Talk:Boston/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Boston. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Move "subarticles" of Boston now as well?

Now that the parent article Boston, Massachusetts has been moved to Boston, should articles like Culture in Boston, Massachusetts and History of Boston, Massachusetts be moved to names without the "Massachusetts" qualifier? Cheers, Rai•me 16:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense.--Loodog (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; I went ahead and moved these six articles: History of Boston, Massachusetts → History of Boston, Neighborhoods in Boston, Massachusetts → Neighborhoods in Boston, Culture in Boston, Massachusetts → Culture in Boston, Sites of interest in Boston, Massachusetts → Sites of interest in Boston, Media in Boston, Massachusetts → Media in Boston, and Sister cities of Boston, Massachusetts → Sister cities of Boston. Many articles, like Boston transportation, Sports in Boston, and List of tallest buildings in Boston were already titled without the "Massachusetts" qualifier. Cheers, Rai•me 16:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there any easy way to clean up all these links?--Loodog (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean changing links that point to Boston, Massachusetts to Boston, and so on? There is no need to do that, per WP:R#NOTBROKEN. As long as the redirect isn't broken, just leave it the way it is. One of the only times I think this could be beneficial is to adjust the redirects in the "main article" headings of this page's subsections. Cheers, Rai•me 17:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead image

The introductory photo montage has been changing daily, or more frequently, and in my opinion is getting steadily worse in terms of visual discord and clutter. Cramming so many images together risks lowering the overall visual appeal. I see this happening with the present version most of all. It is the worst yet because adjacent colors and shapes clash badly. It also helps when all or nearly all of the scenes included clearly are uniquely Bostonian, which they presently are not by any stretch. I believe a peak was reached with the version in place as of November 1, and would like to see us revert to that one and then leave it be with, at most, minor tweaks. What do others think? Hertz1888 (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Due to lack of objection (or any other reaction), I am changing the lead image, but not to the Nov. 1 version. No going back to that one—it's been yanked for copyright reasons—and no remaining with what we have, as the present version is about to follow suit. Therefore returning to the tried and true, no copyright issue, view of the Esplanade and Back Bay. Thanks, I think, are due Tyork for efforts to create a successful montage; unfortunately, the licensing problems appear to be insurmountable. In case any future changes of the lead image are contemplated, I hope we will see prior discussion, perhaps with an opportunity to vote on several alternatives. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Bringing back Esplanade view pending further discussion. The aesthetic issues raised above remain unaddressed. Can File:Boston108.jpg or some close approximation of it be licensed and brought back? I stand by my assertion that nothing since works as well. Hoping others will join the discussion. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I thought the collage image was too busy for a lead image, licensing issues aside. I think the image should be something quintessentially - and recognizably - Bostonian. The interior of a baseball park is not, and most of those images were equally not uniquely Boston.  Frank  |  talk  18:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too well-versed on what other cities are doing, but I'm a fan of the straight skyline. Not only is it nice and simple IMHO but the template does ask for a skyline image, after all. Has there been a larger WikiProject Cities discussion perhaps?--Aepoutre (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I loved the collage image and personally don't care for the Back Bay/Esplanade image at all. The scope of this image is extremely limited and does not represent the "City of Boston" well, IMHO. Other notable American cities, such as New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago have all employed the image collage to represent many different locales within the city -- I think Boston deserves something similar. And, for the record, I think including a photo of Fenway Park in the collage is very appropriate; It is, after all, a Boston landmark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.97.84.26 (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, Fenway Park is a landmark. The interior view of the infield of a baseball park looks like any other; the picture may claim to be from Fenway but there's nothing little identifying it in the picture, which renders its usefulness in a collage at about zero. How about the Green Monster?  Frank  |  talk  18:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I went back and examined it more closely; I suppose the "John Hancock" and one building in the background could identify it, but I still don't think it's an iconic view of the ballpark. Also, see comment from AlexiusHoratius below; I concur on the size.  Frank  |  talk  18:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, if I remember correctly, the picture of Fenway Park was actually a bit larger than the picture of the Boston skyline, which I found a bit odd. AlexiusHoratius 18:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

i prefer this image over the other one. it encompasses A LOT more of boston than the backbay/pru... ie; fenway, beacon hill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonsox07 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Great, and a number of others don't. "Image does not show Boston’s skyline in it and doesn’t follow guidelines for “world cities” only has 2 buildings and a park. Change after discussion"?? Err, that IS a skyline, I count 15 high-rise buildings in it not counting the Trinity Church and Old South towers or the justifiably famous Hatch Shell, the park is the equally well known Esplanade, and the discussion generally involved why the previous montage was not suitable.  RGTraynor  18:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I made this image because most other World Cities have main collage pictures similar to this one, show casing what they are known for. See New York, LA, Chicago, London, Paris… ect. This type of format is standard for cities of this level. I chose Back Bay, Beacon Hills Acorn St, the South End, The Common and Fenway Park because they are all icons of Boston.

