Talk:Boston

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
There are archives available for this page. Please do not edit the archives - instead, start a new thread.

West End[edit]

Okay, can anyone familiar with Boston tell me what district article covers the West End? The area bounded by the Charles River, I-93/US 1, Cambridge Street, and Market Street? Specifically, which district article should contain TD Garden? LtPowers (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

TD Garden should be contained in North End. sumone10154(talk) 00:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks! Powers (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent Update[edit]

Hey all, just did a big update to the main page. I think the whole section looks quite dated and could really use some cleanup. Let me know what you think, and I'll keep going if you like it. I love making maps and organizing things, but I'm a bit crap at writing, so if anyone can help out that would be amazing! —The preceding comment was added by ButteBag (talkcontribs)

The new map looks great! At first I was concerned that you had changed the district layout (something that usually requires discussion per Wikivoyage:Geographical hierarchy#Districts in cities), but after a bit of review it looks your map just presents what is already in place in the Boston district articles. One minor point - try to avoid first person pronouns like "our sports teams". Aside from that I'd encourage you to continue - good job so far! -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
There appears to be some duplication in the new organization. For example, the regionlist on this article implies that districts like Boston/Back Bay are part of Boston/Downtown, but if that's the case, Boston/Downtown shouldn't have its own article -- it would only serve to duplicate the content in its subsidiary districts. Then there's Boston/Hyde Park, which redirects to Boston/Dorchester, even though they're listed separately in the regionslist. Powers (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, Boston is a tricky one. Thank you for bringing up the Hyde Park page. I was thinking of doing something like the way it is now? IDK, what do you think? ButteBag (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I daresay it's worse now, as the Dorchester page still claims to incorporate Hyde Park. Powers (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, ButteBag. I also want to point out that you are not allowed to copy text from copyrighted websites. I removed the majority of the text you put at Boston/Hyde Park because it was all copyright violations from 3 websites and a book. Texugo (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Boylston Chess Club[edit]

could someone add this iam having a hard time. --Sourn2029 (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Yet another districts discussion[edit]

Boston's districts are a bit confusing, and I know the city fairly well. It looks like it was decided that it couldn't have more than 9 and neighborhoods were mashed together to get the numbers down and a lot of the sub-districts are redirects. I think Boston should be handled like Manhattan or Chicago, where there are way more than 9 districts, but they are organized into larger categories that don't have their own article, like midtown for Manhattan. Another option would be to use San Francisco's model and just list all the districts(in SF's case, 15).

An example of the confusion I'm talking about is Fenway, which has a completely separate article from Boston/South End (which it should), but the main Boston article implies that South End is a subsection of Fenway. These are very different neighborhoods of roughly equal size and this should probably be reflected in the district scheme. Does anyone else have an appetite to help me take this on? I have a good knowledge of the city since I live nearby, but can't claim to be an expert.Godsendlemiwinks (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

There does seam to be a lot of districts, if nothing else a map of the districts for downtown is needed. I have only visited the area once (really liked the city) and find it a little confusing the way the downtown districts are separated and sometimes re-linked back. Would suggest either merging the downtown districts or maybe adding a couple of the more interesting ones to the main Boston list of districts and map.Current set up does not help a visitor who is not familiar with the city.--Traveler100 (talk) 06:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking of combining Bay Village and Chinatown since they're both very small and right next to each other. I think the Financial District article should be merged with Downtown since its the least interesting central neighborhood and most people think of it as "downtown" anyway. I'm not sure what to call the parent category. I've never considered the North End or Beacon Hill to be "downtown" despite their proximity to the city center and it would be odd to have an article called "downtown" in a parent category with the same name. Central Boston maybe?Godsendlemiwinks (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking about this too. I feel like the main Boston article and its subsections could use a little TLC. Here's my shot at it, feel free to edit this until it gets to a point where people are liking it. I can make maps of the top level areas if we're in agreement. Imagine all the top level items being their own color on the map, and second level items would be a hue of that color. Italic items would link into a subsection of the parent article until they have enough meat to stand on their own. (eg.. boston/downtown#bay-village, as opposed to boston/downtown/north-end) Bundling neighborhoods under other neighborhoods feels weird to me, but it's the best I can think of.

