Jump to content

Talk:Seattle/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 9

Seven Hills of Seattle

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

Edits by 71.212.107.104

Checked the changes made to articles other than Seattle that day (about cars), and they seemed reasonable, though uncited. -- Brianhe 07:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Seattle is the Page I was talking about. This is the Seattle Talk Page. Com-on, this guy talks about trash not being picked up, etc., etc., Soapy 13:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
By and large his edits are "technically" true, but are lacking proper citations and rather POV. So on that basis some of them can be removed outright. I'll do an edit by edit review with my opinion.--Bobblehead 18:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 15:08, 18 January 2007 - Missing a citation, but it is true. I'd lay a citation needed tag on it, or try and find one myself.
  • 15:13, 18 January 2007 - Blatantly POV, unsupported by citations, and as such can be deleted.
  • 15:17, 18 January 2007 - This is actually true. It's written rather POV, so could do with an NPOV rewrite and some citations to support the statements. The last sentence can be deleted outright.
  • 15:19, 18 January 2007 - The two decade delay on the third runway was due to lawsuits, not bureaucratic delay, but the Seattle city council does have a reputation of getting into over-analyzing cycles and has garnered a reputation of a "Do Nothing" council.[1] Perhaps move the Do nothing reputation to city government and leave the two decade delay which properly links the lawsuits to the delays with citations.
  • 15:21, 18 January 2007 - I have no idea. It mentions a Wall Street Journal article, but I don't have an account at the article, so I can't confirm, nor deny that the edit is accurate or not.
  • 15:24, 18 January 2007 - Qualify the homicide rate to US cities of similar size, delete the property damage and graffiti as uncited and "who cares".
  • 15:29, 18 January 2007 - Smacks of original research. Definite lack of citations that make it eligible for deletion.
  • 15:31, 18 January 2007 - Yet again, original research and definitely POV. Some citations would be nice. However, a delete of this would not be out of line.
--Bobblehead 18:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

My rewrite/removal (mostly removal) of the anon's additions are complete. Feel free to review my edits and make your own as deemed fit. --Bobblehead 01:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I polished the section on the mass murders and the murder rate in Seattle. The paragraph jumped from mentioning the murders, to listing the low murder rate without an explaination that the sprees where unusual. (Does Seattle have no murders, except those done enmass? I didn't think so!) --Grantor 14:20, 27 February 2007

"The Rainy City"

Is one of Seattle's nicknames really "The Rainy City"? I'm following the edits of an editor who has been doing some stealthy vandalism, but who also does occasional good edits. BlankVerse 04:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes in fact it is a book title (ISBN 978-0345414052). -- Brianhe 07:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
As a long time Seattle resident, I can confirm. There are many business named after the nickname, perhaps later there will be a section to demonstrate this.Thesetrixaintforkids 21:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
An anonymous user removed the "Rainy City" nickname today without any edit summary; I'm changing it back pending the outcome of this discussion. -- Brianhe 05:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I changed the nickname. As a Seattle native, I have never, ever heard it called "Rainy City." It is not, nor ever has been a common nickname of Seattle. For one, we get less rain than most cities East of the Mississippi River. Seattle is most commonly called "The Emerald City" followed by "Jet City." If you folks want to continue this nonsense, of re-posting a lsanderous nickname, please provide some documentation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.161.84.145 (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
Here is proof that Seattle has never been nicknamed "rainy city": http://www.historylink.org. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.161.84.145 (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
  • I went to the "proof" link and found nothing on nicknames? I don't live in Seattle but visit. I recall hearing as far back as 1973 of the "Rainy City."Soapy 18:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Use the search feature and type the nicknames found in the Seattle wiki entry (Emerald City, Gateway to Alaska, Jet City, Queen City), then try "rainy city." It isn't a nickname for Seattle. Seattle is partially behind a rainshadow so it gets less rain than many of the surrounding communities! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.161.84.145 (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
Another addendum - avg. annual rainfall of the major PNW cities, in inches: Vancouver, BC - 47.2, Portland, OR - 44.07, Tacoma - 39.31, Seattle - 34.19.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.84.145 (talk • contribs)
  • Number 1: Just because one site does not list "Rainy City" does not mean it is not. Number 2: Are Vancouver, Portland or Tacoma known as the "Rainy City"? A nickname is a nickname, not a barometer. Take for example, Fort Worth, Texas, they are now known as "Funky Town" Yet are not known for their "Funk" in music. My guess is they are trying to get away from their cowtown image just as Seattle may have been trying to change their "Rainy City" image. That rainy image came pouring (pun intended) through in the article from an old time resident when I went to your listed link above and typed in "Rainy City." Soapy 20:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Soapy, you tell a local Puget Sound resident that you are going to "Rainy City," they will assume you are talking about Forks. It is not a nickname for Seattle, and never has been, except by a few people trying to slander the place. If it were a nickname, it would have come up in the history link files, which are very thorough. It is a stupid nickname for one, we have a long dry season, get less rain than most cities east of the Mississippi, and less rain than the other major coastal PNW cities. Calling Seattle "Rainy City" is slander and a myth; both of which should not be perpetuated here on wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.84.145 (talk • contribs)

