Talk:Boston/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

Redirect discussion

Why doesn't this page redirect to Boston (disambiguation)? 216.234.130.130 19:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC) Agreed - it should link to the disambiguation.

Because Boston, Mass. is many times huger than any other Boston. Most people looking for Boston on Wikipedia want the one in Massachusetts. --Nelson Ricardo 23:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
It was agreed some time ago by a vote at the village pump that this should redirect to Boston, Massachusetts. Unfortunately I cant find a link to the said page. G-Man 23:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Boston, Massachusetts may be the largest town of that name, but it is named after the town in Lincolnshire. I think that not redirecting to the disambiguation page is POV. Dancarney 13:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Then explain how Worcester, Portsmouth and Truro all direct to the places in the UK, even though all have namesakes in North America that are just as (and in Worcester's case, arguably more) important. Likewise, similar situations where NA cities are definitely more important than UK ones (Halifax, Sudbury, Hartford) are dab pages, while Cleveland had to be put up to a vote. This is not uk.wikipedia.org. Kirjtc2 00:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Neither is it usa.wikipedia.org.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Reprise on redirection here

I'm afraid I think the above editors are missing the point here. The discussion isn't whether the article on the Boston in Massechusetts should be called Boston or Boston, Massachusetts. It is on whether, given that the article is called Boston, Massachusetts, should Boston be a redirect page or a disambiguation page. So cases like Worcester, Portsmouth and Truro are irrelevant, as they are not redirect pages.

As far as I'm concerned, the size or history of a place has no bearing on this argument. Redirecting Boston to Boston, Massachusetts requires a dab header for Boston (disambiguation) to placed on Boston, Massachusetts, which is just plain wrong. By the time you have reached Boston, Massachusetts (by any route other than this rogue redir) then there is no ambiguity, and the dab header should not be necessary.

I think there are two valid things that can be done, but at the moment we are doing something in the middle which is actually completely invalid:

  1. If we think that Boston, MA is so obviously the target of most queries on Boston, then we should rename Boston, Massachusetts to Boston, and keep the dab header on that article.
  2. If we don't think that, then we should rename Boston (disambiguation) to Boston, and drop the dab header on the Boston, Massachusetts article.

-- Chris j wood 20:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You're opening up a whole different argument here. Naming conventions for U.S. cities ("city, state" or just "city") have been debated for years on Wikipedia. The consensus seems to be that Boston should not be anything but an article about Boston, Massachusetts, but what really is at the top of the page is another argument that is irrelevant to this discussion. Kirjtc2 21:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the U.S. city naming rules 'oddity', and although I've never quite understood why there is this special rule which seems to fly in the face of WP standard naming rules, I've been assured that this is because the 'city, state' formula is normal usage in the US. To then say that Boston should point to Boston, Massachusetts is to say:
  • The large majority of potential WP users refer to this place as 'Boston, Massachussets'
  • The minority of potential users who refer to this place as 'Boston' still far outnumber the number of people who refer to other places as 'Boston'.
which seems to me to be most unlikely. -- Chris j wood 13:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Why move this instead of keeping it as a disambiguation page? Boston means many things to many people and most encyclopedias have multiple explainations for the term Boston (numerous towns, a Band...) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bunty234 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
sorry--forgot signature--Bunty234 21:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested Move

FYI... There is a request to move Boston, Massachusetts to Boston; see Talk:Boston, Massachusetts. --Serge 22:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey on proposal to make U.S. city naming guidelines consistent with others countries

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 05:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

The only way to keep this debate fair is to have Boston redirect to the disambig page Lenzar 00:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Direct to Boston, MA

A quick google search reveals the vast majority of people looking for Boston were looking for Boston, Massachusetts; therefore this should direct there with a note at the top to disambig.--Loodog 13:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Google is not Wikipedia. And the world is not the US. I disagree. Lenzar 20:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lenzar.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect FYI

I've gone ahead and created an RFD to discuss where this redirect should point. Enjoy. --Bobblehead 18:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)