I can change the ballpark part to show more of Fenway’s Green monster. I choose that picture because it’s a night shot and matching the night skyline shot on the top. This picture is a lot better than the picture of esplanade because it doesn’t show Boston at all, just John Hancock and the prudential center. I will work to create a picture that everyone enjoys and wants but in the meantime I think the collage picture should stay in order to give continuity. It’s clear that most people prefer the collage over the esplanade, so please stop changing it until we can settle on tweaking the collage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyork (talk • contribs) 18:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

the image is of central back bay- NOT bostons skyline, hense its NOT a skyline photograph and in violation of terms. its like saying new yorks skyline is just the downtown financial district or just midtown or a picture of the empire state building.

Until we can agree on an image the collage is the better of the two and actually has a full image of the boston skyline and isn’t in violation… so STOP changing it until we settle on what should be up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonsox07 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The Esplanade picture is an inadequate representation of the city. If there really are copyright violations with the collage, can we please find images WITHOUT copyright issues?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.97.84.26 (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I accidentally picked the wrong license when I uploaded it before which was why there was an error with the licensing and copyrights before but I corrected that.

I obviously agree that a picture of the esplanade though it’s nice, is an inadequate representation of Boston and even if you don’t like the collage it shows a lot more of Boston than that picture does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyork (talk • contribs) 20:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, I'd be more comfortable with fewer SPAs in this discussion. Might a checkuser be in order?  RGTraynor  04:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I'm inclined to agree, RG. --Aepoutre (talk) 06:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally love the collage and as a resident of Boston I agree that it showcases the best aspects of Boston. But if there is disagreement I personally think until someone makes a better main picture this should be a non-issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelloking (talk • contribs) 13:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it interesting how many newly-registered editors (with no or few other apparent editing interests) show up here to applaud one side of this contentious issue. However, "I like it" (or "I don't like it") is not considered a valid argument for choices in Wikipedia, and there's more to consensus-building than a show of hands. Voting is often not even a part of it. The questions raised to start off this discussion have yet to be addressed in any depth. Let me try to steer the discussion back on that original track by asking just what views of Boston would be most iconic (the trademarks of the city, as it were). Earlier collages had several of them: The USS Constitution, the Old State House, the Zakim Bridge, an external, normal-scale view of Fenway Park. To these I would add the Bunker Hill Monument, perhaps the Paul Revere statue in the North End. To local residents these may all come across as cliches, but I believe that is precisely what we should be looking for. Anything that could be in any number of other cities should be excluded. And the combination should be assembled in such a way that adjacent colors, shapes and (especially) scaling are harmonious. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Run a check user... that will settle that ridiculous claim.

We can do something that is similar to what they did in NYC when deciding on their main montage and we can make 5 or 6 different collages or pictures, post them on here and vote on the best.... i think that would be fair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyork (talk • contribs) 15:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree we need to get back on the issue... I like the idea of a collage with the old state house and bunker hill in it... I think we should limit it to 5 pictures though, anymore it will look crowded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyork (talk • contribs) 15:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Previewing some options here sounds good to me. That offers an opportunity to judge content, layout, and overall effect. Please sign your posts. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Heres the first one I made.... as suggested I made the skyline bigger, showed green monster... took hertz suggestions and added the old state house, beacon hill, and i added faneuil hall. i also made it lighter than the current collage. suggestions?

forgot to sign, sorry (Tyork (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC))

Please be aware that the issue under debate is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on the suitability of images for this article. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. The creation of multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue is a serious violation of WP:SOCK and can lead to account blocks. Do not ask your friends to create accounts to support you or anyone else.

