Talk:Boston (disambiguation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Most Commonly

I find it vaguely offensive that this article states: "Boston most commonly refers to the following city: * Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.". In an American context this may be true, but historically, Boston, Lincolnshire is at least as important as its younger namesake. If I knew how it should be expressed I would give these two towns equal billing on the disambiguation page.

It also puzzles me that "North Boston" and "South Boston" are listed on this page, but that "New Boston" is linked to a separate page. I believe the term "North Boston" also has a specific meaning in Massachusetts, so surely they have similar status. I don't know whether that is an argument for listing the "New Boston" examples here or creating a new page for "North Boston". Maybe it is neither, but it deerves remark. SMeeds 18:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree Boston should point to this disambiguation page, and Boston, Lincolnshire should be the first entry. See Newark, which is structured in this way. How many people does it take to reach a concensus on this? TiffaF 07:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been around on Wikipedia for a while, but I'm no expert, so I'll put out a question on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) SMeeds 09:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"At least as important?" No, it's not. You have no basis for such a statement, that a town with 35,000 people that most Americans have never heard of is "at least as important" as a city of over half a million that most Britons HAVE heard of. --Golbez 10:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Golbez, and I'm saying that as someone for whom the word "Boston" immediately brings to mind the place in Lincolnshire. I will slightly rearrange the disambiguation page, but there's no doubt in my mind that Boston needs to point to the US city. --ajn (talk) 10:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, as well. I did a Google search and only found 183 thousand hits for "Boston, Lincolnshire" vs. over 47 million hits for "Boston, Massachusetts". That's 257 times as many hits. Not even close. The only people for which the two cities will have equal significance are those living in the vicinity of Lincolnshire. StuRat 11:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

...or Massachusetts. Thank you ajn, I think that is a good solution (at least to start with). My suggestion was that Boston, Lincolnshire was historically at least as important as Boston, Massachusetts, nothing more (however people may have misread it), a statement which I suspect is difficult to either prove or disprove - the size of the town has little to do with it. Maybe I (we) should settle for the changes now made to the disambiguoation page, though TiffaF's suggestion seemed particularly even-handed - this is meant to be an international resource. SMeeds 14:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Boston, Lincolnshire, but the article doesn't suggest any historical importance at all. Most significant thing the town is known for, probably is that it gave its name to Boston. -- Eugène van der Pijll 15:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It was one of England's busiest ports 7-800 years ago, and has been moderately important since. I love the place, but you're basically right - it's only known outside England because of the Pilgrim Fathers (who sailed from Boston to the Netherlands and from there to America several years later) and Boston, Mass. being named after it. It's a backwater now, but I think its priority and the history are significant enough for it to be given second billing on the disambiguation page. --ajn (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree it should get second billing - but Boston should redir to the Mass city. --Golbez 17:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That's all I was ever looking for. I'm ducking out now. Thanks for your help.

Incidentally, the Pilgrim Fathers, despite the memorial near Boston, didn't leave Boston for the Netherlands. They were imprisoned there, but their next attempt was from somewhere around Kingston upon Hull. However, more significantly, the followers of John Cotton left Boston and founded Boston, Massachusetts - many people from the older town becoming important citizens, including starting the school that became Harvard. SMeeds 08:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I just Googled "Boston," on google.ca, and the first reference to Boston, England, didn't come up until the 256th result. Even on google.co.uk, only one of the first 50 results refer to the English city. The Boston, Mass., area has 6.1 million people; the Boston, England, area has less than 60,000. The Boston, Mass., area is home to Harvard and MIT; one of the world's largest concentrations of biotech companies; many important historical sites; the Massachusetts state government; and the Red Sox, Celtics, Bruins and Patriots (sort of). I'm sure Boston, England, is a wonderful place, but I can't imagine that anyone outside of the immediate vicinity is thinking of it when they say "Boston." No one complains that London directs to the city in England, even though London, Ontario, is a lot bigger than Boston, England. -- Mwalcoff 23:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it rude that when I type Boston I didn't get either the general search or Boston Massachussetts. I had to go to Massachussetts and click on Boston there. I was redirected to some small town in europe in linconshire. That's not right! There are other Bostons out there. I never heard of the other boston was deeply offended it didn't direct to Boston in the USA. If there are other bostons then it should go to a disambiguation page! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.126.85.55 (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2006

