Talk:Davis Square

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

Harvard[edit]

Do you prefer Davis Square as a blue collar area where lottery scratch cards can litter the ground or as a gentrified hip area with new stores and restaurants? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.31.111.43 (talk • contribs) .

Davis is now "Walking Distance" to Harvard? It's a ways down the road (two T -stops). I consider myself an ambitious pedestrian, but I would prefer not to make that trip. Maybe replace with "easy biking distance", or "convenient to"? --Cosmo the third 19:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah folks, Davis Square being within walking distance to Harvard is quite an exaggeration. However, since I am not part of the Harvard Community myself (only part of the Medford community), I really can't quite comment that Davis Square is close to "parts of" Harvard University. Is any outlying part of Harvard University within, say, one mile of Davis Square? If no one can confirm or deny this statement, I will remove the Harvard reference in time. It sounds like a false advertisement to link Davis Square to the Harvard community and its Ivy League reputation, but Davis Square is much more part of the Tufts community than Harvard. Midtempo-abg (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the part that said Davis Square is within walking distance of Harvard University. Midtempo-abg (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graffiti at Davis Square[edit]

Why would any non-homeless person prefer the old Davis Square? Anyone that does, is just frustrated that they don't have the means to afford living there anymore. Is it really necessary to include an isolated incident of spray painting "kill a yuppie". The person was caught by the police and will be punished....end of story. I think there's much more to Davis Square than some vandal kid who doesn't like yuppies, and it doesn't deserve that much space on this wiki page. It should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.96.184.142 (talk • contribs)

I agree. Not quite walking distance. I've done it, but I didn't really enjoy it.

--Beneeball 22:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links permissable or not?[edit]

I seem to be having difficulty adding specific links to the Davis Square article. A single administrator in particular has subjective reasons for having removed them. He has removed links to Davis Square on LiveJournal, Bostonsquares.com, and Citysquares.com - all of which I find absurd. Nevertheless, this particular administrator shall remain nameless, for the time being, but the gestapo these tactics and methods are unjust and very subjective. I'd like your opinions on whether or not Livejournal, Citysquares.com, and Bostonsquares.com should be allowed as external links within this article. Please provide your input. Thank you kindly. --Beneeball 22:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, just a regular editor. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 22:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am an administrator, I hope I can help point you towards the right direction. Please read our policies and guidelines, specifically on External links, how to use citations, what is considered a reliable source, and lastly our guidelines on spam. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 23:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd refrain from using inflammatory phrases such as "the gestapo" - Wikipedia has a no personal attacks policy (WP:NPA) and we ask members to assume good faith (WP:AGF) at all times. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 23:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those links almost certainly fall on the wrong side of Wikipedia's external links policy. Citysquares is clearly commercial, and livejournal is a blog, right? Neither is acceptable under the current policies. And yes, please do not use loaded terms like the gestapo, even in jest; it's too easy for people to misunderstand your meaning.
Atlant 23:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC) (another administrator)[reply]

So who has the final say in all this, when it's all been said and done? If the community agreed that these links are reasonable, but the administrators/editors feel it is not, what happens? (My apologies for a bad choice of words, no offense was meant.) --Beneeball 23:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken; it's a perfectly valid question! Admins have no special powers in this regard: so long as you've not crossed the (usually pretty bright) line that separates the blatant commercial spammer from someone who's just posted some debatable links, the admins are just editors like you. The only thing we may bring to the discussion is a bit more experience here at the encylopedia (or maybe not; I haven't looked at your history).
Policies and guidelines at Wikipedia are generally established by consensus. So folks have tussled over WP:EL for quite a while, and it represents the consensus of the many editors who've contributed to that guideline. Most of us then expect most articles to conform, more-or-less, to that guideline. Exceptions occur, of course (and there is WP:IAR), but these links seem pretty clear in the light of WP:EL. Still, even here, we hope to edit by consensus, so if you feel that the links don't violate WP:EL, by all means, make your case!
Atlant 00:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Looked at the external links policy, and while it clearly strongly discourages the addition of links to blogs, it doesn't outright forbid them. Personally, I don't find a link to the LJ community a loss for the article; it adds a link to a live community centered on the area in question. I'm less sure about citysquares.com or bostonsquares.com, as those are more clearly commerial in nature (OTOH, links to corporations are clearly allowed in other articles, such as the one on diesel engines, which links to a large marine diesel engine manufacturer; I'm not certain how citysquares, etc. differ in this regard).

