Wikipedia

Talk:Andover, Massachusetts

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Babegriev in topic July 2016 proposal to split.
Learn more about this page


Untitled edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey guys, I'm the WikiProject Cities assessor of this article; if you need advice on how to improve it, just come and give me a holler! --Starstriker7(Say hior see my works) 05:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I guess we are mutes here. One problem is that, if the apparatus gets complex enough, people assume it is correct and everything is fine. Despite appearances the article is at this moment essentially unreferenced.Branigan 12:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Witchcraft edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am removing the following sentence from the article: "Although the city best known for witchraft hysteria is Salem, Andover executed the most of its citizen in connection with witchcraft charges." This statement is grammatically incorrect to the point that I'm not even sure what the author meant to claim -- Andover executed most of its citizens? Or did Andover execute more citizens than Salem did? Is either of these claims true? Please provide a source and be clear if you would like to add a note about witchcraft to the article. NBS525 12:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have started working on a better description of the witchcraft episode. Citations are coming. Ogram (talk) 05:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I guess ogram forgot about it, as there are yet no references there.Branigan 12:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Civil War edit

Harriet Beecher Stowe did not write "Uncle Tom's Cabin" while she resided in Andover and this statement should be removed.

"Racist Reputation"? edit

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This whole subsection smells like vandalism to me. It was added by an anonymous user, includes no sources, and describes the distance between Boston and Andover in minutes rather than miles. The location of its placement in the article seems somewhat random, and the "15 minutes" is not even correct! Can anyone provide a source to back up the legitimacy of the claim? Does anyone agree that perhaps the section should just be deleted? Also, see this edit, made by the same user to a different article. NBS525 13:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I Agree with the vandalism notation. As near as I can determine, there is no such periodical as the "African-American Weekly". In addition, while Andover does have a large number of large homes that could be described as mansions, they are not located on Colonial Drive, which is a fairly moderate income neighborhood. The entire addition smells of agenda.

Fair use rationale for Image:Seal of the town of andover.png edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
 

Image:Seal of the town of andover.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've changed the "licensing" section of the image's page to indicate that the image is in the public domain. The rationale is that there is very good reason to believe that this image was published well before 1923. Unfortunately, the history of this seal is not that well documented so it is difficult, and may not be possible, to establish a definitive first date of publishing. Moulding (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I realize this thread may be long out of date but I found an article in a local newspaper (Andover Townsman) that says the current seal of the town was designed for its 250th anniversary in 1896, well before the 1923 cutoff. Thank you! --Nannochloropsis (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Train derailment of 6 Jan 1853 edit

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Considering that president-elect Franklin Pierce was aboard, and his son Benjamin killed, this seems worth a mention in the article on the city where it happened... Wyvern (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

That section has one citation at the end that does not relate to the incident. It belongs, but it needs to be cited. Mechanic1c (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Brown affair annotations edit

This paragraph is entirely covered by one page in "Perilous Times." A ref to this page is tacked on to successive sentences. Also use is made of chains of refs. The urls don't always match the pages and some urls go to inaccessible pages. That is why I do not give urls to Google previews. Google keeps changing the previewable material. If you're concerned about quasi-vandals requesting refs on material covered by the very next ref, well, it is all in how you word the ref. You don't need duplicate refs on successive sentences. What I propose to do is gather the refs into one ref at the end of the paragraph stating "Perilous Times" and whatever others given that are relevant to the affair. Frankly I think the "Perilous" ref covers it.Branigan 17:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Notable people edit

I notice the remarks next to the names are being used to plug the persons, especially in the case of modern actors and writers. I plan to objectify and simplify the comments. Also, many of them have references. These are not necessary. Every person mentioned has a blue link to an article, and the article states the ref. I will of course check that the ref is in the article, but if it is, then it is not necessary here.Branigan 19:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources, links, references edit

In this article the sources are not that, they are external links either unsuitably to advertising and blogs or more relevantly to sites containing information not in the notes. External links are more of the same. I'm either taking them out or putting them under External Links. Sometimes the notes in other articles (or references) reference different pages of the same book. Sources are often used for the books, which are then referenced in short form in the notes. Harvard ref system suitable for that, but WP programmers have been working on new ways to accomplish it. If you have books and articles not referenced in the notes then they would go in "additional reading." Sometimes "Bibliography" is used for either. This article, once you take out the advertising and move the external links to external links, is somewhat short of encyclopedic sources. I guess the Internet is just too quick and easy. Most of the refs should be to books and articles, so obviously most of the referencing still needs to be done. When that gets done, we can use "Sources" more appropriately.Branigan 00:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Historical population table discussion edit

The sources section of the population table looks terrible and is hard to use. I propose we go over to a different footnote format.

Current set-up. Maybe you have been wondering why you cannot access the footnotes for this table. That is because they are are in a template, "Template:Historical populations/Massachusetts municipalities references" which you can access if you do a search on the quoted item. If you want to access the table code stating the references then do an edit. Understand, elements of WP do not like you to do that. Some people run the show and they are counting on your ignorance to keep it that way. However, WP allows access to this code. You can change it according to the usual protocols. That latter topic is why you are seeing this entry. I got some changes to suggest. This is the discussion.

