Talk:Boston

Move

I think this not be redirected to from Boston. Surely Boston should be a disambiguation page for Boston, Lincolnshire and Boston, Massachusetts—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.179.67 (talk • contribs)

Hello editor. Please sign your posts with fourt tidlas (e.g. ~~~~. In response to your request to change the redirect, I might think about it if the first 10 pages of a google search for "Boston" didn't point almost exclusively to this city.--Loodog 21:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

And the answer is ... no. Boston MA is a city of far more importance by an order of magnitude.  RGTraynor  22:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The more significant link would be to the latest discussion on what Boston should point to.[1] Consensus was reached that the redirect should point to this article and not the disambiguation page or Boston, Lincolnshire.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been proposed below that Boston (disambiguation) be renamed and moved to Boston. See Talk:Boston (disambiguation)#Requested move. -- JHunterJ 12:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be a disambiguation page for Boston, this being a name of many cities, plus, the one in America was named after the one in Lincolnshire, England. So if it wasn't for the English Boston, the American Boston would never be around, therefore, the English Boston is of importance. Brocky9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.6.37 (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There really shouldn't be a disambiguation page for Boston. If you type in Moscow, you get right to Moscow, Russia. Yes, there's a Moscow in India but people are less likely to search for it. Also it's annoying to have to go through two pages....--76.19.211.73 (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

World City

It would be appropriate to HIGHLIGHT the fact (by putting this important fact the beginning of the article - in the first few sentences) that Boston is rated and listed as a GAMMA WORLD CITY. I attempted to move this sentence to the beginning of the article a few times and was accussed of vandalism! My numerous attempts at this were because I thought my changes were not "taking hold", only to find out someone thought my change was not appropriate...

There are only a handful of cities in the entire world that enjoy the status of being classified as a GAMMA WORLD CITY, and burying this important fact about Boston in the middle of the article is unfortunate and unfair. The fact that Boston is listed and considered a GAMMA WORLD CITY (while few other cities are), and the fact that I was moving this sentence to the beginning of the article would indicate to me that this would IMPROVE the article, not diminish the intergrity of it...

HERTZ1888... How did you draw the conclusion that Bostonians are modest anyway, and why should the world class fact not be asserted at the beginning? Is Boston "less of a city." Let me know what criteria you use to determine this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quentin00 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Quentin, while I have read the Wiki article about World Cities, I'm not sure if this is an established enough "theory" or "classification" to immediately begin using, especially in so prominent a portion of the article. Your extreme emphasis on adding this information, that you refer to "enjoying status" (as if it were an honour to be named a "GAMMA WORLD CITY"), the fact that the caps don't help (making you sound more like a spammer and self-promoter of ideas than a serious contributor), and that you made several revisions rather than talking about this sooner, really hurt your credibility in this matter. I'm kind of a stickler, having been trained as an academic, but the world city theory truly isn't something I'd consider important enough for inclusion. Can you find third-party sources that actually use this system? Can you make an argument for the importance of this system? In reference to your response to a HERTZ1888, I wouldn't say that Bostonians are modest; I'd say that Boston is smaller than most other cities and "less important" by some standards (hence gamma and not a higher level of "importance") but is still one of, if not the most prominent centre of learning in the nation, perhaps the world -- so why would anyone accept these seemingly subjective "rankings?" I still say this theory isn't important enough to include and it sounds like your edits have POV issues (just a guess). Aepoutre 20:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Aepoutre...

Not being familiar with Wikipedia etiquette, I edited the article numerous times not realizing that this entire world of discussion even existed, so if that hurts my credibility, so be it.

I didn't know being a "smaller" city (by some standards) would have anything to do with importance. Also, if this ranking system is not "important" why is it allowed to be used at all? That being said, your argument proposes a city must be ranked higher than a gamma world city ( NYC, Chicago, Tokyo, London as alpha world cities), to be considered worthy of inclusion, even though you concluded this system of ranking is not important. Contradiction. I may be a stickler too, but I would imagine the Wikipedia editors would be more objective, and less subjective, in determining what they do and don't allow to be included in an article. If it is ok to reference the ranking system in some articles, it should be allowed in all.

