Talk:Boston/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Henry Cabot Lodge QUOTE

I am soliciting comments about the possible inclusion of the following:

In the book "Boston" by Henry Cabot Lodge, I find a quote that I would like to add to the Boston page. It is,

In the political events which have affected the history of the entire country, and in shaping the thought of a people who have come to be a great nation, Boston has played a leading part.

from: Boston / Henry Cabot Lodge (New York : Longman's, 1891) Mark Preston 15:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could summarize what the quote is saying and include it in a section regarding the history of Boston, but I'd stay away from actually including the quote unless you find an appropriate context for it. Peyna 01:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean that you do not like the inclusion of this quote. I'm unable to summarize anything this short. It's only 35 words long. Mark Preston 01:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Metropolitan Status

En l'article, Il est stated that the Boston, Worcester, Manchester metropolitan area was the fifth largest in the nation however, when the link is followed, BWM comes farther down. This shoudl be corrected. -Lindaige

Hardcore music scene

An anonymous IP user recently added the following passage under culture:

Boston also has the biggest Hardcore(music) scene in the world. It is known as the 'Mecca' of Hardcore with many prominent bands rising in the beginnings of hardcore such as DYS, and recent bands exploding onto the scene such as American Nightmare/Give up the ghost and others leading the current state of hardcore such as Converge. It is also synonymous with violence, with the FSU crew being a prominent fixture in the Boston Hardcore music scene.

Can anyone be able to verify this? Also, some of the sentences (notably the last. What does "it" refer to?) are unclear. Pentawing 16:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It's poorly written, yes, but could be fixed up. There is no doubt that Boston is well-known for its hardcore and sXe scenes. Many internationally-known hardcore bands come from Boston (such as Anal Cunt and Dropkick Murphys, unfortunately).--AaronS 19:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Could someone be able to improve the above passage then? Personally, I am not knowledgeable in Boston's hardcore music scene. Pentawing 23:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The "it" refers to the scene there, it is known for its sometimes violent shows.

I added to the passage a bit to expand and justify it. I highlighted a famous record that came out of the scene as well as three well known clubs bands would frequent. Markco1

Boston College

The building shown in the photo attached to the ridiculous "Oxford in America" heading in not in the City of Boston, but in the City of Newton. It does not belong on this page, and has been removed. Unless Alumni Field, which I believe is the only major BC structure even partially in Boston, has won some award, I expect this phote to stay off of this page for good.

^^^God, what's your problem?? It's a picture of Boston College and belongs where it was. Who cares if it's just across the border of a neighboring town? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .
Probably just the people who care about the technical accuracy of the Encyclopedia, ehh? ;-)
Atlant 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Clearly the picture should be included, as it is Boston College. Listing schools such as Harvard BC and MIT which are not in Boston should be omitted by your logic, but these institutions make up a large part of what makes Boston great and should clearly be included, even if they are in Cambridge or Chestnutt Hill/Newton. However, Oxford in America should remain deleted. If you have a desire to forbid listing Harvard, MIT or BC from the Boston page, please begin a Deletion Review. (Cornelljd) 12:21, 16 June 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nubova (talkcontribs) .
I think the point is that the picture is of a part of BC not in Boston, not that BC should be totally excluded from the Boston page. If someone has a real attachment to that picture, they should just make a section on the Newton page for it.
One difference, of course, is that Harvard is actually present in Boston (where it stretches across the Charles to Allston). I can't speak for MIT, though; feel free to delete them. ;-)
Atlant 19:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Given that there are so very many things that would make nice pictures that are unequivocally within Boston, I don't think a picture of Boston College is appropriate. And, yes, I think the descriptions of Harvard and MIT are inappropriately long. Harvard, MIT, Boston College are legitimately in the Boston area. MIT and Boston College are in the Boston area because they historically originated in Boston. I think including Harvard is a stretch, medical school or no, and justifying it on the basis of the acreage of the Arboretum is insane...
But in any case, images are definitely going too far. Stick in a picture of Trinity Church if you want an equally pretty building... or the MFA... or the Boston Public Library... or Boston City Hall Plaza no, no, I didn't mean that...
I admit it would take some careful angles to get a really pretty picture of BU but I'm sure it can be done]... and of course one could always accidentally-on-purpose stick in an image like this :-) Dpbsmith (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Vote on general city/neighborhood naming conventions!

