Talk:Boston/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Henry Cabot Lodge QUOTE

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hardcore music scene 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vote on general city/neighborhood naming conventions! 

message: 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)
replies: text: Need it be said that I disagree? But I'll leave it alone. Fg2 21:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifying reason for removing Kyoto picture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  City Hall / Government Center pic 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Harvard language 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Sister cities

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Linkspam or not? 

message: I know that metric is used elsewhere, but in the US-centric articles, shouldn't we have Fahrenheit first, then Celsius in parentheses?  --24.127.228.85 04:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Temperatures

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Transportation, security since 9/11

message: 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)
thread_title:  Local government 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed the word considred 

message: :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)
thread_title: Survey

message: *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)
thread_title: [[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]]

message: *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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title: [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]]

message: *Perhaps a review of WP:NC would be helpful?
 (bold emphasis added)
:--Serge 23:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This convention is surely not outdated, contrary to your assertion. --physicq210 02:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: What I meant was this convention. --physicq210 04:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't asserted here that this convention was outdated either.  --Serge 05:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Physicq210|physicq210]]

message: * 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)
replies: text: More specific conventions (e.g., article titles for U.S. cities) outweigh general conventions. AJD 00:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[User:Ajd|AJD]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Move to Naming conventions (settlements)

message: 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)
thread_title: Large City Strawpoll Construction

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

message: check out this site http://whybuyboston.com/ 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)
thread_title:  Interesting Site 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Regional Institutions / Gentrification 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Survey on proposal to make U.S. city naming guidelines consistent with others countries

message: 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 (talk • contribs) .
: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)
thread_title: Election paragraph

message: "Irish Americans are a major influence on Boston's politics and religious institutions."
Was removed by 192.44.136.103 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)
thread_title: Removal of Irish Americans sentence

message: 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 72.208.93.66 (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Hub