This is an archive of past discussions about Seattle. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Is the [GR1] reference OK? It links into Wikipedia-space. Perhaps the content of that target should be copied into the article. - Jmabel | Talk18:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I should clarify. Obviously, OK at some level, my question is whether it should be inline itself (as it currently is) or within a footnote itself. -- Jmabel | Talk17:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with moving it to Commons, but then I also don't see anywhere on the MOS or FACR that specifically prohibits the use of galleries on the article itself. WP:MOS#Images actually seems to encourage the use of galleries. --Bobblehead(rants)22:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Recentism
The Major events section includes some rather minor rather recent events (e.g. 2001 Major League Baseball All-star game; Hanukkah Eve Wind Storm with one fatality). I think we should prune this and choose events by their historic importance regardless of how recent. I'd also suggest listing all earthquakes over some particular magnitude or none, not just one that happens to have happened since Wikipedia was founded. I don't think it would be a mistake to cut this section back to just its first paragraph (minus the All-star game). - Jmabel | Talk05:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the number of fatalities is the determining factor in the inclusion of the Hanukkah Eve wind storm, it's the fact that a significant portion of the city lost its power for days in the middle of winter that makes the wind storm significant enough for inclusion. That is also true of the Nisqually earthquake. The Puget Sound area does get more than it's share of earthquakes, but most of them are relatively small (causing little to no damage) and Nisqually was the first in decades that caused any real damage. The lack of other earthquakes listed in that section would be an argument for adding the missing earthquakes, not removing Nisqually. So, aside from the removal of the All-Star game (maybe move that to the Sports section?), I'd be opposed to deleting the major events you listed. --Bobblehead(rants)22:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I basically agree with Jmabel. Right now, the windstorm has its own paragraph while the great fire gets a segment of one sentence. Either the earlier stuff should be extended or the later stuff should be trimmed -- or both, which is probably the smarter way to go. And while we're thinking about it, are any significant events missing? -- Scarequotes23:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The Great Seattle Fire has its own article so the fact that it's only got only a brief mention in the main article is not a good argument against the length of the recent events in the Seattle article. -- Brianhe02:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The Hanukkah Eve Wind Storm also has its own article -- my point is that all events listed should be of comparable length, considering that any major event worth listing probably should have its own article. -- Scarequotes16:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, if we are doing sports, how about the Seattle Metropolitans winning the Stanley Cup in 1917? Or the University of Washington rowing crew's 1936 Olympic Gold Medal (admittedly, not an event in Seattle, so maybe not). - Jmabel | Talk23:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Check the first sentence of the Sports section.. It mentions the Stanley Cup win. As for the rest of your comments in this section.. Why don't you add everything that you brought up to the article instead of complaining about them not being in the article. Complaining about recentism on the talk page isn't going to fix it.--Bobblehead(rants)04:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Because this is a featured article and most of what I wanted to do was removal material. Since you apparently prefer, I will boldly remove the material I find excessive, but I thought this was a more civil way to approach things. - Jmabel | Talk04:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Well. That's why I came here first. In my edit just now, I've been a bit "gentler" on pruning the recent material than I would have been without discussion. - Jmabel | Talk05:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Earthquakes
Reading more closely, I see that earthquakes were already discussed in two places (Events and Topography) and that much of what I just added in the former was already in the latter. I suppose the material should be merged and earthquakes should be discussed in only one of these places. I'd opt for topography: any objections? - Jmabel | Talk05:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The 1965 earthquake was a year after the Good Friday Earthquake, so not sure what benefit would come from linking the 1965 event to that one... --Bobblehead(rants)18:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Heh. I was a young kid in church (Catholic school - daily mass) when the '65 earthquake happened so I must have just got them mixed up. Nevermind! rewinn05:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
No reason to have it in two places. Perhaps we should try merging the entire "Major Events" section into other sections. If we move the earthquakes out to topography, but leave the others there and someone is bound to come along and re-add at least the Nisqually earthquake. The Klondike Gold Rush, APEC leadership conference, general strike, and WTO and riots could probably go in the economic history section, the two world fairs could go into the tourism section, Goodwill Games into Sports, anti-Chinese riots and mass murders into the demographics section, the wind storm into the climate section, and the great fire into.. Err.. Cityscape? Although, the mass murders could go into the Government and politics section which is the next place the murder rate is brought up in the article. --Bobblehead(rants)18:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Although I'm a little more inclined to keep a single paragraph with truly major events (on the basic principle of "pyramid style"). - Jmabel | Talk23:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I've taken my shot at this. Someone else's turn. I think a bit of pruning might be in order, but I can't immediately say where. And, again, if there is something that looks like it should be kept but no one can readily track down a citation, don't hesitate to call on me. - Jmabel | Talk00:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
"See also"
I've moved the various "see also"s within sections to the bottom of their respective sections. If someone would prefer the top, that's fine with me, too. At least one was previously in the middle. - Jmabel | Talk06:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The Manual of Style's Guide to layout recommends that this be put at the top of the section. I suggest that in the absence of a compelling argument otherwise we follow the guideline. -- PatLeahy (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Bobblehead, I see you removed EndFest, saying it's not held in Seattle. It didn't start out being held in the city, but was held in town this year, and they say it will be in the future. Not that I think it's particularly notable, but the stated reason for removal was wrong.
