses, see Boston (disambiguation). .

--Loodog 14:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Fashion??

There is a particularly peacocky section that is completely unsourced about how "world-reknown" the Boston fasion scene is. I'm removing this.--Loodog 23:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Coord tag

I removed the part of the infobox with the Lat and Lon and added the coord tag (sorry if the infobox style is better) because the coordinates in the infobox located Boston in the harbor on the map. I changed them to the Old City Hall (because it has been city hall and is perfectly between the 4 innermost T stations (GC, State, PS, and DC), but the coordinates display is superimposed for some reason. I am new enough at this to be thoroughly confused. Any ideas? Aepoutre 15:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

It looks like someone has managed to tag a lot of placename wiki articles with the Image:Flacid_and_erects.jpg. See the "border" wikilink at the top of the Boston page, overlapping the featured article star. Aepoutre 16:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This is happening with alot of other articles too, so I asked for help removing it on WP:ANI New England ^{Review Me!} 16:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Undid revision

03:21, 27 August 2007 User:Ajd changed

Boston is bordered by the cities and towns of Winthrop, Revere, Chelsea, Everett, Somerville, Cambridge, Watertown, Newton, Brookline, Needham, Dedham, Canton, Milton, and Quincy—often known as, and considered a part of, Greater Boston.

to the following

Boston is bordered by the cities and towns of Winthrop, Revere, Chelsea, Everett, Somerville, Cambridge, Watertown, Newton, Brookline, Needham, Dedham, Canton, Milton, and Quincy; and it is the center of the Greater Boston area.

I reverted this 13:32, 27 August 2007. I believe that, while the last statement could be made more concise, the point of the sentence was to pay homage to the Boston area, rather than emphasise Boston as the center. I think it may go without saying that Boston is included in, and the center of, Greater Boston. Aepoutre 13:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me the point of the sentence is just to provide a link to Greater Boston in that section. I changed the sentence because it's hard to see what "often known as, and considered a part of" means. It seems first to say that Greater Boston consists only of the towns and cities that border Boston (which is false), but then implies that those communities are merely a part of Greater Boston. AJD 14:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The current version—"which are often referred to as Greater Boston"—is worse. It explicitly states that Greater Boston is only the communities adjacent to Boston. Which is false. AJD 14:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I understand. Glad you commented. Perhaps a Greater Boston reference is inappropriate under Geography anyhow? Perhaps we should just leave it as the surrounding towns, and make a separate explanatory sentence for the idea of the Greater Boston Area with the link as part of that sentence. It doesn't need to be long, of course. What do you think? Aepoutre 14:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth giving the amount of attention we're giving it. I was just trying to make sure that it didn't say or imply anything that was trivially false. AJD 16:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Portuguese-speaking community

I think it's worth mentioning Boston's sizable Portuguese-speaking population. By one account, there are 200,000 native Portuguese speakers in the Greater Boston Area. Toscaesque 20:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Be Bold and add it to the demographics section.--Loodog 20:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting. Are we talking to Boston or the Greater Boston area. Brighton/Allston is a big Portugese area. I honestly believe that their is a large difference between Boston and Greater Boston

Boston Finance Commission

Get the Boston Finance Commission Chairman to contribute information about the FinComm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.89.149 (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Boston, Lincolnshire - the original Boston

Why, when I search for Boston in Wiki, to I get this particular Boston? Surely it should go to the Boston (disambiguation), if not to Boston, Lincolnshire as this Boston is the original Boston, that the lesser ones (joke) took their names from? By linking to a particular one on a search suggests that all the other Bostons are inferior to the one that is linked to. I would like to propose that when Boston is searched for that the general page is listed, rather than a particular Boston is a particular place, in the name of fair play Darkieboy236 09:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The city in Massachusetts is the most commonly thought of meaning by most anglophones nowadays. Compare with Pi. The mathematical constant was named after the Greek letter, but the mathematical constant is the primary meaning today. Georgia guy 14:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that when someone searches for Boston, they should get a list of possibilities, rather than be directed to an irrelevant entry about some foreign place (foreign to the 6,000,000,000 people that do not live in the USA). This should be true for any entry with more than one possibility. If you was to look up "Boston" in a paper encyclopaedia you would get a sub-list of options, there is no reason why this online encyclopaedia should be any different. Darkieboy236 15:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOT#PAPER. If you wish to see such a list, go to Encarta. Sasha Callahan 15:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are you concerned only about Boston? There are tens of thousands of articles where the dominant meaning is at the unqualified name and other meanings are listed at a disambiguation page linked to at the top of the article for the dominant meaning. If you want to change the policy regarding primary topic disambiguation, please start a discussion or add to the related existing discussions at WT:D. --Polaron | Talk 15:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

To quote from WP:D, "When a reader enters a given term in the Wikipedia search box and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result?" Google "Boston" + "Lincolnshire," you get two million hits. Google "Boston" + "Massachusetts," you get 128 million hits. It is the unvarying standard on Wikipedia that a subject that is far more prominent than another needs no disambiguation.  RGTraynor  15:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No, Darkie. This Boston is the clear primary usage in literature, speech, media, television, etc... Exactly what you propose and every variation on it have been suggested before and have been shot down with unanimity or near to it. For example, look 7 topics up on this very talk page and see the discussion we had 1 month ago.--Loodog 15:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Whilst the Boston in Lincolnshire undoubtedly has a proud history, today it is a small and rather remote town that many English people would struggle to locate on a map. Whilst the Boston in Massachusetts is a major metropolis well known around the world. Routing a query on Boston to a dab page of all the Bostons in the world would be as perverse as answering a query on London with a page of all the other Londons. -- Chris j wood 17:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that argument would have more credence if this article was called just Boston. Surely the fact that US based editors feel the need to qualify the article name with , Massachusetts indicates a certain lack of confidence in the universality of the name. After all nobody in the UK would ever think of calling London by the name London, England. -- Waterstones 17:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a whole other argument. The only reason it is at Boston, Massachusetts is because some editors (myself sort of a little bit included) think that all city names should be located like that for consistency, but with a redirect if it is truly the primary topic. If I were God, London would be a redirect to London, England. Moving this article to Boston comes up frequently, too. But due to the redirects it makes absolutely no practical difference, and such discussions are tempests in teapots. Either way it's done, Boston MA is obviously the primary topic for Boston. --barneca (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The location of this article has bullocks to do with confidence. It has been discussed to death for years and is at the only compromise, which is no less bold than putting it at "Boston" since that direct goes straight here. It just makes fewer misdirected links. If you still do not understand why the article is where it is, please read the very extensive discussion that has already taken place.--Loodog 19:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the discussion last January that led to it and the discussion in August before that.--Loodog 19:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, it was proposed in June to make "Boston" a disabig. It was unanimously defeated inside 2 days.--Loodog 20:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Loodog. The very extensive discussion you refer to above had strong arguments both way but eventually failed to establish a consensus; hence the article stayed where it was. That in no way precludes further discussion, or further attempts to establish a consensus. As it happens I think the current location is probably the best of several not very good alternatives, but there is no need to try to stifle debate on this issue. -- Chris j wood 16:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not attempting debate stagnation, but merely trying to inform those who come up with ideas that have been discussed ad nauseum of the reasons such a notion was defeated prior, aiding said contributor in rethinking his position and/or providing new arguments that refute the prior reigning conceits. I just don't want to reiterate reasons A, B, and C every time someone proposes X, if it's going to be a satisfactory rebuke.--Loodog 22:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

References

Hi. I borrowed some code from this article to add references to Thomas Gage and Deerfield, Massachusetts. Could I get some help? I'm new at this and the page numbers don't show. Kroyw 9 September 2007

Preserving historical public records of the City of Boston

Boston City Hall routinely defects civic interest in how government works, delaying or denying access to public information, public records and public meetings. Here's a resource for historians http://sunshineboston.blogspot.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donwarnersaklad (talk • contribs) 05:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Education section

Hey Loodog, I would leave the school system info as is. Do we know how many of each ethnicity have children? There are alot of variables involved. I sort of see where you are going with your analysis, but I would leave that out and try to match what the citation says. Do you have a cite that says minorities are "over represented" ect?? Thanks, --Tom 20:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of complex internal factors (number of kids per couple, neighborhoods, average age), minorities in the public school system have a disproportionately high representation (as compares with the city as a whole). If, for example, American Jews represent 2% of the world population and win 37% of Nobel Prizes, they are said by definition to be overrepresented without any original research by me.--Loodog 23:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This is boarderline offensive. Jews are smarter than gentiles, right? More blacks use the boston public schools than whites and are poorer, right? Does the cite say what you have added? No. This is your analysis of the numbers. Please stop, thanks. --Tom 14:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Loodog, the word "overrepresented" does mean what you say it means, but I think it has a negative connotation associated with it. I think it might be accidentally offending when that wasn't your intent. Also, Per Tom's first comment here, I agree that the situation is complicated enough that we should avoid the comparison to overall population statistics unless a reliable source (which could very well exist) is found that discusses this, and can be cited.

Tom, I think in your second comment you're taking offense where none is intended, and attributing motives to Loodog that aren't there. It seemed clear (to me, at least) that Loodog's Nobel prize example was meant as just that: an example, with intentionally fake numbers, to demonstrate his point.

Is it possible you're both unintentionally escalating a minor disagreement into something bigger because you're misinterpreting each other's motives? --barneca (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Barneca, thanks for your comments. I will be the first to apologize and say that I did not mean any offense and I really didn't take any. I have edited with Loodog in the past and we have worked things out. Loodog does a ton of good editing imho. We did get into a little spat over statistics about the city of Providence and which section of town is "the most affluent" defined by statistics but no biggie. Sort of the same thing here again. Statistics are just that, numbers. I agree with the analysis above about avoiding certain wording unless a specific source says specifically that. Anyways, I will defer to the community and again do not want to escalate this and apologize again. Cheers! --Tom 17:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC) ps, I think Loodog's numbers in his example were true regarding Jewish winners of the Noble, not that it matters either way.