Also, using your rationale, shouldn't gamma world city (don't want to upset you with caps again) be removed from the Miami article as well? Especially since in is so prominently displayed in the opening paragraph? You sound like you take yourself a little to seriously (just a guess). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.239.14 (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Unregistered user, I have noted some possibly explanations for your editorial difficulties. If you are unhappy with the inconsistencies of Wikipedia edits, you are welcome to contribute to the standardization thereof; the benefit of this encyclopedia is the fact that you can do so. I cannot comment on edits to Miami, as I am unfamiliar with the article. Aepoutre 22:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Quentin, I'm glad you finally came here to talk with fellow editors. I had left you various invitations to discussion, along with other comments, in the edit summaries. As Wiki is a cooperative effort, you can enhance your cooperative standing by giving explanations for your edits in the summary space and monitoring others' notes left there. Regarding the modesty question, there was an element of tongue in cheek to my use of the word, but a seriousness as well. Boston's renown is already well-established; there is little need to "blow one's own horn". In fact, living up to the "Hub" (of everything) image can be humbling. However, I did not and do not question that the city qualifies for the various superlative labels (gamma city, world class, global). My main objection is that because "gamma city" is a generally unfamiliar, possibly obscure, term that needs explanation and referencing when introduced, it does not belong at the top of the page in the introduction. Diverting the reader into a link immediately upon beginning to read the article is an unencyclopedic distraction. Introductions should be succinct, not cluttered. Further down the page there is more room for explanations (what the term means, who defines and uses it, what a great honor it is, etc.) or — to keep things simple — a footnote or link. Being recognized as global or gamma may be a great honor, but Boston doesn't lack for honors and distinctions. I was puzzled by your insistence on featuring this additional distinction above everything else. Hertz1888 22:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hertz1888...

You make some decent points, and thanks for your input. Since I was unaware that this discussion forum existed, that is why I never saw, or responded to, your previous invitations.

Since the designation of world city (alpha,beta,gamma,etc.) is allowed to be used in Wikipedia articles to describe cities around the world, it should be used consistently in all city articles. I would argue that Los Angeles, Chicago, Paris, New York and London are all cities that are more well known around the world than Boston. So I would ask... Since these cities have less reason to "blow their own horn" than Boston, in most of the articles about these cities, the alpha world city designation is prominently referenced in the first few sentences of each article; does this make sense? I'd say these cities don't lack for honors even more than Boston doesn't lack for them. Are these articles written about these major cities less "succinct" than Boston's article?

So if we are to make Wikipedia more consistent and objective, we need to determine where the references will be added in the articles. Miami's article references gamma city in the first few sentences, and I would argue Miami may possibly need to "blow their own horn" more than Boston does. This is a contradiction with the NYC, London, Paris, etc. argument. Does Wikipedia determine what will be included in an article and where it will be included in said article by how much a city needs to "blow their own horn?" I hope not.

This issue is really not that important to me, and I will not lose any sleep over it. However, I was just very surprised by the inner workings of Wikipedia as soon as I noticed my changes to the article were being reversed and I began to wonder why. I poked around Wikipedia and I questioned why such an innocent change-consistent with other city articles- was being reversed. Then after looking around Wikipedia a bit, I discovered I was accused of "vandalism", and then decided to dig a little deeper into Wikipedia's inner-workings and editing rationale.

Based on the arguments of the editors involved in this discussion, I would conclude that Wikipedia's editing rational is much more subjective, agenda-driven and ego-driven than most people realize. I have relied on Wikipedia for a lot of information in the past, and I now question the integrity of how this information is allowed to be organized now that I have inadvertantly been drawn-in.

