Talk:Boston/Archive 3

message: At the very top right of the page, the location coordinates on Google maps point here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=42.35,-71.05&spn=0.1,0.1&q=42.35,-71.05 to the South Station location, while in the info box the coordinates point right to the center of Boston, MA on Google map: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=42.358261,-71.060181&spn=0.3,0.3&q=42.358261,-71.060181. I don't understand how the coordinates are generated at the top right of the page. Especially when the correct coordinates are in the info box. Can someone with Wikispeak-techy knowledge help with this? Or explain? Is it somehow automatically generated by a bot or what when the subject is a city and a certain template is used? Also, I cannot find a way to change the coordinates displayed on the top right of the page to the coordinates that are in the info box under location. (Even though both coordinates are in Boston) Is this even possible? Necessary?  Am I making a big deal over a difference of a few miles? Jeeny 16:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Coordinates ???

message: Hey guys, the 2005 population estimate , listed as 559,034, is wrong. The Census admitted that it made a mistake and corrected it to 596,638. Here's is the link: . I had fixed it before, but somebody didn't believe me, so I decided to bring the issue up here.Lexicon506 03:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Population

message: The image under the "education" is of a building located in Newton, Massachusetts, not Boston.  Can anyone find anything suitable that's actually in Boston? BigKennyK 21:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Education Image

message: Boston, Mass. is not the only significant settlement called Boston inhabited by English speakers, so why does a search for "Boston" not go to the disambiguation page ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.25.106.209 (talk • contribs).
:Probably for the same reason that San Francisco goes directly to San Francisco, California, even though there are other places in the world named after Francis of Assisi: most people who type "Boston" want the one in Massachusetts, and not, say, New Boston, New Hampshire.
:Atlant 17:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, how about the original Boston in Lincolnshire, pop some 35,000 as opposed to some 4,000 for New Boston.  Try not to be so US-centric, Atlant! 82.32.238.139 15:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably for the same reason that a google search for Boston returns this one.--Loodog 15:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the vast majority of users looking up "Boston" are probably looking for Boston, Massachusetts, a redirect to Boston, Massachusetts seems to provide the most clarity and ease of use, regardless of chronology, city size, and historical significance.  Further, after the disambiguation page was restructured to be more neutral to the UK, Boston, Massachusetts is hidden beneath two other Bostons, making the process slightly confusing for those who are interested in looking up the most common use of Boston.  It is clear, further, that using the language "most commonly refers to" in the disambiguation page is considered inadequate (even offensive) by many editors from the United Kingdom.  However, when there are two common usages with one clearly more prominent than the other, there is precedent for taking the second most common usage and placing a separate link to it at the top of the article so the user does not need to wade through the disambiguation page for either usage (see Cambridge as an example - which, by the way, demonstrates that this is not a matter of US-centricism).  I would not be at all opposed to adding a link to Boston, Lincolnshire at the top using the entry for Cambridge as a model.  Is that an adequate compromise? Moldybagel 22:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why direct redirection?

message: The very first sentence in the article is confusing.
"Boston is the capital and the most populous city of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, a state of the United States of America, and the largest city in New England."
This makes it sound like Boston is a state in the US.
:I agree, and have removed the "a state of the USA" bit.  A link to the Massachusetts article is provided, so if someone doesn't know that Massachusetts is a state, they can simply go to the article about it.  
:Also, I removed the poorly-written section about the "Boston dialect" and added a link to the Boston accent article, which is significantly better.  Cheers --DarthBinky 22:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
#Support, there are exceptions to guidelines. Take New York for instance. Besides, if someone was to search for "Boston", I doubt they would be looking for Lincolnshire... HymylyT@C 20:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #Support, there are exceptions to guidelines. Take New York for instance. Besides, if someone was to search for "Boston", I doubt they would be looking for Lincolnshire... HymylyT@C 20:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: #Weak Oppose -- makes more sense than Chicago, and a lot more than Philadelphia, but I would have opposed those, also.  Probably the most common overall use, but I'm not sure it's overwhelmingly so.  Consistency in naming also has benefits, which, (contrary to Serge's inevitable comment), supports the longer name.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move