As a Seattle resident, I find absolutely nothing slanderous about the nickname. Of course, it is a misconception that it rains all the time but you can blame Sleepless in Seattle for the popularity of that myth. Yes, it's a myth (much like Dom Perignon inventing champagne) but there is nothing slanderous or damaging about it. It's a common nickname so what is the big deal? Agne 00:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I went on the net and found this:

Other Washington city nicknames and slogans

Seattle: Official nickname is the “Emerald City,” the result of a contest by a civic-minded association in the early 1980s to designate a pleasant nickname for the city. The name alludes to the lush evergreen trees in the surrounding area. Informally known as the Rainy City (also Rain City), the Gateway to Alaska, Queen City, and Jet City. “Metronatural,” the new tourism slogan, is the result of a 16-month, $200,000 effort by Seattle’s Convention and Visitors Bureau.

Spokane: Its newest motto is “Near Nature, Near Perfect.” Another oft-repeated description of the city is “the second largest city between Minneapolis and Tokyo.”

Yakima: In the 1950s the city marketed itself as “The Fruit Bowl of the Nation.” A highway sign that reads “Welcome to Yakima: The Palm Springs of Washington” is not an official city slogan and the sign is privately owned. The nickname is a reference to Yakima’s climate, one of the hottest regions of Washington state.

Walla Walla: Its slogan is “The City Was So Nice They Named It Twice.”

Sources: Taglineguru.com, seattlepi.com and wsm.wsu.edu Soapy 20:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


Soapy, that same exact phrase was the misinformation put forward here on wiki. They came here, read that slanderous myth, and are now perpetuating it. Spokane btw is the Lilac City.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.84.145 (talk • contribs)

actually, the phrase and information originally came from the Seattlefest website which is listed in the page notes. Sorry it is not misinformation and what's with the slander remarks? it's only a nickname. Soapy 23:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is some corroborating evidence in favor of keeping the nickname "rain city." Many local businesses use that tag. Examples (taken from a local blogger):
Rain City Video (local video chain)
Rain City Rocks (rocks and minerals)
Rain City Grill (restaurant)
Rain City Dogs (dog walking)
Rain City Hearse Club (car)
Rain City Choppers (bikes)
Rain City Shwillers (125% punk by volume)
Rain City Yoga
Rain City Story (a personal blog)
Rain City Studies (website design)
-- Brianhe 00:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I just did a check with Dex online -- they list 10 businesses that start with "Jet City," 12 that start with "Rain City," and 2 that start with "Rainy City." Seems to me the real argument is why we'd say "Rainy City" is more common than "Rain City."
Also, Chicago is not abnormally windy, yet it's the Windy City. Nicknames aren't designed to convey accurate information.
-- Scarequotes 00:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

So we can call ourselves Sun City too because of business names? Come on folks, it isn't a nickname, never has been. From the context of a Californian transplant, we are a rainy city, but in the context of other Western Washington cities, we are not. So yes soapy it is false which in turn makes it slanderous. Let me guess, you are from California?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.84.145 (talk • contribs)