I would again state that the article on Boston will be improved if the gamma world city reference is added in the first few sentences of the article, however, since I know the edit will reversed as I will somehow violate some rule, I will refrain from editing it. I would ask that anyone in agreement with me, or anyone who disagrees for that matter, chime in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quentin00 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The only rule or policy I believe you were violating was failing to seek consensus for a controversial change and instead repeatedly reasserting it, without explanation (while apparently ignoring the comments of other editors). Subjective as wiki editing may be, there is some accumulated wisdom (or at least experience) available for you to tap into. I have given my perspective on the edit. It would be good to hear from others. You are free to try and build a consensus for what you seek to do. I would have little problem with the addition if placed at the end of the introduction (as it was at times), rather than at the beginning. Please remember to sign your messages by using four tildes (~). Hertz1888 01:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I never intended or expected this "minor" matter to become such a big deal. Since we are writing an encyclopedia here, it seems that even minor matters can matter. Hertz1888 02:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright ... what the heck is a so-called "GAMMA WORLD CITY" (as opposed to "alpha" and "beta," for instance), and where is the sourcing to indicate that this is a widely known appellation worthy of inclusion? Never mind ... I just answered my question. For the record, Googling "Gamma World Cities" turns up only 6,000 hits and 139 unique hits, desperately scanty totals. For my money, referencing this POV neologism pushed by a bored university geography department in its own article is more than enough, and we don't need to push it here. If the outside world takes notice of the concept, that's another matter ... but for the most part, it hasn't. [2]  RGTraynor  03:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Like to add my two-cent to this: the passage concerning Boston's being a world city had been mentioned in the third introductory paragraph (with citation) immediately after the sentence concerning Boston's geographic expansion for some time before this edit war started:

It has become one of the most culturally significant cities in the United States, and is recognized as a global city.

However, the egregious edits everyone seems to be talking about concerns the fact that the world city passage has been placed as the first sentence of the entire article (and at other times have been emphasized without regard to the flow of the prose). I fail to see how those edits improve the article in any way (especially if it could violate NPOV policies). On the other hand, I suggest that we revert the introduction back to how it was before this edit war started, if the world city passage is to be included at all. Pentawing^Talk 02:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Some very thoughtful comments, however, for some reason nobody chooses to address the "consistency" issue raised in my earlier comments. Possibly it would be a good idea - if Wikipedia is to allow the "world city" reference to be used at all - to put the reference as the last sentence of introductory paragraph of each city article. Or only allow it as a reference at the end of the entire article? Or allow the reference to be used a a stand-alone sentence after the intoductory paragraph? We need consistency here folks. I fail to see how the changes are (were) egregious, or how they violated NPOV policies, if said changes are (were) consistent with other articles using the "world city" reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quentin00 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a balancing act between those who like to sing of their hometown's praises (this also applies to sports teams, alma maters, etc.) and those who think otherwise. The general rule of thumb I use (which is still not entirely perfect) is to view the passage in context with the surrounding text — how does the passage read when placed within the text, does the passage flow with the surrounding text instead of blatantly standing out (and taunting a reader to remove the passage as boosterism or possible vandalism), and are there any facts that balance out the passage (e.g. this city is good at this but...)? Citing a passage does help, but when the passage does not flow with the surrounding text and appears to stand out for no other reason can lead to the passage's removal. What I meant by egregious and "violating NPOV" is that the modified first sentence (and I emphasize the very first sentence) in the article said "Boston is a world class city." However, that is not the main point of the city of Boston. When one says Boston as it pertains to the US, one immediately thinks of the capital of Massachusetts and later as the largest city in Massachusetts and New England (in that order). One does not immediately think of world class city off the bat (unless they live within Boston and the surrounding area or have an intimate knowledge of the city). There are people out there (e.g. New Yorkers) who believe otherwise. Hence, saying that Boston is a world class city in the very first sentence (with visual emphasis if any) is only inviting those people I mentioned to cry foul over boosterism and NPOV violation (and hence result in an edit war).

One should also be aware that this article is featured — it is some of the best that Wikipedia has to offer, and random edits without any other thought to it can degrade the article (and potentially cause the article to lose its featured status, and getting an article featured nowadays is harder to achieve). If you have any more questions about this, please leave a message on my talk page. Pentawing^Talk 01:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we have sufficient boasts of merits of the city in the intro without tacking on something vague and (somewhat) contrived as the Loughborough University's city trophies. E.g.

