Talk:Seattle/Archive 4

message: *There is a list in the body that includes [Mount Baker, Seattle, Washington]. As far as I know, this is not one of the seven hills. Rather, Denny Hill (which exists no more, following the "Denny Regrade") was the seventh hill.  I cannot verify this, but when the seven hills were named, the city did not extend far enough south to include the Mount Baker neighborhood and West Seattle was considered its own community. Grantor 14:16, 27 February 2007
:Seattle's Seven Hills on HistoryLink sort of agrees with you, but it also hedges a great deal.  I'll edit the article to reflect that; IMHO HistoryLink is pretty much the definitive source on WA state history. Eldang 00:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thoughts, I see that there is a Seven hills of Seattle article, so I just snipped out that list of hills from this article, and I'll go over and refine that one now, as it really seems like more appropriate content for the specialised page than the main Seattle article. Eldang 01:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also a link on the Seven hills of Seattle article that discusses the removal of Denny Hill, which rounds out the details nicely.  --74.60.0.215 18:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - that does make it clearer. Eldang 20:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Seven Hills of Seattle

message: The homeless population #s make no sense. In one sentence it says "estimated at 1.5%" (that would be around 50-75,000); later in the paragraph it says population of 8,000.  If there's a dispute (there usually is on these matters), then we should simply say, "estimated between X and Y"; and "population of anywhere from X to Y", and cite to both.  Can anyone help on this? --lquilter 05:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: cites the Seattle area as having a homeless population of 2,140 people. Keep in mind this isn't an official source, merely an unofficial census by the "Seattle-King County Coalition on Homelessness". It might be nice to note that the number of homeless has dropped roughly 5% since this time last year. Hojimachong 07:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also worth bearing in mind that statistics often get confused between those that refer to the City of Seattle alone and those that refer to all of urban King County, and between those that specifically count people sleeping rough at night or those that include every person with no fixed abode. —Eldan Goldenberg (User:Eldang) 02:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  homeless population #s 

message: I think someone should drastically scale down the performing arts section. There is no need to list so many band names, venues, etc. Most of what is there should go to the Arts in Seattle main page. Soapy 03:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know.. You can make edit's yourself, Soapy.;)  There isn't a residency requirement to editting on this article. --Bobblehead 21:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performing arts section too big? 

message: did a major edit of the whole article on 2007-01-29, but marked it minor and left no edit summary. It was well-intentioned and constructive, in my opinion, but I thought it should be brought to the attention of the other editors of this article. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major edit 

message: Hmmm, didn't know Seattle's climate was "Mediterranean". And I think some of the average temperatures listed are too warm... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dude6789 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cliamte/temperatures? 

message: Why is this page protected?  Is Seattle a particularly controversial city?--Margareta 21:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh wait, it's not.  I was able to edit.  It looks like the tag just didn't get removed.  I'll do it...--Margareta 21:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, it's semi-protected, which I discovered when I was about to remove the tag.  I've changed the tag to accurately reflect this.  Still, I'm surious about the protection.--Margareta 21:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We had an anon with a dynamic IP address that was defending a preferred version of the climate section so the sprot was requested. The protection is for 3 days, but if you'd like to shorten it, you're more than welcome to head on over to WP:RFP and request that it be unprotected. --Bobblehead 22:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection? 

message: Over two years old and never completed--with out-of-date references like Seahawks Stadium. Posted requests for updating here and on the main Map Help Wanted page a while back, but never got any takers. I don't have the time to do it, much as I would love to.... any ideas? --Lukobe 18:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed map 

message: I deleted this from the demographics section's sidebar on homelessness:
Local non-profit organizations dealing with poverty and related issues include the Fremont Public Association, the Asian Counseling and Referral Service, Peace for the Streets by Kids from the Streets, and the Seattle Indian Center.
Because, while this is all true, it is a very unbalaced portrait of social services in Seattle. PSKS does very little in the city compared to other social service agencies not mentioned. Because a more complete list would be prohibitive, I suggest it be ommited altogether.
66.194.72.10 23:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seattle Non-Profits 