Oh, I didn't know you guys had worked together before and weren't really and truly feuding. I'll take off my "junior peacemaker" hat :) . As for the content dispute part, as I said above, I think I agree with removing the comparison unless a RS mentions it. p.s. Well I'll be damned. --barneca (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

<outdent to left> Actually barneca, I appreciate your imput and trying to cool things down. That can never hurt and it probably avoided a longer back and forth. Anyways, cheers! --Tom 18:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Jewish analogy: those are actual percentages, but they may as well be made up for the purposes of this discussion. Please don't take it as anything more than a logical equivalent to the situation here.

"you're misinterpreting each other's motives" Exactly. I'm making a simple statement of fact regarding proportion of minority students in schools to proportion of total population. A key factor yes, is obviously that median whites are something like 15 years older than hispanics or blacks so they just don't have as many kids of school age to begin with. Then there are more sensitive issues of poverty and income. I'm not asserting any cause for the discrepancy, nor would I feel qualified to do so. It's a statement of fact that is interesting from a demographic point of view. Minority races are the majority in public schools. The reader is not told or insinuated the potentially complex reasons for this.--Loodog 19:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, Tom, you want to resolve the issue on the talk page before reverting the article again? All continual reversions of the article while the topic is under debate does is wear on everyone's patience.--Loodog 19:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Loodog, if you want to revert the article, go for it. I do believe a few, 2?, folks have said not to include your revision, but I doubt many people will get involved or want to over such a small edit. Anyways, the discussion is here so at least it has been discussed. Cheers! --Tom 20:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd rather not get the edit included just because I was more adamant. Concensus is always required. Barneca and Tom, would you object to a simple statement of comparison along the lines of "the student population within the school system was 45.5% Black or African-American, 31.2% Hispanic or Latino, 14% White, and 9% Asian, as compared with 24%, 14%, 49%, and 8% respectively for the city as a whole."?--Loodog 20:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

First generation answer: Since both sets of data are referenced, I can't argue forcefully against its inclusion.

After thinking more: However, there is still kind of a hint of OR in that; the obvious question is, why say that at all? Because it is indicative of something. Indicative of what? If it's indicative of something noteworthy, we should find some reliable sources and put together a couple of sentences about it. If it isn't, then it's kind of a distraction. I took a stab at looking for some sources of more information, but it consisted of a 5 minute Google search on "Boston school racial composition", and it wasn't successful. I can't spend any significant time looking at this for a couple of days, but if someone hasn't taken a shot at it by next week, I may make a brief foray into actual research and see what I can find. It seems like it might be important, and I'd hate to shortchange it with one sentence of statistics.

Final answer: And then, of course, the lightbulb went off. I'm not originally from here, so it wasn't until I started poking around Google that I suddenly remembered why Boston school's racial composition tickled something in the back of my mind. The whole school busing thing from the 70's isn't mentioned at all in the article, under history or under education. It was a pretty big deal nationally, so I imagine its a pretty big deal locally. Shouldn't that be somewhere? I bet with some looking I could find something that ties the statistical difference to remnants of "white flight" from public schools in the 70's.

Like I said, I can't do much for a few days, and you two may know more/have more references available than me anyway. Short term I'm ambivalent about the additional stats, but long term I think it's actually deserving of more research. --barneca (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

<outdent to left> Hey Loodog, no I would not object to that version. braneca makes a good suggestion about the busing thing if its true/verifiable. Anyways, thanks to barneca again and sorry for the drama. Cheers! --Tom 18:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Move

I think this not be redirected to from Boston. Surely Boston should be a disambiguation page for Boston, Lincolnshire and Boston, Massachusetts—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.179.67 (talk • contribs)

Hello editor. Please sign your posts with fourt tidlas (e.g. ~~~~. In response to your request to change the redirect, I might think about it if the first 10 pages of a google search for "Boston" didn't point almost exclusively to this city.--Loodog 21:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

And the answer is ... no. Boston MA is a city of far more importance by an order of magnitude.  RGTraynor  22:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The more significant link would be to the latest discussion on what Boston should point to.[1] Consensus was reached that the redirect should point to this article and not the disambiguation page or Boston, Lincolnshire.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been proposed below that Boston (disambiguation) be renamed and moved to Boston. See Talk:Boston (disambiguation)#Requested move. -- JHunterJ 12:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be a disambiguation page for Boston, this being a name of many cities, plus, the one in America was named after the one in Lincolnshire, England. So if it wasn't for the English Boston, the American Boston would never be around, therefore, the English Boston is of importance. Brocky9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.6.37 (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There really shouldn't be a disambiguation page for Boston. If you type in Moscow, you get right to Moscow, Russia. Yes, there's a Moscow in India but people are less likely to search for it. Also it's annoying to have to go through two pages....--76.19.211.73 (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

World City

It would be appropriate to HIGHLIGHT the fact (by putting this important fact the beginning of the article - in the first few sentences) that Boston is rated and listed as a GAMMA WORLD CITY. I attempted to move this sentence to the beginning of the article a few times and was accussed of vandalism! My numerous attempts at this were because I thought my changes were not "taking hold", only to find out someone thought my change was not appropriate...

There are only a handful of cities in the entire world that enjoy the status of being classified as a GAMMA WORLD CITY, and burying this important fact about Boston in the middle of the article is unfortunate and unfair. The fact that Boston is listed and considered a GAMMA WORLD CITY (while few other cities are), and the fact that I was moving this sentence to the beginning of the article would indicate to me that this would IMPROVE the article, not diminish the intergrity of it...

HERTZ1888... How did you draw the conclusion that Bostonians are modest anyway, and why should the world class fact not be asserted at the beginning? Is Boston "less of a city." Let me know what criteria you use to determine this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quentin00 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Quentin, while I have read the Wiki article about World Cities, I'm not sure if this is an established enough "theory" or "classification" to immediately begin using, especially in so prominent a portion of the article. Your extreme emphasis on adding this information, that you refer to "enjoying status" (as if it were an honour to be named a "GAMMA WORLD CITY"), the fact that the caps don't help (making you sound more like a spammer and self-promoter of ideas than a serious contributor), and that you made several revisions rather than talking about this sooner, really hurt your credibility in this matter. I'm kind of a stickler, having been trained as an academic, but the world city theory truly isn't something I'd consider important enough for inclusion. Can you find third-party sources that actually use this system? Can you make an argument for the importance of this system? In reference to your response to a HERTZ1888, I wouldn't say that Bostonians are modest; I'd say that Boston is smaller than most other cities and "less important" by some standards (hence gamma and not a higher level of "importance") but is still one of, if not the most prominent centre of learning in the nation, perhaps the world -- so why would anyone accept these seemingly subjective "rankings?" I still say this theory isn't important enough to include and it sounds like your edits have POV issues (just a guess). Aepoutre 20:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Aepoutre...

Not being familiar with Wikipedia etiquette, I edited the article numerous times not realizing that this entire world of discussion even existed, so if that hurts my credibility, so be it.

I didn't know being a "smaller" city (by some standards) would have anything to do with importance. Also, if this ranking system is not "important" why is it allowed to be used at all? That being said, your argument proposes a city must be ranked higher than a gamma world city ( NYC, Chicago, Tokyo, London as alpha world cities), to be considered worthy of inclusion, even though you concluded this system of ranking is not important. Contradiction. I may be a stickler too, but I would imagine the Wikipedia editors would be more objective, and less subjective, in determining what they do and don't allow to be included in an article. If it is ok to reference the ranking system in some articles, it should be allowed in all.

Also, using your rationale, shouldn't gamma world city (don't want to upset you with caps again) be removed from the Miami article as well? Especially since in is so prominently displayed in the opening paragraph? You sound like you take yourself a little to seriously (just a guess). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.239.14 (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Unregistered user, I have noted some possibly explanations for your editorial difficulties. If you are unhappy with the inconsistencies of Wikipedia edits, you are welcome to contribute to the standardization thereof; the benefit of this encyclopedia is the fact that you can do so. I cannot comment on edits to Miami, as I am unfamiliar with the article. Aepoutre 22:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Quentin, I'm glad you finally came here to talk with fellow editors. I had left you various invitations to discussion, along with other comments, in the edit summaries. As Wiki is a cooperative effort, you can enhance your cooperative standing by giving explanations for your edits in the summary space and monitoring others' notes left there. Regarding the modesty question, there was an element of tongue in cheek to my use of the word, but a seriousness as well. Boston's renown is already well-established; there is little need to "blow one's own horn". In fact, living up to the "Hub" (of everything) image can be humbling. However, I did not and do not question that the city qualifies for the various superlative labels (gamma city, world class, global). My main objection is that because "gamma city" is a generally unfamiliar, possibly obscure, term that needs explanation and referencing when introduced, it does not belong at the top of the page in the introduction. Diverting the reader into a link immediately upon beginning to read the article is an unencyclopedic distraction. Introductions should be succinct, not cluttered. Further down the page there is more room for explanations (what the term means, who defines and uses it, what a great honor it is, etc.) or — to keep things simple — a footnote or link. Being recognized as global or gamma may be a great honor, but Boston doesn't lack for honors and distinctions. I was puzzled by your insistence on featuring this additional distinction above everything else. Hertz1888 22:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hertz1888...

You make some decent points, and thanks for your input. Since I was unaware that this discussion forum existed, that is why I never saw, or responded to, your previous invitations.