  • Like I said before, I have heard the nickname "Rainy City" since 1973 on my first trip to Seattle. Come on folks, it is the nickname from way back, always has been. The way you throw the word slanderous around one would think you are from California. By the way slanderous does not mean false, it means libelous statement. You can't go around calling everything slanderous just because you feel the information is incorrect. You might get yourself into trouble with Wikipedia for that. Soapy 02:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Living in Seattle (though not native), I have heard Seattle called the "Rainy City" more often then "Jet City" by a large margin and this include references by folks within Seattle and in other parts of the country. Agne 00:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this helps, but I'll throw in my two cents: Being a lifelong resident, I have never heard it be called the "rainy city". I asked several friends and family members (all lifetime Seattle residents) and they also never have heard the term used. If you're going to throw in business names as valid city nicknames, then any given city could have thousands of different nicknames. If it is a nickname, it probably wouldn't be significant at all. Hojimachong 06:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am 54y/o and my grandmother moved to Seattle in 1932. My daughters are 4th generation. I don't even know if this is the correct place to give you the definitive answer on "Rain City". I've never heard it used growing up, but I like it. It's memorable and has a cool, green connotation, which sounds amazing and ecofriendly. I say that "Rain City" is as good as any other nickname...though it works better in print. I have also heard the nicknames sea-town or c-town. JetGypsyJetGypsy 02:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to add that Seattle is located in "The Evergray State". JetGypsyJetGypsy 03:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved to Seattle in August 2006. I have certainly heard the Seattle referred to as the "Rainy City" several times, especially during the rainy winter season. I live next to "Rain City Video." Perhaps also notable is the fact that a google search for "rain city" and "rainy city" both yield results linking to Seattle discussions and businesses. We should remember that the purpose of an encyclopedia is to describe, not prescribe. It seems easily confirmable that people refer to Seattle as both the Rain City and the Rainy City. Joshua Crowgey 19:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Born on Puget Sound 1955, I have never heard a native call Seattle "Rain City" or "Rainy City"; while "Emerald City" and "Jet City" are silly nicknames, they are what we got.
  • We have to distinguish here between a nickname and a popular joke. "Emerald City" "Jet City" and the like are nicknames because they have at some time been in actual use and bore some sanction. Joking names such as "Rain City" or "Rainy City" are not nicknames, at least not until there is some effort to establish them as nicknames.
  • Whether commercial ventures use the name is a very poor indicator of its actual use as a nickname; Just down the block is "Fat City Automotive but that is no evidence that "Fat City" is another nickname for Seattle.
  • Seattle is very far from the ONLY city on Puget Sound that "could be" called the Rainy City; Forks on the Strait has a better claim.
  • It is not wikipedia's job to include every joking reference to our weather, unless they are labelled as such. rewinn 04:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

homeless population #s

The homeless population #s make no sense. In one sentence it says "estimated at 1.5%" (that would be around 50-75,000); later in the paragraph it says population of 8,000. If there's a dispute (there usually is on these matters), then we should simply say, "estimated between X and Y"; and "population of anywhere from X to Y", and cite to both. Can anyone help on this? --lquilter 05:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[2] cites the Seattle area as having a homeless population of 2,140 people. Keep in mind this isn't an official source, merely an unofficial census by the "Seattle-King County Coalition on Homelessness". It might be nice to note that the number of homeless has dropped roughly 5% since this time last year. Hojimachong 07:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
It's also worth bearing in mind that statistics often get confused between those that refer to the City of Seattle alone and those that refer to all of urban King County, and between those that specifically count people sleeping rough at night or those that include every person with no fixed abode. —Eldan Goldenberg (User:Eldang) 02:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey stupid, do your math! 1.5% of 580,000 is not 50-75 thousand! It actually comes out to 8,700, which if adjusted to 2000 census data comes out a bit closer to 8,000.

Performing arts section too big?