The basis for naming this page Boston, Massachusetts instead of simply Boston and all other city articles according to a contrived [[City, State]] convention is a claim that this convention has been generally accepted. Yet there are important exceptions like New York City (rather than New York, New York) and no record of a vote on this issue. Shouldn't the name of this page be Boston since there is clearly no ambiguation issue (the Boston page is currently a redirect to this page anyway), and that is the universally common name used for the city (like New York City, not New York, New York, is for New York City)? To settle this issue there is a vote on whether the [[City, State]] and [[Neighborhood, City, State]] conventions should apply even in cases where there is no ambiguity issue, such as in Boston. You would be voting essentially on whether the name of this page and all other unambiguous city and neighborhood articles should be something like Boston, Massachusetts, New York, New York, Haight-Ashbury, San Francisco, California and Hollywood, Los Angeles, California according to "convention", or named according to the common name of the place, like Boston, New York City, Haight-Ashbury and Hollywood (but only when the name is unambiguous), like all other Wiki articles. Vote (and discuss futher) here: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names) --Serge 07:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Clarifying reason for removing Kyoto picture

I mistyped my edit comment.

My point is that the words "Kyoto, for a thousand years the capital of Japan, is a sister city of Boston" are relevant to Boston (and is appropriately mentioned in the article). The picture itself is irrelevant, as it shows nothing about Boston. If we wanted to show a picture of Old City Hall and some strikingly similar building in France, to show that Old City Hall was built in French Second Empire Style, the building in France would be pictorially relevant. The picture of Kyoto is not. And we don't need pictures of Barcelona, Hangzhou, Melbourne Padua, Strasbourg, Sekondi-Takoradi or Taipei in the article either. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Need it be said that I disagree? But I'll leave it alone. Fg2 21:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Public Sources

  • Freedom of Information Act
  • public records principles
  • Sunshine open public meetings principles.
  • Open government principles.

Boston City Hall, Boston City Council, Boston City Clerk, Boston City Departments are good examples of bad examples regarding access to public information. Routinely public enquiries for public information are deflected, delayed, denied. Even the Boston Finance Commission isn't open with BFC Reports.

City Hall / Government Center pic

Seeking a WP-compatible picture of City Hall or Government Center. The existing one, Image:Government_Center_Boston_vista.jpg, is non-free and is slated for deletion. TIA, - Keith D. Tyler 01:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Harvard language

I changed the wording to read "Harvard University, the nation's oldest institution of higher learning..." which is the language used in the Harvard University article. AFAIK just about everyone acknowledges this. There's probably some rival somewhere with a strained interpretation of founding dates and "higher learning" that claims to be older but I don't know who it would be.

There are problems with "Harvard University, the nation's oldest and one of the world's most prestigious universities..." This can be read as "nation's oldest university." The issue here is that Harvard is probably not the oldest institution in the U.S. to call itself a "university," or then again maybe it is, or then again maybe not. The University of Pennsylvania article awards UPenn that distinction, but I notice they don't actually give a year or a source for its being called a "university." Harvard University says it was first called a university in 1780—by the Commonwealth. As you'd expect, the College of William and Mary folks have something to say about this; and they seem to think it became a university in 1779 though, like Dartmouth, it is never called that. So, there was a lot of "university" action going on in the late 1700s and Harvard was neck-and-neck with others. When it comes to "institution of higher learning," though, Harvard, at 1636 or 1638 or 1639 or whatever clearly is older than the College of William and Mary or any other obvious rival.

"America's first college," used earlier in the article, would be sorta OK but there's ambiguity about "America" (isn't necessarily limited to the U.S.) and "college" (doesn't always mean higher ed).

Per Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms and Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism, there's no need to make the claim of "world's most prestigious." Readers can read the Harvard University article and make their own judgements. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

P. S. The language used by Harvard itself at The early history of Harvard University is "the oldest institution of higher learning in the United States." Dpbsmith (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

P. P. S. Google search exact phrase "oldest institution of higher learning in the United States" turns up many references to Harvard, no obvious rivals on the first couple of hundred hits, and as you'd expect William and Mary is called by others and calls itself the "second oldest institution of higher learning in the United States." Dpbsmith (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

P. P. P. S. The explicit restriction to "United States" rather than "America" is probably a good idea, as the Autonomous University of Santo Domingo was founded in 1538, and the National University of San Marcos in Lima, Peru in 1551. These seem to be the rivals for "oldest institution of higher learning in the Americas" (the Peru boosters apparently arguing that Santo Domingo being an island isn't really part of "the Americas"). I know that "America," singular means United States to you and me, but it doesn't to everyone.