They following was removed as neither notable nor referenceable:
Several dozen Seattle neighborhoods have one or more annual street fairs, and many have an annual parade or foot race. The largest of the street fairs feature hundreds of craft and food booths and multiple stages with live entertainment, and draw more than 100,000 people over the course of a weekend; the smallest are strictly neighborhood affairs with a few dozen craft and food booths, barely distinguishable from more prominent neighborhoods' weekly farmers' markets.
Green Lake Park, popular among runners, contains a 2.8-mile (4.5 km) trail circling the lake.
I don't mind the removal of the Green Lake image, but I think the street fair stuff should stay, and I don't think it would be particularly hard to reference. I think that Seattle's many strong neighborhoods contrast to a lot of U.S. cities of comparable size, and some of the neighborhood fairs, as remarked, are pretty damn big. One relevant citation would be [1] (documents six-figure attendance for the U. District Street Fair). Other than that, I haven't followed this up in any big way, but multiple stages should be easily documented for the U. District Street Fair, Ballard Seafood Fest, Capitol Hill Block Party, and Freemont Fair. An example of a small one would be Rainier Valley SummerFest [2]; etc. I don't see what would be particularly hard about referencing this, and a group of events the largest of which draw over 20% of the city population sure seem notable to me. - Jmabel | Talk06:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
If it really is too hard to come at this via street fairs, it seems that somehow we want to get at how decentralized the city is, with so many community centers, neighborhood service centers, etc. I'm wondering also if there is some way we can get in something about the recent patterns of gentrification, with formerly working-class Ballard becoming middle-class, formerly run-down Georgetown and Columbia City becoming very lively places, many renters being priced out of Capitol Hill and First Hill, etc. Maybe not for this article, but it seems that it should be somewhere in some discussion of Seattle demographics/economy/etc., not just buried in individual neighborhood articles. - Jmabel | Talk06:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, I guess I missed that Endfest was held in Seattle this year, used to it being held in the outlaying regions of Puget Sound, but I also didn't think that it is particularly notable in comparison to the rest of the festivals that were included. The various street fairs are not particularly notable from a "Tourism" standpoint, but they may be notable in a section about the neighborhoods. But hey, if you want to add them back into the tourism section with citations, I'm all for it. --Bobblehead(rants)15:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Aha. I didn't notice what section it was in, I just noticed the diff. I'll try to do something citable about these.
I've added a Neighborhoods section with this, some other material already in the article, and a few new sentences or phrases. There are a few things I'm finding it hard to cite for:
Can anyone think of where there might be a good list of Seattle street fairs, parades, fun runs, etc.? I'd hate to have to cite a couple of dozen different sources for something so trivial, but everything I'm finding is very limited.
Can anyone think of how to cite for the size of a small neighborhood street fair? I've been able to cite for a large farmers market having 50 booths (certainly larger than some neighborhood street fairs I've been too) but don't easily see how to cite the other half of the comparison.
How is this link for the list of festivals and fairs: [3] Not sure on your other question, unfortunately. The really small street fairs don't really get a lot of coverage beyond the perfunctory mention in the "What's Happening This Weekend" section of the paper and they generally don't cover the size.--Bobblehead(rants)05:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that's one of several anemic lists I found. It lists the Fiesta Patrias celebration at Seattle Center but not the one in South Park, misses things like the Night Markets in the International District, etc. Most of what is on the list are not street fairs, and most of the street fairs aren't on the list. - Jmabel | Talk18:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I haven't been successful in finding any other lists. Perhaps the problem is that the sentence that needs the cite starts off with "Several dozen", drop that off and a source that contains "a number" of the street fairs/parades/festivals would work. --Bobblehead(rants)01:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
And I'm afraid a librarian at Seattle Public Library couldn't do much better. Give me a few more days; I have a feeling that I'm going to end up with a miserably lengthy citation (many separate sources), but it should be citable. - Jmabel | Talk23:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Official Seafair site Community Events, archived June 25, 2007 on the Internet Archive lists (counting only what is associated with particular neighborhoods within city limits, and is not mentioned above):
Additional neighborhoods:
The Crown of Queen Anne Fun Run, Walk & Children's Parade
West Seattle Hi-Yu Festival (I'm not sure this one counts. its own official page seems dead at the moment; http://www.thehighpoint.com/Festivals.html suggests it's more a series of miscellaneous events over the course of a couple of weeks than a fair.)
So at least we can say "over a dozen". I know Magnolia has one, but haven't found citation. Wallingford and the U. District also have parades unrelated to the listed festivals; there is also at least one in Rainier Valley (in Columbia City). I'm sure there are a lot more. - Jmabel | Talk05:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Found all of those. We are now up to 20 documentable neighborhoods with a street fair and/or parade (so we can say "at least 20"). This doesn't count things like Bon Odori, which is not specifically neighborhood-focused. - Jmabel | Talk18:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
But, jeez, this would make for one massive citation. Do we have any way to "shorthand" something like this so as not to clog up the notes? - Jmabel | Talk06:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to compliment that panoramic image. It's the best idea I've ever seen on Wikipedia and I'd love to see it more often. RedAugust17:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
New York, Alki
The article states that "early settlements" were named "New York, Alki and Duwamps". This reads like three names, whereas my understanding is that "New York, Alki", perhaps better without the comma, was a single name. (Alki being a future tense marker in Chinook Jargon; the name thus translates as "New York by and by" or "New-York-to_be" or "New York of the Future".) Can the comma be removed to make this clearer? --Haruo15:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Emily Denny says in her book ("Blazing the Way" 1899) says that it was originally called "New York" but it was later changed to "Alki" (p.46 in my reprinted edition.) There may well have been an intermediate step of "New York Alki"; I've heard that for decades but I don't have a contemporary reference. Of course, such names might have been widely used without being recorded. The comma would certainly seem odd.
