Talk:Plymouth, Massachusetts/Archive 1

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

move to Plymouth, Massachusetts. Joelito (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Plymouth (town), Massachusetts → Plymouth, Massachusetts – All Massachusetts town article names are of the form "TownName, StateName", even if a CDP exists with the same name. Cf. Scituate, Massachusetts, Ipswich, Massachusetts, Barre, Massachusetts, Hudson, Massachusetts, et cetera. AJD 01:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~


 * Support. AJD 01:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, and move all similar town articles in New England to the undabbed names too. Kirjtc2 02:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.-- Hús  ö  nd  03:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support -- name is an artifact of a disambiguation made without regard to whether one might be the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 14:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support -- even if disambiguation is needed, towns/cities are the most important places in Massachusetts. --Polaron | Talk 01:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Add any additional comments
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Policing of the town
Primary responsibility of patrolling the town is done by the local municipal police department, not by MSP who has primary and shared jurisdiction of Rt 3.71.124.243.213 17:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Cape Cod?
There is currently a discussion ongoing about Plymouth and its Geography as it relates to Cape Cod.Leftshore 14:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for this article to be upgraded to B-Class (from Start-class)
This article has had a lot of work done recently, and I feel it meets criteria for a B-Class article. I have therefore upgraded it, as WikiProject Massachusetts currently does not have a system of assessment requesting that I could find. The reasons it meets B-Class criteria are as follows:


 * Good Structure - Sentences flow well, grammar is correct, but some work is still required
 * Adequate References - This still needs some work, and more references are needed, but the article still meets B-Class criteria for reference amounts.
 * Good Length - Article has good amount of subheadings, major subheadings are treated fairly equally (i.e. transportation, education, points of interest, geography, demographics) Still, some sections (i.e. Healthcare) are too short. Article has two infoboxes.
 * Importance in History - Article has a lengthy and informative history section which corresponds to its importance as one of the first European settlements in the United States
 * Good Images - Images in Article are do not require Fair Use Rationale, are used in context, and add to the article. However, more images would be useful.
 * Has a NPOV
 * Overall a Relatively Comprehensive Article - Article still needs work, but is definitely above a Start-Class Status.

Compare Plymouth's article to Munich air disaster, which is currently featured as an example of a B-Class article on the Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment page. Plymouth's article is of similar length, has more images, has more references, has more external links, and has more headings and sub-headings. By comparing Plymouth to a well-established B-Class article, I believe it is clear that Plymouth is worthy of B-Class status. Raime 07:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Geography
Should there be a more complete listing of the villages or sections of Plymouth, as opposed to the current listing of "Plymouth's larger localities"? See the article on Taunton as an example. While the status of this main article is being considered, I won't change this section unless it's OK. Ed 01:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems like a great idea to me. I say go right ahead. With this new section, maybe we can get rid of the sentence For geographic and demographic information on specific parts of the town of Plymouth, please see the articles on North Plymouth, Plymouth (CDP), and White Island Shores, which always seemed out of place in the introduction. Raime 02:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. I orientated the list starting at Plymouth Center and roughly spiraled north, west and the huge chunk south, using how what was then New England Telephone (now Verizon) separated the town into the separate Plymouth (prior to 1973, only 746 and 747) and Manomet (then, only 224) exchanges, before the two exchanges were consolidated. How does it look? Ed 12:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... It is extremely long. I think maybe it warrants the creation of a separate section Neighborhoods in Plymouth, Massachusetts, as in Boston (with a link from the top of the Geography Section). Of course, then we'd have to write articles for most of the districts.
 * Anyway, it is a good addition to have, but its extreme length makes it look sort out of place. Stll, great job. In this case, I think transferring the list to a new page would be the best bet. Raime 12:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps if I have the list read horizontally rather than vertically it would appear shorter. It might be a slight problem with the sub-sections that were made in the vertical list, but it should shorten the project in order to avoid creating links upon links in wikipedia. Ed 14:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, links upon links would not be necessary. Only major neighborhoods require links, and we can add short pieces of info to the ones that do have their own articles. Even if the list reads horizontally, it is still far too much information to include on this page, and I really think creating a new page would be good. Beisdes, this many items really should be in list-form, as horizontal form could get confusing. Major, "historic" disctricts can still be listed on the Plymouth page (as in Taunton), but I think that to list the entire list (which should be listed somewhere), a new page is necessary. Raime 20:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and created the new article, adding a See Also link at the top of the Geography section. Raime 06:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

