Talk:Beverly, Massachusetts

message: Somebody should put up newer pictures of Beverly up. It's changed quite a bit since 1906, those pictures are nice but extremely outdated. I would do it myself, but am not sure how to.  --Where's nemo?(talk) 00:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they are nice - we should put the best foot forward. Most have not changed. The first one, the PO, looks the same; of course, it never looked in real life the way the postcard does. More pictures are available through the Commons link.Dave (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: New Pictures

message: Hey all, I'm the WikiProject Cities assessor of this article. If feedback is what you want and need, come to my talk page and give me a holler! --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 03:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WP Cities

message: This kind of decision is always very difficult and makes me feel very guilty. That is because this organization is non-profit. On the surface it has the very best intentions. It is a wondeful site. I love it. As far as it being an encyclopedic source for WP on Beverly, MA, there are some serious problems. Here are a few examples. We are told what type of thing is in the museum, how to get there, how much it cost, how to contribute, etc. There is nothing, however, from the content of the museum. Ditto with the Beverly Public Library. No material on Beverly from the public library is either referenced, or summarized. The authors of the site presume that you will go there and look it up, and if you do, I am sure you will be more than satisfied at the excellent service. I've used it many times myself. Similarly we are told what historical houses to visit, how much they cost, how to contribute. But, we are told next to nothing concerning the houses. Again, the presumption is that you will use these excellent places and foot the cost yourself, and perhaps help them pay their upkeep. After all, money is the standard method of distributing goods and services in our country, and no money, no services, not even WP. Here's the difference. WP gives you encyclopedic information. The BHS link does not do that. It gives you opportunities to find it out for yourself and asks for your contribution. Well so does WP for that matter, but they are doing it on WP resources without WP permission, according to WP policy. Not only that but this excellent site requires sponsorship just like anyone else. Nothing wrong with that. Those with money have sponsored public causes since the beginning of recorded history. Thank you, builders of society. But, the inclusion of this site in the encyclopedia forces the encyclopedia to advertise all those contributors to the BHS! As I see it as an experienced reviewer I have no choice but to take it out and feel guilty. If there are dissenting votes or if the officers of WP wish to override me, please speak up or do it. If you are not an officer of WP, better discuss first.Dave (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Beverly Historical Society Link

message: It is ironic that this business site in my view is just barely acceptable. It disavows commercialism and gives a summary of the history that does not ask for money. True, it does link to a list of businesses, but that list is kept distinct from the historical material and you have to go to the site for the business to find advertising. It does need to be in WP format - cite web I think is best. We do not interpret site titles or summarize the site, we only cite it in proper citation format. I cannot guarantee that some other editor will agree.Dave (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: NSBOL link

message: Lists of articles, such as films, notable persons, or see also, do not need footnotes. The references are given in the linked article. The footnotes given here are not encyclopedic, but even if they were, they should be in the article. I am taking those out of the list. As to whether such a list is encyclopedic, or whether too much is said for each item, nolo contendere (at least for now)Branigan 03:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes on the film list

message: I noticed the “History” section was outdated (Hasbro left the Parker Brothers site in 2002). The post could also benefit from expanded content such as information about the city's three historic theaters and the two largest business campuses on the North Shore. As the reliability of my sources has been questioned, I have provided multiple additional sources below.  
Additional Source for Dunham Ridge/Parker Brothers/Hasbro information: 
-John G. Crowe Associates website (the arictect firm for the Parker Brothers building) 
Additional Sources for theater section:
-Article from WBUR website. (local news radio station)
-Article from Eagle Tribune (local paper) 
-North Shore Music Theater ( company website)
Additional Sources for The Shoe/Cummings Center
-Wall Street Jounral article where award-winning architect Ada Louise Huxtable talks about Cummings Center, including the "Brownsfield" refrence.
-Essex Heritage (partners with the National Park Service) 
-Salem News article (local newspaper)
-Boston Business Journal (respected east-coast business publication)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobjohnson89 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated History section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Beverly, Massachusetts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YSasqtfX?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fprod%2Fwww%2Fdecennial.html to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Beverly, Massachusetts's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "USCensusEst2016":
From Los Angeles County, California: 
From Pawtucket, Rhode Island: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Beverly, Massachusetts]]