With this scheme we have 10 map colors and 14 district pages. I think another page for the freedom trail might be a cool idea? ButteBag (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Downtown
    • Financial District
    • West End
    • Bay Village
    • Beacon Hill
    • North End
    • Chinatown
  • Back Bay
  • Fenway
    • Mission Hill
  • South End
  • Charlestown
  • South Boston
    • Waterfront
    • Harbor Islands
  • East Boston
  • Allston/Brighton
  • Dorchester
    • Roxbury
    • Mattapan
  • Jamaica Plain
    • Hyde Park
    • Roslindale
    • West Roxbury

Update[edit]

The above discussion went dormant, but no one ever expressed any opposition to the above proposal. Recently Boston/Financial District was merged to Boston/Downtown, and several weeks later that change was reverted with the comment "rv redirect unsupported by consensus". I don't know the area well enough to know what makes sense here, but I reverted the revert based on the fact that there were a few people who made a case for merging districts, and no one opposed that proposal. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Without knowing much about the city, I do have to say that the proposal seems to violate policy, in that some of the districts will be only partially subdivided. We generally frown on partial subdivisions at any level of the hierarchy, but especially at the district level (where this two-level structure is already very unusual), it seems like it could be very confusing. Powers (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Cool, thank you for the feedback Powers! Maybe we should do what you say and ignore the whole sub-sub neighborhood aspect. Maybe I should build a map similar to this one? Boston Neighborhoods Everyone argues about what a neighborhood is here, but this image is from the city website, so it would seem to be a good start. I could also tint the bigger sub-neighborhoods the way they do on the Chicago page. We would have to rewrite / split up some of the articles a bit, but as long as there is a clear goal to work towards I think people will pitch in. Does anyone think it would be a big deal if a few sections are almost empty while others have oceans of content? --ButteBag (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that - and especially the almost empty articles - would not be good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, so which of the two ideas is the lesser of two evils then? Thank you for your feedback, but your comment does not offer a solution. If we use the map from the city of Boston linked above we'd:
The three new pages plus the Roxbury and Hyde Park pages will be pretty empty at first.
The new combined "Central" or "Downtown" page would have a lot of content. Maybe we could move all the Freedom Trail content to it's own district? That breaks the rules a bit, but would be quite helpful from a visitor's point of view.
In general I like this direction, it feels a lot more cohesive than what we have currently. The uneven amounts of content would be the biggest drawback at first, but with a clear plan I think people will start adding things if they feel like there is a place for them to go.
--ButteBag (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I like Boston but don't know the city well enough to have an opinion on what the best way is to district it for the purposes of Wikivoyage readers/travelers, so I can only caution you that having nearly empty articles about a district of a city is bad. What two "evils" are you alluding to? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, thank you! I need a lot of advice! Empty articles is one "evil", and the other is what Powers was mentioning; having a confusing hierarchy of district articles. --ButteBag (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
If I may, Ikan, it's bound to happen that a new district article is going to be empty at first. Why is that a problem? Powers (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I take your point. It's not a problem if there is enough potential content for the new district article. It is a problem if it remains empty for an extended period (e.g., years). Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
We could make a district called "Periphery" or "Outlying Districts" or something to that effect. It could contain Roslindale, Mattapan, Hyde Park, and West Roxbury? It would work on the map, and very few people visit these areas of Boston. Once there is enough content they could break out into their own district page? Ultimately, Powers' idea is the clearest. I think some sections will have more content and some will have less. --ButteBag (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello! I gave it a shot. Here is what it would look like with the four low content districts merged as one. I really can't decide to go with this or have four empty-ish district pages. These neighborhoods aren't super related for people who live here. But for visitors they are all far from the center and don't have the best transit connections as some of the other neighborhoods.
Boston neighborhoods
That seems very reasonable. Powers (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I added the Outer Neighborhoods section, and updated the map on the main page. I think we need to merge a few articles and of course add a bunch more content!