message: :Add any additional comments:
*Neutral I do not want to take part in this can of worms. Compared to what you see on talk page of WP:NC:CITY, a Picasso has more clarity and definement. It's obvious you guys are not going to find consensus there and it is even more obvious that this page move (and others like it) are going to crash and burn with only more bitterness left on both sides. And saying that there shouldn't be any more page move request is not the answer either since there is clearly a problem with the current convention. But this, right now, is completely pointless. What both sides need to agree on is to seek mediation and input by people who has never commented on this and took sides (i.e. objective). For the sake of the project, please consider it. Right now both sides want to "win" and no one is going to. 205.157.110.11 01:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I notice that a lot of vandalism has occurred due to what has tentatively been labled on Wikipedia the "Boston advertising security scare" (by moi), in addition to Aquagate and other rather silly names. They're doing it because Boston was pwned and the hackers (including the folks at 4Chan) know it, so they want to celebrate the fact by running riot all over Wikipedia.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 17:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Boston advertising security scare]] and vandalism 

message:  
I am requesting that an edit be made to the first lines in the history/intro section of this award winning article. The Puritans of Massachusetts Bay who founded Boston in 1630 were not "known as the Pilgrim fathers." This should be deleted. 
The Pilgrims founded Plymouth Colony and had a separate history and religious platform from the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The Pilgrims departed by sea for the New World from Leiden, Holland not England. Leiden was their temporary home for 12 years (1608-1620) after having fled persecution in England. The Pilgrims landed in Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1620 on the Mayflower, ten years before the Puritans. The Puritans came direct from England to Boston.
The two colonies were separate and did not merge until 1691, 71 years after the founding of the Plymouth Colony. When the Massachusetts Bay Colony was reorganized and issued a new charter as the Province of Massachusetts Bay in 1691, Plymouth ended its history as a separate colony and merged into the new province. The most obvious difference between the Pilgrims and the Puritans is that the Puritans had no intention of breaking with the Church of England - only to "purify" it. The Pilgrims were separatists who considered the established church in England to be corrupt and non-reformable. The two groups did eventually unite into one faith community but by then they were no longer Pilgrims and Puritans but had evolved into New England Congregationalists. For a detailed treatment of this issue, see http://www.rootsweb.com/~mosmd/ 
Jm3106jr 06:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have lifted the semiprotection of the page; you may make the edit yourself. But first please make sure that the change is not original research, but is based on reliable sources; consider adding an inline reference to your text. The website you mentioned is not a reliable source, you'd need to cite respected works of historical scholarship. Sandstein 17:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I have edited the section to disambiguate Puritans from Pilgrims. I used wiki links to substantiate all edits where reliable sources are quoted throughout. Jm3106jr 20:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit Protect request

message: The demographics section has been edited heavily lately, I have a couple issues with recent changes:
#Unlike all other cities, it uses 2006 estimates rather than 2000 data.  Also, no citations to it, which is its own problem.
#We have this whole note about commuters bringing up the effective daily population, and how this would make Boston "within" the top 10.  First, no source on this.  Second, does this add commuter populations to all other cities in that comparison?  Third, can we be more useful than "within" the top 10?
--Loodog 03:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we keep it simple? There's a problem here with over-editing. You can't expect to put every little thing in there. It makes it hard to read, and uninteresting. JMO - Jeeny -talk- 02:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics in Boston: nothing is easy 

message: Just a note, there is apparently another edit war in process as to whether Boston should redirect to this article or to the disambiguation page. It is currently pointing at the disambiguation page. I've created an RFD. Enjoy.--Bobblehead 18:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect FYI

message: The demographics section claims to be based on the  "census of 2006".  What on earth is that?  THe footnote that supposedly sources  it talks about the census of 2000.  This needs to be fixed. john k 21:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I switched it to the 2000 census information, though I added a caveat concerning the estimate in 2006 (which I recalled the city government actually petitioned to have it revised to that figure). PentawingTalk 22:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The census of 2006? 

message: Add "# Support"  or  "# Oppose"  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black Harry (talk • contribs).
====Survey - in support of the move====
====Survey - in opposition to the move====
*Oppose - we just had a survey two months ago that resulted in "no move". Nothing has changed since then. -Will Beback · † · 05:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: *Oppose - we just had a survey two months ago that resulted in "no move". Nothing has changed since then. -Will Beback · † · 05:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move