Since the designation of world city (alpha,beta,gamma,etc.) is allowed to be used in Wikipedia articles to describe cities around the world, it should be used consistently in all city articles. I would argue that Los Angeles, Chicago, Paris, New York and London are all cities that are more well known around the world than Boston. So I would ask... Since these cities have less reason to "blow their own horn" than Boston, in most of the articles about these cities, the alpha world city designation is prominently referenced in the first few sentences of each article; does this make sense? I'd say these cities don't lack for honors even more than Boston doesn't lack for them. Are these articles written about these major cities less "succinct" than Boston's article?

So if we are to make Wikipedia more consistent and objective, we need to determine where the references will be added in the articles. Miami's article references gamma city in the first few sentences, and I would argue Miami may possibly need to "blow their own horn" more than Boston does. This is a contradiction with the NYC, London, Paris, etc. argument. Does Wikipedia determine what will be included in an article and where it will be included in said article by how much a city needs to "blow their own horn?" I hope not.

This issue is really not that important to me, and I will not lose any sleep over it. However, I was just very surprised by the inner workings of Wikipedia as soon as I noticed my changes to the article were being reversed and I began to wonder why. I poked around Wikipedia and I questioned why such an innocent change-consistent with other city articles- was being reversed. Then after looking around Wikipedia a bit, I discovered I was accused of "vandalism", and then decided to dig a little deeper into Wikipedia's inner-workings and editing rationale.

Based on the arguments of the editors involved in this discussion, I would conclude that Wikipedia's editing rational is much more subjective, agenda-driven and ego-driven than most people realize. I have relied on Wikipedia for a lot of information in the past, and I now question the integrity of how this information is allowed to be organized now that I have inadvertantly been drawn-in.

I would again state that the article on Boston will be improved if the gamma world city reference is added in the first few sentences of the article, however, since I know the edit will reversed as I will somehow violate some rule, I will refrain from editing it. I would ask that anyone in agreement with me, or anyone who disagrees for that matter, chime in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quentin00 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The only rule or policy I believe you were violating was failing to seek consensus for a controversial change and instead repeatedly reasserting it, without explanation (while apparently ignoring the comments of other editors). Subjective as wiki editing may be, there is some accumulated wisdom (or at least experience) available for you to tap into. I have given my perspective on the edit. It would be good to hear from others. You are free to try and build a consensus for what you seek to do. I would have little problem with the addition if placed at the end of the introduction (as it was at times), rather than at the beginning. Please remember to sign your messages by using four tildes (~). Hertz1888 01:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I never intended or expected this "minor" matter to become such a big deal. Since we are writing an encyclopedia here, it seems that even minor matters can matter. Hertz1888 02:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright ... what the heck is a so-called "GAMMA WORLD CITY" (as opposed to "alpha" and "beta," for instance), and where is the sourcing to indicate that this is a widely known appellation worthy of inclusion? Never mind ... I just answered my question. For the record, Googling "Gamma World Cities" turns up only 6,000 hits and 139 unique hits, desperately scanty totals. For my money, referencing this POV neologism pushed by a bored university geography department in its own article is more than enough, and we don't need to push it here. If the outside world takes notice of the concept, that's another matter ... but for the most part, it hasn't. [2]  RGTraynor  03:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Like to add my two-cent to this: the passage concerning Boston's being a world city had been mentioned in the third introductory paragraph (with citation) immediately after the sentence concerning Boston's geographic expansion for some time before this edit war started:

It has become one of the most culturally significant cities in the United States, and is recognized as a global city.

However, the egregious edits everyone seems to be talking about concerns the fact that the world city passage has been placed as the first sentence of the entire article (and at other times have been emphasized without regard to the flow of the prose). I fail to see how those edits improve the article in any way (especially if it could violate NPOV policies). On the other hand, I suggest that we revert the introduction back to how it was before this edit war started, if the world city passage is to be included at all. Pentawing^Talk 02:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Some very thoughtful comments, however, for some reason nobody chooses to address the "consistency" issue raised in my earlier comments. Possibly it would be a good idea - if Wikipedia is to allow the "world city" reference to be used at all - to put the reference as the last sentence of introductory paragraph of each city article. Or only allow it as a reference at the end of the entire article? Or allow the reference to be used a a stand-alone sentence after the intoductory paragraph? We need consistency here folks. I fail to see how the changes are (were) egregious, or how they violated NPOV policies, if said changes are (were) consistent with other articles using the "world city" reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quentin00 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a balancing act between those who like to sing of their hometown's praises (this also applies to sports teams, alma maters, etc.) and those who think otherwise. The general rule of thumb I use (which is still not entirely perfect) is to view the passage in context with the surrounding text — how does the passage read when placed within the text, does the passage flow with the surrounding text instead of blatantly standing out (and taunting a reader to remove the passage as boosterism or possible vandalism), and are there any facts that balance out the passage (e.g. this city is good at this but...)? Citing a passage does help, but when the passage does not flow with the surrounding text and appears to stand out for no other reason can lead to the passage's removal. What I meant by egregious and "violating NPOV" is that the modified first sentence (and I emphasize the very first sentence) in the article said "Boston is a world class city." However, that is not the main point of the city of Boston. When one says Boston as it pertains to the US, one immediately thinks of the capital of Massachusetts and later as the largest city in Massachusetts and New England (in that order). One does not immediately think of world class city off the bat (unless they live within Boston and the surrounding area or have an intimate knowledge of the city). There are people out there (e.g. New Yorkers) who believe otherwise. Hence, saying that Boston is a world class city in the very first sentence (with visual emphasis if any) is only inviting those people I mentioned to cry foul over boosterism and NPOV violation (and hence result in an edit war).

One should also be aware that this article is featured — it is some of the best that Wikipedia has to offer, and random edits without any other thought to it can degrade the article (and potentially cause the article to lose its featured status, and getting an article featured nowadays is harder to achieve). If you have any more questions about this, please leave a message on my talk page. Pentawing^Talk 01:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we have sufficient boasts of merits of the city in the intro without tacking on something vague and (somewhat) contrived as the Loughborough University's city trophies. E.g.

“ After American independence Boston became a major shipping port and manufacturing center, and its rich history now attracts 16.3 million visitors annually. ”

I say, maybe drop that in the economy section, but the intro hardly needs it.--Loodog 01:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've got a question, actually: what is the basis for the assertion that Wikipedia "allows" this "world city" reference? Have there been any consensus decisions on the subject, and if so, where are the archives of the same, and which Wikiprojects have been involved? Or is this just a matter that the reference has been stuck into a few city articles (after checking, it is by no means in all of them) and hasn't yet been edited out?  RGTraynor  11:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI, there has been no discussion of this issue at WikiProject Cities.  RGTraynor  11:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with  RGTraynor . This isn't about whether or not Boston is world-class. Generally, it's recognized as such for one reason or another. The question is as to the notability of this "global city" theory. Aepoutre 14:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I still think article is improved and provides Wiki readers with another resource for study and research with "global city" reference as last sentence in intro as it was many months ago.

Hertz agrees (taken from previous discussion point in this discussion)...

"I would have little problem with the addition if placed at the end of the introduction (as it was at times), rather than at the beginning. Please remember to sign your messages by using four tildes (~). Hertz1888 01:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)"

(The foregoing are unsigned comments added by Quentin00 (talk • contribs) at 00:50 UTC, 8 May 2008)

• Comment: This obscure "world city" concept hasn't become any more notable or gained more reliable sources in the last several months than before.  RGTraynor  01:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Quentin, I don't agree with you putting it (again) in the first paragraph. "Little problem"? I have even less problem with it being in the Economy section, in abbreviated form, where it was until recently when deleted by another editor. This is an obscure classification by a little-known group of academics. Please don't keep putting it back in the introductory section as if it were as significant as the founding of Boston. It is now back under Economy. Let's give it another try there. If others object, that will indicate a consensus against having it in the article at all, and I will have no problem with seeing it vanish. Let's not have an edit war over this. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. This discussion, which you keep re-provoking, has already gone on for over six months, consuming, IMO, far too much editorial time and attention. Please be warned: any further attempt on your part to expand, move, or reinsert this "gamma city" edit may be viewed as disruptive editing, and bring forth appropriate action. The discussion shows a clear consensus against the concept's inclusion in the article. Perhaps it will survive in its present position & shortened form, perhaps not. I leave that up to others, but let the seemingly endless cycle end here. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hertz...

Alright, you win as you have the power, it seems, to do as you please. However, I will state, as I have many times before, that the "world city" reference ought to be deleted from, or moved into an obscure section of, the 15 or so other "city" articles on Wikipedia that use it to improve the overall article. Saying that, you'll use the convenient and easy excuse that you are "unfamiliar" with those other articles (well documented by me here), however, that is also an excuse for you to "dig in your heels" and be almost, I hate to say...spiteful. Seems to me if the reference is good enough to be used in the first or second paragraph of numerous other articles, it ought to be good enough for the same treatment in the Boston article as well. Don't worry, I won't "waste" anymore of your editorial time. Using the "world city" reference only gives individuals another reliable resource written by a reliable group of academics...likely a group very, very similar to those who do all this squabbling and editing on Wikipedia ;-) All the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quentin00 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Every city is different. Houston doesn't have a section on the American Revolution for the same reason Boston has no section on the energy industry. A certain degree of consistency is desired (WP:USCITY specifies what this is), but what's best for each city is a case-by-case consensus story. I really don't think Boston needs to flash a world city trophy in the lead when the significance of the city speaks for itself in the second paragraph, in much more specific ways.--Loodog (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

We are all well aware that each city is different, however, the "global city" study/ranking system shows how each mentioned city, based on measurable criteria, ranks amoung the world's most influential cities. Is this rocket science? No. Is it a legitimate study? I believe so.