What is wrong. The Census Bureau sites referenced by these "cite web" citations have changed a bit. Look at the access dates. Moreover, I would not have done the "cite web" in quite that way. People need access to these footnotes. Now, this template is being used for a one-article event. Those refs are specific to that use of that table. That is not WP policy. The whole idea behind a template is to produce something that can be placed in any article. Here, these instances only apply to one article. This is a concealment device sometimes used by experienced WP users. I propose we abandon that template and do it a different way.

Counter-proposal. I tested the table and it seems that a note can be placed after each year. Moreover, if the difference between one and two digits throws the column out of alignment, "template:nowrap" and a space can be used to adjust the spacing; in fact, it has to be, otherwise the table code will wrap the note to the next line as soon as the space is inserted. This way, we can see what source is associated with what year, and the less skilled public can access the references. This is my proposal. Since it represents an alternative to which someone might object I am bringing it up for discussion. Please discuss. Eventually I will take no discussion as a yes vote. Thanks.Branigan 11:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Having proposed this course I am having second thoughts. What I did not see before is that the refs are set up to general tables or general sites with pages, giving this sort of data not just for Andover. So, it is not true that the template is only used for this town. To implement the scheme I have proposed would require editing every single article using the template, a lot of work. The refs can be updated in the template. Therefore I am modifying my proposal to this extent: unless there is a significant response favoring putting these notes individually in each article I will not attempt to change the system. I may update the notes in the template.Branigan 14:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Using "affluent" in the introductory sentence edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I added "citation needed". It seems more like boosterism than a neutral descriptor. I wanted to delete it entirely but someone put it back. My reasoning: There are 28 towns in Massachusetts with higher per capita incomes -- some considerable higher than Andover's. Most of those wealthier towns' Wikipedia pages don't refer to them as affluent. Andover is also not home to any of the 25 wealthiest Massachusetts zip codes. http://www.esri.com/news/rss/pdfs/wealthiest-zip-codes_1_4_12.pdf In terms of real estate, there are presently three homes listed for more than $2 million in Andover; compare a truly affluent town such as Weston, where there are 33 listings above $2 million. http://www.zillow.com/weston-ma/expensive-homes/?index=31

Perhaps the solution is to say "relatively affluent" in that Andover is wealthy/affluent compared to its immediate neighbors in the Merrimack Valley. However, in the larger greater Boston economy, it is a nice, upwardly-mobile, middle class outer suburb but not really "affluent" in the bigger scheme of things. Cbmccarthy (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Further changes edit

Because people kept putting the "affluent" moniker in the intro, despite my points above (which no one bothered to address), I added the "POV-lead" box, which requires the question to be discussed and agreed before moving forward.

Cbmccarthy (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

The term should not be used in the first sentence of the lead. The ref is not currently online, but has been tagged as not supporting the statement, so it's a POV term. It's WP:synthesis to decide the label should be used based on comparing reported data for Andover to that for other communities. If reliable sources use the term "affluent" to describe Andover then we can use the term sourced to those refs, but even then I would suggest not using the term in the first sentence of the lead. Meters (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Meters. Cbmccarthy (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Merriam-Webster defines affluent as, "having a large amount of money and owning many expensive things." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/affluent In terms of real estate, Zillow currently lists 18 properties for $1 million or more (in the traditionally slowest selling season). http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Town-of-Andover-MA-01810/fsba,fsbo,new_lt/58495_rid/1000000-_price/3630-_mp/days_sort/42.72356,-71.057682,42.575332,-71.274662_rect/11_zm/0_mmm/ According to the Boston Business Journal (via Andover Patch), Andover had 217 residents who filed as making at least $1 million in 2011, accounting for one millionaire per every 157 people. The average income for millionaires in Andover was $2,441,000, according to the report. http://patch.com/massachusetts/andover/how-many-millionaires-live-andover-0? http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/bbj_research_alert/2014/12/the-massachusetts-towns-and-cities.html? Using income and other demographic data provided by Esri, the Boston Business Journal listed it's wealthiest zipcodes in Massachusetts. Andover ranked 37 out of 490. http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/bbj_research_alert/2012/12/wealthiest-zip-codes.html? That said, while Andover is an affluent town, I would agree that it should be removed from the introductory sentence if that's Wikipedia's format. It might be better placed in the Demographics section. Jfneylon (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

The term "affluent" should not be used anywhere in the article unless reliable sources use it. It's not up to Wikipedia to apply labels. Wikipedia does not make judgments like that. It does not matter if you or I think Andover is affluent. Meters (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Removed as unsourced puffery/POV Meters (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Andover, 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, 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) 20:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Andover, 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: 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) 00:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Infobox photo edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A reader ticket:2019080810002693 reports that the photo shown as the main photo in the info box is the old town hall and there is a new town hall.

Assuming the report is accurate, there is no particular requirement that the photo in the info box be the current town hall. For example, if the old town hall is particularly significant, either historically or architecturally, it might be an appropriate photo to use, but if that's the case the caption should accurately reflect that fact. Alternatively, someone should track down or arrange for a photo of the current town hall.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

July 2016 proposal to split. edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In July 2016, Somebody proposed splitting this article. There has been no discussion about the split. The article is not long enough to warrant a split. The only reason to split is to up the Wikipedia article count. Maybe somebody is watching this article, they can remove the template. User-duck (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@User-duck:   Done. Came here looking for a discussion thread myself. Removed the template as it is very outdated and does not warrant its own article (yet). Babegriev (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andover,_Massachusetts&oldid=1198704966"