--ButteBag (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for starting this and then going awol. This is much more useful than the previous iteration. Thanks to all that contributed.Godsendlemiwinks (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Yeah it feels like this version of the map is the most successful by far. Thanks again! --ButteBag (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Rideshare section heading[edit]

https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Boston&oldid=prev&diff=3035293

I think the section heading should be generic; we don't know what other ridesharing options might develop in the future, and specifying Uber and Lyft in the heading could be seen as promotional. We don't do this for any other section in "Get Around". We don't say "By MBTA"; we say "By public transit". Powers (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree! --ButteBag (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Housekeeping, Odd Questions[edit]

  1. Hello! Is it possible to archive any of this page? Like anything before the "Pronunciation of Faneuil" post for example is pretty old.
  2. Does anyone have time to critique the updates I've been making to the Boston/Dorchester page? Writing is not my strong suit, ha. Any things I am doing good or bad would be great to hear. I'm trying to get some better photos right now. Is it better or worse than some of the other district pages?
  3. I'm thinking about making some updates to the main Boston page and the other districts. Looks like some museum content is duplicated on the district pages, and that big list of colleges should probably go. I was thinking of making a Freedom Trail itinerary page, but that could create more duplication! For example, where should the "Old North Church" go? Main page? North End page? The new itinerary page? All three? My idea was to have the bulk of the info (phone number, hours, etc) on the itinerary page, and have a linked "freedom trail" paragraph on district pages to briefly describe the parts of the trail in that district. Or maybe an itinerary is not needed at all if the information is better organized? Just kind of rambling here, but if there are any resources you could point me to, on tips to avoid duplication in large city articles that would be very appreciated. Thank you! --ButteBag (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Also: If I were to merge the Back Bay and Beacon Hill articles... should I copy content from one into the other? Or create a new Back Bay/Beacon Hill page? The latter makes more sense to me, because it would tie in with the district map better. But I am not sure what the protocol is in this situation.

I'll handle the Freedom Trail question: I don't think it's a problem to duplicate information between a Freedom Trail article and district articles, and I think a Freedom Trail itinerary article is a great idea! Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Yeah, the city reps the freedom trail pretty hard to visitors, so having something here to reflect that is a good idea.

To-Do's[edit]

Hello! I've been adding maps and boundaries to the district sections of Boston. Hopefully this will start to clarify what goes where, and help to reduce duplicate content in some areas. I'm sure there will be some disagreement about where the lines are, but you have to draw them somewhere dude. Anyway here is a list of what I think needs doing. Maybe we can keep updating this list as people make changes? If only in spirit, lol. Generally, a lot of listings are missing hours, phone numbers, lat/long, etc. And some listings should move from one district to another, as the dividing lines have become less fuzzy. --ButteBag (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Updating list. In general these articles really need help with blurb listings. Especially in the Eat, Drink, and Sleep sections. Everything also needs major copy editing. Most sections need better pictures and banners, I'm hoping to add them when the weather improves. I'd also like to add a few infoboxes with local lore here and there. --ButteBag (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Lede[edit]

Per policy, the lede needs to place the destination in geographical context. In practice, that means we need to link at least Massachusetts and possibly Greater Boston as well. Powers (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Massachusetts certainly, but reminding users that Boston is part of Greater Boston strikes me as Captain Obvious. For those who feel the pressing need to know what's above Boston in the regions hierarchy, the breadcrumb trail is spelled out at the top of every page. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree, saying that X is part of greater X is beyond obvious. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree, too. "New York City is part of the New York City Metropolitan Area". Duh. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Yarg, policy strikes again. I was assuming the breadcrumb links not 80 pixels away would be enough. Fair enough tho, I see the point. I like a lot of the edits made to the lede so far thank you! I will probably tweak it just a bit further. I noticed one factual inaccuracy and maybe a clunky spot or two. Do you mind if I have a go @andre? Thanks all! --ButteBag (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Breadcrumbs are helpful, but we can't count on them following our text wherever it might be re-used. The text needs to be complete by itself and not rely on any specific site's navigation mechanisms. Powers (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, just for giggles, is there a link to where the policy states: the lede needs to place the destination in geographical context? Not that I'm arguing. --ButteBag (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok, done. AndreCarrotflower I hope I didn't step on your toes too much, most of my edits turned out to be pretty pedantic. I took your point about how people probably won't know about the Tea Party, and I loved "shipload"! Powers, is it cool that Massachusetts is linked in the 3rd paragraph now and not the first? Seems to flow better this way. (To me). Thank you! --ButteBag (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Your edits look great to me. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

w:Banned in Boston[edit]