message: Please tell me if I should be putting this somewhere else, but the talk page seems like the right place.  Billywatson is quite determined to have this page link to about.com's Seattle guide.  He is also the editor of said guide.  
After I initially removed his link spam from the main body of the article and commented on his talk page, I received an angry email from the same user, and found that one of my edits to Olympic_Sculpture_Park had been reverted by him.  I have been trying to resolve this dispute through email, in the course of which I added a link to his Seattle guide in the one place where I thought it appropriate.  Bobblehead removed that link and subsequently gave an explanation on my talk page (with which I was satisfied) of why it doesn't belong, but I notice Billywatson has been back since to put the link back in.  
I'm not interested in getting into an edit war with anyone, so I think I'll steer clear of changing anything myself, but if the general consensus agrees with Bobblehead's position then perhaps it should be made clear and acted on. Eldang 04:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The added information that Billywatson is the editor of that page would seem to preclude him from adding the link to the external links section due to a conflict of interest which is definitely against WP:EL.  Aside from removing your link on the Olympic Sculpture Park, Billy Watson's edit history seems to only be adding links to about.com, so it is entirely possible we could start warning him about WP:SPAM violations.  That being said, I'm not strictly opposed to the link, I just don't see it as providing anything uniquely encyclopedic to the article that is not provided by the other links already included in the lengthy external links section. --Bobblehead 19:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 30 minutes after you removed the link, a new user account was created (User:Sandylee253), and that account has done exactly one thing: re-add the about.com link 2 minutes after it was created. I have removed it, and requested that anyone who wants to include it make the case here. Regardless of their identity, this would be more productive than simply continuing to re-add the link each time it is removed. Eldang 21:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to seattle.about.com 

message: What was wrong with adding overall averages to the climate section? Many other articles have it, and I don't see why it "brings down" the article. 192.147.169.5 20:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea. My guess is that Tellyaddict was a little overeager in reverting your change based on your IP addresses history of vandalism. Note that I'm not saying you're the one doing the vandalism, but your IP address is a shared IP address and has been used for that purpose in the past.  You may wish to consider creating an account As far as including the "Overall Average", why not call it the "Mean" and go with that? --Bobblehead 20:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll do that. 777fortytwo 21:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overall averages 

message: An anonymous editor, 192.147.169.5 (talk • contribs), has substituted a table from The Weather Channel for the one from the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC) with the edit summary, " I believe these averages are more commonly shown." I was not able to verify that The Weather Channel is a commonly used source of climate data on Wikipedia. Weatherbase seems to be used most often on other city articles, when a source is given, e.g., Los Angeles, California,  San Francisco, California,  Houston, Texas and Boston, Massachusetts.  Of about ten large US cities that I looked at, only Dallas, Texas cites The Weather Channel.
The Western Regional Climate Center "is administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration". It is hosted by the "Desert Research Institute (DRI) [which] is the nonprofit research campus of the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE)" As such, I would expect its staff to be mostly scientists and technical people. The other two source are for-profit corporations and accept advertising. The Weather Channel is a news organization that reports on weather related topics.
The provenance of The Weather Channel data is not given. The provenance of the WRCC data is stated as 7/23/1931 to 10/31/2006 and is for the Seattle Tacoma International Airport Weather Service Contract Meteorological Office. This information as well as the additional decimal digit of temperature makes the WRCC data more useful, in my opinion. Weatherbase states "Years on Record" but not the date of the most recent update. The latitude and longitude of the location where the data were taken is stated.
The policy WP:ATT states that "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible." I think all three sources probably comply with this rather vague standard. Another issue is whether republishing either The Weather Channel or Weatherbase data violates WP:COPY. My reading of Fair use is that it may, and that the WRCC source which is directly attributable to the federal government is more likely to be compliant. Of the sources I've investigated, I think that the WRCC is the most reliable source. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting question on the copyright violation... The weather channel's information is based on the same information as the WRCC's information so not sure if the weather channel can claim copyright, but then, I'm not anywhere near a layman on copyright laws. The weather channel is just using a smaller range for the average and the fact that the range isn't known is probably a reason not to use it. One thing that might work against using the 1931-2006 average from the WRCC is that global warming has increased the average temperature by a degree or so. The average is technically not from 1931 to 2006. There's a reading in July 1931, but every other monthly average is blank until June 1948. Realistically, I don't really care which version we use, just seems like a lot of wasted cycles in the server to squabble over a difference of a few degrees. --Bobblehead 21:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of different sources with different averages. I simply meant that I had seen the ones I posted the most. But I'm no expert, so I guess I'll just trust the other averages, but I'm going to try and add mean averages to them. 777fortytwo 22:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Average temperatures, etc. 

