Talk:Seattle/Archive 2

message: I was visiting Seattle and saw the busses. It looked like they were hooked on a electric cable above but at the same time they could unhook and go off down the street. I'm not a local so I was wondering what is up with that. Are they hybrids? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jess523s (talk • contribs) 23 January 2006
:A little of both. Some are trolley-only, some can switch back and forth, and some are "true" hybrids-they switch to hybrid mode for the (currently-closed) tunnel, and run on the regular engine the rest of the time. See http://transit.metrokc.gov/am/vehicles/vehicles.html for more details.--SarekOfVulcan 03:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hybrid busses? 

message: Re :Image:Fremont Lenin.jpg vs. :Image:Fremont Lenin 2.png -- Then I don't know what's wrong with my monitor, because most pictures look fine, but all I see is a sea of black with some dim grey highlights. For all I know it could be a statue of a Greek fisherman lugging a net full of cod. The Taco Del Mar logo is more recognizable than Lenin. It looks like it needs brightening, which is why I added gamma and contrast to it. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lenin Picture

message: I'm working on a paper about seattle & tried to follow the link to the "Seattle: Booms and Busts" at http://pantheon.yale.edu/~eds25/DrizzlyCity.rtf It seems to be broken. Furthermore, it seems yale disabled crawling or caching all pages in the hosted domain--which means I wasn't able to secure a cached copy. If anybody is reading this and has a copy of the file, could you please send it to arthur (at) imaging-resource (dot) com
More to the point, since the author has given wikipedia blanket permission to use the paper, is there any way this file could be hosted as a source in wikipedia in order to provide access? This is obviously an important source of information for this article and others online (I've seen it referenced many other places online).
-Wiki neophyte —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.42.179.196 (talk • contribs) 
: Wonder if the author, Emmett Shear, is still reachable at sarbandia@hotmail.com ? Might try e-mailing him directly. --Lukobe 06:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Source 

message: I'm goin' in! Feel free to re-add ones I delete if you really think they're important, but as it stands, I think there are too many in there... --Lukobe 02:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  external links needs pruning 

message: :A GUNMAN killed six young people at a "zombie party", where revellers were made up to look dead yesterday.
:The killer shot himself in the head when challenged by police as he left the murder house. 
:Two wounded party-goers were taken to hospital. 
:Seattle police scoured the scene for clues as to what prompted the shooting spree in the city's trendy Capitol Hill neighbourhood. 
:http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18614547-38198,00.html
Why the heck hasn't this been mentioned?  Been trying to see if it has an article already created, the details I've read so far sound like the theme of a hollywood b-grade movie.  :/  Hope no one here is affected by this. 211.30.80.121 04:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zombie Party Killings 

message: 
Any volunteers to update/flesh out Seattle_map.png? The original creator appears to have abandoned it and I don't have the time to do it myself (it was wishful thinking on my part when I said I might do so six weeks ago). --Lukobe 08:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map w/landmarks 

message: Does anyone really use "City of Goodwill"? Wasn't that just a publicity thing around the Goodwill Games? - Jmabel | Talk 16:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been about a week; no one has answered, I'm removing it. - Jmabel | Talk 04:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goodwill 

message: ("alki" being a Chinook word meaning, roughly, "eventually")
Was Chinook Jargon or Chinookan languages intended?  There should be source for this statement either way.
—Firespeaker 10:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This can be found in any number of guides to Seattle and on many Web pages. I'm a relative newcomer to the area, but it was one of the first things I learned about Seattle, and I was surprised it wasn't mentioned in the article. Says the P-I: "In these early days, an anonymous pioneer with a sense of humor modified the name of New York by appending the Chinook word 'alki' -- which means 'by and by.'" Seattle's convention and visitor bureau has much the same story, though they confirm it is Chinook Jargon. ("By and by" rather than "eventually" seems to be the canonical translation of "alki," but I used "eventually" since "by and by" is a bit archaic). The Chinook Jargon article does list Alki. I made some minor tweaks the sentence today. Jerry Kindall 22:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinook 

message: Does this amateur sports team really need to be listed in the table with the other Seattle professional sports teams?  If so, why not Seattle Junior Hockey or the UW Huskies?  I feel it just doesn't belong there.  71.121.137.40 02:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They've been getting a lot of attention lately. I could go either way on this. - Jmabel | Talk 15:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rat City Rollergirls ??? 