Every city listed below is different from the others, however, each city is ranked based on measurable Global Influence, not just on individual characteristics that make each city unique. We are not attempting to "flash a trophy" here, but our goal is to give readers a resource to consider when researching any given city.

The "global city" reference is currently used in the first few paragraphs of the following city articles...

Chicago Atlanta Toronto Miami Paris Dallas Los Angeles London Geneva New York Coppenhagen Melbourne San Francisco Rome Bangkok Zurich Denver

And these are only the articles I've checked - there may be more. It appears the "world ciy" reference is taking hold, and is recognized by many other Wikipedia editors as a reliable, legitimate refernece to give Wikipedia users another resource when doing research.

In light of this fact, I am again starting this discussion looking for objective, unbiased feedback based on the facts. I have moved the reference in the Boston article into a more prominent section knowing it may offend some editors, however, let's please respond objectively. I really don't feel this jeapordizes the "featured article" status of the article. This "world city" study/reference may be more recognized than many editors currently realize/want to realize.

Please let me know what you think.

Quentin00 (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Quentin, it's already had reams of discussion on multiple occasions. If you insist on calling for more, that's up to you, but let's talk first, then make the change if there's a consensus to do so. I thought we had dealt with this matter more than sufficiently, and everyone (or at least everyone but you) was content with the solution of having the reference in the Economy section, where it has remained. I am reverting your re-addition of it to the lead, for now, in the spirit of collaborative editing; it does, after all, violate the previous consensus or compromise. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. You raise some good points. I am not in charge here; none of us is. I am only pointing out that any change to the established situation, as based on previous discussion, should come from a consensus and not be made unilaterally. Thank you for understanding that. Hertz1888 (talk) 08:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. In reading back over past discussions, I see that you were warned that "any further attempt on your part to expand, move, or reinsert this "gamma city" edit may be viewed as disruptive editing, and bring forth appropriate action." You have violated that warning and a Final Warning is now in order. The previous discussions yielded a very clear consensus that is unlikely to change. I think I can speak for the other participants here in saying that there really has been enough discussion (time & energy) expended on this matter. Your coming back every 4-6 months to provoke further discussion is unproductive. I hope that, rather than continuing to focus mainly on this edit, you will be able to find other, more constructive ways to be involved with Wikipedia. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• The "world city" neologism doesn't require widespread real world consensus and recognition to find its way into Wikipedia articles. It just requires a couple of editors to push the POV; why, look, despite all consensus here, the unilateral action of a single editor put it back in the lead paragraph, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if a similarly small group salted it in those other articles. For my part, show me, through reliable, independent, non-Wikipedia sources, that this term is widespread in academia and the political world, and I'll change my mind.  RGTraynor  19:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Board of Election

How is it that Boston election commissioners are election department employees?... shouldn't election commissioners be separate as a board from the department?..

Why have not all Boston election commission seats been appointed?... a commission seat has gone unfilled for a very long time.

Board of Election
1. Geraldine M. Cuddyer, Chair
2. Michael Patrck Chinetti
3. Nancy D. Hairston
4. .... UNAPPOINTED ....
http://www.bostonherald.com/projects/payroll/boston/last_name.ASC/121000/

See also page 27
Department of Voter Mobilization
http://cityofboston.gov/budget/pdfs/volume3_2008/07_Pub_Prop_Cab.pdf
the zak 23:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

citations 6, 54, and 56 are the same source... --130.215.168.224 (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Why the current name?

I'm sure this has been discussed a lot so could anyone point me to good discussion as to why this article is named Boston, Massachusetts and not simply Boston? Boston is a world city and I've seen much much less known cities than Boston having a singular name. But anyway, any actual policy or real consensus about this? (edit)Might I add that since the consensus seems to be to redirect Boston to here why doesn't this article simply be titled Boston? After looking at the Global city article it seems that pretty much every single city, except U.S. cities, are singular names. This seems a little crazy to me. Any links to the policy about this? LonelyMarble (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#United States is the guideline for how to name US places. --Polaron | Talk 03:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed that this guideline you have pointed to says that Boston could be moved to Boston. That should be done. Miami33139 (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that guideline concurs that Boston, MA could simply be titled Boston, and Boston already redirects to Boston, MA. And as Boston is one of the few global cities I don't see why this article can't simply be titled Boston. LonelyMarble (talk) 03:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The short answer is that there were very lengthy discussions on whether to move the article to Boston, and there were enough people opposed to the move that it didn't happen. AJD (talk) 06:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is pretty ridiculous. The only other place name that would be in dispute would be Boston, Lincolnshire and although that was the original name I don't see why this makes it such an argument that the far and away most popular usage can't have the loan title. Another ridiculous naming is Los Angeles, California, why that page isn't simply at Los Angeles is beyond me. I can see the reasons for the "common convention" but cities like Boston and Los Angeles should be at the lone title (and probably most of the other U.S. city names on that link should be too). LonelyMarble (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

People get very hung up over this. It makes no difference since the "Boston" redirects to Boston, Massachusetts anyway. This absolutely should be the case since no "Boston" approaches notability of this one. As for where the article should be located (which again makes no difference), until we relocate ALL cities approved for city name only in the AP style book (include LA, St. Louis, San Francisco, etc...) to the city name, Boston stays at Boston, Massachusetts as per convention. Individual city articles are not the place to try changing this. Go to WP:naming conventions.--Loodog (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This is becoming a circular argument. There was an agreement of sorts that cities listed in the AP stylebook *may* be exempt from having the state name if they are the primary topic and if editors of that city article agree. The disgreement was trying to mass move the city names all at once. The convention you refer to has been changed and it says individual city article talk pages are where a possible move should be discussed. --Polaron | Talk 02:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize that had happened. In that case, full support. This Boston is obviously the primary topic and "Boston" redirects here anyway. Sure, move it.--Loodog (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I support moving it too; redirecting from a general name to a longer, more specific one is stupid. If you don't like calling this 'Boston' you should be changing Boston to a disambiguation. Where are the people who oppose? Richard001 (talk) 02:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still opposed to moving it, since I think city/town article titles should all be in the same format. AJD (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

After looking at a list of cities, nearly all are in the City, State format. Except for these major cities: Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia. -Zomic13 (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The recent consensus was to allow each case to be determined individually. But while we're aiming for consistency, I'd also like to point out that Philadelphia, New York City, and Chicago are where they are because they are older, more well-established cities and are better known than the states they are in. I believe Boston meets both of these criteria.--Loodog (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, then I would strongly support the move to just "Boston". Boston is a well-established city and one where many important events in American history. Boston should more than meet any requirements to just be known as Boston. -Zomic13 (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I also support this move. (I'm an old user who's been lurking--not a puppet! Just to lazy to log-in or re-register.) --71.235.81.130 (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

So, will somebody familiar with the process get this started? --130.132.111.93 (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Beyond chest-thumping, what is the benefit to this move? Boston already redirects to here. --barneca (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it makes no practical difference just as the moving the "Barack Obama" article to "Obama" would make no practical difference. However, as with Barack Obama, there still is a proper location for the article. Tough call here because guidelines say either way is the full proper name.--Loodog (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be moved, but I have a feeling that if we carry out an actual requested move then the article will still just remain at CITY, STATE; requested moves for all major American cities save Chicago and Philadelphia have ended with no change. Still, WP:CCC. Cheers, Rai•me 02:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it might fly. The only reasons I can see Chicago, New York, and Philadephia as exceptions are because they are cities with rich histories which are known better than the states they are in. Boston would meet both these criteria, but then again it doensn't really matter.--Loodog (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Pilgrims

