Template talk:Massachusetts

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Massachusetts This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles This template is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts.

If you are dissatisfied with the list of cities, please add or remove individual cities, not the entire list. I included the list based on what I saw on other state templates (notably California, New York, and Michigan).

For now, I have decided to use the original listing (with the addition of Lawrence). This was before I had decided to add more cities (based on the list from the Massachusetts article, which didn't have a set criteria).Pentawing 04:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This template is just huge and unwieldy, and I think it needs to be chopped down to size, though I'm loathe to do unilaterally. Does it make sense to have a smaller, general Mass template with just the the main article, Boston, and a few other things, and then have seperate templates for Mass cities, Mass counties, and Mass towns? I think it would improve the visual look of the Mass articles. For an example of what I'm talking about look at the Template:Texas and Template talk:Texas. Comments? Friejose 21:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be great. When I started adding the towns, I noticed it becoming larger and larger, but I didn't want to split it since I didn't originate the template. At the same time, being from a town, I didn't want to remove the towns. [halo] Any way you'd like to split it is fine by me, but that's just one man's opinion. Sahasrahla 04:06, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I was bold and removed the town list. It's not that I don't want the list, it's just that it's huge and unmanageable. If someone wants to create the List of towns in Massachusetts and add a link to it in the template, I think that would be fine. -Harmil 11:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely huge, but hardly unmanageable (although, we'll note that I've yet to finish the list...). I agree that it needed to be removed, and will eventually create a template for it. Sahasrahla 14:08, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Why a template, and not an article? Lists are common enough, and a list of towns could even include Census Designated Places and major locations like Round Hill, Massachusetts, just to pick on one I care about. That way, you could just have a link to the town list in this template. Nice and clean, and less text pulled into each article.... -Harmil 14:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I created a List of towns in Massachusetts article. It's far from done, but its a start. I'm going to add a link to the list in the template. Friejose 14:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC) I feel that the list of towns should exist but the all 301 towns should be listed on the template. This although making the template very large it makes it an easier system to used. I sugesst that the template page be put back in vcelloho 14:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Markles has made a good start as to regions. I think we don't need to, and shouldn't, try to conform the regions listed to some external list, like Census-delimited areas or something. One of the things that makes Mass. different and unique is that it has historical regions that are more meaningful than counties, or other types of artifical subdivisions. Perhaps one additional area that could be added is the Blackstone Valley, although the article needs to be written first. — Friejose 12:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we also need to include the Quabbin Valley. I'll bang out a quick article. Dunkelza 13:59 September 11, 2005 (EDT)

I made a comment on a Category talk page, Category:Regions of Massachusetts that nobody would see, so I'm probably better off repeating it here:

I don't know if anybody actually watches this category, so I might be talking to nobody, but the list here, although I like it, doesn't align with anything official I know of. If we were to do that (as I believe New Hampshire has), we could go by the list at Massachusetts Office of Travel and Tourism:

• Western Massachusetts
  • Greater Springfield
  • Franklin County
  • The Berkshires
  • Mohawk Trail
• Central Massachusetts
• North of Boston and Greater Merrimack Valley
  • North of Boston
  • Greater Merrimack Valley
• Greater Boston
• South of Boston
  • Southeastern Massachusetts
  • Plymouth County
• Cape Cod, Martha's Vinyard, and Nantucket Island
  • Cape Cod
  • Martha's Vineyard
  • Nantucket Island

Thoughts? Thanks, CSZero (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted pentawing's edit to remove the colors from the first column of the template. I did so, not to edit war with P., but because I'd like to see some discussion first. There are many different approaches. Template:California Has a striped look. Template:New York goes the way that P. was suggesting. And, of course the original version that I reverted to has a side-bar like look. The reason that I like this version is that it gives some visual isolation to the content of the template, while offsetting the grid. I really don't like tables with grids in them, but at least suggesting the grid seems to help the eye follow what's going on. The California version does this even moreso, but I think it goes overboard and ends up looking like old greenbar. -Harmil 02:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Harmil on this, and I was the user who added the color to the sidebar originally. I just think it cleanly separates the relevant info from the descriptive headers without being visually distracting (as I think Cal's template is). On the other hand, it's not worth getting into an edit war over, so I defer to the group's judgment. – Friejose 13:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the background color in the first column, I just found out that the Florida template does the same so I won't revert again. On the otherhand, the style that I tried to revert to is used at other state templates (e.g. all other New England states and Washington, which was the style I converted the entire Massachusetts template to in the first place. The MA template was once in the other dominant style, such as the one used for Michigan). Anyways, I would like to see a standard style used for most state templates, so that was what I was trying to get at recently, instead of each state having its own individually styled template. Pentawing 22:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states/state templates lists and displays all 50 U.S. state (and additional other) templates. It potentially can be used for ideas and standardization. //MrD9 07:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding standardization of state templates (primarily regarding layout and styling) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. states/state templates. An effort was made earlier this year to standardize Canadian province templates (which mostly succeeded). Lovelac7 and I have already begun standardizing all state templates. If you have any concerns, they should be directed toward the discussion page for state template standardization. Thanks! — Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 22:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to maintain that listing towns as a "topic" is insufficient. Perhaps we should reconsider listing all the towns. See Template:New Hampshire. Sahasrahla 19:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the list of cities is complete. What about Canton? –Llama man 23:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it's a town. –Llama man 23:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the South Coast and South Shore links with Southeatstern Massachusetts. The Southeastern Massachusetts definition encompasses those two areas and paints a better picture of Southeastern Massachusetts as a whole (excluding Cape Cod). I did that to make this template less "beast," in response to user Friejose. Please try the Southeastern Massachusetts link, I think you'll enjoy it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.211.197 (talk)

(An aside: Please sign your posts with four tildes, i.e. ~~~~.)