message: For style, since The Chicago Manual of Style is referenced in Wikipedia: Manual of Style, it might be a fair extrapolation that the Chicago Style is otherwise generally the standard (per Wikipedia, of course).  I might slip, though, 'cause I also like the Modern Language Association (MLA) style.
"[N]orth- and southbound" (N-S) and "(east- and westbound)" (E-W) are in themselves less important in that all the avenues in greater (metro) Seattle have their compass direction following, and these all run near N-S; all the streets have their compass direction preceding, and these all run near E-W.  This could be a boilerplate footnote common to all the 'pedia entries for metropolitan neighborhoods, making the body of the entry that much more smooth reading, and making convenient pasting the note into entries.  This could be such as:  Note:  Metropolitan streets are laid out and designated in a pattern.  See Street layout of Seattle.
Adding the compass point and direction to every instance in a sentence or a list can become redundant and less readable.
Compass points do not have periods, as, for example neither does NATO or the element Al. [Chicago Style, Wikipedia Boxing the compass and Cardinal direction ].  The official designations on maps and on actual official street signs use the standard convention.  The official designations in USPS addresses use the standard convention.  Another way to think of this may be to consider the compass points as symbols ilke those of the Periodic Table.  (emphasis added --GoDot 05:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2. Style 

message: Further, Lukobe wrote, > However, in Seattle, "Ave." is usually spelled with the period. (Proper nouns can take the form of abbreviations.)  >  It could be interesting to find refs.  I think I've seen it both ways in print, though I don't recall where or when.  But then, punctuation marks are popularly commonly added or left out willy-nilly, as The Economist contributor Lynne Truss has amusingly documented.
:Some references found.  See The Ave.  --GoDot 04:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Include the punctuation mark inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation mark is part of the quotation" (WP:MoS#Quotation marks). --GoDot 04:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3.  Punctuation 

message: For [the] Northgate Seattle [collection of] neighborhood[s], a brief description of North College Park and the wiki entry content as a combined "Northgate and North College Park neighborhoods" should suffice [for now].
:See also 6. { Seattle neighborhoods } & template, below.  --GoDot 04:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel like I'm missing something coming into this.  But I will say that "The Ave" shouldn't have a period, because it's not short for "The Avenue".  SchmuckyTheCat 22:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the main U-District article, it is: "...in 1919, 14th Avenue (by then already known as "The Avenue" or "The Ave")..." Anyway, this post is the result of GoDot changing directionals like N.E. and N.W. to NE and NW in some neighborhood articles, as well as the format of the thoroughfares section in those same articles. He originally brought them up to me via e-mail, I replied via e-mail asking him to post on my talk page, and then he posted this there. It was so long and detailed and really of relevance to more people than just me I thought I'd bring it over here. --Lukobe 00:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: re The Ave: Yes, it is historically. But if you said "The Avenue" today people would look at you funny.  A period, to denote an abbreviation, isn't accurate because the abbreviation has become the term.  Anyway, both "Ave" and "Ave." appear in Wikipedia for our loved street.  No big diff. SchmuckyTheCat 01:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "No big diff."  Yes, yet a goal is accuracy.  Having verifiable sources, should this particular point be explicated as it is above [and now in The Ave]?  Here is a point of this original post as a whole; the post contains verifiable content having references.  Another point of this post is toward furthering Wikipedia itself becoming a more credible reference. --GoDot 07:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Cf. Shenk, Pollack, Dornfeld, Frantilla, & Neman in the References, below.  --GoDot 04:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  5. More accurate 