This is a very minor thing, but it's one of my pet peeves. In the sports section is says that the Boston Red Sox were known as the Boston Pilgrims in 1903 when winning their first world series. I changed it because this is not true, but it was reverted. Here is a link to an article that is sourced on the Red Sox page that discusses this. If anyone thinks that it is still worth being mentioned, please let me know. Otherwise I think it should go. http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/boston_pilgrims_story.shtml Tithonfury (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't you say so in the first place? You and Bill Nowlin, author of the reference, have convinced me that the "Pilgrims" name is a legend that grew legs, so to speak. I have edited the article to reflect this. Such changes need to be explained and sourced. Please use the edit summary space to explain edits that may be suspect. Thanks for bringing the citation here. It looks to be on very solid ground. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't think of it the first time. Oh well, it's fixed now.Tithonfury (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Minor thing addendum-the 1901 World Series was played by the Boston Americans, who were not then known as the "Red Sox". That was the nickname of the NL team at the time. While the AL team later became known as the "Red Sox", the article should be edited to reflect this. 69.91.239.125 (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone really doesn't like the nickname Boston Americans, even though it is historically accurate, referenced throughout wikipedia, and used by the National Baseball Hall of Fame.[3] I changed it back. Please discuss if it's an ongoing concern. Everbluesox (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Bill Nowlin (ref. no. 76) seems to have done the most in-depth research on this, and if he is granted the last word, then Boston Americans was just one nickname among others. The article doesn't deal with nicknames as such, but perhaps could be edited to cover them, making clear the names were unofficial; however, all varieties from the Nowlin article would have to be included. I reformatted your citation (above) so it will be active. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Please allow enough time for a reply before jumping in with changes. We don't need to have an edit war over this. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's the issue - I don't believe Nowlin warrants the final word, and even if he does, his research indicates that "Americans" was the most common designator among Boston papers at the time. Roger Abrams, who deserves as much a say as Nowlin, calls them the "Americans" as well, as do many others. It also links to Red Sox, and internal consistency matters. I suggest we defer to wikipedia and to the HOF. Otherwise let's just say AL champion Boston, but to leave them nameless is, in my opinion, pointless. Thanks.Everbluesox (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's fine with me if you make it clear "Americans" was a nickname (i.e., unofficial) and mention that there were alternative usages. Your other refs. sound solid, but (by the way) Wikipedia cannot use itself as a source; that's made clear somewhere in the WP:MOS. I strongly suggest waiting a day or so for possible comments by other editors. Best wishes, Hertz1888 (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I see once again you did not wait for comment before proceeding with an edit. Once a discussion has been opened, it is not in the spirit of collaborative editing to make changes unilaterally. Please revisit your wording in the light of my suggestions, and be prepared for input that may come from others. We were nowhere near having a consensus for the changes you rushed to make. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave it as is for now, but I don't believe the Nowlin reference even belongs on this page - that's Red Sox page material, and is already there. I'll remove it unless I hear an argument otherwise in the next few days. I also believe there's no need to refer to it as a "nickname", as we can leave the final word to the team themselves, who used B.A. on the front of their uniforms in 1902, and again in 1908. B.A. stood for "Boston Americans". See HOF http://exhibits.baseballhalloffame.org/dressed_to_the_nines/uniforms.asp?league=AL&city=Boston&lowYear=1901&highYear=1910&sort=year&increment=9 I also point to the online baseball almanac http://www.baseball-almanac.com/mgrtmbr2.shtml and baseball-reference, the foremost collection of baseball statistics (really great stuff) http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1903.shtml. While Nowlin's SABR work is of value, within established baseball circles the accepted name of the club at that time is Boston Americans. Best,Everbluesox (talk) 03:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Everblue, you are obviously better informed on the historical details than I, and have made a good case for the "B.A." On ditching the Nowlin sentence and citation I cannot agree. It was put there as a bulwark. It acts as insurance against someone new putting "Pilgrims" back in (safe from immediate contradiction), which I'm sure would happen sooner or later. No one has complained about it being off topic, and it costs nothing to leave it be. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I find a preemptive bulwark a little troubling and a dangerous precedent; but it's one sentence so will let it be for the time being. I cleaned up the wording of the Braves origins and honed the paragraph a little further, think it's clearer now.Everbluesox (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it not uninteresting in its own right, and trust others will too, just as they will enjoy reading about the origins of the Braves. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Notable places/landmarks/tourism

Hi, I noticed most other cities seemed to dedicate a paragraph to "Sites of interest". We haven't mentioned tourism except as a component of the city's economy. Do we think it would improve the article to include such a section or would it just needlessly lengthen the article and make it seem boostery?--Loodog (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Climate

Hertz1888, I understand that some people use 32F/0C being the average temperature of the coldest month as the borderline between subtropical and continental, but the Koppen Climate Classification (which this article sources) uses 26.6F/-3C as the borderline. Boston lies between these lines. http://www.idcide.com/weather/ma/boston.htm proves it. The Koppen Climate Classification article proves that these boundaries are correct. Press olive, win oil (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the discussion here. I accept the temperature figures. I am confused because on the maps at Köppen climate classification, Boston shows as a speck of Dfa (the light blue) surrounded by Dfb (darker blue). It is nowhere near the Cfa (light green) areas. Why is this so at variance with your assertion of the climate type?

Anyone who has spent time in Boston would likely find description of the climate as "subtropical" absurd and be skeptical. Does common sense come into play at all, or are we going strictly by some arbitrary, borderline numbers? Not to mention that the Koppen scheme itself will be obscure to the vast majority of readers. I invite you to take a close(r) look at the maps cited, and reword the edited section accordingly - preferably with language less specialized and more geared to the layman. Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, Boston's climate is not at all like that of such places as Houston, Tucson or Jerusalem - examples given in Subtropics. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Nashville isn't like that at all either and its coldest month averages above freezing. It would be called Cfa on the map. I think that the C/D borderline should be at -3C, and "Marine West Coast" should be called "Oceanic." "Humid Subtropical" should have its name changed to something that means "hot summer and no long period of snow cover" in prefixes, roots, and suffixes. Koppen probably didn't invent the names for the climate zones and I think people should use Koppen's boundaries the way they are. Whatever they call them is their business. Look, it's like an imaginary animal that has a weird common name. Cfa shouldn't have the name "humid subtropical." Yet the animal's scientific name, which would be Cfa for the climate, makes sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Press olive, win oil (talk • contribs) 12:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC) I think "Humid Mesothermal" is a better name for Cfa anyway. Press olive, win oil (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC) On the Koppen climate classification article, I made a new section called "Debatable Map' about that map. That map clearly uses 0C/32F for the coldest month average as the c/d borderline. Koppen used -3C/26.6F, as do I. Though Nashville, New York City, and Boston would be considered "subtropical' by Koppen's classification, they are not. This is why I think the name should be changed., but Koppen's boundaries should be kept because of agricultural reasons (how Koppen figured out where to make the boundaries). Press olive, win oil (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Press olive. With all due respect, I believe what the reader needs is a simple and brief characterization of the Boston climate, not a confusing treatise on specialized, highly technical matters. A discussion of the contradictions in the classification schemes does nothing but obfuscate. I have a "radical" suggestion: please save the critiques of Koppen's scheme for the Koppen talk page. In my opinion, detailed discussions of the science and its limitations don't belong on the Boston page — or any other city's — nor here on the Boston talk page. With this in mind I will be simplifying and shortening the paragraph in question. Please don't reintroduce ambiguities. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Hear hear.  RGTraynor  13:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, we could just say Boston's climate is typical of southeast New England, right? We don't need to mention any climate classification at all, do we? Press olive, win oil (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Then we're assuming the reader knows a SE New England climate.--Loodog (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Or, humid subtropical climates could be called Hot summer humid mesothermal climates." Press olive, win oil (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps they could, but the mesothermal page suggests that the term characterizes only winters. We're getting overtechnical again here, though, aren't we. I'm sure any connection of Boston's climate with any form of "tropical" is too ludicrous to survive long in the article. Hopefully the present wording serves adequately; it seems to me there is a consensus to leave it be. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Mesothermal and tropical climates are different terms. The "hot summer" means its summers are hot, with the warmest month's mean temperature averaging above 22C/71.6F. Press olive, win oil (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC) Mesothermal means coldest month averages below 18C/64.4F but above -3C/26.6F while tropical means this average is above 18C/64.4F. Press olive, win oil (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Mention of 23rd largest city in intro

I removed this and was reverted: A 2006 U.S. Census Bureau estimate ranks Boston as the 23rd largest U.S. city by population.

My reasons:

1. 23 out there the backwater in terms of any kind of interest. If it were 23 in the world, it'd be something.
2. The definition of the entity that ranks 23rd is so far divorced from the reality of the city's workings and influence, it's misleading. 590,763 describes the population living in inside a densely populated imaginary line with an area 1/5 the official size of Charlotte and excludes functionally integrated "suburbs" such as Cambridge (101,354), Brookline (57,107), Somerville (77,478), and Chelsea (35,080), which all have greater density than Baltimore.

--Loodog (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think its notable ElectricalExperiment 02:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate beyond an I Like It statement?--Loodog (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Its a statistic. ElectricalExperiment 13:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a statistic. So are "red cars are more likely to get ticketed for speeding" and "kids eating KFC are more likely to perform poorly in school". It doesn't make it meaningful. See my point #2.--Loodog (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Loodog, I think your reasons are sound for dropping the mention. However, if it stays, we could qualify it, either in a footnote, or right there in the intro. Something along the lines of: "This ranking gives a misleading picture of comparative size because, unlike many [most?] other cities on the list, Boston is but the nucleus of a much more populous cluster of contiguous separate municipalities." How does that strike you? Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah, then it's being said in an implicitly compensating tone and is borderline OR. I think the most accurate picture is painted when the city proper ranking is completely omitted.--Loodog (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's best completely omitted. Without elaboration it's misleading and nearly meaningless. I somehow don't see a consensus developing to keep it. It should go. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's best omitted. Rankings below 1st, 2nd, and 3rd are uninteresting (and dubious at best). If you don't win, place, or show, you're an also ran. The Olympics doesn't award pewter, molybdenum, or iron medals. If we have a ranked list of cities somewhere, that's fine, but putting individual ranking numbers in articles is silly. And, as LooDog noted in point number 2, particularly silly in the case of Boston. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Perhaps Boston is the U. S. city with the smallest area, as a percentage of the area of its SMSA... or the smallest population, as percentage of the population of its SMSA. If either of these is true and can be directly sourced to a reference, that would be interesting. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say this is consensus then. I'm removing it again. Electrical Experiment, if you disagree, you're welcome to continue discussion here.--Loodog (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Untitled section

The women's soccer team, the Breakers were re-instated in April 2007, and I think should be added to the sports section. http://www.womensprosoccer.com/soccer_ektid138.aspx?team=boston Professional21 (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)professional21

2007 Boston Bomb Scare

I propose introducing a section to the article about the 2007 Boston Bomb Scare. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Please. It's a little incident the better part of two years ago. If there's no section on the Big Dig, there certainly doesn't need to be one on that. Twin Bird (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but they've done horrible overreactions to stuff like this several times, though not on that scale. Plus the event has it's own article, and it's certainly more notable then a list of plays that feature Boston. 69.207.32.133 (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't just a little incident, Twin Bird, it shut down many major cities in the United States. It cost local governments millions of dollars to deal with the situation. It, perhaps, also had an affect on the citizens' sense of security, and changed some cultural outlook on Post-911 America. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• And the Big Dig was the most costly public works project in world history. You think the Lite Brite deal was more important? More important than busing in the 1970s? More important than the urban renewal that wiped out the West End and built the Central Artery? The Revolutionary War and the siege of the city? The Great Fire of 1872 that torched the downtown? The razing of Scollay Square? The molasses flood in the North End? Heck, the 1919 Boston police strike put put a man in the White House - that's slightly more of an impact, and that didn't get into the article at all. Sacco and Vanzetti? The Cocoanut Grove fire? The Boston Strangler? by contrast, this blip of an incident didn't shut down any city, not even Boston, and the degree it "changed some cultural outlook" is that the nation had a good laugh at Boston's expense for a news cycle or two. This is recentism, pure and simple, and while it may meet the criteria for a standalone article, I don't think it's even worth a mention in the dedicated history article, let alone the main article.  RGTraynor  16:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

