Talk:Seattle/Archive 3

message: Why was the demographics section deleted? Kingjeff 00:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics section

message: This article is 83 kilobytes long. Maybe each section should have it's own page with maybe 1 or 2 paragraphs in the main article. Kingjeff 00:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article size

message: Sorry if I deleted any continuing discussions but the size of the page was 150 kilobytes and it needed archiving. Kingjeff 00:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived

message: We need a new pic of the city.  The one on the page now "tightly packed financial district..." is old.  Washington Mutual Center is no longer under construction, and the photo is from fairly early in its construction, showing the crane and elevator shaft.Majohnson 669 04:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might consider :Image:Seattle 07752.JPG (May 2006). Some may object to the clouds, however. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: This paragraph is weird.  Is it even necessary? There is already a title-style georef for the article.
:Seattle is located at 47°37′35″N, 122°19′59″W (47.626353, −122.333144)¹, which is a spot in the middle of the Marriott Residence Inn at 800 Fairview Avenue N, on the south end of Lake Union.
--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brianhe (talk • contribs) 15:44, 18 October 2006.
::Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography: location 

message: No consensus, early closure per WP:SNOW. Interested parties kindly requested to visit Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements). Duja 08:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with those exceptions is that outside of New York City, there really doesn't need to be an exception for each and every relatively major US city.  As the discussion on WP:NC(CN) the "Common name" argument is actually a misused of the Common Name policy and that usage actually conflicts with the naming convention guideline WP:PRECISION. If there is truly an issue with the naming convention then it is the naming convention that should be discussed and possibly changed. This leap frogging from city to city, trying to make more and more exceptions is a band aid solution at best and at worst a tap dance with WP:POINT. Agne 00:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
====Support====
* Support as per request. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 08:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: * Support as per request. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 08:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: *Oppose. No reason has been offered for this move. Nothing has changed about the circumstances since the last vote. The general usage, as specified by the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements), is for U.S. city artuicles to be named "city, state". Thousands of articles are named this way and there is no special reason why this article should be named any other way. -Will Beback 09:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: Add any additional comments:
There is a list of exceptions to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) listed in that very guidline. This list of exceptions, as Will Beback has stated on that talk page, is created by the decision of the editors of that city's article, that would be us. Citing that guideline for why you oppose this change is counter-productive given that this is also a vote to change that very guideline. It should be noted that this is a guidline, not a policy and the policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions makes it clear that there is no specific naming convention for cities, unless there are multiple cities of that name. —Asatruer 23:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with those exceptions is that outside of New York City, there really doesn't need to be an exception for each and every relatively major US city.  As the discussion on WP:NC(CN) the "Common name" argument is actually a misused of the Common Name policy and that usage actually conflicts with the naming convention guideline WP:PRECISION. If there is truly an issue with the naming convention then it is the naming convention that should be discussed and possibly changed. This leap frogging from city to city, trying to make more and more exceptions is a band aid solution at best and at worst a tap dance with WP:POINT. Agne 00:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: There is a survey in progress at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) to determine if there is consensus on a proposed change to the U.S. city naming conventions to be consistent with other countries, in particular Canada. --Serge 05:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However the proposal would allow U.S. cities to be inconsistent with the vast majority of other U.S. cities and towns, which (with a few exceptions) all use the "city, state" convention. -Will Beback 23:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: oh noes! redirects are cheap. SchmuckyTheCat 03:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just like the current Seattle redirect. Agne 06:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey on proposal to make U.S. city naming guidelines consistent with others countries

message: The early-1960s Minoru Yamasaki-designed IBM Building is 25 stories high.  Located in downtown Seattle, it is similar to the former Towers 1 and 2 of the World Trade Center.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.175.225.22 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 2006 November 1  (UTC)
: Yeah, might merit mention. Borderline, I'd say. - Jmabel | Talk 01:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was the architect of the Rainier Tower also. -- Brianhe 01:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Yup. They are diagonally across the the street from one another and the "beaver chew" of the Rainier Tower has exactly the same form as IBM's arches. - Jmabel | Talk 23:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yamasaki's article makes no mention of an IBM Building, and said building's article is about a building in Johannesburg, but the Rainier Tower article does mention the IBM Building and that Yamasaki designed it. A reliable source would be nice.—Asatruer— 22:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The wikilink that 205.175.225.22 gave was wrong, it should have been something like IBM Building (Seattle) but the article for a Seattle building has not been created yet.  As for a reliable source, is there a problem with A Guide to Architecture in Washington State, cited in the Rainier Tower article? -- Brianhe 01:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: A Guide to Architecture in Washington State is probably great, but not knowing if it does or does not mention anything about the IBM Building in Seattle, I personaly would not use it as a source. Chances are, it is a perfectly acceptable source.—Asatruer— 01:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant buildings 

message: There are conflicting population numbers for the Seattle metropolitan area -- what numbers are right? This article says 3.8 million, but the United States metropolitan area page says 3.2 million. Also, the Seattle page says 3.8 million but does not cite the US Census Bureau.
-- Dustingc 19:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find a source outside of WP, but the article on the Seattle metro area states that the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue-Everett area is 3.2 million, and that if one includes the long-range commuter areas of Olympia and Bremerton, it's 3.8 million. That accounts for the discrepancy, I'm guessing. Personally, I think we should go with the smaller number. I grew up in this area, and I believe that even if a few people commute from Olympia, it's not really part of the metro. L Glidewell 02:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Population

message: I was hoping some folks could weigh in on the debate about a propossed merger of the above page, if anyone has time.Thanks. Aboutmovies 18:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Gray Sails the Columbia River]] 

message: The photo of the Lenin statue was deleted by someone who wasn't signed in (and with no reason given), so I reverted as suspected vandalism. However, I can see why someone might think the photo doesn't belong in the Government and politics section of Seattle. It doesn't really pertain to Seattle's government, and it seems to imply a tie to communism. I like the photo, but maybe it should be moved to the Culture section or somewhere else? DustinGC 19:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You beat me to fixing that by about five seconds.:) But, now that you mention it, it really is weird to have that picture where it is. I vote for the Culture section. Second choice would be Landmarks. L Glidewell 19:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a connection I hadn't made, but very well put.  Someone is probably trying to make the connection between Seattle and communism as noted. The statue is in Fremont as an art sculpture and note for any government style.  How about including the picture in the Other attractions section? Landmarks would be a better fit, but the picture of Pike's Place Market is already there. --Bobblehead 22:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought--could we maybe put it in the "Gallery" section? That would make the most sense, imo. Plus, the same image is already on the Fremont neighborhood article. L Glidewell 01:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lenin Statue Photograph