Actually 64.126.85.55, Boston redirects to Boston, Massachusetts, which I personally find to be a problem, though I understand there has been previous discussion on the matter and it was presumably decided by some Ameri-centric group that this is the way it should be; why anything with a disambig can't point to the disambig I don't understand. Mwalcoff, when I typed "boston" into Google it came up with Boston Borough Council - Home at 11th position - hardly 256th, and not bad at all considering the huge number of multi-nationals based in its daughter city. SMeeds 12:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but the city Boston, Massachusetts is far more well known and holds a deeper historical context. It is well known, it is not favoritism towards Americans, it is doing what is proper. Last time I checked, he didn't do this London. The English need to relax and realize that this page should lead to the American city since it is far more well known. Willie Stark 20:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Willie Stark, this is a dead topic. Boston currently, and correctly in my view, goes to Boston (disambiguation). That surely can't offend or upset anyone. I didn't even make the change. SMeeds 01:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • The people whom are most disturbed/annoyed are the readers, whom seem to have not been acounted for. Willie Stark 01:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Size or (relative) importance should not dictate where the redirect goes. In my opinion there is enough debate to justify pointing Boston to this disambiguation page, instead of to the supposed most important place with that name. Lenzar 12:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

WP policy is pretty clear. The criterion is not size or importance or age, but what the "well known primary meaning" is, "much more used than any other". I think it's pretty clear that in North America, the primary meaning is Boston, Massachusetts, so I checked some non-US sources. On the BBC site, of the first 10 search results for "Boston", 5 were for Mass., 2 were Boston Castle (in Yorks, not Lincs), and 2 were for Lincs. On The Times' site, 6 were for Mass., 2 were for companies (Boston Beer and Credit Suisse First Boston -- both related to Mass.), and 3 were for Lincs. On [site:au Boston] (.au Australian Web sites), 5 were for Mass., and 5 were for names of entities (Boston Marriage, Boston Globe, Boston Marks Group Ltd., Boston Legal -- three related to Mass.); none had anything to do with Lincs. So I think the evidence is quite clear that *even in the UK* (outside Lincs, presumably), Boston's "primary meaning" is Boston, Massachusetts. I haven't checked other non-UK, non-Commonwealth sources, but I'm quite sure that "Boston" in Moscow or Rio de Janeiro or Tokyo or Cairo also refers to Boston, Mass. --Macrakis 16:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Since I started this discussion all that time ago, I feel I ought to come back in and state my view. Since the remarks of Willie Stark above, and the fact that someone changed the Boston redrect from Boston (disambiguation) to Boston, Massachusetts, I have placed a signpost to this disambiguation page on Boston, Massachusetts. I am now perfectly happy wherever the Boston redirect points (within reason). While looking at the Talk:Boston, Massachusetts page, I was a little concerned that a discussion had been going on there about renaming the Boston, Massachusetts as "Boston" - concerned because it had not been mentioned here (where there would no doubt be many interested parties). I am pleased nevertheless that the discussion has obviously concluded without concensus. The only matter that remains is that the Boston redirect is probably going to continue swinging from Boston (disambiguation) to Boston, Massachusetts and back again (not that I will do it), but I believe the signpost is appropriate immunisation for me from caring. Although there is obviously some degree of pride involved here, my main motivation is that people are not led to believe that there is only one historically significant place in the world called Boston. SMeeds 18:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect FYI

Just a note, I've created an RFD to discuss where Boston should point. No sense in just discussing this on the disambiguation page. --Bobblehead 18:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)