“ After American independence Boston became a major shipping port and manufacturing center, and its rich history now attracts 16.3 million visitors annually. ”

I say, maybe drop that in the economy section, but the intro hardly needs it.--Loodog 01:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've got a question, actually: what is the basis for the assertion that Wikipedia "allows" this "world city" reference? Have there been any consensus decisions on the subject, and if so, where are the archives of the same, and which Wikiprojects have been involved? Or is this just a matter that the reference has been stuck into a few city articles (after checking, it is by no means in all of them) and hasn't yet been edited out?  RGTraynor  11:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI, there has been no discussion of this issue at WikiProject Cities.  RGTraynor  11:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with  RGTraynor . This isn't about whether or not Boston is world-class. Generally, it's recognized as such for one reason or another. The question is as to the notability of this "global city" theory. Aepoutre 14:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I still think article is improved and provides Wiki readers with another resource for study and research with "global city" reference as last sentence in intro as it was many months ago.

Hertz agrees (taken from previous discussion point in this discussion)...

"I would have little problem with the addition if placed at the end of the introduction (as it was at times), rather than at the beginning. Please remember to sign your messages by using four tildes (~). Hertz1888 01:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)"

(The foregoing are unsigned comments added by Quentin00 (talk • contribs) at 00:50 UTC, 8 May 2008)

• Comment: This obscure "world city" concept hasn't become any more notable or gained more reliable sources in the last several months than before.  RGTraynor  01:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Quentin, I don't agree with you putting it (again) in the first paragraph. "Little problem"? I have even less problem with it being in the Economy section, in abbreviated form, where it was until recently when deleted by another editor. This is an obscure classification by a little-known group of academics. Please don't keep putting it back in the introductory section as if it were as significant as the founding of Boston. It is now back under Economy. Let's give it another try there. If others object, that will indicate a consensus against having it in the article at all, and I will have no problem with seeing it vanish. Let's not have an edit war over this. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. This discussion, which you keep re-provoking, has already gone on for over six months, consuming, IMO, far too much editorial time and attention. Please be warned: any further attempt on your part to expand, move, or reinsert this "gamma city" edit may be viewed as disruptive editing, and bring forth appropriate action. The discussion shows a clear consensus against the concept's inclusion in the article. Perhaps it will survive in its present position & shortened form, perhaps not. I leave that up to others, but let the seemingly endless cycle end here. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hertz...

Alright, you win as you have the power, it seems, to do as you please. However, I will state, as I have many times before, that the "world city" reference ought to be deleted from, or moved into an obscure section of, the 15 or so other "city" articles on Wikipedia that use it to improve the overall article. Saying that, you'll use the convenient and easy excuse that you are "unfamiliar" with those other articles (well documented by me here), however, that is also an excuse for you to "dig in your heels" and be almost, I hate to say...spiteful. Seems to me if the reference is good enough to be used in the first or second paragraph of numerous other articles, it ought to be good enough for the same treatment in the Boston article as well. Don't worry, I won't "waste" anymore of your editorial time. Using the "world city" reference only gives individuals another reliable resource written by a reliable group of academics...likely a group very, very similar to those who do all this squabbling and editing on Wikipedia ;-) All the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quentin00 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Every city is different. Houston doesn't have a section on the American Revolution for the same reason Boston has no section on the energy industry. A certain degree of consistency is desired (WP:USCITY specifies what this is), but what's best for each city is a case-by-case consensus story. I really don't think Boston needs to flash a world city trophy in the lead when the significance of the city speaks for itself in the second paragraph, in much more specific ways.--Loodog (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Board of Election

How is it that Boston election commissioners are election department employees?... shouldn't election commissioners be separate as a board from the department?..

Why have not all Boston election commission seats been appointed?... a commission seat has gone unfilled for a very long time.

Board of Election
1. Geraldine M. Cuddyer, Chair
2. Michael Patrck Chinetti
3. Nancy D. Hairston
4. .... UNAPPOINTED ....
http://www.bostonherald.com/projects/payroll/boston/last_name.ASC/121000/

See also page 27
Department of Voter Mobilization
http://cityofboston.gov/budget/pdfs/volume3_2008/07_Pub_Prop_Cab.pdf
the zak 23:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

citations 6, 54, and 56 are the same source... --130.215.168.224 (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Why the current name?