City of Boston web presence

         Move Boston Forward forums web link didn't work !
         when submitting forum sign up information at

         Here's the error that appeared...

Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80040e14'
[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Line 1: Incorrect syntax near 's'.
/mayor/mayor_roundtable_form.asp, line 95

See also

Minor papers?

The Dig has a circulation of 50,000 [1] while the more reconizable Boston Phoenix has 235,000. [2] Does that really make the Dig a notable city paper? - Keith D. Tyler 18:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • There is a subarticle listing of all Boston media. Hence, I removed mention of the minor publications from the main article. PentawingTalk 03:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Sister cities

Someone added the following passage to the article, yet the material is already mentioned in the government section. I am particularly opposed to the use of lists, as the passage below utilizes, yet it does contain some information (year that sister city relationships were formed) that are currently not present in the main article. PentawingTalk 20:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Boston has eight sister cities. Parentheses indicate the year the relationships were formed.

Linkspam or not?

Danzarrella has twice inserted this (without comment) so I guess we need to discuss it. To me, it says "Linkspam!", but others may feel differently.

Boston is also home to an active blog community, including Bostonist, Universal Hub, and Boston Web Properties.

Your thoughts? Atlant 20:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I eliminated the passage. Other cities (e.g. San Francisco, Ann Arbor) also have active blogging communities. Unless Boston has something unique concerning its blogging community, such mention is more of an advertisement than useful information. PentawingTalk 03:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Rotaries? Where?

The text (under "Transportation") currently contains the following statement:

The city also has a number of rotaries seemingly at random, which have confused many drivers.

Besides the Leverett Circle, what's left? Where are the rotaries?

Atlant 17:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The region has many rotaries but not Boston proper. --RevTenderBranson 17:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Leverett Circle is not a rotary, and hasn't been for quite some time now. It would be hard to argue for Charles Circle either. The ones I can think of that are definitely in the city:
  • Sullivan Square
  • Neponset Circle
  • Columbia Circle
  • North Beacon Circle
  • Audubon Circle
  • West Roxbury Parkway at Centre St.
  • Arborway at Jamaicaway and Centre St.
  • There's one on Neponset Valley Parkway but I don't remember whether it's in Boston or Milton
  • Oak Square
Those are the only ones I can remember off-hand. I know there are more in Dorchester, Hyde Park, Roslindale, Southie, and West Rox. Brighton and Boston Proper are relatively rotary-poor these days. 121a0012 02:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
1. Audubon Circle is in Boston. Fenway Neighborhood. Brookline line is about two blocks west of circle.
And....? (I know it's in Boston, and said so myself.) 121a0012 04:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Moot point though - it's not a rotary either. A rotary is such where all traffic must enter and go in a uniform direction (clockwise in right-hand countries such as the United States), before exiting onto whatever streets feed into it. Aububon Circle has traffic lights at it, nor is a driver required to drive in any sort of circular pattern to continue on their way.
Not an defining feature of a rotary (although I'd have to check the General Laws to see if that is a requirement for a "rotary intersection"). 121a0012 04:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Centre St. and W.R. Pkwy don't cross at any point. There is a rotary in Boston at W.R. Pkwy and V.F.W. Pkwy.
Incorrect. Although in retrospect, the rotary I was thinking of may have been at Belgrade Ave. rather than Centre St. 121a0012 04:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Arborway at Jamaicaway IS Boston. West Roxbury neighborhood.
No, that's in Jamaica Plain. (And I forgot that there's also the Arborway/Centre Street rotary in that same complex.) Your point was? 121a0012 04:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Neponset Valley Pkwy. rotary is in Boston, at the S.E. Expwy., on the Quincy line. --Raj Fra 01:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Neponset Valley Parkway is nowhere near the Expressway; it runs from Turtle Pond Parkway in Readville to Route 138 in Milton. Looking at a map, I'm pretty sure that the rotary in question is actually in Milton (where Brush Hill Road crosses Neponset Valley Parkway). 121a0012 04:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Rotaries in right-hand locales go counter-clockwise, otherwise you'd have a big mess on your hands. Peyna 02:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
6. Being a seasoned Boston driver who learned to drive in the city in a 67 bug with bad brakes and a sour clutch I can say Boston is full of Rotaries - and FWI even though JP thinks they are seperate they are part of Boston it was anexed in 1874. So here are a few Rotaries - JP area "Jamaica Way/Arbor Way/Pond St", "Arborway/Centre St", "Arborway/Forest Hills/Morton St" - Southie "University Dr/Dominic J Biancolli Blvd", Morissey Blvd, Wiliam J Blvd/Columbia Rd", Columbia Rd/Old Colony Ave/Preble St" and in Southie there is a Circle called Thomas park that could be considered a rotary. Some do have lights but they are not always active. Thats just a few that I can think of and there also a bunch in Cambridge but we can leave those out of this conversation. My two cents Markco1 00:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is Celsius first?