GA
I recently reviewed this article and found it more than worth of GA status. I found the article to be informative, well organized and to put it bluntly good. I must agree with the review of the previous editor who promoted the article to B-class and I hope that all of the editors who have been putting in work on this article continue to do so. Good work everyone. Timhud 23:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Some further recommendations:
 * Only full dates or dates with a day and a month should be linked. The same applies to dates in the footnotes.
 * ✅ - Non-full dates are no longer wikilinked Raime 13:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Read Manual of Style regarding dash usage.
 * I read it, and I don't believe anything in this article goes against the dash policy. Could you please specify what areas need work? There is one sentence where a year until year format is used due to context, and that is acceptable. In other areas, it is year-year. I could not find any issues with dash usgae in the article. Raime 13:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * IMDb is an unreliable source as anyone can edit it.
 * ✅ - all IMDb references removed and replaced. Raime 13:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Imperial measurements should be accompanied by the metric equivalent in brackets, and vice versa. Epbr123 16:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ - added metric units where necessary. Raime 13:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

proposal
Since this article has the information on Plymouth's history scattered throughout the first half, I propose that we create another article focusing on the history of Plymouth and we leave all other info here. -Anonymous Contributor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.29.18 (talk) 02:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Plymouth Colony already exists as a FL, and you really cannot get a more detailed history article than that. In order to retain its GA-status, I think that this article should keep its History section as-is, as it is currently a good summary of the colonial information that is explored more deeply in the Plymouth Colony article. At the same time, however, we cannot have a "Main article" link to Plymouth Colony, as that article focuses on far more than just the history of the town. I really think that leaving it the way it is is fine. Rai - me  02:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Plymouth incorporation date
I've been doing some research on Plymouth and I've noticed that the date incorporated shown in the Wikipedia article is 1670. When I saw this, I researched elsewhere somewhat, and most resources I've seen say that it was incorporated in 1620 and that there was a city charter dating back to that date. Is 1670 accurate, and if so, what is the history behind that? Are there any resources that speak of this in any detail? Johnbwight (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry I took so long to reply; I guess I just missed this comment! :-) I did some research as well on the Plymouth County official site, and you are correct; the town was incorporated in 1620. I will update the article and add the reference. Cheers, Rai • me  12:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

James Warren
I was reading this page and noticed lifelong resident James Warren was not noted in the "Notable residents section"...as I'll probably mess up such an article that appears very well kept, I'm gonna avoid editing it myself. 75.67.195.144 (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you could have made the change just fine, but I just did. Thanks for the tipoff.    Ravenswing  19:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to make Plymouth a dab page
Currently, Plymouth is an article about a small city in England. I think it should be the disambiguation page and that the English city be moved to Plymouth, Devon. That is, anyone typing in Plymouth right now will go to the article about the small city in England and I think they should be sent to the disambiguation page on which there are links to all references to Plymouth, including this page.

You can weigh in on the proposal here. --Serge (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Please research before you call cities in England 'small', I think some Americans think England is a villiage. Plymouth, England: Population (2008 est.)[3]
 * Total 252,800
 * Density 8,261/sq mi (3,188/km2)

Plymouth, Massachusetts: Population (2007)[4]
 * Total 55,188
 * Density 536.0/sq mi (207.0/km2)

Small City? Sweetie candykim (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah. Heaven knows I'm a Plymouth MA backer through and through, but while the question as to which Plymouth is more historically important is debatable, the question as to which one is a more prominent city currently isn't.    Ravenswing  01:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is stupid, the article stays at Plymouth, or would you like us to move Boston to a dab because after all it's only a small city, and it's town in England isn't much smaller. Please don't assume anything and maybe look at it from our perspective. You Americans aren't the only English people in the world. I've n ever even heard of Plymouth, America, but have definitley heard of Boston. Besides it would be stupid to make it a dab when the actual town it's named after it is the larger city. Bezuidenhout (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Poor Introduction
The intro paragraph does a poor job recognizing Plymouth's immesnse historical significance to the United States. It should at least mention the Pilgrims, the establishment of America's first permanent English settlement, and the First Thanksgiving. Raime 11:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * True. I've added something. AJD 15:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes it is now considered a myth. Good to know that the Pilgrims mythsteriously existed and mythsteriously survived the first winter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.58.247.77 (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)