BTW Emily wrote "Alki" should be pronounced w/stress on first syllable and the second syllable like "key", and it "distresses" old timers to hear it pronounced Al-Ki' to rhyme with "eye". I don't see her noting that the preferred pronunciation is just like "Alky" as in "excessive drinker" .... rewinn16:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I've certainly seen it as "New York Alki" (with the notion that, depending on degree of skepticism, "Alki" might get a lot more emphasis) but the sources (Bill Speidel for one) are much later that Emily Denny, so they might have been extrapolating. - Jmabel | Talk18:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmm, the problem is that New York, New York-Alki, and Alki were not used in reference to Seattle, but rather in reference to the settlement that was on Alki Point in 1853, a year after Seattle was founded. As near as I can tell Charles Terry, his brother, and David Denny did land on Alki Point in September 1851 (followed by the rest of the Denny Party in November), but the Denny's & Co relocated to the east side of Elliott Bay in the spring of 1852.[5] It wasn't until the Denny's landed on the east side of Elliott Bay that Seattle was founded.[6] However, Charles Terry stayed behind on Alki Point and in 1853 paid Arthur Denny to plot "New York" and for about a five years after that, New York and Seattle were competitors for settlers and business.[7] It was at that time the Alki was added "unofficially" to New York, but within a few months it was changed to "Alki". So all in all, I'm thinking this article is wrong on the naming of Seattle. It may have been called Duwamps, but it was never called New York, New York-Alki, or Alki. --Bobblehead(rants)22:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Naming of the city
We have at least two separate (and somewhat redundant) passages on the naming of the city, one in the lead and one farther down. And the latter is a bit convoluted and repetitive in itself (how many times do we mention "Duwamish" and "Duwamps" before indicating that they are anglicizations of "Dkhw'Duw'Absh"? But then again, we've already said more or less the same about the tribal name...) And we are inconsistent about single-quotes, double-quotes, etc. to set off past names.
I'm hoping someone other than me would try disentangling this one, but if no one else steps up in the next few days, I'll probably try. - Jmabel | Talk17:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Leads are by their very nature redundant because they are supposed to be a short summary of the rest of the article. So I'm not sure how necessary it is to completely remove the redundancy, shorten it, maybe. As for the convoluted nature of the latter. I got interrupted most of the way through my rewrite and forgot to go back and remove the redundancy. Working on that now, but feel free to hack and slash whatever I end up with. --Bobblehead(rants)18:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it's perpetually in dispute...or rather, the dispute rears its ugly head about once every quarter or so. What are the consequences of removing protection? --Lukobe06:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Homelessness
The article says "It is estimated that King County has 8,000 homeless on any given night, and many of those live in Seattle" and used to add "Up to 14 percent of Seattle's homeless are children and young adults" (which has been deleted). The former is well cited to the this page from the Committee to End Homelessness in King County. The same source says, "This includes at least 400 youth and young adults, and approximately 2,400 people in families" which, of course, is not useful for getting at the number of children (presumably why it was dropped).
This item from U.S. News says that there are 2,000 adolescents in Seattle on their own without a permanent place to live (which would be 25% of the other source's countywide total). I suspect that the numbers aren't comparable ("permanent" being the key word).
Just to show how slippery this can be, this possibly uncitable source says "unaccompanied youth [are] two percent of the homeless population," which would make the two statistics terribly hard to resolve (but really doesn't match what I've seen with my own eyes).
One of the buildings on the list that is taller than CC is not complete yet, so technically, Columbia Center would be taller than it. But the reason why I cited one, but not the other is that I couldn't find a reference for it being the 17th/18th/whatever tallest for the entire country. I don't think there is anything particularly harmful in removing the last half of that sentence if someone can't find a ranking of some sort for the entire country that is reliable. --Bobblehead(rants)21:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
"Seattle has about twenty other live theatre venues, a slim majority of them being associated with fringe theatre." Doubtless true - if anything, the number is low - but, again hard to cite for (especially the latter part). These summary statements are killers to cite for, but they are exactly the sort of overview an article like this ought to give. For what it's worth, prior to seeking citations, here's my rundown on what is currently out there. I've utilized this list from UW Libraries (which is a hodgepodge of venues and groups, some of them pretty tenuous or even defunct, and not all in Seattle), combined with my own knowledge. I'm counting only what I believe to be recently active in presenting live theater, and sticking strictly within city limits. I'm pretty sure at least 90% of what I'm listing currently active (though, of course, on any given night many stages are "dark"); a few things might have folded without my noticing, and doubtless there is something new I haven't caught up with.