I'm wondering if this is a better phenomenon to name-drop in the lede to reference the "distinct mix of puritanical ideals", rather than public schools. My first inclination was to add it in, but I think it would be better to defer to ButteBag's expertise on the matter. What say you? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I've never really heard of this actually, cool! I'm just one voice, but I would guess more people have heard of Puritans then the "Banned in Boston" movement. The weird Catholic stuff is why I put the word parochial in there if that helps at all. --ButteBag (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

To Guide status and DotM[edit]

First off, I want to once again call out ButteBag's superlative work on the Boston district articles. ButteBag, under your stewardship Boston is rapidly moving to take its place next to Chicago, Washington DC, and San Francisco on the list of Wikivoyage's best-covered cities (I'll leave Buffalo for someone else to judge).

One of the reasons I've had my eye on the development of the Boston articles is that I think it would make a fantastic Destination of the Month. Of course, for a place to be eligible to be featured as DotM it has to have attained Guide status or better - and, in turn, for a districtified city like Boston to attain Guide status, all the district articles must be at least at Usable status (among other requirements, all of which the article currently fulfills).

I've just finished surveying the district articles again, and it appears that there is actually very little work necessary to bring the last two Outline-level Boston districts - Boston/Outer Neighborhoods and Boston/East Boston - up to Usable status. All that's required is to find a hotel to put into Boston/Outer Neighborhoods#Sleep and to listingify the prose descriptions of attractions in Boston/East Boston#See. I imagine this is something that could be done in the space of an hour or less.

Again, ButteBag: keep up the good work on all the district articles, but if you could make some time to attend to those two tasks in particular, we could then elevate Boston to Guide status and officially nominate it for DotM. Please note that Boston's DotM stint will likely have to wait until 2018, so don't worry if you'd prefer to have the district articles in better shape before it goes live on the Main Page: you'll have ample time for further improvements between now and then.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback and warm words Andre, that is very kind of you! To be honest with you, I still don't truly understand how articles are given a certain designation. It looks like the Allston article is a guide now, but in my mind it is missing something like 50-70% of the content. The main Back Bay/Beacon Hill and Downtown articles are disasters. Charlestown is also quite poor. The North End is unresolved and the Freedom Trail itinerary still needs lots of work. I wouldn't want to put something in front of someone, when it is so clearly (to me) unfinished. I have also been shocked at the lack of images for the main tourist sites here! I'd love to take some snaps once the weather improves. ALSO Cambridge/Somerville need to be improved as they are basically districts of Boston to travellers. Thank you again for your kind words! --ButteBag (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Logan Airport[edit]

While I'm thinking of it, does Logan Airport meet the requirements for having it's own "Big Airport" page? I think there are one or two hotels on the premises, and of course a bunch of food options throughout the various terminals. I don't have time to put it together now, but just wondering for the future. I'm sure there are many New England towns that use Logan as the "by air" portion of "get in". Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

According to Wikivoyage:Airport Expedition, you've already answered one of the two questions that go to determining whether an airport should get its own article (whether there are enough "Buy", "Eat", and "Drink" listings to fill out their respective sections). The other question is whether the airport handles connecting flights. I've had connections at Logan myself from time to time, so clearly yes, Logan is a valid candidate for its own article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

A (very) minor redistricting[edit]

Hello! This maybe doesn't even count as a redistricting, but wanted to get a consensus to be sure. I thought of a few minor points I think could help.