The convention of Wikipedia, when discussing U.S. cities and regions, has been to use Farenheit first and Celsius second, in the same way that U.S. conventions of spelling are used in articles on U.S. topics (and British English is used for UK topics). In this article, Celsius is first. Why? Moncrief 16:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

To promote the Metric System, perhaps? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .
Or perhaps in recognition that Wiki has more readers and editors who use metric measuremenst than use imperial measurements? But you can always re-arrange them if you feel strongly regarding America's obsolete system of measurements. ;-)
Atlant 23:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure at all that the English Wikipedia has "more readers and editors who use the metric measurement than use imperial measurements." A 95%+ majority of American users and more than half of British users feel more comfortable with imperial than metric, and together they constitute more than half of English Wiki users. Moncrief 03:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
"95%"? Do you have a citation for that?
Atlant 13:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
If you're an American, do you deny that it's so? Whether or not you like the fact, do you honestly think that more than 5% of Americans (nearly all of them immigrants) are more comfortable in Celsius than Fareneheit? How many do you think it is? 8%? Does anyone have a citation for the assertion that the English Wikipedia has more readers and users who feel more comfortable with Celsius? That would appear to fly in the face of what we know about people in the US and the UK, the two largest English-speaking countries in the world. At any rate, the "C-first" policy of this article is contrary to the other U.S. city articles, and I'm considering bringing the matter to Requests for Comment. Moncrief 23:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
This seems a bit counterproductive. Has anyone stopped you from changing it to F-first? Be bold. Superdosh 04:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
>A 95%+ majority of American users...
With 'American' you mean USA? Canada, central and and south America are largely metric... 11:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Workday population

--I deleted the following sentence from Demographics: "Boston has the second-largest work day population increase in the country just after Washington D.C." Does anyone have a source on this? It can't possibly be true in terms of raw numbers of people, and if it happens to be true in terms of percentage of population then we should clarify it and add a reference. --Jleon 14:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The Census office says D.C., Atlanta, Tampa, Pittsburgh. I can't find the census article, but here's an Indymedia article mentioning it: [3]. Peyna 14:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
This is an article from Oct 21st, 2005 from CNN. The point is the relative increase of workday population to total city population. Boston IS 2nd to DC. with 41.1%. This should be included, yes? The1McShane 14:38, 03 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Now that we have a citation, I'd certainly say "yes".
Atlant 19:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


I know that metric is used elsewhere, but in the US-centric articles, shouldn't we have Fahrenheit first, then Celsius in parentheses? -- 04:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. See my comments just above. It makes this article unlike any other U.S. city article - and for no logical reason. Moncrief 18:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Transportation, security since 9/11

I think the article lacks information on how the city has changed since 9/11. Some of the hijackers boarded the planes from boston and I think this played a major role on the history of the united states and the city. nothing is mentioned in the article. --Don Quijote's Sancho 08:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

That's because there haven't been any, at least that are exclusive to Boston. Granted, the T has had drastic changes, all for the better, but I think what the prior comment is referring to is airline security - that was addressed on a national level rather then a local one. --Raj Fra 01:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Local government

I heard there was a special election this month, and the Election Department says it's for City Councillor District One. It would be cool if we had maps showing local electoral districts, and also more detailed information about the Council. (That might add enough content to necessitate a subarticle.) -- Beland 17:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sister Cities

I heard this morning on NPR that Boston has a sister city in Haifa, Israel. I checked the Haifa page and it is correct. My only problem is that I dont know where to amend this into the Boston article. Suggestions? Oo7jeep 15:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Many "city" articles have a specific "Sister cities" header. If Boston's article doesn't have one, then be bold and start one!
Atlant 17:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Added. Thanks! Oo7jeep 16:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed the word considred

I think by any reasonable measure boston is (considred) one of the oldest, wealthiest and most influential cities. Disagreement? Not my spelling....