message: "The University of Washington University Book Store" is more accurate.  "The Universtiy of Washington's College of Medicine" would be similarly more awkward than such as "The University of Washington College of Medicine".  The mention of a theatre chain (albeit a [formerly] local one) without mention of neighborhood icon Andy Shiga of Shiga's Imports looks very much like product placement.
Both local newspapers of record officially use "The Ave", no period [Cf. The Ave].
:I feel like I'm missing something coming into this.  But I will say that "The Ave" shouldn't have a period, because it's not short for "The Avenue".  SchmuckyTheCat 22:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the main U-District article, it is: "...in 1919, 14th Avenue (by then already known as "The Avenue" or "The Ave")..." Anyway, this post is the result of GoDot changing directionals like N.E. and N.W. to NE and NW in some neighborhood articles, as well as the format of the thoroughfares section in those same articles. He originally brought them up to me via e-mail, I replied via e-mail asking him to post on my talk page, and then he posted this there. It was so long and detailed and really of relevance to more people than just me I thought I'd bring it over here. --Lukobe 00:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: re The Ave: Yes, it is historically. But if you said "The Avenue" today people would look at you funny.  A period, to denote an abbreviation, isn't accurate because the abbreviation has become the term.  Anyway, both "Ave" and "Ave." appear in Wikipedia for our loved street.  No big diff. SchmuckyTheCat 01:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "No big diff."  Yes, yet a goal is accuracy.  Having verifiable sources, should this particular point be explicated as it is above [and now in The Ave]?  Here is a point of this original post as a whole; the post contains verifiable content having references.  Another point of this post is toward furthering Wikipedia itself becoming a more credible reference. --GoDot 07:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  5.a.  The Ave 

message: Accuracy.  "The official city map shows" referenced in some neighborhood entries is explicitly not.  Cf. the fine print footer of such as Wedgwood.
:Cf. Shenk, Pollack, Dornfeld, Frantilla, & Neman in the References, below.  --GoDot 04:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  5.b.  Neighborhoods, Seattle 

message: [A descriptive referral to] Street layout of Seattle is a useful internal link that is particularly relevant to content of metro neighborhoods articles, since such info is of particular interest to anyone wishing to navigate a city.  Its codification has been a big deal in Seattle public works (cf. Phelps, Samson in Street layout of Seattle).  The layout patterns of New York are famous.  As such it is also a distinctive aspect of community character, demonstrably so with respect to those of different cultures.  --GoDot 03:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Street Layout of Seattle 

message: : Maybe we should add a link to it in the neighborhoods template. In fact, I think I will do just that. --Lukobe 04:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A concise description would be useful, as for West Seattle just above it.  Lake City may well have enough neigborhoods (and its own history) to be treated as is West Seattle.  For consistency, there could be four (or more) such:  West Seattle, Rainier Valley, Northgate, and Lake City.  Bryant and Ravenna might be left in the main category, but grouped together since they are also known as (aka) Ravenna and Ravenna-Bryant, as could Licton Springs and North College Park, two names for very nearly the same neighborhood.  All together, these actions might make the main group more readable as well.  --GoDot 05:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On this detail, north Wallingford is nebulous with south Green Lake, and that indefinite Twilight Zone is aka Tangle Town (where is it possible to get appropriately bewildered by the tangle of street layouts : ) --GoDot 02:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Feel free to modify the template: I am sure you could do good things with it. (For that matter, Downtown might be thrown in with West Seattle, Lake City, and Rainier Valley.) --Lukobe 06:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:NOR and WP:V at WP:CITE, some standard verification should be provided beforehand : )  --GoDot 02:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neighborhoods template 

message: Cf. Seattle neighborhoods#Informal districts.  Ballard neighborhoods (Ballard), itself a former town for 17 years.  o Adams, o Loyal Heights, o Sunset Hill, o West Woodland, o Whittier Heights 
Lake City neighborhoods (Lake City): o Cedar Park, o Matthews Beach, o Meadowbrook, o Olympic Hills, o Victory Heights 
Northgate neighborhoods (Lake City): o Haller Lake, o Maple Leaf, o North College Park (Licton Springs), o Pinehurst 
Rainier Valley neighborhoods (Rainier Valley): o Brighton, o Columbia City, o Dunlap, o Mount Baker, o Rainier Beach, o Rainier View 
Additional districts of the city are similarly assemblages of neighborhoods, cf. full city neighborhoods map.  Click on a number or name for a more detailed map.  For example:  Downtown neighborhoods.  Conurbations tend to have grown up organically from once-autonomous towns or around such as trolley stops in the 19th c.
--GoDot 04:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ballard, L. City, Ngate, R. Valley, W Seattle 

