Talk:Boston

FAR

The layout of this article is awful. The lead is too long, this has a citation needed tag, and it possesses way too many single/two-sentence paragraphs. This article could also use a thorough copyedit; this would be an FAC quickfail with today's standards. Unless someone is committed to fixing this, I am going to have to submit this to WP:FAR.  750h+ | Talk  16:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

At least this article (seemingly) doesn't suffer from ownership issues like New York City did prior to several editors' interventions, so there won't be any resistance to the plan to make it a lot less crappy to read. You have my support for a FAR. Seasider53 (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@750h+ and Seasider53: I see that the problems outlined in this notice are still present in the article. Are either of you interested in fixing up the article, or would you like to nominate this to WP:FAR? Z1720 (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I have started looking into issues with the article (including shortening the lead and addressing single-sentence paragraphs). I am contacting WikiProjects Boston and WikiProjects Massachusetts to see if anyone else will help out, so I would hold off on any FAR nomination for now. Pentawing^Talk 05:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

So far, I have already taken care of the lead, citations, and many single sentence paragraphs. A major amount of copyediting has been done. If there are still problems can you specify where they are? Pentawing^Talk 07:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

great work. but i have added 17 cn tags, can those be addressed? 750h+ 09:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. Pentawing^Talk 23:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Change in WP:USCITIES

I used your article as a model for Minneapolis, but received numerous objections to the use of an "official name". Please make your comments at the WikiProject before this change becomes part of the guidelines. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

"List of sister cities of Boston" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect List of sister cities of Boston has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 2 § List of sister cities of Boston until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

"Boston's" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Boston's has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 3 § Boston's until a consensus is reached. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Kennedy, Sr. quote - Context?

There was a passage containing a quote from Kennedy, Sr. (from the reference it looks like it is from Joseph P. Kennedy Sr.) under the History section:

Kennedy Sr. had this to say before the Boston Chamber of Commerce on November 15, 1934: "The rogues who seek to live by deception-let me again repeat, the act is like all legal rules, subject to the limitations of effective legal action. Unfortunately, scoundrels will capitalize the registration requirements and may seek to sell you a security on the theory that mere filing indicates approval by the Commission. Beware of any such argument. Our short experience as to this legislation prompts me to sound a note of warning, particularly to you, my friends of the radio audience. Each and everyone of you is a prospective or actual member of a "sucker" list, and when the stranger calls you on the phone to interest you in the purchase of securities, beware."

How is it even related to Boston overall? I don't think the quote being spoken to the Boston Chamber of Commerce is enough without more context. Pentawing^Talk 04:10, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

References

Too Many Images

Good morning, all,

I saw the tag added earlier this month by Nikkimaria and thought that I'd start a discussion, as no one has as of today. I don't necessarily disagree with the tag, as there are a lot of images, but I am just wondering why Boston in particular was singled out, and if this label is indeed necessary? Are there truly that many? I wanted to focus on American cities of similar size (roughly 0.5M to 1.5M pop, maybe slightly more or less) and historical significance to compare:

• Boston: 675,647 residents and 45 images
• San Francisco: 826,079 residents and 80 images
• San Antonio: 1.43M residents and 36 images
• Miami: 442,241 residents and 40 images
• Philadelphia: 1.57M residents and 60 images
• Washington, D.C.: 689,545 residents and 77 images
• Salt Lake City: 1.3M residents (metro), 199,723 (city) and 56 images
• Baltimore: 585,708 residents and 46 images
• Detroit: 639,111 residents and 62 images
• Honolulu: 341,868 residents and 33 images

Even places like El Paso, population 678,815, have 62 images but nowhere near the American historical significance as Boston, which only has 45 images. There is a massive disparity here. I notice that many of Boston's images are in its sections about history, which seems appropriate. I don't think any change is necessary at this time, and was planning on removing the tag by October if no discussion had been made, but I at least thought that I could try to start one.

I think that if Boston has too many images, then the articles above need to be looked at as well. I don't think Boston has too many images, but I see other articles with far fewer or far more for a similar city and wonder why this article deserves a tag and others do not. For example, Salt Lake City. Although the history of the city is fascinating, I don't see a reason why its article needs 56 images when other cities of similar or greater significance have fewer.

I don't know. Am I crazy? I think Boston has an adequate number of images. Akyyka (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Images aren't allocated based on population, or historical significance. And there may well be other pages you've listed, or others you haven't, that have too many - but the better solution would be to tag or fix those too. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I know that. What I am saying is, there seems to be a clear pattern among American cities when it comes to images, and that is what I mentioned above. I don't think it's necessary to remove images from articles like Boston or Washington, but if we are to remove any, it should be from articles such as Salt Lake. Again, I know it's not as though editors look at a city's population and proportionately add images. However, I thought that those metrics were a good way to gauge it at a surface level. I don't think any changes on Boston are needed at this time. Akyyka (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps, could I hear your explanation of this as cleanly as you may present it? So that I may understand your line of thinking? That's why I created my original post, because you had added the tag but hadn't begun a discussion. Akyyka (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

The article has an extended stack of images. Due to the number of images (combined with the massive templates and number of charts), several images are displaced from their relevant sections. Several of the images are not serving a clear and unique illustrative purpose in context. Several others would benefit from being scaled up to allow detail to be understood, but there really isn't space to do so because of the sheer number.

As noted, there may well be other articles that would benefit from having this issue looked at, but that's not really a reason to not address it here. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

The number of photos per residents line of thinking is... bizarre. Seasider53 (talk) 06:54, 23 September 2026 (UTC)