Jump to content

Talk:Long Island (Massachusetts)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge

[edit]

Note that Long Island (Boston) was merged into this article at some point. Rich Farmbrough 10:28 28 August 2006 (GMT).

Recent move

[edit]

I have just moved Long Island, Boston, Massachusetts to Long Island (Massachusetts). There was no discussion of previous moves on the (empty) talk page, so I was unaware of the previous history of moves until after the move, when I spotted it in linking user talk pages. Sorry, but that is one good reason for using article talk pages. Anyway I stand by my move, for the following reasons.

I came across it doing some other edits on the Boston Harbor Islands. The previous name seemed cumbersome in the extreme, differs wildly from the dab standards for other similar islands, and does not seem to conform to WP standards. There is no evidence of ambiguity between articles on different Long Islands in MA, and WP strongly discourages preemptive disambiguation. So Massachusetts ought to be a sufficient disambiguator. Whether it is Long Island, Massachusetts or Long Island (Massachusetts) depends on whether you view the article as being about a settlement (in which case the special case US settlement rules of city, state kick in) or a geographic feature (in which case standard WP rules of parenthetic disambiguation apply). From the lede of the article, I chose the geographic feature approach, which also matches most other dab cases in the harbor islands. -- Chris j wood 09:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, I have no strong feelings on the subject, as long as the redirects are in place, and the users can find the article easily. The guideline is to use the most common name, therefore I would tend to avoid (). I expect the precedence of dab rules vs geog rules ahas been thrashed out, but for the above reason, I would think geog should trump dab, even if it is only meant to apply to a subset of geog. Further more in geog it's not unusual to refer to a super-location in everyday English, whereas if two people (not wikipedians) said "I went to see Jaws, film, last night" it would be unusual to say the least. Am I making sense? Rich Farmbrough 10:05 28 August 2006 (GMT).
Hi Rich. To be honest, I'm not sure I'm following you here. Certainly it would be great if we could just refer to this island as Long Island, but equally obviously we cannot because there is an expectation out in the world that Long Island is a rather bigger island in the state of New York. Even if somebody in Boston said to me 'I went to Long Island last week', I think I'd assume they meant the one in NY. Given that fact, I don't think there is a really well defined common name for the one in Boston Harbor. Incidentally my reading of WP naming rules is that the root name (In this case 'Long Island') shoulf be the most common name; I don't think that there is any requirement for the disambiguated name to be in common usage; just to be sensible. -- Chris j wood 23:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.It's also possible that a talk page wasn't moved at some point.
I have merged the histories of one lineage of this page. Rich Farmbrough 10:29 28 August 2006 (GMT).

Hi Chris and Rich. I wish the article would stay in a stable place. Rich and I had a discussion before I moved it into Long Island, Boston, Massachusetts. All the links should be fixed on general principles. I am not much in favour of the parentheses. But we must let it be. I have cited the article to many people, including historians. Please advise. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 13:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob. I should not have caused you any problems as far as the references you have given out is concerned. I redirected everything in sight in article space, even including some of the really odd prior redirects that had both commas and parentheses. -- Chris j wood 22:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's all very good, Chris. Excellent work. Thanks and Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 13:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC) (User talk:Wikiklrsc)[reply]

Verification warning banner

[edit]

User_talk:Fullobeans put up a verification of sources warning banner recently.

04:19, 4 April 2008 Fullobeans (Talk | contribs) m (46,116 bytes) (Added refimprove tag to article. using Friendly)

There are twenty six footnotes and most of the history is verified and corroborated in:

1. Sammarco, Anthony Mitchell, "Boston's Harbor Islands", Images of America series, 1998.
2. Snow, Edward Rowe, "The Islands of Boston Harbor", 1935.

And other referenced sources.

I left a note with the editor but I received no response. So I am removing the banner for the time being and will footnote more in the future, retroactively. It however doesn't make sense to footnote every sentence. -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay! Sections of this article are indeed exceptionally well-sourced, such that the article as a whole has a respectable-looking reference list. What sent my flags up, though, was the total or near absence of footnotes in some of the history sections, especially the Eighteenth Century and American Civil War sections. The information presented is well-written, detailed, and smacks of book-learnin', so it would improve the article exponentially if the sources were more obvious and accessible. The longer paragraph on the containment of Native Americans on Long Island is also begging for some sources, as the (possibly contentious) information given appears to have been taken from a source other than the one cited.
I agree that it's not necessary to footnote every sentence, but when an article is as long as this one is, I do believe it's important to have footnotes in each major section, regardless of whether the source in question has already been cited. For instance, as the article stands, a reader who's interested purely in the colonial period has several blue numbers he can click on to find further reading which, undoubtedly, will be relevant to his interests. The reader who's purely interested in the Revolutionary period has no such luxury, and would have to carry out a bit of detective work to figure out which sources were used to write the American Revolutionary War section.
In short: I did not put up the banner because I thought this article was terrible or filled with false information, but I do think it would benefit from having a more clearly sourced history section. Since I'm too lazy to attend to that myself, the banner was meant to call the attention of other editors to the article's needs. If this is something you're interested in working on, great! No need for a banner. Or if you firmly believe that further footnotes would be detrimental to the article, I'm happy to discuss it further. Fullobeans (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I would, in general, agree with what you are saying. If I can make the time and have the source books in-hand readily, I will be glad to footnote important historical sections. Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Culture?

[edit]

I've been to Long Island and therefore immediately recognized the parade grounds as the location for the state trooper 'training academy' in the 2009 film 'Paul Blart Mall Cop.' I don't have any hard reference to cite this, so I did not edit the article. Thought it may be of interest. (Brian) Fattymckee (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although there's been some discussion on this elsewhere, I've taken the position that you can just cite the movie itself. If you have it on DVD, you could cite the timing, but otherwise just title, etc. It's really the same as citing a book -- the key is it has to be possible for other editors to check your reference. It doesn't have to be free, or easy, but it has to be possible, see WP:Access to sources, so even if the movie is not on DVD and not currently in theaters, you can still cite it. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC) And, by the way, Be Bold. Make the edit. We try not to eat newbies for lunch, as we were all newbies once, and there's lots of work to be done.[reply]

Closure

[edit]

On whose authority is the island closed to the public? Which agency staffs the guard station? -- Beland (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Long Island (Massachusetts). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Long Island (Massachusetts). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Long_Island_(Massachusetts)&oldid=1200190882"