message: --GoDot 02:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes and References 

message: This WP neighborhood topic category [] is great--'used to have to coax diverse sources to find this local info for a city or some place.  Thank you all.
So far, there are no errors of content introduced; these issues need to be furthered toward the most credible content.  Comment would be appreciated.
:Clarifications:  Comment posts and clarifications moved to appropriate subheadings above.  --GoDot 04:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conclusion 

message: For Shenk, Pollack, Dornfeld, Frantilla, & Neman (authors of the "Seattle City Clerk's Office Neighborhood Map Atlas") as for Phelps in the paragraph beginning "[T]ide lands platted" in Talk:Seattle neighborhoods 5 Style and accuracy, Shenk et al "drew almost entirely upon primary sources.  As [...] credible archivist[s], [their work] qualifies as a high-caliber secondary source, per WP:CITE, Wikipedia: # What sources to cite."  Indeed given the circumstances described, as professionals, they could not but state that their work is non-partisan.  This is similarly true of Cline, though caveats for Cline have not been found so far.  Cf. (see also) Seattle neighborhoods # Informal districts.  Cline, Phelps, and Shenk et al have complete citations in Seattle neighborhoods # Bibliography.
Spiedel (1967, 1978) also drew extensively on primary sources, listed in his comprehensive bibliographies (complete citations in Street layout of Seattle # Bibliography).
--GoDot 05:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About sources cited 

message: We'd like to gain consensus about issues regarding neighborhoods articles in general, that have so far been a dialogue.  I'd like to add yet another section heading.  However, this page is getting very big.  Talk:Seattle is getting so big there's a WP note, "This page is 105 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." [Mon. 22 May]  (Of course, Editing of individual sections is actually used.)  Wikipedia:Article size.  Shortcut:  WP:SIZE.  --GoDot 02:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is getting very big 

message: Emmett Watson, to include a great explanation of the term "Lesser Seattle" or a Lesser Seattle article. SchmuckyTheCat 01:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wanted articles 

message: The collison betweent the two monorail cars, besides providing delight for those of a particular view of engineering goofs (eg, more spectaculatly the Tacoma Narrow Bridge Incident), deserves its own section, or perhaps an actual article. I can't write it, not having been in Seattle in more than a decade, but... Volunteers, anyone? Perhaps from the Park? Or transplants from the state? ww 06:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seattle Center Monorail mentions the latest accident, though it could use expansion. The Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse seems to be quite well covered--since I'm an anon I can't create the redirect to it from the redlink above. 24.18.215.132 01:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirect created. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article or section needed 

message: The sport section is getting rather long so I started the transition of the section into an article of its own.  Prior to the move I'd like to get the thumbs up from the community on whether it would be better just to leave the text paragraph I have as the lead in the new article (with improvements as needed), or the table and summary. Just doing my part to get this article in compliance with WP:SS and WP:SIZE style guides. --Bobblehead 02:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Sports in Seattle]] article

message: (See Northgate, Seattle, Washington)--recent changes have the article saying Maple Leaf is part of Northgate, based on the City Clerk's map. I think, regardless, that this shouldn't be in the article, as nobody considers at least the southern part of the neighborhood to be in Northgate. GoDot disagrees. Any opinions here? --Lukobe 17:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to respond on the Northgate Talk page, but that mess is almost as inscrutable as GoDot's article diffs there. The related sections above here aren't much better. IMHO, the footer of the map (being used to "prove" Maple Leaf in its entirety is part of Northgate) makes it clear the city abitrarily drew lines for internal government organization, and that specifically no one should consider them more relevant/accurate/complete/etc. than common/historical usage. I think the focus of the article should be the commonly understood neighborhood of Northgate (pretty much limited to 5-10 blocks in any direction from the mall) and that there is some overlap with the four surrounding neighborhoods, and then just a brief aside something to the effect of 'city planners group the four surrounding neighborhoods in what they call the Northgate district'. South Maple Leaf, and especially Southeast Maple Leaf, certainly wouldn't be considered part of Northgate by anyone other than the bureaucrats that made that map. (FWIW, other than a 5-year sentence to purgatory, aka Silicon Valley, I've lived in north Seattle since 1964.) Niteowlneils 03:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  northgate 