"The majors"
5th Avenue Theatre / 5th Avenue Musical Theatre Co
Artery (cooperative bringing together Hyperion Theater, Nomadic Productions, One World Theater, Paint My Fence, Seattle Playwrights Alliance, theatre simple, Up in Your Grill, Ursa Major; I believe that the majority of these are reasonably active groups, but I don't think any have a permanent venue).
Freehold Theatre Lab Conservatory
Jewel Box Theatre (in the Rendevous bar, Belltown; only occasionally used for live theater)
Live Girls! Theater
Northwest Actors Studio
Odd Duck Studios
Open Circle Theater
Richard Hugo House
Seattle Public Theater
Stone Soup Theatre (on Stone Way)
Theatre Off Jackson (some productions there might be considered non-fringe)
Theater Schmeater
Union Garage
Capitol Hill Arts Center
Century Ballroom and Cafe (home to Immediate Theatre; Printer's Devil Theatre; The Shoebox; Tenderfoot Theatre Company); also there's the Chamber Theater and Seattle Mime Theatre in the same building (the old Capitol Hill Oddfellows)
Washington Ensemble Theater (WET). How could I forget one of the best companies? Oh, well. (They are in a tiny space in the former Pelican Bay building on 19th.) - Jmabel | Talk03:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Fringe (Improv):
Historic University Theater
Market Theater
There's also probably at least one currently active venue currently in Fremont, but I can't think what it would be. - Jmabel | Talk05:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Which I guess does the occasional cabaret performance; there is also the stage at Hale's Ales (between Fremont and Ballard) but outside of the month or so a year that the Moisture Festival uses it, I think it's pretty dead. Anyway, the short of it remains that the sentence is basically accurate, but will probably be a bitch to cite for. I'm trying to think of an equally informative easier-to-cite way to reword it. - Jmabel | Talk23:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I'm still unsure how we do a citation that is not practically the length of an article. I've been able to cite reasonably well for the number of theatrical production companies, because I found a reasonably good listing (looks reasonably comprehensive, and up to date, although it is for the metro area rather than the city, so I've been a bit fuzzy in the article wording), but every list of venues I can find (1) is rather poorly maintained, (2) has a mixture of venues and production companies and (3) is for the metro area, not the city. That's too many flaws to be useful. And I really don't want to cite for these explicitly one-by-one within this article. - Jmabel | Talk04:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
This article might work for the "Fringe theater" aspect. It is from October 2005, so a little on the dated side and it focuses on 5 "new" productions, but it does references quite a list of other Fringe theaters.[9] May also change the sentence to reference Theaters and Production Companies. If the wording is modified maybe this rather crappy list from the city is enough.[10] --Bobblehead(rants)14:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd seen that one. It doesn't really cite for a majority being fringe, but I guess we could weaken that statement. Between that and The Stranger's weekly listing for this week, I think we have decent (if not ideal) citation. - Jmabel | Talk16:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Northwest Actors Studio closed within the last year. Annex Theater took over their space. It is on the Pike corner of the Pike to Pine block of clubbers row that had the Vogue, Barça, Bad Juju, (or whatever has taken their places). NWAS probably deserves an article. It was run by former theatre scene debutante Ann Graham and had a fairly well-regarded two year conservatory program. SchmuckyTheCat
Broken templates
At the moment, the citation templates starting with the one about Arthur B. Langlie appear to be broken. Does anyone understand what is going on? I don't have a fast enough connection to do much experimentation with such a large page. - Jmabel | Talk06:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Oops. Probably my fault. I use that temporarily to test citations before I save, must have forgotten to remove it. Thanks! - Jmabel | Talk21:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Penny Arcade Expo
I cited for Penny Arcade Expo, but 2007 was the first time it was held in the city proper. I don't know if they've announced any intention to hold it in the city in the future. Prior to that, it had been held in Bellevue. Is it worth including? - Jmabel | Talk00:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Seattle is really the only place that has a convention center large enough and enough hotel space for all the attendees that come to PAX, so I don't really see it leaving the city now that it is in Seattle. --Bobblehead(rants)00:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I doubt it will. The attendance last year (first I went to) was jam-packed, and apparently they're going to have even more this year. The same goes for the Emerald City ComiCon which moved from the Quest Fieldhouse to the con center this year. The crowds were significantly larger this year at the center. You couldn't even move through them at points. rootology (T) 05:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Sports teams
I gather we need to cite for the existence of each pro sports team. I've been doing a bunch of citation, but would someone other than me please do this part, because as far as I'm concerned I'd be perfectly glad to drop pro sports almost entirely from encyclopedia articles on cities. - Jmabel | Talk01:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Just the sporting section in general was completely lacking. Things like the metropolitans winning the stanley cup and the storm winning the WNBA championship were uncited and should have been. And I didn't mean controversial, meant contested.;) --Bobblehead(rants)17:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
As pointed out in the FAR, we need citations for these schools' "excellence" or the statement shouldn't be there.
I'm skeptical about the "excellence" of City University of Seattle (or even the need to single it out, unlike, for example, the many small art schools, etc.). Does someone have a citation?
Antioch is certainly first-rate, and it should be possible to cite for that.
Ditto Cornish (back in form this last decade or two after a slump)
The Time citation certainly covers for SCCC, but I'd like to see citations for the other CCs being anything more than run-of-the mill. I think they are certainly decent schools, but excellence is a much stronger claim than that.