Tamoroso 17:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links are always challenging. It's clear that a link to a "corporate" website is okay on the Wiki page about a corporation so the Cat website would be allowed on the Caterpillar Inc. page. It's less clear that links to manufacturers of an item should be allowed on a page about a topic, so whether or not we allow www.cat.com on the Diesel engine page is iffy; I tend to vary my judgement based on how many potential manufacturers we'd need to accommodate. That's what makes me disinclined to allow any "chat"- or "blog"-type links about a city or city district; allow in one and there's a nearly-unlimited set of chatrooms and blogs that will clamor for equal access.
Atlant 17:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So based on what I'm hearing, providing that the External Link is appropriate for the content of the article and subject matter, it seems that links to Bostonsquares, Livejournal, and Citysquares is ok. Please let your final opinion be known. Thank you. --Beneeball 01:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what I'm hearing, it isn't. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 19:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you allow the new Restaurants link that's up there? --74.92.22.169 17:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A recent Boston Globe article talks about Somerville's communications director, Tom Champion, participating on the davis_square LiveJournal. Tthe Globe also had an article on this last year. Cos (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links?[edit]

I would add that there are multiple links that are currently not pointing to anything... 503 error on one, 'page not found' error on number 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.116.153 (talk) 07:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BADLINK for how to handle these. — Lentower (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed on Rainbow Flags[edit]

A growing LGBT presence is evidenced by a smattering of rainbow flags on neighborhood churches and homes.

Why is a citation needed for this? I can walk down my street and take photos of 3 or 4 churches and provide photographic evidence. But is that really necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.177.86 (talk) 02:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you're talking about is Original Research, which is forbidden on WikiPedia. Furthermore, the sentence as written makes a logical leap which is not necessarily supported: that the presence of rainbow anything indicates A) an LGBT presence, and B) that it is growing. Firstly, while there is undoubtedly an LGBT presence anywhere on Earth that there are human beings in sufficient number, the presence of rainbow banners and flags symbolizes many different things, including "diversity"; also such banners are notably displayed in Tibetan cultures - a demographic with statistically demonstrable growth in the North Cambridge / Somerville area. While none of this makes the sentence incorrect, the point here is that citation is needed because this is an encyclopedia article, and statements of fact must be sourced unless immediately verifiable by the reader. While you 'can walk down my street and take photos of 3 or 4 churches and provide photographic evidence' a reader in Chicago can't, let alone a reader in Europe. The prohibition against Original Research exists so that results are verifiable independently - exactly the way your photographic evidence would not be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.197.7.22 (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rainbow flags on the churches no College Ave are also accompanied by text on said Churches' announce boards saying, "We welcome everyone!" and such. It's pretty clear. And I know what Tibetan prayer flags look like - first of all I doubt a Protestant or Catholic church would actually hang Tibetan flags in the first place - but these are not Tibetan flags for sure.

How would my photographs not be independently verifiable? Anybody can walk down the street and verify that the flags are there if they really want to? Your argument seems a bit of a slippery slope, no? If I write an article in the newspaper with the photos it's okay, but if I take the photos and my experience living here for years it's not?

--65.96.177.86 (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with using your own photos (from WP:NOR: "Original images created by a Wikipedia editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments") but as mentioned there, you can't be the first person to introduce the argument. You would still need a reliable third-party source to mention the LGBT population. If there isn't one, it can't go in: that's Wikipedia's long-established (if sometimes annoying) policy that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. "Everyone knows" isn't good enough. 81.159.58.45 (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not documenting flags per se, I think I read about Davis Square in a Bay Windows "neighborhoods to consider living in" article once, though I'm not sure I still have it. There is this review: [1] -- Beland (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cobblestones?[edit]

The cobblestone square now attracts families which congregate outside the ice cream parlor JP Licks in the summer to listen to musicians and people-watch.

Um, that's red brick, not cobblestone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.177.86 (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since fixed. --12.197.7.22 (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Street Direction on image[edit]

The direction of one of the streets in incorrect in the image of the square. Day St is one way towards the Square, not away from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.140.195 (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a "street" used only by incoming buses is incorrectly marked as a two-way street. Maybe this map should be removed until it can be replaced with a correct one. 12.45.255.66 (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

When was the square created? In File:Middlesex Canal (Massachusetts) map, 1852.jpg it looks like by 1852 what is now Elm Street connected directly to what is now College Ave with no cross streets at what is now Davis Square. How did the neighborhood develop over time? -- Beland (talk) 05:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Davis Square. 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) 17:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Davis Square. 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: 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) 19:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Davis Square. 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: 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) 23:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Davis_Square&oldid=1201381184"