Perhaps in America, but certainly not in the larger world.
Atlant 19:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I should have quoted the page directly. My bad. "Boston is one of the oldest, wealthiest, and most culturally significant large cities in the United States". Jasper23 19:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested Move: Boston, Massachusetts -> Boston

Boston, Massachusetts → Boston – WP:NC(CN); World famous city. --Serge 21:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

List of reasons to move

  1. Boston, like Paris, London, Montreal, and U.S. cities like Chicago, New York City, is well known... no need to specify the state.
  2. World famous cities in the U.S. should be treated no differently from world famous cities outside of the U.S. (Paris, London, Montreal, etc.): use the city name for the article title, period.
  3. All articles in Wikipedia should follow the Wikipedia naming conventions for common names, which dictate that Boston (alone) be the title of this article; there is no reason that cities, and Boston in particular, should be an exception to these rules.
  4. Professional encyclopedias, both published and online, typically do not "pre-disambiguate"... neither should we.
  5. Chance for confusion with anything else named Boston is minimal.
  6. The name of Boston alone redirects directly here, therefore there are no known significant disambiguation issues, and no reason to disambiguate.
  7. Lesser known Boston articles are already handled on Boston (disambiguation).
  8. Waiting to change the city, state convention does not make sense, since it is a chicken-egg situation. The only way to start to change the convention is one article at a time, like Chicago and this one.
  9. Boston, Massachusetts is part of a mailing address, not the name of the city. The name of the city is Boston; that should be the name of the article.
  10. The one piece of information that the title is supposed to clearly specify is the most common name used to refer to the subject of the article. The current title is unclear on this point... is the most common name Boston or Boston, Massachusetts? Titles that use the city, state "comma naming convention" make it impossible for the reader to know. It is our job as editors to make this clear, not ambiguous.
  11. Following a convention that pollutes the article title for readers (by making the common name unclear) in order to supposedly make life easier for editors, violates the overall principle of Wikipedia's naming conventions:
Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.


The following discussion is an archived debate 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.

The result of the debate was no consensus for move. Joelito (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation (and/or reference numbers from the above reason list), then sign your opinion with --~~~~.

  • Support per all reasons listed above. --Serge 21:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly object. The naming of thousands of U.S. cities should not be handled on a case-by-case basis. We have a convention covering this field, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements). None of the issues are unique to Boston. -Will Beback 22:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. Violates US city naming standard. If you want this to change, then change the standard so that requests can be judged on some basis other then a few editors who happen to follow the article involved or this article. This request probably violates WP:POINT. Vegaswikian 22:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Vehemently oppose This has already been discussed ad nauseum, and the naming convention explicitly states that this is the correct format. --physicq210 22:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support per reasons listed above. --Polaron | Talk 23:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Having to type [[Boston, Massachusetts|Boston]], [[Massachusetts]] is annoying with no benefit to reader or editor that I can see. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Consistency in naming conventions is to be valued. AJD 00:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose The idea may have merit, but the issue should be presented and resolved first at Wikipedia:Naming conventions along with a proposal as to which cities in the U.S. should have the distinction of a stand-alone name. Top 10 in population? Top 100? Doing this on a case by case basis is too disruptive. --agr 00:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I disagree with this. What better way to decide which cities should use the city-only approach than to have a full poll for each one? I might disagree with Miami, FloridaMiami because there's also a Division I college, Miami University. Imagine trying to reconcile individual cases like that in the midst of debating every other city simultaneously? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Umm. There is a Boston University too. Do we decide on what to name this article based on how good the BU football team is? --agr 09:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Hopefully you still get my point: some city names may be more ambiguous than others and therefore it would probably be easier to debate them individually. Substitute whatever example you'd like. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Boston redirects to the article. --Usgnus 02:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This needs to be done on a larger scale (changing the complete naming convention) or not at all. This case-by-case stuff is not going to work, for there are far too many cities in the USA. Ericsaindon2 06:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • That doesn't make any sense. How do you suppose all those articles were written in the first place? One at a time. How do you suppose they'll be renamed if and when the guideline is changed? One at a time. What do you think will happen to make the fixes so much easier if the guideline changes? Kafziel 11:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Vehemently oppose, and strong object to Serge's city-by-city attempt to overturn the current naming convention for US cities as well (see also talk:Chicago, and talk:San Francisco, California). BlankVerse 07:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Guidelines are guidelines, not official policy. There's nothing to "overturn"; exceptions can be made, and this is one of them. "Boston" redirects here, so swapping the redirects won't hurt anything. Kafziel 11:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as a former resident of Boston, Massachusetts. Totallypostal 15:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support, for all the reasons given above. I think the howl that goes up everytime someone suggests pointing Boston at Boston (disambiguation) says enough. You cannot have it both ways, guys.-- Chris j wood 19:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support strongly. Think common sense: Boston or Boston, Massachusetts. Which is more often used and more user-friendly? --- Dralwik|Have a Chat My "Great Project"
  • Support because there is no reason not to. Boston already redirects to Boston, Massachusetts. For people that religiously follow every policy to the letter, consider that Boston redirects to here, so there's not any reason to not move (nothing will change). -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 22:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The convention is a good one and there's no reason to make an exception for Boston. The only reason to do so for New York is that New York, New York means something other than the whole city. —wwoods 08:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for consistency. FairHair
  • Oppose: keep convention. Krugs 01:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Sticking to the convention makes sense. I saw this argument first on Seattle's and now here. If there are going to be more than a few exceptions, then the convention should be changed. The right place to do it would be on the convention's talk page, not here. The Bethling 04:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: this is the most idiotic convention on WIkipedia--DaveOinSF 04:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the convention is hardly idiotic, it is just common use. Bubba ditto 15:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Super-duper vehemently rabidly strong support. Citing the guideline is no reason to oppose, really, as I can't imagine ever having to specify that I am referring to the city in Massachusetts when I am referring to Boston, regardless of who I am talking to. --AaronS 18:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Exceptions aren't unprecedented (Chicago). Also, there is no good reason not to do this. Respecting convention is not a good enough reason. It absolutely should be done on a case by case basis. -- Superdosh 20:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. josh (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Will Beback