message: The Columbia Center is the tallest building in Seattle and, with 83 stories, has a greater number of floors than any other building west of the Mississippi River. 
The Columbia Center has 76 stories so I am going to correct this.
"In the 90's a genration of childeren were born into the cold world of Seattle, know as the children of the attle. These kids included jackie, jessica, austiin, ben, jen, kk, rian, gabi, cassie, leah, and bob." 
Who put this crap in?  I typically don't edit, just look for errors and vandalism.  Can someonetake care of this?
Actually, the BANK OF AMERICA CENTER has 75 stories as it lacks a thirteenth floor (as most modern skyscrapers in the U.S. do).
:The current name of the building is the Columbia Center, despite the fact that it can be referred to as the BANK OF AMERICA CENTER and the COLUMBIA TOWER, these are former names, and the article correctly reflects this.  There are 76 floors above ground.  I used to work in the restaurant on floor 75 and 76.  However, the assertion about the missing floor 13 could be true.  There are several levels below ground, perhaps the distinction should be noted.  Also please remember to sign your comments. Joshua Crowgey 21:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signficant Buildings Error 

message: The article used both spellings before I changed it to Seattlite. Any linguists want to weigh in? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.208.85.43 (talk) 07:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: m-w.com has "Seattleite,"  without "Seattlite" offered as an alternative. The city's website spells it "Seattleite" except for two places. And a Google comparison favors "Seattleite" to "Seattlite," 95,700 to 30,000. Unless someone has a compelling counterargument, I'd say we should go with "Seattleite." -- Scarequotes 20:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Neither.  "Seagros". SchmuckyTheCat 04:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely "Seattleite." --Lukobe 06:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The two major Seattle newspapers seem to prefer Seattleite.  See http://search.live.com/results.aspx?FORM=DNSAS&q=seattleite+site%3anwsource.com.  You can find it the other way too, but mostly in blogs which is arguably a misspelling. Brianhe 20:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think it's the proper spelling. Dave Rebecca 20:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seattlite or Seattleite? 

message: The city was originally called "New York Alki", which means "New York by and by", or "New York sooner or later". I'll make sure the article reflects that. -Uagehry456talk 20:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seattle wasn't called "New York Alki". The settlement on Alki Point was called New York Alki until it was shortened to Alki shortly before it went belly up and everyone moved to Seattle. Seattle has always been Seattle. Although, it does technically depend on what you consider "Seattle" to be. Seattle was settled by  the same people as New York, but there was a period of time when there were two settlements, one New York (Unofficially called New York Alki and then officially changed to Alki) and the other Duwamps/Seattle. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Alki 

message: Just curious, how come a featured article not mention a single word about religion in the city? Especially being the seat of a catholic archbishop should be worth mentioning! 
* For further information please visit: ;-) Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle --X-Weinzar 19:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: seems to be gaining widespread use. I'm not sure that I understand the argument not to use it in this article. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It also seems to be a lot easier to maintain as it now only requires you to update the Fahrenheit, it eliminates the annoying math errors that are common when manually converting imperial to metric, and we don't have to wonder if a change in average temperature also constitutes a color change for the cell.  Not to mention the colors are now standard across all articles using the infobox. Anytime there is more standardization between articles is a good thing, if you ask me. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Weather 

message: What's going on in the articlehistory box at the top of the page? The information is wrong and doesn't make any sense.-Wafulz 15:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks fine to me. There was a failed a FAC in Jan 05 and was promoted in March 05. The only minor nit is the March discussion points to the Jan discussion, but there's a link for that at the top. --Bobblehead (rants) 15:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was also in the wrong order. I've changed it appropriately.-Wafulz 16:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article 

message: I think the sport section should also mention swimmer Helene Madison (1913-1970) of Seattle who won three gold medals at the 1932 Olympic Games.  Willingandable 15:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helene Madison 

message: Noah was a baptismal name, given at Sealth's baptism late in life. If you shouted "Noah!" he would not have turned his head. If you want to document his baptismal name, put that in Sealth page but it has nothing to do with this city. rewinn 04:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, read "Blazing the Way" by Emily Inez Denny (the first white girl born in Seattle), 1899 (reprinted 1984 by Seattle Historical Society.) Multiple references to Sealth or Seattle; none to Noah Seattle rewinn 04:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the context, the editor who wrote that is just giving alternate names; I'd say it should stay. --Lukobe 22:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's not a name that there is any evidence he used. Perhaps it might be relevant in his biographical page, but not in the page of the city of Seattle. Lots of Seattle's residents had baptismal names (not to mention middles names, birth names and nick-names) and I don't think the article would be improved by listing them all. rewinn 03:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sealth's name was not Noah