I'd rather see "South Shore" and "South Coast" back in, in addition to Southeastern Mass. Both terms are widely used. If you asked the average Massachusetts person to make a list of geographic regions that comprise the state, both would be on the list. "Southeastern Massachusetts" doesn't encompass "South Shore" and "South Coast" any more than listing Suffolk County encompasses (and obviates the need to list) Boston. My two cents. _{``` W</sub> i k i <sub>W</sub> i s t a h <sub>```} 20:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: It's also worth noting that Southeastern Massachusetts is usually defined as being outside Greater Boston -- that is, not including the close-in suburbs (our definition says it extends into Norfolk County only as far as the Rhode Island border towns). This leaves out a substantial amount of what is often called South Shore, such as Quincy, Holbrook, Cohassett, etc. _{``` W</sub> i k i <sub>W</sub> i s t a h <sub>```} 20:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – — Sswonk (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of clarity, I have edited the template list of cities to include only those which actually call themselves cities on their website, and am providing the following table with references that clearly point out what the disposition of the official name is. Please read the explanation following the table before reverting this change.

The above list shows the 53 government divisions of the Commonwealth which have been officially granted the right to use the city form of government. My source for the table is the Massachusetts Municipal Association 2008-2009 Municipal Directory. This list is not an official state document, but it is much more up to date and accurate than the "offical" list from the Secretary of State's office, which is dated 10-21-2005 and does not include Braintree, Palmer and Winthrop, which have since adopted the city form of government.

The web references listed above each clearly indicate the official name each location uses. In nearly every case the name is confirmed by the banner at the top of the official website. In those where it is not indicated in the banner, it is shown on the page in the title bar, page footer, in the page text or in the case of Palmer by the PDF of the most recent town report. I only eliminated those towns for which no evidence exists that they are officially using the prefix "City of" before the location name.

I looked into these sources before I made this edit because I wondered why Weymouth was listed as a city but Braintree was not. In light of the evidence and in the interest of keeping the list as compact yet as accurate as possible, to use the name officially used by the location in question is the best solution to listing these cities in the template. Sswonk (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest we include municipalities which are cities regardless of what they call themselves.—Markles 19:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By 'are', do you mean by the form of government, which would be the 53 listed in the table? I would not really object, except that there are multiple places within the project which blur the distinction. Some articles (including lists) state something like "there are 301 towns and 50 cities". Those would then need to be updated to reflect your proposed addition of Braintree, Palmer and Winthrop to the template. Sswonk (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Yes, I suggest we follow the legal model instead of the title model. Mostly because it's a clear-cut distinction. Then I suppose we should say there are 298 towns and 53 cities. —Markles 21:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I changed the template to list the 53 cities as defined by their forms of government. I will also change the lists and definitions within Massachusetts articles I find to reflect the official status. I will leave a brief note about this change on the WP:MASS project talk page. Sswonk (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a particular reason why this template is white on dark blue? I understand the general idea is to try to match the flag, but it is a bit hard to read. Wouldn't it be better to just go with the default used by {{navbox}} to avoid having a rainbow at the bottom of the page when this navbox is next to another one and per WP:ACCESSIBILITY? Please let me know if there is a strong reason to have it a particular color. I noticed this was attempted recently, but was reverted, so I thought I would be proactive and start a thread here to avoid an edit war. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts (as a state, not including its colonial history) has nine former counties -- not just the three that were added to this template recently. All nine former counties were part of the District of Maine. If we're going to include three, we should include all, but that would result in two-fifths of the template's "Counties" entries being territory that hasn't been part of the state for 200 years, which is ridiculous and would be confusing for the vast majority of template viewers, who (I presume) are looking for information about what today we call Massachusetts.

Additionally, District of Maine was the only "former region" listed in that section -- there's no entry for Massachusetts' ceded western claims, or Bristol County, R.I., or Pawtucket, or Woodstock or Enfield, Conn. Nor should there be. My solution was to add a note to the "counties" listing about how nine former counties became Maine, and include the District of Maine link there. _``` t b w i l l i e _{`</sub> $1.25 <sub>`} 23:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could the seal please be removed from the title in accordance with MOS:ICON? Thanks, 207.161.86.162 (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. I don't see why it can't bet there; MOS:ICON doesn't prohibit this use. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganbaruby: How does it comply with MOS:DECORATION? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 07:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the flag of the state, it does have an encyclopedic purpose in the context of a navbox. You might want to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Massachusetts for wider consensus. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What non-decorative "encyclopedic purpose" does it serve in your view, Ganbaruby? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Primarily for identification purposes, especially when there's multiple navboxes in a row. To make it clear, I'm not very opposed to removing it, but please get wider consensus first. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it is an unremarkable subnational flag and is only 100px in size, what leads you to believe it serves as an identification aid? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Town of Amherst, by Massachusetts law, is a city, and should be listed as such following the City of Agawam. See https://www.amherstma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/41987/Amherst-Home-Rule-Charter section 1.4 or https://www.sec.state.ma.us/cis/cisctlist/ctlistcoun.htm 2600:8800:1680:1AE:419C:B6A0:8B34:AFFB (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Note that the Amherst,_Massachusetts article might need to be updated as well. Mlkj (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]