  • #1: I think the 15 or so listings in the Downtown article that are in the West End should move into the North End article. It makes sense from a geographic point of view, and will provide a better balance of content between the two articles. I guess we'd also rename it to Boston/North_End-West_End.
  • #2: I'd also like to update the map at Boston#Districts. I'd create a new region, "Inner Neighborhoods". Then for the region items, add back the links for Jamaica Plain, Mission Hill, Dorchester, and Roxbury. No articles would be created or merged. It would be almost identical to how the "Central" region is working now. This makes sense from the travelers point of view, as these are mostly residential neighborhoods, and (I'm guessing) less important for many visitors. It would also reduce the region count by two, which would be nice.
  • #3: On the fence about this one, but we could also add a "Not Boston" region to Boston#Districts? Another unlinked one with Cambridge, Somerville, and Brookline as region items? It's irritating, because these are not part of Boston, but from a travelers point of view they are. Cambridge in particular is well connected and often touristed. If not we can leave as is.

Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Gut feeling: Cities like Cambridge and Somerville have their own identity and are part of Greater Boston, but not Boston. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, it could go either way for me. Cambridge feels "more Boston" to me than Hyde Park, but I'm sure that statement is inflammatory to someone else. What do you think about the way the district section is now? --ButteBag (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I doubt that I should express an opinion about that, as I'm only an occasional visitor to Boston and don't know the entire city, only the parts I've visited. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Ha, well at least someone is looking at how Boston is districted! Anyway, I'll probably do #1 since it doesn't seem that controversial. I'll maybe do #2 later if more opinions are expressed. And I guess #3 will keep working the way it is now. Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Star nomination[edit]

