Talk:Boxford, Massachusetts

Untitled

Hey all, I'm the WikiProject Cities assessor of this article. If feedback is what you want and need, come to my talk page and give me a holler! --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 02:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

- Do you think there could be a map of Boxford? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.10.240 (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2021 and 20 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TweedPumpkin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Points of interest

...is an unsourced section, which lately has become a site for adding Ponix Laboratories. Without sources to establish importance, there is nothing to support the notability of the numerous businesses, camps, etc. listed here. As such it's likely to be used for promotion of individual entities as well as a 'chamber of commerce' section, promotional on the whole. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, inclusion of local businesses can lead to abuse, but Ponix clearly isn't benefiting in any of the ways you're suggesting: it's an independent research firm, and it isn't a virtual storefront. In terms of gaining prominence through abuse, Wikipedia includes code so that references don't give websites "Google search points" for precisely this reason, so Ponix isn't gaining anything on that front either. In terms of secondary sources, what exactly would you be satisfied with?Xiii1408 (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Per Wiki guidelines, WP:RELIABLE. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

But I'm less inclined to assume good faith; following our discussion, Xiii1408, your decision was to do this [1], without explanation or inclusion of any supporting sources. 99.178.163.46 (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Xiii1408, you would need to provide references from reliable sources to support the statements, and a direct link to the company web site would be considered spam. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the section should exist it all, but as it is it's pretty dreadful with much of it promotional. Witch Hallow Farm perhaps should be in the article, I'm not sure about the state forest, and I can't see justification for the rest - pizza house, Ponix (which brought me here and which seems pretty unnotable by our criteria, a search turned up a total of 3 hits, all to Wikipedia, and nothing in Google News), a beach, etc Dougweller (talk) 11:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Notable residents section

Does not need references. I'm taking the tag and the existing refs out. The reason is that this is a list of articles with one explanatory phrase much like a disambig. It is the same type as "See also." We don't put refs on disambig and see also items because they are blue-linked to the article. The link stands in place of the reference. In this list, what is the ref suppose to prove? That this person is notable? That is a personal opinion and we don't ref personal opinions. The fact that an article exists is reason enough to list it if in fact we are going to keep lists of notable persons. I wouldn't, but I don't decide. Every person in that list has a blue link. We don't require references on material that is sufficiently blue-linked. If someone puts a name in and someone else disagrees on notability then we discuss notability. The information on the person does not go in the list, it goes in the linked articles. The descriptive phrase is taken from that article.Branigan 00:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Points of interest section

This is not WP style. It reads like a travellogue. Needs to be rewritten. As for the requested expansion, well, what is a point of interest, like who is a notable person, is a matter of opinion. If you are going to place such a tag, ought you not to say what the section lacks? The tag should come out or be elucidated when the rewriting is done. I have not checked for plagiarism but I bet if I did I would find it a copy. For the references, well, do we need those on this subsection? What exactly would we be referencing? But, if we expand each item into a description I suppose we would need refs on the descriptions.Branigan 00:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boxford, 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov

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) 21:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)