I think someone should drastically scale down the performing arts section. There is no need to list so many band names, venues, etc. Most of what is there should go to the Arts in Seattle main page. Soapy 03:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Don't know why I did not count them before. There are 49 bands listed! Perhaps a new main page just for Seattle bands is in order. Soapy 03:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
You know.. You can make edit's yourself, Soapy.;) There isn't a residency requirement to editting on this article. --Bobblehead 21:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Major edit

Sean mc sean (talk · contribs) did a major edit of the whole article on 2007-01-29, but marked it minor and left no edit summary.[3] It was well-intentioned and constructive, in my opinion, but I thought it should be brought to the attention of the other editors of this article. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Cliamte/temperatures?

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

Climate edits

The last few days have been notable for a flurry of edits and reverts to the climate section. Can someone explain what was wrong with the 00:57, 2007 February 10 version, please? It uses the words "mild temperate marine climate", rather than "somewhat warm, mild Mediterranean climate" to describe the climate of Seattle. If other similar inaccuracies have been introduced, it might be best to revert to that earlier version. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the best answer to your question can be found at Talk:Mediterranean climate. As far as what's going on here, User:GS121389, aka User:140.142.183.54, User:140.142.182.153, User:140.142.182.168, etc. seems to have an interest in the article saying Seattle has a Mediterranean climate with certain averages. As far as what is wrong with temperate marine climate.. Nothing that I can tell. I wouldn't call Seattle's weather Mediterranean, but my interest in climate is the weather report in the morning, so I'm no expert. --Bobblehead 20:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I just added a couple sentences to the climate section that I hope will suffice. Terms mediterranean are sometimes used and there are decent references for it, but I think the term tends to be used in a broader sense than usual, meaning there is a wet winter and a normal summer "drought", which is a characteristic of mediterranean climate as I understand it. But if you are talking about temperatures, Seattle is hardly mediterranean! Still, the term is used, so I figure it can be used here, with a little disclaimer/explaination. I myself like "marine west coast", but, being a rather rare climate, it may not be common knowledge that a summer drought is normal. Quite the contrast to the "ever rainy" stereotype that ought to be mentioned. After all, in the summer in Seattle, the grass turns dry, brown, and dormant, as in California. This doesn't happen in the east of the US. Pfly 10:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
oops, I should say I added it to the Washington page's climate section, not the Seattle page. Pfly 10:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation of the dispute. It seems to me that it comes down to the question of what source should be used for climate data. In my opinion, the best climate data, in the sense of WP:RS, is the National Weather Service. I am dubious of the quality and provenance of sources like the Weather Channel, for example. The Seattle Tacoma International Airport Weather Service Contract Meteorological Office lists averages spanning 75 years from 1931 to 2006. I suggest that this source be used for the article. I argue that Seatac readings are regularly reported by local news media as representative of conditions in Seattle. Moreover, they should not be very different from any other local data of comparable quality and duration.[4]
Regarding climate, I find sources for both Csb and Cfb classifications.[5][6] My suggestion is to report that Seattle's climate has been classified both Csb and Cfb. July and August average high temperatures are only a bit above the 22 C that I saw a the cutoff for Csb. Those same months average a total of 46 mm of rain and are dry by comparison with the rest of the year but not as dry as prototypical examples of Csb climates. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
If there are reliable sources saying both, then I don't see why both can't/shouldn't be recorded in the article as being Csb and/or Cfb. --Bobblehead 20:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Page protection?

Why is this page protected? Is Seattle a particularly controversial city?--Margareta 21:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Removed map

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

Seattle Non-Profits

I deleted this from the demographics section's sidebar on homelessness:

Local non-profit organizations dealing with poverty and related issues include the Fremont Public Association, the Asian Counseling and Referral Service, Peace for the Streets by Kids from the Streets, and the Seattle Indian Center.

Because, while this is all true, it is a very unbalaced portrait of social services in Seattle. PSKS does very little in the city compared to other social service agencies not mentioned. Because a more complete list would be prohibitive, I suggest it be ommited altogether.

66.194.72.10 23:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


Why not simply remove PSKS? The others are well respected. (Though the FPA has changed its name to something rather meaningless, I believe.) --Lukobe 06:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me if I should be putting this somewhere else, but the talk page seems like the right place. Billywatson is quite determined to have this page link to about.com's Seattle guide. He is also the editor of said guide.