How about just dropping the "excellent" and go with what remains? Leave it up to the sentences about the schools themselves to determine their excellence. --Bobblehead(rants)21:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Since removals in a featured article should not usually go without mention: this series of edits by Mike Halterman, besides disambiguating some links, removed several statements from the article that lacked citation. I think these removals are fine; if anyone wants to reinstate any of this material, please do provide citations. - Jmabel | Talk05:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
We lose nothing by losing those statements. SchmuckyTheCat
Meeting Kyoto targets
Something should probably be included in the article about Seattle meeting the 2012 Kyoto targets.[11] Although, not sure where it should go, should it go under Climate, Government, or utilities since most of the improvement was thanks to Seattle City Light and its use of offsets. --Bobblehead(rants)22:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Status of Featured Article Review
I think we've addressed most of what was at issue. There are still issues of quality of prose, though, especially the rather odd Notable buildings section. Does someone want to work on this? I've really already put more time into this than I meant to. - Jmabel | Talk04:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Aside from the prose quality (including weasel words) the only outstanding issues that have come up are the a few citations for the "Outdoor activities" section and few of the things SandyGeorgia brings up here: [12]. I've gotten rid of the gallery and shuffled some of the images around so that should be better, but haven't really worked on the captions. I think we've also resolved the "list" bits of the article and the article size issues, but the media section could do with some shortening. We really don't need to list every TV station, newspaper, and radio station in Seattle in the main article when we have a daughter article for media in Seattle. As far as the copy-editing of the prose.. Unless one of you is good at it, we might consider using the League of Copyeditors once we've cleaned up all the other problems with the article. I know I'm rather horrid at copy-editing so I'm rather leery of doing that. --Bobblehead(rants)17:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I have worked as a professional proofreader and copyeditor, so I'd be happy to give it a shot at some point. --Lukobe23:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
"Contrary to popular belief"
"Contrary to popular belief, the Space Needle is neither the tallest structure in Seattle nor is it in Downtown." Is there any basis for claiming this is a "popular belief"? - Jmabel | Talk21:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
That whole sentence can do with a removal, IMHO. It's going to be near impossible to find a reliable source that says the space needle is the tallest structure in seattle and that it is located in Downtown. --Bobblehead(rants)21:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, that popular belief is a tourist thing, because all they've seen is the backdrop of Frasier and postcard pictures taken from Kerry Park. That's probably what is being dis-spelled with that sentence. SchmuckyTheCat
I was just cleaning up the museums section but: shouldn't we mention the Olympic Sculpture Park? I'm not that impressed with its contents (once you get past the Calder & the Serra, there are only three or four notable pieces, in my view) but the very fact of the existence of such a large sculpture park seems worth mentioning, no? - Jmabel | Talk23:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I think OSC is in Belltown. Belltown is bounded by Denny, Viriginia, 5th, and Elliott Bay, OSP is on the northern edge of this, but it is in Belltown. Page 2 of this PDF has a map of Belltown and the location of OSP is included in the greyed in area.[13] --Bobblehead(rants)20:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
As I'm sure you know, Seattle neighborhoods don't really have official boundaries. As a 30-year resident, I'm pretty comfortable in saying that no local ever says "Belltown" when they mean "Pier 70". There really is no neighborhood designation over there (it's a little too far south and west for Lower Queen Anne and not quite far enough north for Interbay).
Most Seattle neighborhoods have well-defined cores, but poorly defined peripheries. In this case, it is far enough on the periphery that, even if some map chooses to include it, the designation is not informative. Admittedly, the redeveloped Belltown has been growing in that direction, but we're not selling real estate. I think the "waterfront" description I gave is more informative. - Jmabel | Talk20:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
You're probably correct that a 30 year resident of Seattle would never call that area Belltown, but us newcomers only know that area as it has been developed in the last 10 years, so only know that area as Belltown. Similar to how us newcomers only know Cascade as part of South Lake Union (Heck, I had never even heard of Cascade prior to the PI's article on the S.L.U.T.). But all in all, the article is not to be written from a "local's" perspective, but rather from an encyclopedic perspective and the article should be probably written from the "official" neighborhood boundaries, which seem to be pretty well identified within the twenty year neighborhood plans that were written in 1999, and OSP clearly falls within the Belltown neighborhood.[14] Perhaps something along the lines of "SAM also operates the Olympic Sculpture Park (opened 2007) on the northern Belltown waterfront." --Bobblehead(rants)22:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Seattle does not have official neighborhood boundaries. But do with the description of the locale of OSP as you wish. - Jmabel | Talk23:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Why not just "on the northern waterfront"? (I still think at some point the waterfront might rate its own article.) --Lukobe23:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
That is Jmabel's rewrite. So if you two like it, we'll go with it. It really is a minor wording so not worth spending any more thought on. --Bobblehead(rants)23:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking that whole table can go. It doesn't really add anything that isn't already in the paragraph below, or if it is not included in the paragraph, it can definitely be added, but yes, the Mixed martial Arts, Ultimate, and Rugby teams could probably get the axe from the main article. Leave it to the sub-article if they are to be mentioned on Wikipedia. --Bobblehead(rants)21:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Which bands get mentioned
Nevermore are pretty obscure. Surely there is a more notable Seattle metal band (although all the ones that leap to mind are from the East Side suburbs). Any suggestions?