OK, let 'er rip! I think I've basically covered everything I can think of. Got a WV styled static map in the commons as an SVG. Following the manual of style to the best of my ability. (Although I'm sure a typo or two has snuck in.) All boring lists have been prose-ified, with judicious use of bolding for the more important bits around town. I would like to add a few more pictures as the summer goes on, but I think the article is pretty pretty pretty good as it stands. What does everyone think? Anything I can improve? Thank you for your feedback! --ButteBag (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Haven't given the article a thorough read yet, but something that immediately jumps out at me is that some of the district articles are still at usable status. The requirements for a major city star article is that all districts be at least guide status, so those are going to have to be improved first. PerryPlanet (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, shoot! I knew there must be something missing. Please let me know if there are any other issues with the article itself, I can fix them while I'm improving the districts. Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, I've got them up to guide status now. Please let me know if I've upgraded any in error, or if you notice any other issues with the Boston article. Thank you! --ButteBag (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Very solid stuff. I remember being underwhelmed by the Boston guide the last time I gave it a good look (I think this was about a couple of years ago), so it's pleasantly surprising to see it in such great shape now. I'll try to give it a very thorough read when I get the chance, but there were a couple of things I noticed off-the-bat: 1) some of the listings in Downtown and Charlestown lack coordinates, and 2) although they're not technically district articles, the adjacent cities listed in the districts section (Cambridge, Somerville, and Brookline) should also be tidied up (I notice a lot of dead links in Cambridge, in particular) and upgraded to guide status, since (as the Boston page points out) casual visitors think of those places as part of Boston too, and every great Boston guide must have great coverage of those cities too. On a similar note, the Freedom Trail itinerary should also be spruced up and upgraded.
On a more general note, I would recommend digging through some of our other major city Star articles (e.g. Chicago and San Francisco) to get a sense of what we expect from a city guide of Star caliber. We hold these up to very high standards, and doubly so when it comes to a major destination like this, so don't be surprised if the feedback you get on this gets extremely particular. I'll also add that I've never been to Boston, so we should definitely get a second (and third and fourth and fifth) opinion from someone who has. PerryPlanet (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
On an extra note, did you remember to post a note in the traveler's pub to draw attention to this discussion? PerryPlanet (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Yes, before I started, the Boston article felt so out of date as to be considered misinformation! I have been constantly referencing the ORD, SFO & DCA star articles as I went, I often find examples more enlightening than documentation. It's very tricky to balance the facts a traveller needs to know without going overboard on details, while adding the complexity of phrasing it so that someone might actually want to read it.
I don't mind getting into the weeds either, as long as we don't lose the forest for the trees. I had noticed the Chicago districts are stars themselves without having lat/long for every POI. Maybe that was then, and this is now; so if that is the only criticism of Boston, I would happily take it! (Also: to be clear none of the Boston district articles should be considered stars, they don't have hand drawn maps and are not qualified.) --ButteBag (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I only bring up the coordinates because the lack of hand-drawn maps in the district pages makes mapping them in the dynamic maps even more important. PerryPlanet (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I'm wondering if there are any comments on the Boston article itself? I'm in the process of updating the Cambridge/Somerville/Brookline articles now. That was the only feedback so far about next steps to take for granting star status. Does that sound right? Thanks for your input! --ButteBag (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Wondering if anyone has had time to review Boston yet? The summer is well underway, and I'm getting pulled onto other tasks, but I've been cleaning up the Cambridge / Somerville / Brookline articles so Boston can be eligible for a star. Just wondering if there were any comments or feedback on the main article?
It also looks like someone corrected some of my typos and misspellings, yay! They also removed (in my opinion) some "lively prose", boo! Not sure what the actual "prose" criteria is, or how/if to rectify the edits. Thanks for your help! --ButteBag (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to revert or revise any prose changes that you feel damage the tone. Powers (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @ButteBag: I think the article looks great! A few suggestions:
    1. I find the links for the "Central" district confusing. (This might be true of other star articles too...I find Chicago's district links similarly confusing.) There are five links, with little indication of how the reader should choose which one to click on, but once you do click on them you realize that they only go to two articles. Instead of having a one-liner description for "Central", I would suggest splitting it up into a one-liner description for "Downtown" and another one for "North End"—then there could just be two links, and the reader would have a way to decide which one to click on.
    2. It might be nice to have an indication of the locations of North Station and South Station (maybe addresses or cross streets?)
    3. The article says "It takes about 15-30 stressful minutes to transfer between the two stations." Could that sentence be adjusted to say how travellers should transfer between the stations (subway? bus?)?
I've never been to Boston, but these are the thoughts that occurred to me when I looked through the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm assuming you mean the descriptions of each "Go next" destination should be shortened per 1-liner listings, and I would agree with that, but only slightly, as in skipping through the section, I think most of the descriptions are quite good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and also the way the sections are divided. And also the number of destinations listed. I know Boston's a big place, but perhaps it should be slimmed down to just the most popular destinations in the area. Otherwise, a pretty good article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@SelfieCity: - you've got to keep in mind that just because most Wikivoyage articles are a certain way, that doesn't mean there's a policy that says they have to be. For instance, I don't know where this idea came from that says descriptions of cities listed in "Go next" sections can be no longer than one line. There's nothing about that in the manual of style. All the mos says is "provide a brief description", without defining what "brief" means. Similarly, the mos also does not say anything about whether "Go next" sections should be divided into subsections. In cases where the mos is silent, such as how to structure the "Go next" section, we should assume it's up to the author's discretion and judge based on what works best for the individual destination, which in Boston's case seems to point to the section being longer and more detailed than usual. And where the terms used in the mos are ambiguous, such as "brief", we should assume that a certain degree of leeway exists. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that listings should be only one line in length. Contributors should be free to add some more if they like, but I think the number of destinations listed there shouldn't be too long. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
The question we're trying to answer is whether Boston#Go next runs afoul of mos, and it doesn't look to me like it does. If you personally think that "Go next" sections should be limited to a certain length, then let's first talk about gathering consensus to amend mos, rather than attempting to enforce a policy that doesn't exist yet. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
My criticisms of the article are not really about mos. I simply think that an article with so many destinations in that section should not become a star article until some are removed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't agree with you. Large cities like Boston are excellent bases for further exploration. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I guess. But couldn't some things be merged into one listing, or whatever? I might give it a try. Don't worry, I wouldn't remove anything important or relevant. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Do whatever you want, but in the case of Boston, you might ask User:ButteBag if you're about to do anything major. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
No, nothing major. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I've made the "New England" section of "Go next" more compact. It's better, but could perhaps be even better. I think, though, I'll switch to weak support because the content of the Go next section seems worth reading. All of that section seems useful to the traveler. Definitely a couple very interesting infoboxes as well — like the theft and the molasses flood. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
To the degree that policy makes it possible to do so, we should avoid thinking in terms of one-size-fits-all standards that we apply to all articles across the board, and instead think in terms of what works best for each specific article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey SelfieCity, I guess I don't follow. Looks like in Go Next, the New England sub-section has 4 long bullet points with multiple "things" compressed into each. Seems harder to parse, and inconsistent with the other bulleted points. I'd rather they were all redone in the same style or were left the way they were. What do you think? --ButteBag (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Hmmmm, yeah I also had them organized closest -> furthest from Boston by time (not distance). So we lost that. Plus now the states are emphasized (more likely to have heard of), and not the destinations (less likely to have heard of). Yeah, I'm not wild about these edits, sorry to say... --ButteBag (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, frankly, I'm still not wild about the length of the section. I think it ought to be shortened some more, if possible, not to fit a particular standard but to make the section a reasonable length. This is why I made these edits. Feel free to adjust as you see fit, but articles shouldn't be dominated by a list of other places to go, but instead they should be about the specific place (in this case, the city of Boston) with a short section at the end for other cities. I don't see why we need to have listings for places as far away as Canada, for example.
Basically, I don't see why we need a whole essay about other places to go. I understand there's a lot of possibilities, but I think it's best not to overwhelm the traveler with loads of places where you can "go next". I think 10 possible destinations should be the maximum for a city of this size. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
City its size? It's the largest city in New England. I again disagree with you. The length of the section is IMO totally fine. And to me, the whole point of a "Go next" section is to give readers choices. The more choices, within reason, IMO, the better. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree a lot of choices in "Go next" is good, as long as they're divided into subsections in a sensible way, which these seem to be. I've often wished that an article had a longer "Go next" section, but rarely felt like there were too many choices.
The three suggestions I mentioned above still stand, but otherwise I think this looks like an excellent article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Oh, I still think it's a good article. Just potential improvements. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 05:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Of course, User:ButteBag if you really want to revert the edits, go ahead. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • My apologies for side-tracking this discussion with a relatively unimportant issue, but again here (unfortunately) I do not see consensus. Therefore this ought to be slushed; however, feel free to renominate this article. Result: lack of consensus, so it remains at its current status. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Your copyright is being infringed[edit]