message: I just got a nippy message from User:Bobblehead for making this edit, which he has reverted. I took out the 39 links to years in the article, to far fewer than 39 separate years. Is bobble head right to assume that it is the consensus of the editors on this page to go against: "Not every year listed in an article needs to be wikilinked.  Ask yourself: will clicking on the year bring any useful information to the reader?" 
And if so, do you really want all 39 there? I got rid of them because I thought they looked ugly and added nothing at all to the article; apologies if I was out of line and anyone else is offended or considers this an important matter, as bobble clearly does. --Guinnog 03:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. I could care less if the dates are wikified and happen to think the amount of blue on the Seattle page is a bit excessive. At most I'd prefer there be one wikify per reference. I just noticed that whenever I left a date unwikified someone else followed shortly thereafter to wikify the date. --Bobblehead 04:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, between zero links (for most) and one link {for demonstrably significant dates) would seem to be best, in line with the policy linked above. I've been editing pages that way as part of cleanup for ages now and it's never been a problem before. But certainly there are too many low-value date links at present. More than one for any year is just ridiculous, inasmuch as it matters at all. Thanks for clarifying Bobble --Guinnog 04:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except as noted in this style guide "There is less agreement about links to years. Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader. Some advocate linking to a more specific article about that year, for example 2006." Looks like another case where wiki contradicts itself. --Bobblehead 04:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. It is ultimately fairly unimportant and should be decided on aethetics and functionality. I think that aesthetically, so many date links looks bad, and I think that functionally it is hard to see how they add anything. At the very least, the duplicated ones should go, surely? --Guinnog 16:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates

message: The climate section of the article lists all temperatures as being in Celsius. This seems odd for an article about an American city on a largely American wiki. -dxco
:are we looking at the same thing? I see F and C temperatures...which makes sense, since this is in fact an international wiki... --Lukobe 03:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about creating a sub-article for Climate of Seattle, moving the wordy portion there and leaving behind the table and summary sentence?  The words are important as the graph alone doesn't do justice to the Seattle climate. --Bobblehead 22:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Climate

message: Since they are starting to make the lack of inline citations an issue on the WP:FAR page, I'm going to be going through and updating this article's inline citations to footnotes.  While the article does have 39 inline citations, several footnotes, and a number of uncited references, it does need to meet the Wikipedia:What is a featured article? requirements as most of the inline citations are not properly referenced in the references section of the article. (I'm guilty as charged on this) --Bobblehead 01:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inline Citations

message: I am having issues with the part on the page in which little history and credit is given to the Klondike Gold Rush having much impact on Seattle.  
On the page it is written:
"Arguably, the Klondike Gold Rush constituted a separate, shorter boom during the last years of the 19th century, funding Nordstrom's initial growth."
Excuse me...but every history book I own about Seattle states that the Klondike Gold Rush "made" Seattle a house-hold name!  The Rush ended a depression that had been hurting the U.S. economy, let alone, the world's, since the crash of 1893.  The properity felt because of it lasted well into the 1900's!  And why is Nordstrom's the only company listed??  There were literally thousands of new industries and businesses created and funded because of the gold Rush!  "What would you do for a Klondike Bar?"
The sentence makes the event sound like a barely noticeable trivia blip.  It needs to be changed!!   Soapy 17:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're more than welcome to make changes to that section in regards to how the Klondike Gold Rush impacted Seattle's economy. It appears that all of the booms and busts prior to the Boeing crash could do with some expansion. --Bobblehead 17:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Klondike Gold Rush & Seattle 

message: The Bellvue Suburb Debate on this talk page made the Settle blog "Seattlest" --8bitJake 00:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk Page makes news. 