After I initially removed his link spam from the main body of the article and commented on his talk page, I received an angry email from the same user, and found that one of my edits to Olympic_Sculpture_Park had been reverted by him. I have been trying to resolve this dispute through email, in the course of which I added a link to his Seattle guide in the one place where I thought it appropriate. Bobblehead removed that link and subsequently gave an explanation on my talk page (with which I was satisfied) of why it doesn't belong, but I notice Billywatson has been back since to put the link back in.

I'm not interested in getting into an edit war with anyone, so I think I'll steer clear of changing anything myself, but if the general consensus agrees with Bobblehead's position then perhaps it should be made clear and acted on. Eldang 04:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The added information that Billywatson is the editor of that page would seem to preclude him from adding the link to the external links section due to a conflict of interest which is definitely against WP:EL. Aside from removing your link on the Olympic Sculpture Park, Billy Watson's edit history seems to only be adding links to about.com, so it is entirely possible we could start warning him about WP:SPAM violations. That being said, I'm not strictly opposed to the link, I just don't see it as providing anything uniquely encyclopedic to the article that is not provided by the other links already included in the lengthy external links section. --Bobblehead 19:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
30 minutes after you removed the link, a new user account was created (User:Sandylee253), and that account has done exactly one thing: re-add the about.com link 2 minutes after it was created. I have removed it, and requested that anyone who wants to include it make the case here. Regardless of their identity, this would be more productive than simply continuing to re-add the link each time it is removed. Eldang 21:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Overall averages

What was wrong with adding overall averages to the climate section? Many other articles have it, and I don't see why it "brings down" the article. 192.147.169.5 20:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No idea. My guess is that Tellyaddict was a little overeager in reverting your change based on your IP addresses history of vandalism. Note that I'm not saying you're the one doing the vandalism, but your IP address is a shared IP address and has been used for that purpose in the past. You may wish to consider creating an account As far as including the "Overall Average", why not call it the "Mean" and go with that? --Bobblehead 20:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll do that. 777fortytwo 21:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Average temperatures, etc.

An anonymous editor, 192.147.169.5 (talk • contribs), has substituted a table from The Weather Channel for the one from the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC) with the edit summary, " I believe these averages are more commonly shown."[7][8] I was not able to verify that The Weather Channel is a commonly used source of climate data on Wikipedia. Weatherbase seems to be used most often on other city articles, when a source is given, e.g., Los Angeles, California, San Francisco, California, Houston, Texas and Boston, Massachusetts. [9] Of about ten large US cities that I looked at, only Dallas, Texas cites The Weather Channel.

The Western Regional Climate Center "is administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration".[10] It is hosted by the "Desert Research Institute (DRI) [which] is the nonprofit research campus of the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE)"[11] As such, I would expect its staff to be mostly scientists and technical people. The other two source are for-profit corporations and accept advertising. The Weather Channel is a news organization that reports on weather related topics.

The provenance of The Weather Channel data is not given. The provenance of the WRCC data is stated as 7/23/1931 to 10/31/2006 and is for the Seattle Tacoma International Airport Weather Service Contract Meteorological Office. This information as well as the additional decimal digit of temperature makes the WRCC data more useful, in my opinion. Weatherbase states "Years on Record" but not the date of the most recent update. The latitude and longitude of the location where the data were taken is stated.

The policy WP:ATT states that "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible." I think all three sources probably comply with this rather vague standard. Another issue is whether republishing either The Weather Channel or Weatherbase data violates WP:COPY. My reading of Fair use is that it may, and that the WRCC source which is directly attributable to the federal government is more likely to be compliant. Of the sources I've investigated, I think that the WRCC is the most reliable source. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting question on the copyright violation... The weather channel's information is based on the same information as the WRCC's information so not sure if the weather channel can claim copyright, but then, I'm not anywhere near a layman on copyright laws. The weather channel is just using a smaller range for the average and the fact that the range isn't known is probably a reason not to use it. One thing that might work against using the 1931-2006 average from the WRCC is that global warming has increased the average temperature by a degree or so. The average is technically not from 1931 to 2006. There's a reading in July 1931, but every other monthly average is blank until June 1948.[12] Realistically, I don't really care which version we use, just seems like a lot of wasted cycles in the server to squabble over a difference of a few degrees. --Bobblehead 21:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
There are a lot of different sources with different averages. I simply meant that I had seen the ones I posted the most. But I'm no expert, so I guess I'll just trust the other averages, but I'm going to try and add mean averages to them. 777fortytwo 22:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Signficant Buildings Error

The Columbia Center is the tallest building in Seattle and, with 83 stories, has a greater number of floors than any other building west of the Mississippi River.