Aiden aren't exactly critical faves or hitmakers, either. If we really need to give a third example of poppy bands in the post-grunge era, how about Harvey Danger instead? "Flagpole Sitta" was a genuine hit. (I love The Lashes and Smoosh, but so far neither has achieved the level of national or international acclaim in their respective genres to be much better choice than Aiden.) I'll replace Aiden with Harvey Danger unless someone gives a strong argument to the contrary.
I notice that Skinny Puppy is listed as a SubPop-signed band. I can't find any confirmation of this and am removing it. Besides, they are from Vancouver, B.C. CAVincent02:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe that Oldominion and Grayskul should be included along with Blue Scholars under hip hop. They are well known in the nationwide underground scene and Grayskul in particular is signed to Rhymesayers Entertainment, the same label that Atmosphere is signed to.-Lisa
I see that the work I did on citing for neighborhoods with street fairs was chopped. I hope it has been factored out to a daughter article, because it was sheer fucking hell to research: as discussed above, there was no single place on the web with any substantive amount of this information in one place.
Assuming it was factored out, could someone tell me where? If it was not, then we should probably have an article on fairs and festivals in Seattle, or some such, if only to create a place on the web where someone can look this up. - Jmabel | Talk04:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I would add that I think the article is weakened by no longer indicating that there are two dozen or so neighborhoods with this level of activity. - Jmabel | Talk04:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
As the blue link above indicates, just created the article, need to work on the organization and putting some information in the list about the fairs and parades, but at least all Jmabel's hard work didn't go to work. Here's hoping it doesn't get speedied. --Bobblehead(rants)04:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Sister Cities
Should the list of Seattle's sister cities be included in the main article? At this point in time the main article has only 8 of Seattle's 21 sister city. If this article is to include just the list of sister cities then it should really include all, which would make List of Seattle sister cities kind of pointless. I personally don't think the sister cities should be included in the main article as they are not very important to the city in general and can only really be represented in this article as a list, which is rather ugly. Additionally, this article is on the outer edge of WP:SIZE and some unimportant content should be shuffled off to sub-articles. The list of sister cities is already included in Government and politics of Seattle, Washington and also has a link to the list article in the See also section. I think that is more than enough for the sister cities. --Bobblehead(rants)00:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I moved the wikilink to List of Seattle sister cities so it's displayed as "main article" for the Sister Cities section rather than a See Also. I made no changes to the short list here, but I can't figure out why they are chosen as significant. It doesn't seem to be by population. Since this article is quite large already I support removing the Sister Cities section. Brianhe (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Firework mishap
Do you think including the New Year's (2007) firework mishap would be good to include. Seattle times states it was a computer error and they had to do it manually, so I think we've got facts and can add it. --Alisyntalk22:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the voting. Wikipedia is not a democracy. And no, a 3 minute problem at a NYE event is definitely not memorable to the 200 years of history in the city, nevermind the general article which already is only summary links to a dozen other articles. Maybe try the Space Needle or a current history article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
I seem to remember that we cut a passage under "Sports" about Seattle being particularly strong for outdoor recreation because we couldn't find a citation. Here's something presumably citable, if anyone wants to restore a mention: "…Seattle traditionally has had a… high number of outdoor enthusiasts in its population. Boating, water sports, skiing, and mountainerring in all its various forms… have engaged large numbers of the city's residents since the first decades of the twentieth century." - Richard C. Berner, Seattle 1900-1920: From Boomtown, Urban Turbulence, to Restoration, Charles Press (Seattle), 1991, ISBN0962988901, p. 97. He then goes on to spend about 3 pages backing this up. - Jmabel | Talk07:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe you resolved the "citation needed" tag by removing the "high proportion" portion of the sentence. I've added the phrasing back into the sentence and added the source you provided as the source. Thanks for the source! --Bobblehead(rants)08:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The Central Area is east of Downtown Seattle, South of the Capitol Hill neighborhood (although portions physically occupy the southern portion of the hill), north of the Rainier Valley neighborhood and west of Lake Washington.
Madrona, Mount Baker, Leschi, Madison Valley, Squire Park, Madison-Miller are all included in the Central Area. Redlining occured in areas bounded by Lake Washington to the east.
Madrona hosted Black Arts West and was the home of the leaders of the Black Panther Party. Madison Valley was homesteaded by an African American.
See the Department of Neighborhoods planning information:
Note that the eastern portions of Madrona, Leschi and Mount Baker excluded themselves from the planning area, although it's still questionable whether these areas are excluded from the Central Area.
Census Tracts inclusive of the above map could be used to calculate statistics, the trends cited in teh article should prove valid, but changes to the racial and socio-economic characteristics of the Central District will be shown to have occurred over a more protracted period if data from the complete Central Area is used.
Ktkeller (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
But, as the City Clerk's website says, "The Seattle City Clerk's Office Neighborhood Map Atlas is designed for subject indexing of legislation, photographs, and other documents in the City Clerk's Office and Seattle Municipal Archives. It provides a way to increase consistency in the way geographic names are used and to allow precise retrieval of documents concerning neighborhood districts. It is not designed or intended as an "official" City of Seattle neighborhood map." I would submit that most people living east of Martin Luther King Way, even a higher percentage of those living east of 31st Avenue, and nearly 100% of people living east of 34th Avenue would deny living in the Central District. Nobody thinks the CD extends to the lake--we should not, therefore, state it does.