I'm sure this has been discussed a lot so could anyone point me to good discussion as to why this article is named Boston, Massachusetts and not simply Boston? Boston is a world city and I've seen much much less known cities than Boston having a singular name. But anyway, any actual policy or real consensus about this? (edit)Might I add that since the consensus seems to be to redirect Boston to here why doesn't this article simply be titled Boston? After looking at the Global city article it seems that pretty much every single city, except U.S. cities, are singular names. This seems a little crazy to me. Any links to the policy about this? LonelyMarble (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#United States is the guideline for how to name US places. --Polaron | Talk 03:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed that this guideline you have pointed to says that Boston could be moved to Boston. That should be done. Miami33139 (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that guideline concurs that Boston, MA could simply be titled Boston, and Boston already redirects to Boston, MA. And as Boston is one of the few global cities I don't see why this article can't simply be titled Boston. LonelyMarble (talk) 03:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The short answer is that there were very lengthy discussions on whether to move the article to Boston, and there were enough people opposed to the move that it didn't happen. AJD (talk) 06:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is pretty ridiculous. The only other place name that would be in dispute would be Boston, Lincolnshire and although that was the original name I don't see why this makes it such an argument that the far and away most popular usage can't have the loan title. Another ridiculous naming is Los Angeles, California, why that page isn't simply at Los Angeles is beyond me. I can see the reasons for the "common convention" but cities like Boston and Los Angeles should be at the lone title (and probably most of the other U.S. city names on that link should be too). LonelyMarble (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

People get very hung up over this. It makes no difference since the "Boston" redirects to Boston, Massachusetts anyway. This absolutely should be the case since no "Boston" approaches notability of this one. As for where the article should be located (which again makes no difference), until we relocate ALL cities approved for city name only in the AP style book (include LA, St. Louis, San Francisco, etc...) to the city name, Boston stays at Boston, Massachusetts as per convention. Individual city articles are not the place to try changing this. Go to WP:naming conventions.--Loodog (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This is becoming a circular argument. There was an agreement of sorts that cities listed in the AP stylebook *may* be exempt from having the state name if they are the primary topic and if editors of that city article agree. The disgreement was trying to mass move the city names all at once. The convention you refer to has been changed and it says individual city article talk pages are where a possible move should be discussed. --Polaron | Talk 02:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize that had happened. In that case, full support. This Boston is obviously the primary topic and "Boston" redirects here anyway. Sure, move it.--Loodog (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I support moving it too; redirecting from a general name to a longer, more specific one is stupid. If you don't like calling this 'Boston' you should be changing Boston to a disambiguation. Where are the people who oppose? Richard001 (talk) 02:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still opposed to moving it, since I think city/town article titles should all be in the same format. AJD (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

After looking at a list of cities, nearly all are in the City, State format. Except for these major cities: Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia. -Zomic13 (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The recent consensus was to allow each case to be determined individually. But while we're aiming for consistency, I'd also like to point out that Philadelphia, New York City, and Chicago are where they are because they are older, more well-established cities and are better known than the states they are in. I believe Boston meets both of these criteria.--Loodog (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, then I would strongly support the move to just "Boston". Boston is a well-established city and one where many important events in American history. Boston should more than meet any requirements to just be known as Boston. -Zomic13 (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I also support this move. (I'm an old user who's been lurking--not a puppet! Just to lazy to log-in or re-register.) --71.235.81.130 (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

So, will somebody familiar with the process get this started? --130.132.111.93 (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Beyond chest-thumping, what is the benefit to this move? Boston already redirects to here. --barneca (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it makes no practical difference just as the moving the "Barack Obama" article to "Obama" would make no practical difference. However, as with Barack Obama, there still is a proper location for the article. Tough call here because guidelines say either way is the full proper name.--Loodog (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be moved, but I have a feeling that if we carry out an actual requested move then the article will still just remain at CITY, STATE; requested moves for all major American cities save Chicago and Philadelphia have ended with no change. Still, WP:CCC. Cheers, Rai•me 02:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it might fly. The only reasons I can see Chicago, New York, and Philadephia as exceptions are because they are cities with rich histories which are known better than the states they are in. Boston would meet both these criteria, but then again it doensn't really matter.--Loodog (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Pilgrims