The Columbia Center has 76 stories so I am going to correct this.

"In the 90's a genration of childeren were born into the cold world of Seattle, know as the children of the attle. These kids included jackie, jessica, austiin, ben, jen, kk, rian, gabi, cassie, leah, and bob." Who put this crap in? I typically don't edit, just look for errors and vandalism. Can someonetake care of this?

Actually, the BANK OF AMERICA CENTER has 75 stories as it lacks a thirteenth floor (as most modern skyscrapers in the U.S. do).


The current name of the building is the Columbia Center, despite the fact that it can be referred to as the BANK OF AMERICA CENTER and the COLUMBIA TOWER, these are former names, and the article correctly reflects this. There are 76 floors above ground. I used to work in the restaurant on floor 75 and 76. However, the assertion about the missing floor 13 could be true. There are several levels below ground, perhaps the distinction should be noted. Also please remember to sign your comments. Joshua Crowgey 21:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Seattlite or Seattleite?

The article used both spellings before I changed it to Seattlite. Any linguists want to weigh in? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.208.85.43 (talk) 07:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

m-w.com has "Seattleite," [13] without "Seattlite" offered as an alternative. The city's website spells it "Seattleite" except for two places. And a Google comparison favors "Seattleite" to "Seattlite," 95,700 to 30,000. Unless someone has a compelling counterargument, I'd say we should go with "Seattleite." -- Scarequotes 20:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Neither. "Seagros". SchmuckyTheCat 04:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Definitely "Seattleite." --Lukobe 06:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been using the Seattle article for some general research purposes all week (since 4/12/07) As of 4/18/07, the introductory paragraph has been horribly vandalized, and I don't know how to remove or edit content from that section. I truly hope that someone who is more saavy on this website will do the service of removing this ridiculously immature content. Thank-you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.107.12 (talk • contribs)


Google says Seattleite, though I've only heard it said before and not read it and Seattlite sounds more natural to how it sounds. Dave Rebecca 19:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Ego-issue; i.e. page-bias

This article seems to be quite full of it's self - it's like a giant ad for the city of Seattle! Wikipedia is not a free advertisement for cities, corporations or people; it's obvious that some very pompous Seattleites are responsible for the foundation of this article, and that some outside work from some intelligent and informed, though not biased, non-Seattle editors need to get their hands in this page's recovery. It may be a feature article recipient, but it's far from high-quality by any average reader's standards. Seattle as a whole is NOT a perfect place to live, as depicted in this article. I'm not saying that anyone should go about trashing the city in paragraphs, but some sort of balance is necessary. This is Wikipedia, not a travel agency. I'm recommending, from an outside opinion, some serious action be taken to clean up the real mess that this article is going into. 206.188.56.88 21:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's better than Tacoma and that's all that really matters. SchmuckyTheCat
As a pompous Seattleite I am horrified and appalled that the anon would imply that Seattle is not a perfect city and vastly superior to any other city in the world and is not deserving of an article that is full of itself as created by us pompous Seattleites. *grin* But anywho, requests to improve articles without specific examples of what needs to be improved are rarely complied with. So, you either need to provide specific examples of what is missing from this article or you need to make the edits yourself. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

New York Alki

The city was originally called "New York Alki", which means "New York by and by", or "New York sooner or later". I'll make sure the article reflects that. -Uagehry456talk 20:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Seattle wasn't called "New York Alki". The settlement on Alki Point was called New York Alki until it was shortened to Alki shortly before it went belly up and everyone moved to Seattle. Seattle has always been Seattle. Although, it does technically depend on what you consider "Seattle" to be. Seattle was settled by the same people as New York, but there was a period of time when there were two settlements, one New York (Unofficially called New York Alki and then officially changed to Alki) and the other Duwamps/Seattle. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, never mind, it's just what I learned in America's classrooms. -Uagehry456talk 06:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Religion

Just curious, how come a featured article not mention a single word about religion in the city? Especially being the seat of a catholic archbishop should be worth mentioning!