  • In order to have an exception there is no reason to change guidelines that allow for exceptions. Of course exceptions are to be handled on a case-by-case basis... how else could it be done? Boston would be an exception, like New York City and Chicago. --Serge 23:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


  • Please do not mischaracterize a guideline, which allows for exceptions like Chicago, New York City, and Boston, as a standard. Thanks. --Serge 22:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The only exception that was listed was New York City. Someone just changed that. The point is that if we are inclinded to change the guideline then it should be changed. Don't start a vote on every city to to prove a point. Are we going to modify the guideline after every vote here or are we going to change the guideline to deal with the various cases? Vegaswikian 02:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Please note these conventions for naming settlements are merely guidelines, not rules written in stone.
"Merely guidelines", not rules (or standards) "written in stone". That's my point. That leaves room for exceptions, otherwise, what's the point? --Serge 05:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


  • Perhaps a review of WP:NC would be helpful?
It is important to note that these are conventions, not rules written in stone. As Wikipedia grows and changes, some conventions that once made sense may become outdated, and there may be cases where a particular convention is "obviously" inappropriate.
(bold emphasis added)
--Serge 23:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
This convention is surely not outdated, contrary to your assertion. --physicq210 02:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
That's not my assertion. That's a quote from WP:NC. Whether it applies here, whether city, state is outdated, is a debate for somewhere else. The argument here, at least partially, is that the convention is "'obviously' inappropriate" because Boston is so well known. See reasons 1, 2, 5, 6 and 9 above. --Serge 04:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
What I meant was this convention. --physicq210 04:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I haven't asserted here that this convention was outdated either. --Serge 05:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


  • Yes, consistency in naming conventions should be valued, but which naming convention? What if one naming convention is itself inconsistent with another, which is the case we have here? The universal convention is to use the name that is used most commonly to refer to the subject of an article. In this case that's Boston. That's being consistent.
So, why oppose? See reason 3 for why consistency in naming conventions dictates support for this move, not opposition. --Serge 00:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Thanks. --Serge 00:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
More specific conventions (e.g., article titles for U.S. cities) outweigh general conventions. AJD 00:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, when the more specific conventions build on the general ones, not contradict them. For example, the general conventions are to disambiguate only when there is an actual disambiguation, and, then, to do so with a parenthetic remark. But they don't specify what to put in the parenthetic remark. So, a more specific convention could do that, and it would apply without contradicting the more general convention. But this concept of ambiguating when no ambiguity issue exists, and disambiguating with an ambiguity-creating comma (see reason #10 above) rather than with a parenthetic remark, is all unnecessary inconsistency with the more general conventions. --Serge 00:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, no. General conventions constitute an "elsewhere condition"—they're what to do when no specific guideline is applicable. The internal consistency of natural classes (e.g., U.S. cities) is more important. AJD 02:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
No, it's like law. U.S. states can make whatever laws they want, as long as they don't violate the Constitution. This U.S. specific convention violates the equivalent of Wikipedia's overall Constitution - the general naming conventions. --Serge 04:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No valid reason to oppose