This is a very minor thing, but it's one of my pet peeves. In the sports section is says that the Boston Red Sox were known as the Boston Pilgrims in 1903 when winning their first world series. I changed it because this is not true, but it was reverted. Here is a link to an article that is sourced on the Red Sox page that discusses this. If anyone thinks that it is still worth being mentioned, please let me know. Otherwise I think it should go. http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/boston_pilgrims_story.shtml Tithonfury (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't you say so in the first place? You and Bill Nowlin, author of the reference, have convinced me that the "Pilgrims" name is a legend that grew legs, so to speak. I have edited the article to reflect this. Such changes need to be explained and sourced. Please use the edit summary space to explain edits that may be suspect. Thanks for bringing the citation here. It looks to be on very solid ground. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't think of it the first time. Oh well, it's fixed now.Tithonfury (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Notable places/landmarks/tourism

Hi, I noticed most other cities seemed to dedicate a paragraph to "Sites of interest". We haven't mentioned tourism except as a component of the city's economy. Do we think it would improve the article to include such a section or would it just needlessly lengthen the article and make it seem boostery?--Loodog (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Climate

Hertz1888, I understand that some people use 32F/0C being the average temperature of the coldest month as the borderline between subtropical and continental, but the Koppen Climate Classification (which this article sources) uses 26.6F/-3C as the borderline. Boston lies between these lines. http://www.idcide.com/weather/ma/boston.htm proves it. The Koppen Climate Classification article proves that these boundaries are correct. Press olive, win oil (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the discussion here. I accept the temperature figures. I am confused because on the maps at Köppen climate classification, Boston shows as a speck of Dfa (the light blue) surrounded by Dfb (darker blue). It is nowhere near the Cfa (light green) areas. Why is this so at variance with your assertion of the climate type?

Anyone who has spent time in Boston would likely find description of the climate as "subtropical" absurd and be skeptical. Does common sense come into play at all, or are we going strictly by some arbitrary, borderline numbers? Not to mention that the Koppen scheme itself will be obscure to the vast majority of readers. I invite you to take a close(r) look at the maps cited, and reword the edited section accordingly - preferably with language less specialized and more geared to the layman. Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, Boston's climate is not at all like that of such places as Houston, Tucson or Jerusalem - examples given in Subtropics. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Nashville isn't like that at all either and its coldest month averages above freezing. It would be called Cfa on the map. I think that the C/D borderline should be at -3C, and "Marine West Coast" should be called "Oceanic." "Humid Subtropical" should have its name changed to something that means "hot summer and no long period of snow cover" in prefixes, roots, and suffixes. Koppen probably didn't invent the names for the climate zones and I think people should use Koppen's boundaries the way they are. Whatever they call them is their business. Look, it's like an imaginary animal that has a weird common name. Cfa shouldn't have the name "humid subtropical." Yet the animal's scientific name, which would be Cfa for the climate, makes sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Press olive, win oil (talk • contribs) 12:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC) I think "Humid Mesothermal" is a better name for Cfa anyway. Press olive, win oil (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC) On the Koppen climate classification article, I made a new section called "Debatable Map' about that map. That map clearly uses 0C/32F for the coldest month average as the c/d borderline. Koppen used -3C/26.6F, as do I. Though Nashville, New York City, and Boston would be considered "subtropical' by Koppen's classification, they are not. This is why I think the name should be changed., but Koppen's boundaries should be kept because of agricultural reasons (how Koppen figured out where to make the boundaries). Press olive, win oil (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Press olive. With all due respect, I believe what the reader needs is a simple and brief characterization of the Boston climate, not a confusing treatise on specialized, highly technical matters. A discussion of the contradictions in the classification schemes does nothing but obfuscate. I have a "radical" suggestion: please save the critiques of Koppen's scheme for the Koppen talk page. In my opinion, detailed discussions of the science and its limitations don't belong on the Boston page — or any other city's — nor here on the Boston talk page. With this in mind I will be simplifying and shortening the paragraph in question. Please don't reintroduce ambiguities. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Hear hear.  RGTraynor  13:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, we could just say Boston's climate is typical of southeast New England, right? We don't need to mention any climate classification at all, do we? Press olive, win oil (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Then we're assuming the reader knows a SE New England climate.--Loodog (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Or, humid subtropical climates could be called Hot summer humid mesothermal climates." Press olive, win oil (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps they could, but the mesothermal page suggests that the term characterizes only winters. We're getting overtechnical again here, though, aren't we. I'm sure any connection of Boston's climate with any form of "tropical" is too ludicrous to survive long in the article. Hopefully the present wording serves adequately; it seems to me there is a consensus to leave it be. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Mesothermal and tropical climates are different terms. The "hot summer" means its summers are hot, with the warmest month's mean temperature averaging above 22C/71.6F. Press olive, win oil (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC) Mesothermal means coldest month averages below 18C/64.4F but above -3C/26.6F while tropical means this average is above 18C/64.4F. Press olive, win oil (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Mention of 23rd largest city in intro