As organized, the Central District (or Area) includes an incredibly mutable list of neighborhoods. I could get together with folks in a few blocks near me, we could create a neighborhood association and be recognized by the city. These neighborhood associations also cover overlapping territory. Up until a few years ago, Madrona Community Association went a few blocks west of MLK. Central NA has now taken the area to MLK. Still, people living up to 25th near Union still view themselves as part of Madrona.
While we could debate that the boundary is the top of the hill, versus the lake, the historical fact of the Central District (as opposed to the Madrona neighborhood) includes at least half if not all of Madrona, Leschi and Mount Baker. I lived by 34th (top of the hill) in Madrona off and on between the mid-70s until 2005. I am acquainted with folks on the lake or one block from the lake who see themselves as living in both Madrona or Leschi and the CD. The CD is not about Black folks versus white folks. Neighborhood associations may fall out that way, but the CD always included wealthy enclaves, assertively integrated areas, and the heart of the African American community.
Yes, but that page you link to (which I worked a lot on) plainly states: "The names of districts and neighborhoods in this section are taken from the Seattle City Clerk's Office Neighborhood Map Atlas, which was "not designed or intended as an 'official' City of Seattle neighborhood map... [but] to define neighborhood district names and boundaries in a way that improves document indexing and retrieval." As such, many of them have no existence outside of the city's map and indexing system, such as Pike Market (Pike Place Market in actuality), Mann, Minor, and Mid Beacon Hill. In addition, reducing the number of top-level districts led to neighborhoods such as Harrison/Denny-Blaine being included in the Central District and Madison Park being included in Capitol Hill, which does not conform to facts on the ground."
It's not about black versus white, especially now that the CD is gentrifying. It's about facts on the ground; and while you may know some people on the lake who consider themselves to live in the CD, they are in the minority.
Might I suggest we take this to the main Seattle talk page? It's more highly trafficked than this one. In fact, I'll post there now. --Lukobe (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
';-) I think we have a difficult taxonomy. Neighborhoods today are self-proclaimed autonomous groups of people with extremely fuzzy boundaries, so being strict or containing within any definition of area in the wiki pages is difficult. They may have a central intersection, and some groups draw boundaries for purposes of showing the area to which they mail their newsletter. Geography - hill names - is not the same as the communities, thus Greater Capitol Hill includes Montlake and Mad Park. Planning areas map more to within the city clerk's designation, and are still alive and well. Areas (parts of neighborhoods) opted out of planning last go round because they were fine with city wide zoning. Then, of course there is the historic geography of tracts and towns annexed. I feel for you!
On the Seattle City page, maybe the higher level should reflect the city clerk map and the planning areas...and/or History Links boudaries and designations. I would call it Central AREA at that higher level (what they call the Central District on the Clerk's map) not linked to the Central District page. Have Central District as a historic district and use what is defined in History Link for boundaries. Have neighborhoods in the Central Area, with the Central District as a parallel or overlay (overlays Squire Park, Cherry Hill, Garfield and maybe Madison Valley) item.
Also the notion people use of "greater" Central District, or "greater Ballard" (think of Crown Hill?) and greater Capitol Hill.
Madison Park opted out of planning. They are getting into it now. Don't know if that will be Capitol Hill community planning area or Central Area. At least we know it's a Neighborhood!
Ktkeller (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll leave it at this (and hope more people jump in, because my position on this is well known), but I strongly disagree that we should use planning areas as a basis for Wikipedia's taxonomy. That will just reinforce the mistaken notion that Madison Park is Capitol Hill. It's confusing enough with real estate agents and developers playing fast and loose with designations and out-of-towners buying into it...I've seen people call 20th & Madison "Madison Park" and...frankly...it must end :) --Lukobe (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. Agree with respecting neighborhoods as defined by the residents. I will document all of the hierarchies that are referenced including their multiple inheritance charateristics. My only issue was with a categorization scheme on the Seattle Neighborhoods page that links the higher order item (Central District, Central Area) direct to a neighborhood page about the CD. Confused terminology ensued. Ironically, seems to me that the PI organization may be the most generic about districts and most respectful to neighborhoods' self identity. Thanks for all of the very hard work you are doing. Ktkeller (talk) 02:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Lukobe here. Going with the "planning areas" would be about as useful as doing our world maps based on a Risk board. Seattle neighborhoods tend to have well defined centers, but loosely defined borders. Even places like Ballard or Fremont, which as former cities once had precise borders, don't really have well-defined borders today. There is no gain (and, potentially, some harm) in writing with a false precision.