So far, all reasons provided by those who oppose are that naming the article "Boston" is against the US city naming guidelines. Stating that it is against the guidelines is not valid because the guidelines already allow for exceptions. Those who oppose should provide reasons why Boston should not be an exception. The reasons for exempting Boston have already been provided in the nomination. --Polaron | Talk 16:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --AaronS 18:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Case by case decisions

Serge, do you confirm the existing U.S. convention, or is this proposed move part of an overall attempt to change the convention. If it is the latter then we shouldn't describe it as a proposed exception to the convention, but rather as an assault on it. I note that there hasn't been any recent discussion on the topic before this strawpoll was started, and that the exact same language is being used to propose a similar change to San Francisco, California. If this is a campaign to change all U.S. cities, let's decide it at a national level. -Will Beback 00:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could make Boston a dwarf planet?--agr 01:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
FYI, Chicago was recently moved - and by a pretty convincing margin - so this is not a first. I don't have a problem with a convention being "assaulted" if that convention sucks. I haven't heard a good explanation for keeping this article here other than the convention. It seems no one can come up with a good reason for leaving it here at all, esp. when all the great cities of the world are following the city-only approach. Personally, I'm not sure I've ever heard someone refer to Boston as "Boston, Massachusetts". To my knowledge, the only reason the City, State convention was ever started was that all U.S. city articles were programmatically generated from the U.S. Census. True or not? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, what works on one city does not necessarily work on another. --physicq210 02:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
And how doesn't this work for Boston? —Wknight94 (talk)
I've got nothing to hide. I've said repeatedly, I think the city, name convention is very problematic (see reasons above), and I seek to overturn it eventually. In the mean time, I seek to "free" certain cities one at a time as exceptions to the current naming convention guidelines, which are "not rules written in stone" (that's from WP:NC and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)).
So, what I've presented here is an argument for why Boston should be an exception to the city, name convention. I would expect those opposed to present arguments for why it should not be an exception. But instead, all we get is essentially, "it shouldn't be an exception because then it would be an exception". Well, duh. It's nonsense. My 11 point argument to make Boston an exception is not even addressed, much less rebutted. --Serge 04:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Some of get tired of rebutting the same issues again and again. How many place name changes have been proposed in August? Now we've got a boilerplate set of reasons. Though there might seem to be more pressing issues for the project, I suppose we might come up with an equal list of reasons on the other side. It'd be nice to have a disucssion before we got to the strawpolls - discussion which is, I might add, required by the guidelines on polls. -Will Beback 05:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Believe me, I'm tired of this too. But the problem is that the naming conventions we currently have for U.S. cities (not to mention communities) is contrary to the very wise WP:NC convention of using the most common name when there is no ambiguation, and to ambiguate with a parenthetic remark when there is. As long as the city naming convention continues to be so inconsistent with the fundamental naming conventions used in Wikipedia, be prepared to tire of rebutting the same issues again and again. And it's not just me. Somebody else started the Chicago name change, and sixteen people other than me voted in support of it. The only solution is to solve the root problem: choose a city naming convention that is consisent with the very wise primary principles cited in WP:NC and WP:NC(CN). --Serge 05:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Move to Naming conventions (settlements)

There is a discussion in progress on this topic at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements). There is nothing unique about the Boston case. I propose we move this debate there.--agr 09:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

What belongs at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) is a discussion about whether we should even have the city, state convention. But the issue of whether Boston in particular should be an exception to that convention belong here, just like it was decided that New York City and Chicago should be exceptions on their respective Talk pages. --Serge 15:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Large City Strawpoll Construction

I am trying to work on a large City Strawpoll to end the feuding about larger cities in the United States. Please visit the page, User:Ericsaindon2/Sandbox and leave comments on the talk page, but dont edit the actual page. After it has been modified to satisfy the community, I will go ahead and open it. But, please review it and comment, to avoid controversy over its structure. I hope to open it in a few days after discussion, so please be timely in making your comments. Thanks. --Ericsaindon2 05:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move

I propose that this article be moved to Boston, and that Boston, Massachusetts redirect to Boston, with the same disambig link at the top, a la New York City. What does everybody think? --AaronS 18:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This is already being discussed above, in the section "Requested Move: Boston, Massachusetts -> Boston". Kafziel 18:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Doink. My apologies. :S --AaronS 18:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting Site

check out this site its pretty interesting and tells some interesting facts about the city and state like that Massachusetts has produced half of all Nobel Prize winners in the U.S.