I removed this and was reverted: A 2006 U.S. Census Bureau estimate ranks Boston as the 23rd largest U.S. city by population.

My reasons:

1. 23 out there the backwater in terms of any kind of interest. If it were 23 in the world, it'd be something.
2. The definition of the entity that ranks 23rd is so far divorced from the reality of the city's workings and influence, it's misleading. 590,763 describes the population living in inside a densely populated imaginary line with an area 1/5 the official size of Charlotte and excludes functionally integrated "suburbs" such as Cambridge (101,354), Brookline (57,107), Somerville (77,478), and Chelsea (35,080), which all have greater density than Baltimore.

--Loodog (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think its notable ElectricalExperiment 02:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate beyond an I Like It statement?--Loodog (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Its a statistic. ElectricalExperiment 13:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a statistic. So are "red cars are more likely to get ticketed for speeding" and "kids eating KFC are more likely to perform poorly in school". It doesn't make it meaningful. See my point #2.--Loodog (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Loodog, I think your reasons are sound for dropping the mention. However, if it stays, we could qualify it, either in a footnote, or right there in the intro. Something along the lines of: "This ranking gives a misleading picture of comparative size because, unlike many [most?] other cities on the list, Boston is but the nucleus of a much more populous cluster of contiguous separate municipalities." How does that strike you? Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah, then it's being said in an implicitly compensating tone and is borderline OR. I think the most accurate picture is painted when the city proper ranking is completely omitted.--Loodog (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's best completely omitted. Without elaboration it's misleading and nearly meaningless. I somehow don't see a consensus developing to keep it. It should go. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's best omitted. Rankings below 1st, 2nd, and 3rd are uninteresting (and dubious at best). If you don't win, place, or show, you're an also ran. The Olympics doesn't award pewter, molybdenum, or iron medals. If we have a ranked list of cities somewhere, that's fine, but putting individual ranking numbers in articles is silly. And, as LooDog noted in point number 2, particularly silly in the case of Boston. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Perhaps Boston is the U. S. city with the smallest area, as a percentage of the area of its SMSA... or the smallest population, as percentage of the population of its SMSA. If either of these is true and can be directly sourced to a reference, that would be interesting. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say this is consensus then. I'm removing it again. Electrical Experiment, if you disagree, you're welcome to continue discussion here.--Loodog (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Untitled section

The women's soccer team, the Breakers were re-instated in April 2007, and I think should be added to the sports section. http://www.womensprosoccer.com/soccer_ektid138.aspx?team=boston Professional21 (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)professional21

