Talk:BosWash

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

New Article[edit]

Alright, I think I've got a fairly complete start, which I've temporarily built at User:Korossyl/Northeast Megalopolis. Please read the below:

(1) Most of the article is original. I did not copy/paste anything from my earlier referenced research paper. The sections imported from the old article include the second two paragraphs in the "The megalopolis" section, and the entire "Population statistics" section.
(2) The terrible list of "major cities" has been entirely removed. The population statistics section is in list form, but was stable in the original article (being objectively based on a certain population count, rather than subjective idea of "big enough to be included") There is an EXTREMELY TRUNCATED LIST in the intro paragraph, which lists only DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, NYC, and Boston. This is meant to be a stable list, and has its roots in Gottmann's book. I didn't cite it because (a) intro paragraphs usually have fewer citations, (b) it seems to be commonsensical especially based on the historical population stats included in the "History" section, and (c) I didn't have the time. I can add one, if it's thought to be a problem.
(3) The article, I believe, is well-sourced. Please let me know if there are major gaps.
(4) In light of recent discussion, I paid special attention to the section on "Megalopolis as a concept." There are two statements there I did not source, but that I do not believe constitute OR:
(a) "These ventures indicate not only the dual “independent nuclei”/“interlinked system” nature of the megalopolis, but also a broad public understanding of and capitalization on the concept." This is demonstrated in the paragraph that it ends; I don't think I need a source for what is essentially a summary of what I had just said. It draws a conclusion, but one that is (i) supported by the previous paragraph and that (ii) due to its nature (speaking of informal public attitudes) is not likely content of any cite-able work.
(b) "The academic community has been broadly accepting of Gottmann’s Megalopolis." This is demonstrated in the paragraph that it begins. I could include lists of books, and will provide one if necessary, but I haven't really seen a precedent for that in other articles. I think this should stand unless someone provides a fair number of counterexamples. Cf. Amazon searches for "Gottmann," "BosWash," and "Megalopolis."
(5) I encourage everyone to treat this as a new article, not as an attempt to resurrect the old one. It does not try to pass off a neologism as an established word. It does not lend itself to self-aggrandizement and promoting one's locale. At worst, it's assuming that a concept is normative, but I think the article does demonstrate that this is generally the case. It avoids OR by avoiding unsourceable statements, while backing up each uncited point with citations.
(6) I encourage everyone to treat this as a new article, so if it lacks citations for important statements, to consider whether they are uncontroversial enough to remain, or to point them out to me so I can cite them. Please don't assume bad faith.
(7) Discussion of this article belongs on this talk page, rather than Northeast US or others. The Northeast US page always had a short section on "Northeast as megalopolis," which co-existed with the previous page on BosWash, and linked to it. This page used to be a discussion of megalopolis as a concept, and you, the editors who have remade it, are the ones who were familiar with the old page. The rest of Wikipedia was content to allow such a page to exist, so those who had problems with the old page should be responsible for making a new page (if one indeed should exist).
(8) I'd appreciate suggestions on the name. Gottmann called it simply "Megalopolis," capitalized and without an article. BosWash is clearly out, =D while there was a complaint about "Boston-Washington Megalopolis"?

Korossyl (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. The name is OK as is. It probably needs some cleanup copyedits for style only, for example all references go after punctuation, I saw one with a comma both before and after the ref. The title is already in use as a redirect, so all you would have to do is copy and paste it into Northeast Megalopolis, replacing the redirect. The dash issue should also be addressed, since I assume you want to redirect Boston–Washington Megalopolis to the new article. The practice is to use en dashes in titles, not hyphens, in this sort of meaning of the dash, see WP:ENDASH. Sswonk (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One criticism though. I don't think you should post this until you explicitly footnote the Population Statistics section MSA list so 1) there are no time wasting disputes as to what gets included in the months ahead 2) there is no question where you got that list from. It needs a source before you post it as a new article, not after. Sswonk (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Urban Geography of the Northeastern United States"? This allows wider scope without judgement of how urban areas are to be divided, and this kind of name can become a subarticle of the "Geography of X" class of articles, although there is currently no Geography of the Northeastern United States. --JWB (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JWB, that title would make little sense. Korossyl's new article is only about a northeast "megalopolis", roughly the single contiguous area described in the VT study as "Northeast". Vermont and most of Maine are not part of this, nor are for example Pittsburgh and Buffalo which are defined as part of the northeast by the Census Bureau. They would need to be a part of your title, but aren't included in the article Korossyl has proposed. Sswonk (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, y'all. I think the right decision is keeping "Northeast Megalopolis;" "Boston-Washington Megalopolis" does sound too much like it's angling to be a permanent name; "Northeast Megalopolis" sounds more like a long-term placeholder, which will (one day) be replaced by whatever name becomes common.
Hmm; I never really took a close look at the list of CSAs and MSAs, because it looked so dense. I think neither did a lot of people, which is why they were mostly stable. Even so, there definitely was some creeping listism going on; it looks like Scranton slipped through, too. I'm going to take out the list of MSAs entirely, to avoid thatm while the CSAs I'll move into the "The megalopolis" section. That list much harder to add to frivolously. I'll cite the list, and pop it online!
Again, thanks, Sswonk. This page deserved far better than the old BosWash article, and nothing short of starting over from scratch would have done the trick, I think. Even so, we all needed a kick in the pants to get started. The page will be a lot less romantic now, and far more useful. Korossyl (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UP! Korossyl (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm going to take the WikiProjects from here and move them over to the new article. I'm not sure they really belong here at all, anymore; the page now isn't what they were originally here for. Korossyl (talk) 03:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also: it appears that the old map was also deleted after the page; WikiMedia changed its upload rules so images with a non-commercial (nc) license were no longer allowed. I contacted creator Bill Rankin of Radical Cartography who was gracious enough not only to upload the image under a new license, but also made the new map much higher res and included a legend. It's really worth taking a look at! Korossyl (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relinking[edit]

From [1]
To [2]

A lot of pages still refer to ChiPitts, however, which I didn't touch. Hope this helps. Korossyl (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. For further links, the title has been moved because it is not a proper noun. The links should either be to Northeast megalopolis or northeast megalopolis. If you feel like going back and changing them that would help as well, I am changing a few already. Sswonk (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other Wikipedias[edit]

I see that a heavy discussion has happened here around this term and what it means. I don't want to read it all through so could anybody give me a nice and short overview or conclusion of this discussion? I am asking because in other Wikipedias (at least in those I checked and can somewhat understand the language, including my homewiki Estonian) article named "BosWash" is about the megalopolis, for what you have Northeast megalopolis. Does the world live in a lie? Or is the solution simply replacing "BosWash" in the Wikidata item with "Northeast megalopolis" and accepting that the world has adopted the name although it is not accurate? Adeliine (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which Kahn??? Which Wiener???[edit]

The first appearance of the name Kahn or Wiener is in this sentence:

"The publication of the ideas of Kahn and Wiener were part of a study commissioned in 1965 by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, which published the results of the commission's findings in the summer of 1967 as "Toward the Year 2000: Work in Progress", a special issue of Dædalus, journal of the academy.'

It is an exceptionally lazy editing job that doesn't even bother to mention these people's first names! There is a photo caption that mention's Kahn's first name: Herman. And both Kahn and Wiener's first names are mentioned in a reference -- although Wiener's last name is misspelled there.Daqu (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BosWash. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BosWash&oldid=1200283538"