Quite honestly: I don't the fascination with cramming as many images as possible into what will typically be viewed as a 1.5" x 1.5" inch portion of a LCD. The Boston article is well developed and affords plenty of real estate to showcase a well balanced sampling of local scenery through out. Don't blow it all in an overly-busy lead image: just take a picture of some downtown buildings and be done with it. ccwaters (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Beyond that, unlike this fellow's assertion, there is no picture format for cities, certainly none requiring collages, and I can find a great many leading cities that lack them: Paris, Tokyo, Berlin, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Diego, Rome, Mexico City, San Francisco, Mumbai, Pittsburgh, Seoul ...  RGTraynor  18:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ccwaters, RGTraynor, and others above, a simple skylike pic showing the Back Bay from along the Charles is not only a simpler, more aesthically pleasing picture to use as a lead picture, but is an iconic view of Boston, often shown on television when sports or other events are broadcast from the city. It appears that one editor wishes to use his multi-image picture as the lead picture, although even that multi-image leaves out the vast majority of Boston's neighborhoods (i.e. nothing from Roxbury, Dorchester, Jamaica Plain, etc.) and many of Boston's famous landmarks (like the JFK Museum, for instance). The lead picture should be simple and recognizable as befits its placement and size, and a multi-image picture does not fit the bill, while a view of Boston along the Charles certainly does. I say the single image of Boston along the water should be the lead picture of the Boston article. --Friejose (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally feel that most of those cities (Paris, Tokyo, Berlin, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Diego, Rome, Mexico City, San Francisco, Mumbai, Pittsburgh, Seoul ... )haven't gotten around to updating their pages to reflect the new trend towards collages as the main pictures in large / leading cities, but if people want a single image instead of the collage (like every small town, or little city) that's fine... I personal feel the collage separates all the small towns from the major cities... Because it shows we have more than a just skyline or a few buildings… it shows that Boston has one of a kind attractions, not just John Hancock, a park and the Prudential center, but quality one of a kind jewels… for example take NYC which has the UN, Brooklyn Bridge, Times Square and the Statue of Liberty in their collage and as their main picture... All those parts of the city make up NYC and just a photograph of the Empire State building wouldn’t do NYC justice just as a photograph of the Esplanade doesn’t do Boston justice but that’s my option. Post some suggestions here. This isn't a vote issue but I am not going to suggest we pursue a trend (collage photograph) that the veterans on this site don't want… (Tyork (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC))

The problem is that I don't really know how much of a "trend" this really is. Take a look at the Chicago article, where an iconic view of the the lakeshore and skyline was replaced with a bunch of dumpy-looking pictures of buildings that "say" Chicago to no one but (possibly) a Chicagoan. The talk page for that article is now full of complaints about the montage. The trouble with that montage, and with the examples on this article, is that the scenes used just aren't all that famous. I can understand with London or New York - the Statue of Liberty, Times Square, and the scene of Westminster/Big Ben are famous throughout the world, and in those cases a montage was created to reflect the fact that it really was impossible to get all of the world famous sites in those cities into a single picture. I don't know that we really should be using that example with Boston, and what we have in the montages here are scenes that most non-Bostonians will have to read the montage's caption to even tell what they are. AlexiusHoratius 00:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

A perceptive of the current montage from a non native: top...zoomed out random nighttime skyline of random city near water, middle... non descript rowhouses (could be old city philly) and a horse and rider statue (again could easily be one a number of statues in fairmont park, philly), bottom...picture of fenway, so zoomed out its almost unrecognisable even to a baseball fan. ccwaters (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

A perception of the revised montage *from* a native: top, unusual angle from which if it didn't have the Hancock Tower in it, I wouldn't recognize it as Boston at all; middle, a monument which I can tell only from context that it's the Bunker Hill Memorial (the angle being poor for it); bottom, a row of townhouses which I presume is on Beacon Hill, somewhere, only because I happen to know there's nowhere else in Boston with 19th century brick row townhouses AND cobblestone alley AND trees AND on a slope.  RGTraynor  09:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

So can I, or somebody, change the lead image back to a simple, clean, iconic view of Boston along the Charles?