Please see Wikivoyage_talk:Non-compliant_redistribution#Tourist_Inspiration for details, but in short there is content on Boston/Downtown, and most likely the city's other district articles, that has been republished elsewhere without observing the terms of our CC Licence. Your input on what we should do next is requested on the talk page of Wikivoyage:Non-compliant redistribution. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Reported Resolved as of 16 December 2017ASiplas (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Non-uniformly-hyperlinked phone numbers[edit]

Just browsed in nice work! I added listing to MBTA under Tourist resources using the {{Listing}} template and was going to use it to fix a few inline numbers which weren't hyperlinked and others that were using a manually entered "☎" and others simply using [[tel:…]] syntax. It seems valuable to utilize the same format from both a UX perspective with the little black phone icon and also perhaps to use hcard format that the template outputs for bots. Using {{Listing}} almost works but it adds a trailing period so can't be used to replace mid-sentence unlinked phone numbers. Going to implement {{Tel}} using same backend module as the current listing templates. Anyone else see this as good idea? –ASiplas (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Just look for another way of formatting the text, no need to create a template for one line of one article. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Ok cool. I find no guidance on this at wv:Wiki markup#Making links or wv:Phone numbers—what is wanted syntax here? Something like [tel:+16172223200 +1 617 222-3200]+1 617 222-3200 seems reasonable and minimal code given wv:Avoid HTML. –ASiplas (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Nevermind saw your edit it all makes sense now. –ASiplas (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Looks great, TY for the edits! I guess I'm coming out of hibernation for a minute to add some polish before the spotlight. Thanks again! --ButteBag (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Historical accuracy?[edit]

Casually reading the history section, I noticed a few questionable items.