But sports teams are? 69.207.32.133 (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to jump in here, I'd call it nonnotable in the history of the city. Anon, no sports teams are mentioned in the history section. They're mentioned in the "sports" section, which is customary in all city articles per WP:USCITY. It got a lot of coverage when it happened, but it ultimately doesn't matter like the Big Dig does.--Loodog (talk) 01:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. It's certainly pleasant for sports fans that the Red Sox and Celtics have won recent championships, but the enduring effects of those wins on the city is zero.  RGTraynor  06:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

'Move with two qualifications. St. Louis, Missouri because Saint Louis needs to be considered and Cleveland, Ohio Cleveland also has separate National varieties of English considerations (other cites such as Boston are much better known to other English speakers to qualify under common usage). So in my judgement these two need further specific discussions. Also see comment at the end --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

---

• (Move several city article names) There's currently a proposal to amend the naming conventions for US cities to follow the AP Stylebook for all cities, instead of selectively. This would effectively move the following city articles. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Atlanta, Georgia → Atlanta
  • Baltimore, Maryland → Baltimore
  • Boston, Massachusetts → Boston
  • Cincinnati, Ohio → Cincinnati
  • Cleveland, Ohio → Cleveland
  • Dallas, Texas → Dallas
  • Denver, Colorado → Denver
  • Detroit, Michigan → Detroit
  • Honolulu, Hawaii → Honolulu
  • Houston, Texas → Houston
  • Indianapolis, Indiana → Indianapolis
  • Los Angeles, California → Los Angeles
  • Miami, Florida → Miami
  • Milwaukee, Wisconsin → Milwaukee
  • Minneapolis, Minnesota → Minneapolis
  • Oklahoma City, Oklahoma → Oklahoma City
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania → Pittsburgh
  • St. Louis, Missouri → St. Louis
  • Salt Lake City, Utah → Salt Lake City
  • San Antonio, Texas → San Antonio
  • San Diego, California → San Diego
  • San Francisco, California → San Francisco

• Boston, Massachusetts → Boston —(Discuss)— Talk:Boston, Massachusetts --Loodog (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC). We've had a lot of discussion on this and consensus looks to be in favor of the move. I didn't realize this move should be mentioned here, but am adding it now. I don't want the move, if successful, to considered illegitimate because I didn't realize the process here.--Loodog (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

One more attempt at a move to "Boston"

Request move of Boston, Massachusetts -> Boston. Current exceptions to [city, state] guidelines are New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Seattle, and it looks like New Orleans, Louisiana is very quickly gaining consensus (with my support) for a move to New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana has been moved to New Orleans. What these exceptions have in common: (1) they are older, more well-established cities, (2) they are better known than the states they are in (ask an Italian which state Chicago is in.). Boston matches these criteria.

Counterarguments for consideration

• Slippery slope: every city will start asking to be located at its own name and the [city, state] convention will fall apart.

All of the above cities and Boston are in the AP stylebook which is a permissible exception. No one has ever proposed a remotely successful move for any city not in the AP stylebook.

• Distinction between Boston and Greater Boston will be obscured:

Since "Boston" already directs here, we've already made the assumption it means the city proper. Also, Greater Boston is mentioned in the intro.

Lastly, WP:NAME states "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." "Boston, Massachusetts" is the editor's cleaner preference, but "Boston" is how people and the media speak and write.

--Loodog (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I support such a move. Boston is Boston. Whatever404 (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree with such a move; I disagree with all the other ones too, but that's another issue. So there's no misunderstanding, I fully support the fact that Boston redirects here; that's a different issue, and will hopefully not be brought up by anyone right now to muddy the waters. I believe all geographic places should be formatted Cityname, State or Cityname, Country, with redirects from Cityname when there is an obvious most likely target. Having this standard format is not only beneficial to editors, it is the most convenient format for readers unfamiliar with the geography of the area, who are actually the people most likely to want to read it, and has absolutely no cost to anyone. Loodog rebuts some possible objections above, but no one has ever answered, to my satisfaction anyway, the question in the other direction: What would be the actual benefit to anyone for the move? Finally, on a non-content related front, how many times do we keep having the same discussion? If it is successful, do we have to have another one in a few months to change it back? How about we flip a damn coin, and whatever it says, we follow that and all swear on pain of death to never talk about this again? --barneca (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • On the question of whether it would stick, it seems to me there's been a general shifting consensus away from strict [city, state] convention over the last year or so. The last discussion there said cities should be decided on an individual basis. Now Seattle's been moved. I'm pretty sure such a move would stick because of this.
  • On the question of benefit, obviously it makes little difference if the other name redirects to the article anyway, but I think it's slightly less surprising to a reader, particularly an international reader, to find this article located at City.--Loodog (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I think we've identified the crux of our disagreement, then. I've just re-thought this to make sure I'm not letting my gut instinct get in the way, but I still honestly can't imagine how finding this article at Boston, Massachusetts could possibly result in any surprise whatsoever to any editor anywhere in the world. Whereas I can imagine the slight possibility of confusion arising in editors unfamiliar with US geography if it is just titled Boston. Loodog, at the risk of asking you to waste your time trying to convince someone who probably won't be convinced, could you give me a scenario for how such a reader could be confused? You're making an excellent case for Boston to redirect to Boston, Massachusetts instead of Boston (disambiguation), but I don't see any reason to rename the article. --barneca (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
      • For example, if I typed in "Paris" and got something titled "Paris, Île-de-France", I'd suddenly find myself wondering, as opposed to Paris, what? It'd become obvious after reading the first sentence I was in the right place, but I think it'd be a weird title, having this extra noun in it which I'm less familiar with than the search term I was looking for. I don't think it's a safe assumption that most english speakers in the world know that "the" Boston is in Massachusetts, or even know *what* Massachusetts is.
      • Put it another way:
      • A: Yes, I need a trip to Paris, please.
      • B: Paris, Île-de-France?
      • A: Um...you know... Paris. The big one. Eiffel Tower and such.
      • --Loodog (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• I oppose the move and agree with Barneca. AJD (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• I also oppose such moves. Other than New York, New York, which means something different from New York City, there's no good reason for any exceptions to the standard City,_State format for article titles for U.S. cities.
  —WWoods (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

* Strong oppose And this discussion should probably be closed immediately on account of WP:SNOWBALL. Similar debates have gone on on several other city articles for the past several years, ad nauseum. No further comment is necessary; this is a bad idea. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Part of the reason I proposed this was I believed consensus was changing. I'd like to get everyone's opinion before declaring it snowball futility.--Loodog (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree strongly that consensus "is changing", as you say,... furthermore, in order to gain proper consensus on the matter, you must notify far more groups than simply posting on the talk page of this article. You're trying to circumvent proper consensus by sneaking this through minor talk pages without going to WP:RFC or even WP:CITIES. This is completely unacceptable behavior and bordering on fascism and dictatorship. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Fascism and dictatorship??? Really?? --barneca (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, maybe that's going too far. I didn't mean that as a "personal attack" against anyone. My point is that the democratic process of achieving consensus is breaking down by keeping this discussion to the talk page alone without at least going through WP:RM or WP:RFC. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that WP:CITIES was just the general convention, which has since been conclude as this is determined on a city-by-city basis. RfC, I was under the impression, was for intractable disputes, which I have no reason to assume this will be. I'm not trying to "circumvent" anything. I thought this discussion had started out with extraordinarily good faith and really don't appreciate this.--Loodog (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"Extraordinarily good faith"? Seriously? You're trying to circumvent the system and pass this, by simply keeping the discussion on the talk page and not go through proper channels? You should at least go through WP:RM. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you're seriously not giving me the benefit of the doubt. This is unacceptable. I am NOT trying to circumvent a more "correct" consensus. I didn't know there were more "proper" channels. I've seen countless requests for page moves on the page themselves and had no reason to believe this would be otherwise.--Loodog (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of not assuming good faith when you're not doing so yourself. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Please don't assume that your opponent is not assuming that you aren't assuming that your opponent is not assuming that you're not assuming that your opponent is not assuming good faith. In other words, this is getting silly and a distraction. Would you two knock it off? Well, actually, would you, Dr. Cash, knock it off; you pretty much started it with the "fascism" comment, and even though you withdrew it, it's quite clear you're questioning Loodog's motives; there's no other way to interpret your comments. There's no reason to believe Loodog is trying to sneak anything through, and this kind of questioning of motives is unhelpful. --barneca (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The current naming convention can be found here. There are currently three exceptions (four, if you count Seattle, but that move was done improperly and without regard for a true democratic process, as you are trying to do with Boston and New Orleans). The proper way is to make a request at requested moves, based on what the naming conventions guideline states. Also, since this is a very hotly debated topic, it would be good to seek a broader consensus, such as at WP:CITIES or even at the community portal message board. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