2007 Boston Bomb Scare

I propose introducing a section to the article about the 2007 Boston Bomb Scare. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Please. It's a little incident the better part of two years ago. If there's no section on the Big Dig, there certainly doesn't need to be one on that. Twin Bird (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but they've done horrible overreactions to stuff like this several times, though not on that scale. Plus the event has it's own article, and it's certainly more notable then a list of plays that feature Boston. 69.207.32.133 (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't just a little incident, Twin Bird, it shut down many major cities in the United States. It cost local governments millions of dollars to deal with the situation. It, perhaps, also had an affect on the citizens' sense of security, and changed some cultural outlook on Post-911 America. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• And the Big Dig was the most costly public works project in world history. You think the Lite Brite deal was more important? More important than busing in the 1970s? More important than the urban renewal that wiped out the West End and built the Central Artery? The Revolutionary War and the siege of the city? The Great Fire of 1872 that torched the downtown? The razing of Scollay Square? The molasses flood in the North End? Heck, the 1919 Boston police strike put put a man in the White House - that's slightly more of an impact, and that didn't get into the article at all. Sacco and Vanzetti? The Cocoanut Grove fire? The Boston Strangler? by contrast, this blip of an incident didn't shut down any city, not even Boston, and the degree it "changed some cultural outlook" is that the nation had a good laugh at Boston's expense for a news cycle or two. This is recentism, pure and simple, and while it may meet the criteria for a standalone article, I don't think it's even worth a mention in the dedicated history article, let alone the main article.  RGTraynor  16:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

But sports teams are? 69.207.32.133 (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to jump in here, I'd call it nonnotable in the history of the city. Anon, no sports teams are mentioned in the history section. They're mentioned in the "sports" section, which is customary in all city articles per WP:USCITY. It got a lot of coverage when it happened, but it ultimately doesn't matter like the Big Dig does.--Loodog (talk) 01:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. It's certainly pleasant for sports fans that the Red Sox and Celtics have won recent championships, but the enduring effects of those wins on the city is zero.  RGTraynor  06:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

One more attempt at a move to "Boston"

Request move of Boston, Massachusetts -> Boston. Current exceptions to [city, state] guidelines are New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Seattle, and it looks like New Orleans, Louisiana is very quickly gaining consensus (with my support) for a move to New Orleans. What these exceptions have in common: (1) they are older, more well-established cities, (2) they are better known than the states they are in (ask an Italian which state Chicago is in.). Boston matches these criteria.

Counterarguments for consideration

• Slippery slope: every city will start asking to be located at its own name and the [city, state] convention will fall apart.

All of the above cities and Boston are in the AP stylebook which is a permissible exception. No one has ever proposed a remotely successful move for any city not in the AP stylebook.

• Distinction between Boston and Greater Boston will be obscured:

Since "Boston" already directs here, we've already made the assumption it means the city proper. Also, Greater Boston is mentioned in the intro.

Lastly, WP:NAME states "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." "Boston, Massachusetts" is the editor's cleaner preference, but "Boston" is how people and the media speak and write.

--Loodog (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I support such a move. Boston is Boston. Whatever404 (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree with such a move; I disagree with all the other ones too, but that's another issue. So there's no misunderstanding, I fully support the fact that Boston redirects here; that's a different issue, and will hopefully not be brought up by anyone right now to muddy the waters. I believe all geographic places should be formatted Cityname, State or Cityname, Country, with redirects from Cityname when there is an obvious most likely target. Having this standard format is not only beneficial to editors, it is the most convenient format for readers unfamiliar with the geography of the area, who are actually the people most likely to want to read it, and has absolutely no cost to anyone. Loodog rebuts some possible objections above, but no one has ever answered, to my satisfaction anyway, the question in the other direction: What would be the actual benefit to anyone for the move? Finally, on a non-content related front, how many times do we keep having the same discussion? If it is successful, do we have to have another one in a few months to change it back? How about we flip a damn coin, and whatever it says, we follow that and all swear on pain of death to never talk about this again? --barneca (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • On the question of whether it would stick, it seems to me there's been a general shifting consensus away from strict [city, state] convention over the last year or so. The last discussion there said cities should be decided on an individual basis. Now Seattle's been moved. I'm pretty sure such a move would stick because of this.
  • On the question of benefit, obviously it makes little difference if the other name redirects to the article anyway, but I think it's slightly less surprising to a reader, particularly an international reader, to find this article located at City.--Loodog (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• I oppose the move and agree with Barneca. AJD (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• I also oppose such moves. Other than New York, New York, which means something different from New York City, there's no good reason for any exceptions to the standard City,_State format for article titles for U.S. cities.
  —WWoods (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've left a note on the New Orleans, Louisiana talk page mentioning this discussion, since they're pretty much identical ideas.--Loodog (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)