  • "Resistance came to a boiling point on March 5, 1770, when Redcoats out on patrol shot Crispus Attucks dead on the steps of the Old State House." Compare this to the following passage from Wikipedia: "White, who had taken up a somewhat safer position on the steps of the Custom House, sought assistance. Runners alerted the nearby barracks and Captain Thomas Preston, the officer of the watch.[21][22] According to his report, Preston dispatched a non-commissioned officer and six privates of the 29th Regiment of Foot, with fixed bayonets, to relieve White." It may seem like a small detail, but there's a difference between soldiers roaming around and finding trouble, and soldiers getting in trouble while stuck at a post.
  • "On the night of April 18, 1775, Revere rode out of Boston famously yelling: 'The British are coming, the British are coming!'" Again, compare this to the following passage from Wikipedia: "Revere did not shout the phrase later attributed to him ('The British are coming!'): his mission depended on secrecy, the countryside was filled with British army patrols, and most of the Massachusetts colonists (who were predominantly English in ethnic origin)[44] still considered themselves British.[45][46] Revere's warning, according to eyewitness accounts of the ride and Revere's own descriptions, was 'The Regulars are coming out.'[47]" Again, it's a detail, but there is a difference.

Those just happened to be two things that I knew about. It made me wonder about the rest of the history section that I knew less about. For instance, I know that many Puritans didn't like Christmas, but did they actually think it was "satanical"? Did Oliver Wendell Holmes really call Boston "the hub of the universe"? It it really true that "no large buildings were under construction" at the end of World War 2? Have racial tensions really "eased dramatically"?

I think that somebody should take a careful look at this section, especially if there are thoughts of making it a featured/star article.

I've noticed that many history sections on this wiki appear to be completely unsourced. I did see the notice on "Welcome, Wikipedians" that Wikivoyage articles use no references, but . . . maybe this would be a good time to change that practice, or to make an exception for history sections? Surely we want factual accuracy, and I personally find it very difficult to write accurately about history in any amount of detail without consulting sources frequently as I write. 69.174.155.242 20:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you've taken a careful look. Plunge forward and change anything you know to be inaccurate or that you think is likely to be inaccurate and doesn't need to be addressed in a travel article. If you think your edits are likely to be controversial, propose specific edits here and see what response you get to your proposed wording. As for the proposal of putting citations into Wikivoyage articles, you'd have to make that at Wikivoyage talk: External links, as an individual destination article can't be an exception to policy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I've taken a careful look at those two particular facts, not the whole section. It would probably take me several days of labor to pore through the whole history section to fact check it. I'm more concerned with the unreliability of the whole section than those two particular facts. Probably the most labor effective way to fix this would be take the history section from Wikipedia's Boston area and delete it down to a manageable length for this. I don't have to make a proposal in a particular place for people to see it and become convinced that it could be a good idea. I don't have a lot of time to contribute to this, honestly, but I saw a problem and thought maybe people would want to know about it, particularly people deciding if this should be a featured article, and casual readers looking to assess the article's credibility. 69.174.155.242 20:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Besides us here at Wikivoyage using a different WV:Tone and not using references, there would also be the issue of length. I have however in the past found myself arguing with some who wanted to introduce "shorter" wordings which lack subtle nuance or other things and end up being wrong so I see the issue. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Updated the language to better match the first point. For the second, everyone thinks that's what Revere yelled, even if it isn't true. The real story is an interesting and little known fact and perspective. It would make a great infobox I think, maybe on the Boston/North End page? I don't 100% remember, but I think I was looking at the WP version and trying to add more of a narrative thread when I was putting the history section together. I think people reading a travel guide are looking for something with more of a POV than WP can provide, but to take your main point, yes why not make the story as accurate as possible? Thanks for your reading and insights! --ButteBag (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Boston travel guide in Wikibooks[edit]

Swept in from the pub

On Wikibooks there's a request for deletion about a Boston travel guide and they have considered moving the content to Wikivoyage Boston article. Probably, since our Boston article is well developed, there is little need for a transwiki, but just wanted to let other Wikivoyagers know so they can take part in that discussion. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The nomination is now closed and that page has been deleted. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I had a look at the page before it was deleted and it didn't seem like there was much, if anything, worth merging that wasn't already covered in our article here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's the same view that I took and ButteBag took as well. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)