Infobox Weather

{{Infobox Weather}} seems to be gaining widespread use.[14] I'm not sure that I understand the argument not to use it in this article. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It also seems to be a lot easier to maintain as it now only requires you to update the Fahrenheit, it eliminates the annoying math errors that are common when manually converting imperial to metric, and we don't have to wonder if a change in average temperature also constitutes a color change for the cell. Not to mention the colors are now standard across all articles using the infobox. Anytime there is more standardization between articles is a good thing, if you ask me. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Featured article

What's going on in the articlehistory box at the top of the page? The information is wrong and doesn't make any sense.-Wafulz 15:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. There was a failed a FAC in Jan 05 and was promoted in March 05. The only minor nit is the March discussion points to the Jan discussion, but there's a link for that at the top. --Bobblehead (rants) 15:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
It was also in the wrong order. I've changed it appropriately.-Wafulz 16:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Helene Madison

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

Since nobody objected I inserted this. Willingandable 14:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move from Seattle, Washington to Seattle

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was The move request that started this is was closed by Stemonitis on August 30.[15] There has been no new move request filed at WP:RM so this obviously controversial move request has no chance of resulting in a conclusion that officially ends in "move" or "no move". If anyone wants to open a move request at WP:RM then the !vote can restart at that time. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

well, as probably 95 % think of the city first I don't see a problem with it. So where could there be confusion? --X-Weinzar 13:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Now, if someone types in Seattle and wants to search for a different meaning, all they would have to do after visiting this page is click on the link to Seattle (disambiguation) at the top of this page and search that page for the meaning. Georgia guy 13:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't rejected so much as blocked by a core group of users who want every US city to have the state after it, regardless of the strength of any argument to the contrary. SchmuckyTheCat
I think the situation has changed a bit since the move request prior to the most recent one was rejected. Many of those that !voted against the move from Seattle, Washington to Seattle cited the naming convention that did not allow for moves from City, State to City, but consensus seems to be/have formed around allowing for a small number of US cities to be located at City if they are on the AP Stylebook list of cities that can be displayed without a state name. Of course, just because they are on the list does not mean that they should be moved to [[City]]. They would still have to be the primary topic for that name, so Washington, D.C., Phoenix, Arizona, and Las Vegas, Nevada, to name a few, would remain at the City, State location as they are not the primary usage of their city name.--Bobblehead (rants) 19:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The consensus seems to be forming, but I don't know that we can say it's an accomplished fact. If the guideline is changed I'd support a change of this article title. In the meantime we should keep it in conformity with the current guideline. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
What guideline? See Brisbane, Kolkata, Montreal, Moscow, London, and others—all are precedents for moving this to Seattle. There is no site-wide guideline prohibiting those examples. I am in favor of the proposed move. Saravask 05:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The guidelines a bunch of USAmericans set out for USA cities without input from the people who edit the articles they were making guidelines about. SchmuckyTheCat
  • Agree with move. There is only one city named Seattle. In contrast, there are 15 Londons in the United States alone, yet the original gets the London listing. By the same idea and for the same reason, Seattle should point to the city. rewinn 04:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nothing has changed since the last time this was voted on. The appropriate notices haven't been made for this proposed move. Until decided otherwise, Wikipedia has a naming convention for U.S cities that suggests [city, state]. I don't see any reason for changing just this one city. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Put a disambiguation page at Seattle, because I guarantee, there are other things associated with that name than just the city. A few moments to type in ,_Washington, or a click after going to the disambig page won't be a debilitating hassle. Hierophantasmagoria 00:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
uh, what? Seattle is a redirect. What things, do you guarantee, are more associated with the name Seattle than the city? SchmuckyTheCat
See? Bunk. The fact that the redirect for Seattle takes you straight to the page and NOT the disambiguation means that just about anyone who knows the word Seattle associates it with the city. And look at the disambiguation page itself, the only things other than the city is Chief Seattle, for whom the city gets its name, and 3 things named FOR the city.
The only argument those that oppose this move have is this "guideline" of theirs, of which WP:IAR already addresses. To apply this unnecessary standard here simply because it is the "standard convention"(which it is not, New York is simply listed as New York City and not New York, New York, for instance) is ludicrous and only serves to be bureaucratic.--Tao of tyler 08:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I suggest reviewing the history of Seattle. It was not always a simple redirect. I suggest moving Seattle (disambiguation) to Seattle. Bendono 08:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Asserting a primary topic is not POV. It's what every redirect does, that is a ludicrous assertion that shows no knowledge of relevant Wikipedia guidelines. Even dab pages are supposed to put the primary topic at the top of the list. There is no other meaning of Seattle than the city. The city name is a corrupted phonetic spelling of the man, Sealth, and anything else named Seattle names itself after the city. SchmuckyTheCat
  • Comment, could possibly be construed as mild oppose There seem to be two separate issues that some people are mixing up.
  • Move Seattle, Washington to Seattle. Tempest in a teapot. Since Seattle currently redirects, absolutely nothing would change for a typical user. Personally, I favor the idea of uniformity, where all US cities are of the form [[City, State]], and in cases where the intended target is obvious, make it a redirect (exactly like we do here, now). But there is a legitimate argument for both sides, and since there is no meaningful difference, I don't see the point of moving, or if moved, reverting.
  • Keep Seattle, Washington where it is, move Seattle (disambiguation) to Seattle. A user whos name I forget created a principle whos exact location and phrasing I forget, "the principle of least astonishment" or something, which I agree with and applies here. Dab's should be set up to minimize the confusion of an ordinary reader. If someone types in "Seattle", you know 95% of the time where they want to go; why not take them there? The dab link at the top of the page is more than adequate for those people looking for some other meaning. --barneca (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sealth's name was not Noah

