Talk:Greater Boston

Cities/towns
We have tried to allocate all cities and towns in Massachusetts to a region. Thus if one is added somewhere, one needs to be removed from another. Boundaries are not clear in many regions. Wikipedia had Greater Boston extending to the New Hampshire border and to the west out to Worcester. We don't want to have towns in two of our regions however. We are defining Greater Boston roughly by the arc of the old Rt. 128. If you want a change, let's discuss it here. (WT-en) OldPine 21:13, 22 August 2006 (EDT)

There are way too many cities listed. To pare it down to 9, I would go with Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, Quincy, Brookline, Revere, Salem, Newton, and Medford.71.162.75.102 01:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * All of those cities have to be linked from some region article. Unless this region is further subdivided, they all need to be listed here.  LtPowers (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

How do you handle this type of edit?
I imagine this IP editor (with no other edits) lives in the area and deleted this bit of text they didn't like. I get it. Perhaps I could have been more tactful in wording things, but I would argue the sentence in question is more "unflattering" than "irrevalent".

I guess the question is how do you deal with telling folks your honest opinion, even if that opinion happens to be unflattering? And how do you do it w/o edit warring to boot? This one edit isn't a big deal, but asking in a big picture way. Thanks for any advice you have! --ButteBag (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd revert it with an edit summary and invite the IP user to discuss the fairness of the point on the talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you wait a week or so, the IP will probably not notice what you do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree it is more unflattering than "irrelevant". I try to give travellers reasons to go somewhere, rather than reasons to not go there. If I can't find anything positive to say, I tend to say nothing. So I don't blame the IP editor for deleting it. By the way, I find it a bit surprising that an area with no attractions beyond its parks should warrant six sub-articles. Maybe really there is more to see than commuters stuck in traffic jams - if not, maybe some of the articles should be merged. But I don't know the area myself. Nurg (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ha, yes, Ikan with the most reasonable approach! Thank you! Nurg I totally agree, but since WV covers the entire world, I feel like we do need to make a few critical comments here and there. And yes, I would also prefer to merge all 6 articles together. However, WV consensus currently prefers having multiple low information articles, not fewer pages with higher information density. I believe it's just me, you, and (maybe?) User:Ground Zero who think this way. Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 12:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There is precedent for covering more than one town in a single article. I'd suggest for you to make a proposal in the Greater Boston article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)