As for the CD itself: it has meant different things at different times. 30 years ago, the term was almost interchangeable with "the ghetto", which is why real estate developers largely avoid using it even today. I have a friend who bought a house a few blocks northeast of Garfield High School - definitely in the CD if it has any meaning at all - and the real estate agent called it something like "outer Madrona". - Jmabel | Talk22:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
There are precisely two major problems. One - the boundaries drawn on a map on the Central District article. Two - the link to the aforementioned article from the categorization Central Area on the Seattle Neighborhoods article:
Central District, Central Area, or "the CD" (Central Area map [18])
Atlantic (including Judkins Park)[42]
Cherry Hill
Harrison or Denny-Blaine
Leschi
Madrona
Mann
Minor
Is there any real discussion why this page is at Seattle, Washington and not simply Seattle? At the Seattle talk page it says because there is a Chief Seattle but this is pretty dumb since the city is obviously a thousand fold the more popular usage of the name. It also says it would be a pain to change all the dab links but this isn't a real reason either, the links can be changed up to date eventually. Shouldn't extremely prominent cities such as Seattle bypass the naming convention of City, State? If there is already a lengthy discussion about this I'm just asking for a link to that discussion. If there is not then perhaps it should be discussed here. My opinion in a nutshell is that major cities like Seattle that are undisputedly the most popular usage of the name should simply be at City and not City, State. (I found this discussion but it's very brief and doesn't really say anything.) LonelyMarble (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
A lot of the discussion has taken place on the naming convention page, but here's another discussion from the archive[15] and another [16]. Here's just one of the discussions to get the US to go with the disambiguate only when necessary method.[17] --Bobblehead(rants)17:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Move the damn article already! How many times has this been gone over? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Long Intro
I feel like the intro to this article is excessively long and has some information that is more than just basic. I don't really know much about wikipedia and I know there are a lot of rules when it comes to editing so I'm sorry in advance if I'm doing this wrong. I just wanted to give the opinion of an average surfer. Feel free to remove this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.159.148.96 (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Wrong Zip codes
98021, 98022, 98023, 98024, 98025, 98026, 98027 all, do not occur in Seattle boundaries, All zip codes in Seattle start with the 981 prefix, most of these are the zip codes of nearby suburbs or other places in King and Snohomish counties. There are also a few zip codes which were left off, such as 98125,98133,98177,98122 as well as many others —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reptilizer (talk • contribs) 04:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The picture on the right side information bar is very dark. Certainly there are many better pictures that could go there. The Kerry Park shots are always very nice, but this one is just too dark. This one, for example, is pretty good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:KerryDaylightPano.jpg I'm not sure how to fix this myself, so I'm just throwing that idea out there.
No lives were lost in the great seattle fire (except for those that were)
I don't get it.
From seattle
"The Great Seattle Fire of 1889, which destroyed the central business district (but took no lives)"
From Great_Seattle_Fire
"no one is known to have died in the fire except for a young boy named James Goin, although there were a few fatalities during the cleanup process."
Given that Seattle has such a strong entrepreneurial spirit, which could almost be considered part of the culture of the city, what do people think about pulling out a section to focus on companies that have been incubated/started in Seattle? Right they are disspered throughout--Starbucks/Tully/SBC with coffee companies, some technology companies around, some, like Intellius, missing altogether, etc. Walker9010 (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Population not congruent with source
The intro states seattle has 4 mil but source says 3.2. Changed it to match source. Sorry Seattle boosters, but time to get real —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.73.65 (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Unless it can be decently cited for (and it appears it isn't) the 4,038,741 number should be removed. The only place I found it after a brief online search was this uncitable bulletin board and even there it is given as being the combined population of King, Pierce, Snohomish, Thurston, Mason, Kitsap, Island, and Skagit counties. I'm sorry, folks, but including Camano Island, for example, as part of the Seattle Metro population is really pushing it, even if there is a citation to be had. - Jmabel | Talk20:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Currentism in Lead?
In the lead we mention Boeing, grunge music, and coffee but omit timber (basis for the city's original rise) and shipbuilding (most important U.S. shipbuilding center during WWI, I believe). Shouldn't we remedy that, and maybe remove the somewhat lengthy passage about coffee out of the lead? Also (not a currentism issue) I would think that the massive software/internet presence in the metro area deserves a mention in the lead. - Jmabel | Talk20:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Economic history
One important item missing: that Seattle was particularly hard-hit in the Great Depression. We should find a solid citation for that, and possibly mention among the events the Maritime Strike of 1934 (no article yet!) which resulted in a pitched battle at Smith Cove and the end (for over 35 years) of much of Seattle's Oriental trade. - Jmabel | Talk21:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
White Center
"The residents of White Center, an unincorporated neighborhood between Seattle and Burien, are in the process of deciding by which of the two cities they will be annexed." This cites a source over two years old. Are they still in that process? - Jmabel | Talk21:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Claiming Tacoma bands
The Wailers and The Ventures were both actually from Tacoma, which had a lot of great bands in the 1960s (my own favorite being The Sonics). I'm not sure I could mention equally important bands from that era that were actually from Seattle, but if someone can suggest a couple, they would be more appropriate in the article. - Jmabel | Talk22:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
"Seattle's streets are laid out in a cardinal directions grid pattern, except in the central business district where early city leaders Arthur Denny and Carson Boren insisted on orienting their plats relative to the shoreline rather than to true North." The old parts of Georgetown and Ballard also have differently oriented grids, no? - Jmabel | Talk00:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
"nisqually" :
{{cite web | author=Walt Crowley | url=http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=3039 | title=Earthquake registering 6.8 on Richter Scale jolts Seattle and Puget Sound on February 28, 2001 | publisher=HistoryLink | date=[[2001-03-02]] | accessdate=2007-10-01}}
{{cite web | author=Greg Lange | url=http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=852 | title=Earthquake hits Washington Territory on December 14, 1872 | publisher=HistoryLink | date=[[1999-02-01]] | accessdate=2007-10-05}}