Noah was a baptismal name, given at Sealth's baptism late in life. If you shouted "Noah!" he would not have turned his head. If you want to document his baptismal name, put that in Sealth page but it has nothing to do with this city. rewinn 04:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

For example, read "Blazing the Way" by Emily Inez Denny (the first white girl born in Seattle), 1899 (reprinted 1984 by Seattle Historical Society.) Multiple references to Sealth or Seattle; none to Noah Seattle rewinn 04:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
In the context, the editor who wrote that is just giving alternate names; I'd say it should stay. --Lukobe 22:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
But it's not a name that there is any evidence he used. Perhaps it might be relevant in his biographical page, but not in the page of the city of Seattle. Lots of Seattle's residents had baptismal names (not to mention middles names, birth names and nick-names) and I don't think the article would be improved by listing them all. rewinn 03:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

should there be a separate Waterfront neighborhood page?

As separate from Downtown, Seattle, Washington? --Lukobe 22:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a distinction that makes sense now, but maybe not a few years after the viaduct comes down. :) I believe the waterfront has a separate booster organization. SchmuckyTheCat
Hmm, maybe when I get some free time. Also, I asked this a while back, and I think the answer was "The Ave. and maybe Broadway," but are there any streets in Seattle that deserve their own article? There are tons of articles, of course, about various London and New York streets and streets in other cities of that stature. We have The Ave and I think that's it. --Lukobe 18:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
My answer to that would be "any that anyone cares to create." Seeing the quality of many street articles from other cities, there are probably a dozen at least. 45th (including Market), Greenwood (including Phinney), Elliot (including 15th NW and Holman), Lake City Way, Rainier. A section on Aurora should be added to SR99. SchmuckyTheCat
I don't tend to love most street articles, but if someone wants to write them, also some of the "view" streets on Queen Anne would be possibilities. But I think that in Seattle, we have handled with neighborhood articles a lot of what is often at all worthwhile about street articles in other cities. - Jmabel | Talk 18:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seattle/Archive_4&oldid=1137178097"