message: Under the heading "External Links," and under a sub-heading "personal," is someones Seattle trip blog.  I have noticed that it has been there a while.  Should this really be here?  Soapy 17:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal trip blog 

message: Somewhere in the last 2 months — there's been a lot of activity here and I'm not tracking it all — Emmett Shear's paper "Seattle: Booms and Busts" was dropped from the list of references. Given that it was, and remains, the basis for the History section of this article, that seems intellectually dishonest. Or did I miss something and is there a reason it was dropped? I know a lot of good contributors are working on this article, so maybe there is an explanation. - Jmabel | Talk 06:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See reference 12. The reference seems to be alive and well, unfortunately the link to the paper itself is dead. Unless you are saying the paper should have been cited in other locations of the article as well. --Bobblehead 08:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I noticed where it was removed, but not where it was added back. - Jmabel | Talk 04:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emmett Shear 

message: # Surprised upon looking that there appears to be no mention of religion anywhere in this article's demographics section or in the main Demographics of Seattle article. Are there any stats?
# Is the murder at the Jewish Federation the other day worthy of its own article, a la the Capitol Hill murders last year? I do notice an anonymous user put info in it in the Belltown, Seattle, Washington article, which I expanded, even though I think that is probably not the best place for it. --Lukobe 05:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Capitol Hill massacre was only a few short months ago.  IMHO, neither needs a place in this article. Interesting that this doesn't have a demographics section, since most of the bot-written articles on small towns - the census data is about it. SchmuckyTheCat 05:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you're right...no idea why I thought it was last year. So anyway, just a notice to you all that information on the Jewish Federation shooting is in the Belltown article if anyone wants to do anything with it.  I'll see if I can find some info on religions in Seattle for the demographics section... --Lukobe 06:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the best I could come up with quickly, and it wasn't THAT quick, really...anyone know where we could get better data? There are obviously some problems here..."0 Buddhists"... http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/counties/53033_2000.asp --Lukobe 06:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should use the same census data that places like Republic, Washington use.  SchmuckyTheCat 06:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing about religion in that article that I could see...but maybe I'll check out the Census Bureau's page to see if they have anything. --Lukobe 18:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm--"The U.S. Census Bureau does not collect data on religious affiliation in its demographic surveys or decennial census. Public Law 94-521 prohibits us from asking a question on religious affiliation on a mandatory basis; in some person or household surveys, however, the U.S. Census Bureau may collect information about religious practices, on a voluntary basis. Therefore, the U.S. Census Bureau is not the source for information on religion, nor is the Census Bureau the source for information on religious affiliation." --Lukobe 18:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kind of surprising how hard it is to quickly find information on this topic. If anyone has any ideas, please post here--or add the information to the article. --Lukobe 18:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  demographics / jewish federations shooting. 

message: Seattle redirects to Seattle, Washington.  It's not a dab page and there aren't any other geographical places named Seattle that we need the ", Washington" for.  At some point in the past there was a guideline to put a state, province, country, whatever, after a city name, but that isn't true anymore.  Most singularly famous cities (and some not so, Vancouver, for our neighbor to the north) don't have a geographical dab after their name.
What say you we move this back to Seattle where it belongs? SchmuckyTheCat 17:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection. --Lukobe 18:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No strong objection, but I believe that for U.S. cities this is pretty typical: Boston is a redirect to Boston, Massachusetts, Chicago to Chicago, Illinois, and Atlanta to Atlanta, Georgia. And while there is no geographic disambiguation, there is Chief Seattle. - Jmabel | Talk 00:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No objection. I think we should move this article to Seattle. It is a well-known city even outside the US. Chicago was recently moved to the unqualified name. Since there are no disambiguation issues ("Seattle" already redirects here), would people support moving the article? --Polaron | Talk 04:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation

message: User:GoDot and I appear to have a major disagreement about the scope of the article History_of_Seattle. Since Seattle, Washington gets much more traffic, and I'm unaware of any relevant WikiProject, I'm cross-posting and asking others to weigh in there. - Jmabel | Talk 00:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seattle history 