K, thanks. Will do in the future.--Loodog (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Conditionally support I change my position on this from oppose to conditionally support; based on the status of similar recent moves at Talk:New Orleans and Talk:Seattle, I think if we're going to start moving all these cities, and if consensus seems to be supporting it now, then we should do that. But I am still not happy with us only selectively following the AP Stylebook with regard to the city names policy (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)). Rather than start making exceptions, let's move ALL cities that the AP Stylebook says can be referred to by 'city' instead of 'city, state'. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• I would strongly support such a move. People argue strongly that articles should be City, State because that is the standard and strongly oppose any moves to just be *City*. However, if it is indeed the true standard, then there should be no exceptions period. Unless the other cities are moved to the supposed proper form, I do not feel that Boston should required to be City, State especially since it more than qualifies (based on historical and modern relevance and importance among other factors) to be just a city. -Zomic13 (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've left a note on the New Orleans, Louisiana talk page mentioning this discussion, since they're pretty much identical ideas.--Loodog (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support for the move. Boston meets the criteria for the exceptions described under the naming guideline, the title already redirects to this article, and there is no reason to keep it at this title. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support: I likewise agree with such a move, as I have before, and find the suggestion of a snowball close on the strength of four Opposes two hours after the suggestion on a holiday weekend damned startling at best.  RGTraynor  21:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. This is the primary meaning. Other meanings of Boston are at Boston (disambiguation). Georgia guy (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support, this is easily the primary meaning of "Boston", and Boston meets the excpetion criteria listed at WP:NC:CITY as pointed out above. Cheers, Rai•me 01:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support An article's title shouldn't be needlessly specific, and as every other Boston is far smaller, reader confusion really isn't an issue. AlexiusHoratius 01:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Boston is clearly the most common name used for the subject of this article. Following a pointless convention for the sake of following a pointless convention (and, yes, it is pointless if you can't identify the point of the convention, by definition) is just plain silly. --Serge (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The point of the convention is that the formal "full name" way of referring to a city in the United States is as City, State. It's the same reason Wikipedia has an article called Boston Red Sox, even though Red Sox redirects to it and is the most common name used for the subject of the article; or Elvis Presley, when Elvis is the most common name used; or Harvard University, when Harvard is the most common name used. Because the formal way of referring to a city out of context is City, State. That's the point of the convention. AJD (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Or Obama] redirects to Barack Obama. Your point is taken, but I'd like argue that your examples are distinct from what's happening here. (1) "Boston Red Sox" is the full name of the team, which is used fairly often in everyday speech. (2) Elvis Presley (as with Barack Obama) is the guy's first and last name and also not too uncommon. (3) Harvard University is the full proper name of the school, which you'll find on any official document or sign.

• • • Contrast to Boston here. Boston, Massachusetts is not the full proper name of city. "Massachusetts" is not a last name, or an official part of the city's name. Also, in contrast to the examples you give in which using a more "proper" name is a bit less common, I've never heard anyone, any movie, television show, book, or airport refer to this city as "Boston, Massachusetts".--Loodog (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Because in context, it's almost always clear what someone saying "Charlie", "Duke", "Elm St.", "the city", etc. is referring to, without having to spell it out in full. That doesn't mean those should be their article titles.

—WWoods (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not context turning a hopelessly ambiguous word into something specific like your cases. You don't even need context to know that "Boston" is the city.--Loodog (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• A considerably more accurate analogy would be to use the formal full name for Rhode Island, which is in fact "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations." William Jefferson Clinton redirects to Bill Clinton, James Earl Carter redirects to Jimmy Carter, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts redirects to Massachusetts ... because the real convention here is the one which holds that the proper name for an article is the most common name by which it is referred to in the English language.  RGTraynor  15:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This is going to get steam-rollered through by the admins now, so you might as well just close the discussion and move it. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Just another attempt at a failed move, time and again, in order to create more exceptions to a previously consistent City,State convention. With enough exceptions, the argument will be to change the City,State convention. I find the whole strategy underhanded and unprincipled. Phiwum (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• The AP exception list is already a precarious compromise as it is. I don't think you should worry about going beyond that list in the foreseeable future. Less than 1 in 1000 (?) exceptions is not sufficient to change the basic guideline. --Polaron | Talk 15:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• I considered the idea that this would erode [city, state] in the proposal. My reply was that no one has ever had a remotely successful propose for cities outside the AP stylebook.--Loodog (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• To the contrary, for the first time since the early days of Wikipedia, the discussion/debate about U.S. city names is being allowed to take its natural course (at least for the cities on the AP list) - the way true conventions develop. --Serge (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(settlements)#United_States, which has authority here and says, "Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier may be listed at City if they are the primary topic for that name. Cities that meet these criteria are: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York City, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle.[1] No other American city should be listed at City." GoneAwayNowAndRetired (C)(T) 16:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I supported the move of New Orleans, and then came over here after a notice on that page. I'm inclined to support this move as well, but barneca's comments do give me pause. Rather than supporting or opposing at this time, I'd like to add an observation: I'm setting aside "obvious" cities such as Rome, Paris, Prague, and Madrid, which are world-class cities but more to the point, are capitals of their respective countries. However, there is definitely precedent for other world-class cities to be titled only by their city name: São Paulo, Liverpool, Antwerp, and Barcelona are random examples I picked. I do think Boston is on par with these cities as a world-class city.  Frank  |  talk  16:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: I didn't know to list this at WP:RM. I'm doing this now.--Loodog (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment There is now a proposal over here to amend the naming settlements guideline for US cities to simply follow the AP Stylebook for all cities mentioned. This would include Boston and effectively do a mass-move of all of those cities, rather than debating them individually. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral. No complaints either way. Strong Oppose mass move. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is no need to move the article. It presently conforms to the naming convention for U.S. cities. Conventions like this work best when followed consistently. "Boston" is an ambiguous term, referring to several entities. The inclusion of the state, even in a hidden piped link that is only seen when hovering, makes the identity immediately clear to readers. A consistent convention also makes it easier for editors, who always know how to link to a U.S. city without having to check. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It is true that conventions "like this" work best when followed consistently, because to be followed consistently is their only point. Conventions "like this" are pointless conventions. The alleged benefit of having the state included, even in a hidden piped link, is stretching to the point of incredulity. If not, you should be able to show us at least a single reference to any of the cities already moved which would clearly be improved if the reference included the state hidden in a piped link seen only when hovering. In a well written article, the first reference to the city should include the state, as in Seattle, Washington, if it's not already obvious from context. The advantage for editors is a point taken, but very minor, for the readers take precedence. I stand by my characterization of the convention as being pointless in any way that actually matters to the good of Wikipedia. --Serge (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Per movant's statement. -- Friejose (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I was originally neutral. But after seeing discussion at New Orleans, I looked up the AP Stylebook and added the reference to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements). After thinking about it, I find I am in agreement with the AP. --Jh12 (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Similar to New Orleans, see the Seattle move discussions at: [4][5]. GoneAwayNowAndRetired (C)(T) 21:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Arguments against the "City" title for a world-famous city like Boston are rather unconvincing. Yes, there are other "Bostons" in this world. However, only one of them is the primary topic for the title. szyslak (t) 03:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Move complies with U.S. city naming guidelines, the wikipedia-wide use common names guideline, and primary topic guidelines (as evidenced by the current redirect from the unqualified name). --Polaron | Talk 20:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - and a useful general trend to bring US cities in line with the city articles in the rest of Wikipedia. SilkTork *^YES! 19:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose on balance. Since the city is called both Boston and Boston, Massachusetts, common usage does not determine what we should do. At this point, the fundamental issue of convenience and predictability come into play. All the rest of the municipalities of Massachusetts are disambiguated with the state, following American practice; most of them have to be (for example, Worcester, Massachusetts must be disambiguated from all the other Worcesters out there). For the rest, disambiguation does no harm; Nantucket, Massachusetts is usefully disambiguated from the rest of the entries in Nantucket (disambiguation) - all named after the island. Editors can tell, and readers can predict, where the actual article for Nantucket lies; I do not see sufficient reason to treat Boston differently. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to argue based on consistency within so small a political division as Massachusetts, why stop there? Consistency within New England? Suffolk County? It's just a new way to chop it when the guiding principles have nothing to do with locality beyond what we've agreed upon for an entire country.

As for why we should treat Boston different from Nantucket... oh, I don't know, population (600,000 vs. 10,000), an international airport, international recognition, the fact that there is no island or other geographical entity named "Boston". I don't think you meant to suggest that a world city like London look to Nantucket for treatment of its article but there it is.--Loodog (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The same style is consistently used throughout Suffolk County, Massachusetts (which itself needs disambiguation from Suffolk County, New York and elsewhere); within New England; indeed, throughout the United States. So it doesn't matter which of those units we consider. Nothing here denies that Boston is a world city; merely affirms that it is convenient for our editors and readers to have a consistent system. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the "cityname, statename" system is convenient for editors, but one has to question whether this consistency for only U.S. placenames is actually beneficial for readers, considering that almost all other cities across the world not requiring disambiguation are titled "cityname". I find it hard to believe that readers would find such global inconsistency convenient; unless we plan to move London to London, England, it is better to be internationally consistent (at the very least for global cities) in article naming for the ease of readers. Cheers, Rai•me 19:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Raime, that's what I was trying to say: that we should look up, not down on consistency. Organic language rarely matches itself to neat political and compact divisions. Comparisons have to be global. And again, "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists."--Loodog (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No, they don't have to be global; we are not here to invent an international dialect. Per WP:ENGVAR, articles on American places should be written in American. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And in American, "Boston" is more common than "Boston, Massachusetts". I can see using the "cityname, statename" convention for towns like Lucas Township, Minnesota, but for cities that are extremely well-known around the world, such naming is both unnecessary and confusing to international readers more familiar with "Boston" than "Massachusetts". Cheers, Rai•me 00:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support as an explicit statement, separate from other discussion. Miami33139 (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The naming convention does not mandate the move. There is no reason to change from the existing consensus or no consensus as the case may be. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Plenty of reasons as stated above.--Loodog (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - The very reason most US city toponyms are disambiguated by state is because they are ambiguous in the first place. Boston, MA may be the primary topic but that's why it redirects here. This move ignores the convention expressed by Wikipedia's guidelines. 71.106.172.173 (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. This follows convention expressed by Wikipedia's guidelines.--Loodog (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Slippery slope, if some cities are changed to city only, then what about other cities. Should Concord, NH be switched, since it is a state capitol? Will Worcester be next, then Framington, then Springfield..... If we start renaming some cities, we get on a very slippery slope and it will be come harder to argue one way or the other, since the switch has no solid criteria. --Terrillja (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, see slippery slope argument above which I argued against with the inital proposal, and then restated in the discussion section below. No one has ever proposed any remotely successful move for any city not in the AP stylebook.--Loodog (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The tally and discussion

I thought I'd clear up all the mess above with a current tally. This is not a vote.--Loodog (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Support: 17

Loodog, Whatever404, Zomic13, Dr. Cash, RGTraynor, Georgia guy, Rai•me, AlexiusHoratius, Serge, GoneAwayNowAndRetired, Friejose, Jh12, szyslak, Ckatz, Polaron, SilkTork, Miami33139,

Oppose : 9

barneca, Wwoods, Dr. Cash, Phiwum, Will Beback, AJD, Pmanderson, Terrillja, 71.106.172.173, Vegaswikian

If I missed anyone, please add.

