Talk:Street layout of Seattle

message: Jesus Christ MSUP, "six alphabetic pairs"? What is the alphabetic pattern? "JCMSUP" for search engine key word. Does anyone know a good device for remembering the order within each pair?
** Live here a long time. Get used to it. Other than that, no. - Jmabel | Talk 05:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy 

message: In the Notes and references section, there is an HTML comment "Bug: ref='multiple, [name]' DNF". I have no idea what this might mean, and I doubt I am uniquely ignorant. Would someone please explain this or reword it coherently? It seems to have been added as part of this edit by User:GoDot, who appears to remark on it above, but in a manner every bit as cryptic as the phrase itself. - Jmabel | Talk 05:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See addendum in "Bug: ref='multiple, Samson', etc. DNF", above. --GoDot 04:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a rather comical exchange :) GoDot, you do now see that I am not the only one confused by your particular style of recordkeeping? --Lukobe 06:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A unique use of footnotes I must say. First question is the need to list "Samson" no less than 4 times when Samson on the first listing and then  on subsequent references would have done the same thing without eating up valuable real estate.. Or are these entries just place holders until page numbers can be found? The comment quoted above is repeated every time a footnote is created and seems to add no value to the article itself. I'd suggest not including it at all, or at least translate it into a form of English. --Bobblehead 06:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Nope, I was wrong. The link is perfectly good. I see no problem at all, other than the failure to use "name=" in the references, which is easily fixed by editing. - Jmabel | Talk 03:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speaking of incoherence 

message: A References section, which contains only citations, helps readers to see at a glance the quality of the references used. (WP: Citing sources # "References" section in addition to "Notes")
Seattle neighborhoods reference this article, so  would be useful since this article pertains.
Re. [...] [pdf note] NB: "streetclassmaps.htm#pdfnote" is an editorial note enclosed in square brackets, a reference within a reference. --04:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an inherently dull topic, but it seems to me that there is no reason that the article should be this tedious. - Jmabel | Talk 06:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style 

message: On the map it appears that Harbor Island is colored black with no indication of which directional section it's a part of; of course, on Google Maps it becomes obvious that it's part of the SW section, along with West Seattle (which you'd expect to be in the W section but c'est la Seattle). 98.232.17.85 (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harbor Island on map? 

message: I received this message from Steve98052:
_________________________________________________________
Hi David,
I see that you asked me about Street layout of Seattle on my user talk page. I think you're right that the text is correct and the image is wrong. I visited the area you asked about in person a few years ago to look, and as well as I can remember the text is correct, or at least it was at the time.
To fix the map would require an SVG editor, such as Inkscape to change the image file. I am a novice with Inkscape, but I could do it – if I had time. I don't really have time right now, so if there's someone else who wants to do it and knows how, it's likely to happen sooner than if we wait until I get around to it.
I'm copying this to the article's talk page so others can see it. That's the best place to continue the discussion. —Steve98052 (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated Map of Seattle Directionals