message: The statement made regarding Boeing's largest division being headquartered in Bellevue is untrue.  Boeing Commercial Airplanes headquarters is in Tukwila.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.17.66.135 (talk • contribs) 09:06, August 12, 2006 (UTC).
:Good catch, but it's actually in Renton. Or, at least the address is. --Bobblehead 10:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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. 
The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 01:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy 

message: #Seattle, like Chicago and New York City, is well known even without the state name.  Almost no one says they're from "Seattle, Washington."  
#The state name is not part of the name of the city.
#No other place is called "Seattle" and there is no chance of confusing it with any other location.  
#Seattle already redirects here, therefore there are no known disambiguation issues, and no reason to disambiguate. 
#World famous U.S. cities should be treated no differently from world famous cities outside of the U.S. (Paris, London, Montreal, etc.) -- use the unqualified city name for the article title.
::Correction, a world famous city must have a population of 2 million people. Seattle has less than 1/4 that number. Ericsaindon2 04:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What definition is this from? Are you referring to the political boundaries, the built-up area, or the metro area? I can probably also get you a few cities that are of similar size to Seattle (using the boundaries you want) that are clearly major cities. --Polaron | Talk 04:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not using boundaries I want. I am using boundaries established by the city that heads that particular area. Metro areas are not necessarily part of that city, and cannot be considered part of that city in the article. Only what the city defines as the areas it includes are considered part of the city. Ericsaindon2 05:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So the population within the administrative boundaries of the city government are what determined whether a city is "world class" or "world famous"? --Polaron | Talk 05:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can't take the size of a city to determine if it is "world famous". Budapest, for example, is well under 2 million people. So is Vienna. And Warsaw. (They are all about 1.6-1.7 million.) Phnom Penh is half that size, Las Vegas. All of these are certainly world-famous cities. And history can make a much smaller place world-famous. Bethlehem has a population so small that they'd fit in a good-sized soccer stadium. Conversely, there are probably cities of 2 million in China that almost none of us could name. How many of us could place Tianjin (over 5 million) or Wuhan (also over 4 million) on a map. - Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But if you go to Wuhan, they would probably not know where Las Vegas, San Francisco, Miami, San Diego, Seattle, etc. is. It works both ways. 69.232.58.207 07:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I can't speak for everyone but I think a large crux is that instead of working on consensus for changing the guideline (and improving the overall consistency of the Encyclopedia), we're leapfrogging around city to city trying to create exceptions-which, as you pointed out, are not even well defined. This creates even more inconsistency in the overall project, which is counterproductive. Let's fix the guideline first instead of trying to poke more "exception holes". Agne 01:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons to move

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support per reasons listed above. --Polaron | Talk 13:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These would be most of the world class cities here . There are currently only 91 cities of world famous status, or with a population of over 2 million. Ericsaindon2 04:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And of course, the metro area population of Seattle is nearly 4 million. --Usgnus 07:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The city of Seattle and Census both put the population at just over .5 million. A world class city only includes the defined boundaries by the city, not suburbs and unincorporated areas. Trust me, I know that a city like Seattle would not be recognizable by anyone outside the US. To be a world famous city, you must at least have 2 million people, and Seattle falls well short of this. That is just the way the ball bounces! Perhaps your arguement would be better argued at Houston or Los Angeles, where they do meet this criteria of being a world famous city, because frankly, Seattle has no major significance on a global level, nor does it reach the population criteria. Two reasons why the name Seattle could not stand alone. Ericsaindon2 09:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Trust me, I know that a city like Seattle would not be recognizable by anyone outside the US."  Is that a joke? I deal with people on an international basis everyday.  More of them know Seattle as a major city on the west coast of the US than they do that Washington is a state. The size of a city within its legal borders makes no sense because that criteria isn't even consistent within the US, nevermind the world. For that matter, the Chinese can designate a new city, like Shenzen, and move 5 million people into it in a single decade.  That doesn't make it world famous.  SchmuckyTheCat 19:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being a European myself, I found this statement pretty insulting. Ask any 12-year old kid in Denmark about the location of the main cities in the U.S. and he/she would get most of them right. I think I learned them by heart back when I was ten, and back then TV didn't show tons of U.S. material. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 19:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is pretty obvious that Europeans know our large cities, and we know theirs. But, we obviously do not know Asia's large cities, and they probably have never even heard of places like Seattle. Maybe I was a bit harsh, but since we deal with the Eurpoean people often, most probably know, but other than that, it is a pretty limited knowledge. --Ericsaindon2 22:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Re: to all above, not just Puppy Mill. The World Class City argument is moot (whether you support the change or not). Seattle's world class status is not what's up for debate because whether or not the article is titled Seattle or Seattle, Washington the Seattle's culture and status is the same. Having lived here, I think Seattle is a World Class city but I don't tie the city's worth up into a title. At best, it's just a distraction debate. At worst, it's an emotional vanity appeal in either direction. Agne 03:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Background information about how this topic is being discussed elsewhere Agne 04:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Relevant Discussions Pertaining to Proposed Name Change

message: I've reverted quite a few recent changes that were either outright wrong, or removed pertinent information. There are some more I was inclined to revert, but I wasn't as certain, so I am bringing it here:
* "Group Health Cooperative was one of the pioneers of managed care in the United States, the University of Washington is consistently ranked among the country's top ten leading institutions in medical research, and Seattle was a pioneer in the development of modern paramedic services with the establishment of Medic One in 1970," became "Group Health Cooperative is a leading proponent and developer of managed care in the northwest, and the University of Washington is consistently ranked among the country's top leading institutions in medical research. Seattle has seen local developments of modern paramedic services with the establishment of Medic One in 1970."
** As far as I know, Group Health was one of the half dozen first managed care programs in the U.S.; it may have been only the second (after, I believe, one in Boston). 
** "top ten" is accurate in every study I've ever seen. Why was it removed?
** "pioneer in the development of modern paramedic services" is absolutely true. As far as I know, Medic One was completely without precedent; certainly without precedent in North America.
* With reference to First Hill "the neighborhood's nickname 'Pill Hill'" became "the neighborhood's nicknames 'Pill Hill' and 'Hospital Hill'." I've lived here about 30 years and I've never heard anyone call it "Hospital Hill".
If I'm wrong on any of this, let me know. Otherwise, I intend to revert these changes as well. Jmabel | Talk 05:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too am concerned about so many revisions being made to a featured article all at once especially without any explanation or reasons given.  The combined work of so many contributors deserves at least that.  Alan Smithee 06:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: I'm going through the statistics on the infobox and found a discrepancy in the elevation figure. The USGS Geographic Names database lists 184 ft. instead of the currently listed 14 ft. Does anyone know the source for the 14 ft. number? Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 20:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.. Depends. How is the elevation determined? The highest point, lowest point, average?  The seawall by downtwon Seattle is about 15 feet tall but there are other points that are at sea level (Alki Point). However there are some places in seattle that are several hundred feet up. --Bobblehead 22:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how the USGS defines elevation of a city. But they do have a database of various geographic locations with a single elevation value for each of them. My guess is that it is the elevation at the coordinates used to define the location but I could be wrong. --Polaron | Talk 22:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh. Hmmm. Well, oddly enough I did find the highest point in Seattle.  Maybe a range would be more applicable? Sea level - 520 ft. But if you've got a source with 184 ft, then what is in the info box could very well be a typo. --Bobblehead 22:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right -- giving a range might be better. In fact, giving the lowest and highest elevations within each city might be more useful. However, I don't know if data for these are easy to come by. --Polaron | Talk 03:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure how easy the data for other cities would be, but for Seattle we know it's sealevel to 520ft. --Bobblehead 16:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've a vague recollection that it's commonly the elevation at city hall. —wwoods 02:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  elevation data 

message: I am trying to work on a large City Strawpoll to end the feuding about larger cities in the United States. Please visit the page, User:Ericsaindon2/Sandbox and leave comments on the talk page, but dont edit the actual page. After it has been modified to satisfy the community, I will go ahead and open it. But, please review it and comment, to avoid controversy over its structure. I hope to open it in a few days after discussion, so please be timely in making your comments. Thanks. --Ericsaindon2 05:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Large City Strawpoll Construction