Opposition seems to be based on:

1. [City, State] format should always be followed, except in New York City. -barneca, AJD(?), Wwoods
2. Slippery slope, [City, State] as a convention will be eroded if we allow more exceptions. -Phiwum
3. Ease of consistency for [City, State], clarity of city-ness -Will Beback

With regard to number one, there are exceptions at New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Seattle, and now New Orleans. [City, State] is not universally followed, but [City, State] or permissible exceptions still are. Moving Boston keeps it within permissible exceptions.

Number 2. Again, no one has ever proposed anything remotely successful for cities that aren't allowed as exceptions. Any proposal to drop the AP stylebook requirement would meet with strong opposition and so this slippery slope has firm footing.

Number 3. I think the ease for the international user actually calls for the move to "Boston". It unburdens the user from needing to know what state the city is in to (a) find this article or (b) know Boston, Massachusetts is "The" Boston. Also, you mention about ambiguity of usage of "Boston". If that's really true, "Boston" itself shouldn't be piping to the city as it is now. Doing so implies primary usage.

Cheers.--Loodog (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue about Boston having other meanings like the band was settled last year in this discussion. --Serge (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That is, as Barneca says far above, another issue. The grounds are different. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see Barneca's argument. And I don't see how it's another issue. The issue in both cases is about whether the city is the primary topic. That is, [[Boston]] should be a redirect to the article about the city if and only if the city is the primary topic for "Boston", and that redirect being established and supported for some time establishes consensus for that. And if the city is the primary topic, then the argument that the article about the city should not be at Boston because the city is not the primary topic (because, for example, of the band) is nonsensical. --Serge (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course you don't; you never have. Those with a less severe case of WP:IDONTHEARYOU may see the difference however. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks. I searched for "Barneca" on this page. I could not find any comments from anyone named Barneca, much less an explanation about this being another issue. You said that Barneca said this is another issue "far above". I don't see that argument. Literally. Can you provide a link to it, or a section heading? Or explain it in your words instead of referencing arguments that can't be found? Thanks. --Serge (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I found the comments from "barneca" (search failed when the "b" was capitalized). Sorry, I should have thought of searching for "barneca" earlier. I will be reviewing those comments after I post this. --Serge (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I read all of barneca's comments. Yes, whether [[Boston]] should redirect to the city article is a separate issue from whether the city article should be at Boston, unless the argument that it should not be at Boston is based on the premise that the city is not the primary use of the name Boston. That argument is made at least implicitly every time anyone mentions the band Boston in explaining why they oppose this move, and of course by anyone arguing the relative importance of Boston, Lincolnshire. And to that point I say even barneca supports the redirect of Boston to the city article, thus implying that the city is the primary use of the name. --Serge (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering the amount of cross-pond edit warring over the redirect, did anyone take it upon themselves to notify the editors at Boston, Lincolnshire of the move discussion? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is potential for confusion, the simplest and most common name is the best for an article. That is in line with the naming policy: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. This is justified by the following principle: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." Reliable sources use the name Boston: [6]. SilkTork *^YES! 19:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I seriously doubt Boston, Lincolnshire would have any affect here. I don't think even the Brits would have much trouble granting primary usage on this one, *but* I left a note for them anyway.--Loodog (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Survey: What is the primary usage/is there a primary usage of "Boston"

This argument somehow popped up and I'd like to get a nice clean seal on it here so it doesn't confuse the discussion above. If anyone does not believe the primary usage of "Boston" is Boston, Massachusetts, please say so with your reasoning here.--Loodog (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The question is, rather, is there a primary use, in our sense: one which is overwhelmingly more common than all others put together? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Stating "one which is overwhelmingly more common than all others put together" is a bit of an overstatement :-) Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, a primary topic is one that is "much more used than any other" and "significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings". Cheers, Rai•me 00:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I wonder when that was changed; User:Robert A West, as I recall, made a good case that the old language was too weak, and now it has been weakened further; he had a statistical argument that "primary usage" should be some 90% of all usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

See, PMAnderson, there you go again. Above you argue (per barneca's comments) that whether Boston is a redirect to this article is a separate issue from whether this article should be at Boston. Yet here you are again arguing that the city is not the primary use of the name (this time because there is no primary use). Now, if there is no primary use, then that should be used to argue against Boston being a redirect to this article (or to any other article other than a dab page, if Boston itself is not a dab page). So, as long as you are arguing this article should not be at Boston because the city is not the primary use of the name, then the issue that Boston is a redirect to this article (implying it is primary use, at least according to consensus) is not a separate issue. You can't have it both ways. --Serge (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Serge's account bears no resemblance to what I actually said. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good summary to me, checking back over the contributions here. If you are going to change your mind, please be kind enough to tell others. 58Crash (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I have not changed my mind at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What specifically did I say about what you said that is inaccurate? And "all of it" is not an answer to this question. --Serge (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You guys, this really isn't productive.--Loodog (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Refocus: I'd like to keep this issue separate from the one above for now, so we can at least agree on what we agree on. Again:

Is there anyone who believes "Boston" does NOT have a primary usage or that said primary usage is NOT Boston, Mass?--Loodog (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If Boston has a primary sense, that primary sense would be the subject of this article. Whether it does or not is a close question, which should be decided by evidence, not by what we believe without evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see you've changed your tune, Septo. 58Crash (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

<sigh>. But that's what I said before.... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - I'll add my 2 cents from the UK, as a note has been added to our Bostons page. The Main page Boston should realy point to the disambiguation page or be the page for Boston, Lincolnshire as Boston, Massachusetts takes its name from the UK settlement, so could claim that the name originates there so has first call on it. But as allready at (Town, Locality) as is Boston, Massachusetts for consistency on ballance its best that Boston goes to the disambiguation page to benefit the wider readership as each locality is inclined to use the short form and the fact that boston can be a persons name, a breed of potato etc.. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The "this city invented the name" argument has been had many times in the past and rejected thoroughly. Notability has no regard for historical precedence and primary usage is about notability.--Loodog (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, based on readership statistics (which is listed as one of the "tools may help determine primary meaning"), Boston, MA clearly has "an advantage" over Boston, UK: 75,300 hits as opposed to 4,300. Given only that, it seems that Boston, MA is the primary topic here. Since traffic statistics indicate that a majority of readers are searching for the MA city, making Boston a dab page would actually do more harm than good for the wider readership; the majority of readers would be redirected away from the article they were searching for. Another "tool" that may indicate a primary topic is Google; when searching for "Boston", 12 of the first 13 links are related to the city, 1 is for Boston (band), and 0 are for Boston, Lincolnshire. In addition, "Boston, Massachusetts" yields 84,800,000 links, as opposed to 468,000 for "Boston, Lincolnshire" and 992,000 for "Boston band". It seems clear, looking at this information only, that Boston, MA is the primary topic for "Boston". Cheers, Rai•me 01:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability all depends were your located. And as a relativly new editor past discusions are not particularly relavent to me as a reference(without trawling back through the archives), but the argument was obviously not settled previously. I've added my comments as you have had the curtosy to post the discussion up at the UK Boston page, So I've added my comment, but weight of numbers will deceide the issue. But at least i've cast my vote. cheers, Good look with the 'Debate' - BulldozerD11 (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

When I think of "Boston", I don't think of "Boston, Lincolnshire"; I think of the city in Massachusetts. Granted, I'm in the US; but still, I think when most people in the world say "Boston", they're more than likely referring to a city of 600,000, instead of a small town of 35,000 people. So, with all due respect to my UK friends, the Lincolnshire argument just doesn't hold weight. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

For reference , see this previous discussion about where Boston should redirect. --Polaron | Talk 12:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Note There was also this more recent discussion at Talk:Boston (disambiguation) that showed clear consensus for Boston, MA being the primary usage of "Boston". Cheers, Rai•me 22:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The city in Massachusettes is the primary usage of Boston. It already redirects and this article should be moved there. Miami33139 (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Miami, I was trying to separate the "primary usage" argument from the "move" argument, but since you've stated an opinion on the latter, could you also add an "oppose" or "support" to the above? Thanks.--Loodog (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Administrator Comment. I considered from the points made above Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(settlements)#United_States by User:GoneAwayNowAndRetired relevant and it seems like a sensible solution to the need for "Use the most easily recognized name", also "Be precise when necessary" and the guidelines Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names) (now a redirect to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(settlements). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.