Unless someone objects here soon, I will make the change myself, as it seems to me that the consensus among everyone but the montage's creator is to have a single image. --Friejose (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. It is time to move on. Image restored to the one that stood, without any objection that I can recall, for a year and a half. If something better is proposed at some future time, there is still room here to display, critique and discuss it and seek a new consensus. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Economy Section

I think this section has several misleading parts. Especially the first paragraph listing the companies. For instance, EMC Corp, Analog Devices, VistaPrint, and a few of the listed biotech companies do not have a presence in Boston. This section should be edited. Perhaps some items should be moved to the Greater Boston article or to Cambridge, Massachusetts 141.238.109.229 (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Since they are listed as being in the Boston area, I can't tell what sort of companies are actually in the city of Boston. --Beirne (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Top in life sciences

Boston is the top life sciences cluster in the country. I want to include this in the Economy section, but there's not a good place to put it without disrupting the flow. Suggestions?--Loodog (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Boston firsts

I took Harvard out of the list of Boston's firsts, as Harvard is in the city of Cambridge, not Boston. The sentence that had mentioned Harvard specifically said "The city was the site of several firsts", which is a good lead-in but by definition does not include Cambridge. An article about the city of Boston should be about the city of Boston. Information on things like Harvard belongs in the Cambridge, Massachusetts or Greater Boston articles. --Beirne (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This is just taking pertinent information away for technicalities. In common usage it is appropriate to mention Harvard in the Boston article. Highly relevant information about Greater Boston should be included in this article in my opinion. Important things like universities in neighboring cities also directly affect Boston, so as long as it is made clear they are not in the city proper (and it was), I don't see the problem. LonelyMarble (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a separate article for Greater Boston, which is a great place for regional discussion. There are several problems with including regional information in the Boston article. First, it clutters up the article with information that is not specific to the city. The fact that Harvard was the first college goes great in the Cambridge article. Mentioning things in neighboring cities does no service to the city of Boston unless there is a specific connection. For example, the education section lists the ties between Harvard and Tufts with Boston, which makes perfect sense. Another problem is that in some parts of the article, like the list of NCAA Division I colleges, Harvard and Boston College are listed as being in the city. They are not, except for some departments. The main campuses are outside of Boston. Someone like me from Tennessee, though, would have read that sentence and thought that Harvard was in Boston. --Beirne (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I want it to be clear if something is not in the city proper, but the average person usually does not distinguish city propers of major cities like Boston so rigidly. It is more relevant to the Greater Boston article, but given common usage of "Boston" it makes sense to include relevant information in this article as well. The readable prose in this article is fairly short, clutter isn't a problem at the moment. LonelyMarble (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I realize that with regionalism and metropolitan areas that the functional definition of a city isn't what it used to be. Other cities in the area like Cambridge, though, get their own articles without undue reference to the metropolitan area. If the Boston article is expanded to include Greater Boston through inclusion of details from other communities, then Boston gets no article of its own. And while people may use Boston to refer to the whole area in casual speech, more precision is required in an encyclopedia article. --Beirne (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with more than one of Beirne's points, including the issues of encyclopedic accuracy and the need to distinguish between Greater Boston and Boston proper, since there are indeed separate articles for the two. And I think that such a line of thought would provide a great opportunity to beef up and improve the Cambridge, Massachusetts and Greater Boston articles, rather than dump it all on Boston proper. It's perfectly reasonable to refer to Harvard Medical School in Boston, of course, and I understand the colloquial reference to Boston being everything from southern New Hampshire to northeastern Rhode Island, but I'd like to see an encyclopedia that is both fairly accurate and fairly comprehensive. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

In common usage, "Boston" means "Boston, Cambridge, Brookline". A sizable fraction of Boston residents don't actually know that Brookline isn't a part of Boston city proper, or even where the boundary is. "Greater Boston" tends to refer to the outlying metro area that reaches out to 128.--Louiedog (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As a former resident of both Boston and Cambridge, still living near the Red Line, I totally disagree with what Louiedog writes about "Boston, Cambridge, Brookline". Totally. I don't know anyone who thinks that. People in Boston actually tend to know exactly where they are, down to neighborhood, church parish, or square. I have no idea Louiedog where you got that idea. To the original point, my answer is: Harvard is not a Boston first, it is a Massachusetts first. Sswonk (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I concede that I have a biased sample group. I'm mostly around students, but the distinction between Brookline and Brighton is a fuzzy one.--Louiedog (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That I can believe, I hope we can educate these students. Permanent residents would never confuse Brookline or Cambridge with Boston. Sometimes looking at the street signs, for example these, will show which side of the border you are on: the Boston signs often include the city seal on their left end. Sswonk (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

History merge

I've history merged a revision from Boston/redirects here. There were a couple of software errors probably due to the size of the page's history, so if you notice that I broke something just let me know. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Best City Ever

Amirite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evolutionist6 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)