That actually is quite a useful site. --AaronS 02:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


There's an exaggeration on the climate section. Boston has never seen a huge 54 degree swing in temperatures, let alone being very common. That is like gong from 90 degrees to 36 degrees. I've never experienced that ever and would be highly unusual. I suggest deleting or ammending it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Okay, so what is the maximum "dynamic range" of temperatures ever experienced in Boston? If it's not 30C (54F), it must be some number approaching that because there have been plenty of days that go from freezing (literally) in the morning to 70s or high 70s by afternoon (so, say 43F, 24C).
Atlant 16:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no such number I could find, just averages. The point is that if the 54 degree number is not substantiated it shouldn't be on there. We can't just pull numbers out of the blue if we expect to keep accuracy.

Regional Institutions / Gentrification

"Over the past several years Boston has experienced a dramatic loss of regional institutions and traditions, which once gave it a very distinct social character. The city, like others, faces gentrification issues and exorbitant living costs. Since the 1950s, however, Boston has once again emerged as a major hub of intellectual, technological, and political ideas."

This reads more like a high-school research paper than a coherent encyclopedia paragraph. Which regional institutions and traditions have been lost? What was the nature of their impact? Was this dramatic? What does this have to do with gentrification? Is their any source to verify that gentrification is a problem? Why are the "several years" of the first sentence contrasting a purported re-emergence starting in the 50s?

Should this be researched and reworked, or deleted?

I removed these unreferenced claims and added some info about housing costs and the cost of living. More research would certainly be useful. -- Beland 18:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey on proposal to make U.S. city naming guidelines consistent with others countries

There is a survey in progress at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) to determine if there is consensus on a proposed change to the U.S. city naming conventions to be consistent with other countries, in particular Canada. --Serge 05:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This proposal would allow for this article to be located at Boston instead of Boston, Massachusetts, bringing articles for American cities into line with articles for cities such as Paris and Toronto.--DaveOinSF 16:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
However the proposal would allow U.S. cities to be inconsistent with the vast majority of other U.S. cities and towns, which (with a few exceptions) all use the "city, state" convention. -Will Beback 23:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Those cities that are best known as City can be moved from City, State to City; those that are best known at City, State, or have significant ambiguity issues with City alone, will stay at City, State. --Serge 18:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Election paragraph

I am not sure that the Election Department paragraph outlining recent election issues is necessary - I am not sure if this a place for current events. That paragraph does not truly represent the city. Thoughts —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markco1 (talkcontribs) .

As a current Boston resident and long term resident in an adjacent county, I can tell you that problems with elections in Boston have been ongoing for many years. A Globe columnist described the 2003 situation as "infamous". The paragraph I added is a little too biased toward the 2006 situation. But that can be fixed by expansion, because there is significant history. I know there is a multi-year history of problems from personal knowledge, but the cited article also states it, and they are a reliable source. This Globe article from June 2005 says that the problems date back to at least 1992. It also said the federal lawsuit was the 26th such suit in 30 years, which makes it clear that these are not run-of-the-mill incidents. If you want material critical of the DoJ, this PDF is an example, but I'm not certain if it is a reliable source. GRBerry 15:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Irish Americans sentence

"Irish Americans are a major influence on Boston's politics and religious institutions." Was removed by which looks like a fake IP to me. Should we retore it? I feel there is some truth to the statement Markco1 02:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


are there any such chinese suburbs in boston? like what you may find in richmond british columbia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm not sure I understand your question. Have you read our Chinatown, Boston article? It not only describes the neighborhood in Boston which is ethnically Asian, it also cites an off-shoot community in Quincy, Massachusetts, out in the suburbs.
Atlant 17:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The Hub

So why, if the correct quote is Hub of the Solar System, does the Hub of the Universe appear near the map at the top under nicknames? It even has a superscript 1 clarifying the quote!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC).