Talk:Boston

message: Is it really WP:DUE to include Boston's failed Olympic bid in the history section? :3 F4U (they/it) 14:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me.  It's three sentences, it hardly throws the article out-of-balance.  --Jayron32 15:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boston Olympic bid 

message: New user Pinehillwetu just added the original name used by the Massachusett peoples for the area now known as Boston. This doesn't appear to be the standard as few if any other articles for major U.S. cities include their original native names. Do we keep the name or remove it? I'm leaning towards removing it or mentioning/listing it somewhere else just for consistency. RyanAl6 (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The Massachusett language is still spoken, and the Wampanoag nation is a federally recognized tribe. Its wholly appropriate as other countries have city names written in native or local languages despite those languages not being either official languages or officially taught in school to children. Additionally, not every US city has an indigenous name as some of them were founded only after colonists came, and not before. Pinehillwetu (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please stop adding these per WP:LEADLANG unless there is a consensus to do so. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing in this section indicates that it is inappropriate to add the indigenous language name of the city, they are relevant, spoken languages, and not overly long/obstructive. Instead of citing a section and unconstructively undoing edits, provide constructive and specific feedback. There is historical consensus that Boston was Shawmut which comes from the Massachusett word Mashauwomuk. Pinehillwetu (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Several other editors disagree with you. Again, you need consensus before making broad changes across the ledes of city articles. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this consensus needed among editors even if edits are historically verified? There was no response to my original talk post. Pinehillwetu (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Having a source doesn't negate WP:LEADLANG and MOS:FIRST, nor does it negate WP:CONSENSUS. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

text: It's probably best to keep it considering it's an important part of the history of Boston and gives important context to the city's history in a succinct way. It's a good faith edit that takes up minimal space and is informative for users about the longest inhabitants of Boston. I move to preserve this edit. Though standards are important to keep, this is not a meaningful deviation from the standard as some other US cities also have their indigenous names as well. These names are also helpful for beginners or folks not well versed in history understand why there are so many cities across the US and UK with the same placenames.  12.168.121.4 (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keeping the Native American name? 

message: I'm posting this to inform interested editors that I've tagged the Hyde Park, Boston for NPOV concerns. See my post on at Talk:Hyde Park, Boston. Jessintime (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyde Park NPOV concerns 

message: Boston ought to have a cornucopia of options for illustrating the higher education subsection. That makes it unfortunate that the current photo, an aerial photo of Harvard Business School that's too zoomed out for readers to make out much detail without expanding it, is the best we've been able to do. Would anyone like to suggest alternatives? Sdkb (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better higher education subsection photo? 

message: The layout of this article is awful. The lead is too long, this has a citation needed tag, and it possesses way too many single/two-sentence paragraphs. This article could also use a thorough copyedit; this would be an FAC quickfail with today's standards. Unless someone is committed to fixing this, I am going to have to submit this to WP:FAR.  750h+ | Talk  16:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: At least this article (seemingly) doesn't suffer from ownership issues like New York City did prior to several editors' interventions, so there won't be any resistance to the plan to make it a lot less crappy to read. You have my support for a FAR. Seasider53 (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR