Jump to content

Talk:Seattle/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Media

I feel as if a section should be created to list the times in popular culture in which it was used. Such as in the show Frasier and Grays Anatomy as well as the countless movies and tv shows of prominence that have centered around the city. Maybe just a mention somewhere of the top ones. --Greg Nevers (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Professional Sports

I'd be stunned if anyone on the Seattle Australian Rules team is getting paid. Therefore to put in the list of pro sports team is, to put it kindly, a stretch. No doubt there are many other sports with niche appeal (the Seattle rugby league team comes to mind) that likewise are not professional team. I suggest it be removed from the list and maybe mentioned in the paragraph along with "other sports". To put it on par with the Seattle Seahawks and other genuine pro teams is just silly despite what the AFL lobby will tell you... Tigerman2005 (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow...I live in Seattle and I had no idea we had an Australian football team! That probably should be removed as I have never heard of them. —Compdude123 04:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I'd be inclined to give it a few days and in the likely event that nobody objects, make the change. I'm always open to debate but I find it hard to believe someone would seriously object. Tigerman2005 (talk) 05:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Well in the absence of any negative responses and seeing as though I don't think it is a contentious issue, I'm going to be bold and delete the Seattle AFL team from the pro sports list. Aussie Rules fans in the Pacific North-West can stop by the USAFL page for their fix. Tigerman2005 (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Crime

The current article doesn't mention crime in and around Seattle. Adding a (sub)section would improve the article. 208.107.152.253 (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree ad a new (sub)section Incaking below (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Founding of Seattle

Why is this sentence in the section about Seattle's founding relevant? It just seems to be a random fact inserted, with no real context as to why it is important to the founding of the city. If you remove it the paragraph reads a little better: "In 1867, a young French Canadian Catholic priest named Francis X. Prefontaine arrived in Seattle and decided to establish a parish there. During 1868–69 he built the church by raising the money at fairs in the Puget Sound area and doing much of the work himself, and in 1869 he opened Seattle’s first Catholic church at Third Avenue and Washington Street, on the site where the present-day Prefontaine Building stands." 24.143.103.106 (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Those sentences were added later and I've removed them. Such detail can still be found in the History of Seattle article. —Mrwojo (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Unbalanced intro

The recent addition of the Supersonics to the intro got me thinking about whether the intro adequately summarizes the topic. I don't think it does. Compare the current intro to a 2009 intro (from the last featured article review). A lot of good has been done by cutting details about metro area size, nicknames, and the founding. However, expanding the coverage of music at the expense of other noteworthy topics seems uncalled for (nothing on climate, coffee, skyline, education, personal economics, personal transportation, government, sports, etc.). The music paragraph goes into details not even addressed in the article.

I recommend replacing that paragraph with one more like the following:

Seattle is commonly known for its frequently cloudy and rainy weather, for being the birthplace of rock legend Jimi Hendrix and of grunge music, for its coffee culture that spawned the coffeehouse chain Starbucks, and for its distinctive skyline punctuated by the 605-foot (184 m) Space Needle. The city has hosted numerous professional sports teams, including the present-day Mariners in Major League Baseball and Seahawks in the National Football League. Surveys indicate that Seattle has high levels of literacy, college education, per-capita income, and traffic congestion compared to other American cities.

I suppose we writers have a tendency to take that kind of common sense picture of the city for granted whereas readers of an article like this benefit from taking a step back in the intro. Thoughts? —Mrwojo (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Mostly agree, but I'm not sure I'd choose to mention pro sports which are, after all, pretty much universal for U.S. cities of this size. If we do mention pro sports, I would think Seattle Sounders FC would be among the most notable, since it has a far better record and has recently been drawing crowds every bit as large as the two you mention. - Jmabel | Talk 00:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Point taken. I've looked around at similar featured articles to compare notes on the lede. Based on what I found, I'd omit weather and sports, add UW, and simplify. I might come back to this later. —Mrwojo (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary and unverified speculation regarding Seattle SuperSonics

I have deleted sections under professional sports that regard the possible return of the Seattle Supersonics. The information that I have deleted are merely rumors that have not been verified by a valid source. Those details also do not belong on the Seattle article and are more appropriate to be displayed within the Seattle Supersonics or Sacramento Kings articles. As of right now, we have confirmation that the Sacramento Kings have been sold to a Seattle-investment group and also know that the Sacramento Kings have filed for relocation. Of course, this is all contingent on the approval by the NBA. I do not think it is appropriate for biased-Sacramento Kings fans to vandalize this article by stating unconfirmed rumors from Twitter feeds in order to spin the situation in their favor. Tboy206 (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

December 8th 2012: Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle

The 2012 Wikipedia Loves Libraries in Seattle is planned. It's Dec 8th 10am-3pm at Seattle Public Library, and we'd love to have you there, and hear your ideas about what to edit. Maximilianklein (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Non-partisan elections

I've removed the statement that county and state elections are also non-partisan. It is not borne out by the citation, which should be no surprise because it is not technically correct. King County and Washington State, like the city of Seattle, use a top-two primary but the county and state ballots show party affiliation, whilst the city ballot does not. Consequently, the county and state offices are considered "partisan," even though the two-round election process is very similar in practice. - Jmabel | Talk 00:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Panoramas

I've removed the following panorama from the article:

Panoramic view from Kerry Park.

Four panoramas – with two from Kerry Park back-to-back – was excessive. The article should probably have two at most. I pulled this one because I think the cropping and seams are weaknesses. The three images left from that basic angle are all in varying levels of darkness. —Mrwojo (talk) 05:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you were right to remove it because it wasn't that good. —Compdude123 17:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Needed Correction to photo caption in Topography section

Hey all, I don't have the wiki-fu to correct this myself: There's a photo of downtown Seattle in the Topography section that mislabels Interstate 5 as East Broadway. Could someone who knows more please fix that?

20:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Nick, 11-19-12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.35.238 (talk)

The caption describes Downtown boundaries; I assume Broadway was mentioned due to the shift in street direction. —Mrwojo (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Downtown & inner neighborhoods, 1914
Downtown & inner neighborhoods today.
Probably so, but the caption appears to be someone's private definition of "Downtown", and I'm not sure it's worth keeping at all. Prior to the construction of I-5, I believe was a notion of a Downtown bounded by Denny, Broadway, Yesler (not Dearborn) and the waterfront. If you look at old maps of Seattle, the reason for that becomes pretty clear. - Jmabel | Talk 04:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
"Not worth keeping" gets my vote. Is Dearborn even visible in the photo? —Mrwojo (talk) 07:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Climate record question

Do we have a source for the claim that when Seattle set a record temperature of 103 degrees in 2009, it was 110 in Bellevue and Issaquah? If so, I'll edit the Bellevue page to put that as the record high for Bellevue. If there's no source, it shouldn't be stated here either. Vicki Rosenzweig (talk) 05:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't find one. The NWS doesn't publish official temperature history data for either Bellevue or Issaquah. The ST claims that the NWS took a reading of 101 in Bellevue on that day.[1] Renton (which I believe the NWS uses as a proxy for most Eastside places, being in the "East Puget Sound Lowlands zone") got up to 105.[2] Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add links to the University of Washington's and the Seattle Public Library's online historic photograph collections. If no one objects, I will add these links next week, the week of October 21st, 2013. SternaAlbifrons (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The "Seven Hills" Claim

From the article: "Seattle lies on seven hills including Capitol Hill, First Hill, West Seattle, Beacon Hill, Magnolia, Denny Hill and Queen Anne."

This has been the story as long as I've been in Seattle, but I've never seen any evidence for it. There are only seven hills in the Seattle city limits? Or seven particularly large hills? How large? How big is a hill? I get the impression this number was decided upon to mirror the seven hills of Rome, but I may be wrong; this bay me a real geographic thing. However, the statement has no source, and Seven hills of Seattle lists Denny Hill, which no longer exists. I haven't removed it because I would appreciate further insight. Aerothorn (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I've nominated Seven hills of Seattle for deletion. Let's let the result of that discussion guide our work here. Ibadibam (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
It seems that discussion resulted in a conclusion of "keep." Which is fine insofar as it having an article (it is a historical/cultural phenomenon) but does seem to me to be distinct from whether or not we should state it, in the Seattle article, as objective reality. The sentence quoted doesn't discuss the symbology of the seven hills; it flat-out states the City is on them, including one that doesn't exist. Is it possible to reframe it in those terms, or would that be a violation of WP:Truth? I'm new to the whole "objective vs. verified" debate. Aerothorn (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

"The 12th Man" as demonym

I have reverted the addition of "The 12th Man" to the "demonym" field of the infobox because this term refers to fans and supporters of the Seattle Seahawks team, not to residents of the city, which is what a demonym denotes. There isn't anything wrong with including this information, but the infobox is not the right place for it. Ibadibam (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

This word is defined as a way to refer to someone living in this city. A person living in Seattle is a Seattleite, but not necessary a 12th Man. Not everyone in Seattle is a Seahawks fan (some people are 49ers fans) or some people may not like football or could just care less about the sport. I agree that this is a misuse of the word "demonym," but I'm not going to get involved in an edit war. —Compdude123 02:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Trimming down climate

As it stands, the climate section is among the longest, if not the longest, among all major U.S. cities and seems excessive even to me. And I work on these sections (mostly climatology) quite often. I think it's time the section be split off to Climate of Seattle, organised by season (preferably describing typical weather patterns in each season), temperature, precip, snowfall, and extreme events. Could use the aid of someone familiar with the region's weather and relatively well-versed in meteorology. I can handle the climatology aspects. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 06:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a good idea. It will also be appropriate that at least some pictures in the article reflect the reality of the weather in the city, that is, mostly cloudy, and not that almost all the pictures are of blue clear skies as if Seattle were in The Caribbean.
This is in my opinion a weakness (just one) of many articles about cities in Wikipedia, including London (England) were the pictures look like the sky in that city is blue and clear all the time when the reality is that is very often overcast. On the same way that Seattle is not in The Caribbean, London is not in The Mediterranean, and pictures of cities in Wikipedia articles are very misleading in this regard. 90.244.9.234 (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Out of 23 photos currently on the page, just less than half represent a classically sunny sky. So while that's not the perfect ratio according to reality (which could be from 1⁄7 to 1⁄5 sunny, depending on your data), it's certainly good enough, especially with the climate section directly comparing photos of varying cloud cover. If the climate section gets split out, I'd actually like to see those photos stay. They seem silly but also remind me of many World Book articles from my youth. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd be happy to throw some suitable pictures in there FWIW. I have a somewhere north of two hundred thousand, in all kinds of weather Seattle Rex (talk) 06:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Good idea, but I'd like to throw my two cents in on the climate thing once and for all if you don't mind.
Today was a typical January day in Seattle, fairly hard rain. I was at Pike Market, and I overheard a tourist woman say “Wikipedia said it only drizzled here!" In the 4 months from November to February, Seattle gets 21" of rain. New York City gets 14.76”. Miami gets 9.18”. Houston 14.66. Portland gets 19.66”. In fact, for a solid one-half of the year (October - March), Seattle gets the largest QUANTITY of rain of major American cities. #1. It’s anemic annual total is due to it’s dry summer. Basically, Seattle gets in 8 months, what most American cities get in 12 months. I’m not really sure how Seattle’s “drizzle” myth continues to be perpetuated in the Internet age, especially when it is so easily disproven. Perhaps it’s a Chamber of Commerce or Real Estate Industry line, but it’s just factually incorrect. Think about this:
Drizzle barely results in any official accumulation, and at most, nets perhaps .01” - .02” in the rain guage. Therefore, nearly all 38” of Seattle’s annual rainfall, comes from rain which is stronger than drizzle. Even if it drizzled, or rained lightly every single day, we would not get anywhere near 38” of rain for the year. It rains lightly in Seattle, it rains moderely in Seattle, and it rains hard in Seattle, and absolutely none of the above is anywhere near rare. In fact, for a solid third of the year, moderate to heavy rain predominates. Fellas, this numbers are pretty easy to check, and I invite everyone to do so. I would continue to (rather strongly) object to continuing to perpetuate the “light rain and drizzle” myth, but all I can really do is state my case, which I hope I have done. Thanks for reading. Seattle Rex (talk) 06:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox photo/montage

Hi! Today an IP editor changed the infobox photo to a montage, which was reverted by Binksternet. I don't necessarily disagree with his reverting it, since the single picture is a wonderful shot, but I think there should be a discussion to reach a consensus. I like the montage as well. If I had to choose, I'd go with the montage, simply because I like montages in city infoboxes. Thoughts? Onel5969 (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The montage in question is not very good— the layout doesn't flow well and the black borders between the photos are of inconsistent width, making it look rather sloppy. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
The choice of subject matter is not very insightful. It's mostly a bunch of buildings, with the Space Needle appearing twice for some reason. It doesn't say anything about the people, history, economy, or culture of Seattle, and only vaguely hints at the climate and natural environment. The advantage of one picture of the downtown skyline is that you know that the picture can't contain a full survey of the city. With an 8 photo montage, it promises that you're going to get an overview of the full range of the city. It's a tall order and not easily done. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
The montage that was put forward by the IP is not good, as Orange Suede Sofa points out. It's clunky and awkward; it doesn't flow. Almost any single image will be superior to it. Binksternet (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Complaint: The new single photo, which replaced the montage, is mirrored and provides a false orientation of the city, as Mount Rainier is actually east of Seattle, rather than west, as it appears in the photo.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.207.22 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 4 February 2015

Nope. Not flipped. It's a popular vista. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Suburbs and context

I don't agree with the rationale for this deletion. There is no principle of good article writing that says you can't compare the subject to similar subjects, such as comparing Seattle with similar cites, or in this case, comparing Seattle with it's surrounding cities. Context, in other words. Nobody wants to devote excessive space to things other than Seattle in this article, but there are many cases where facts about other cities tell you something about Seattle.

The usual assumption is that a place has similar climate to its surroundings. That Seattle has somewhat different temperatures than nearby suburbs is an unusual fact that deserves mention.

Other WP:FAs that compare the subject city to others: Belgrade, San Francisco, Winnipeg... --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this talk page section. I originally deleted a similar passage after this edit seemed to make the paragraph even more confusing. Because the content was unsourced, I was unable to discern what it was trying to convey, so thought it best to remove it altogether, especially since it does not concern the immediate topic of the article. A discussion of general regional weather patterns is appropriate, and this is what the Winnipeg article does (I don't see any regional climate content in Belgrade or San Francisco), but devoting space to specific suburbs, especially when those settlements have their own articles where that content could go, seems distracting and unnecessary. Ibadibam (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Belgrade mentions other cities that suffered similar bombing in WWII. San Francisco compares the racial demographics with other cities in California. Winnepeg contrasts the change in unemployment with the rest of Canada. So we should have some context for Seattle's climate (and demographics, and economy, and so on) -- provided it is clearly written and well-sourced. Those are valid reasons to remove an edit. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Ibadibam that the tone of the deleted text was unduly focused on a small set of suburbs, with no indication of why that info was interesting or notable for an article about Seattle. As a specific example, calling out Issaquah's high temperature felt like unstructured trivia, largely because it is utterly common for cities that are miles apart to have different high temperatures (in addition to the fact that there is no reliable source for this; you'd think the ST would have mentioned such a dramatic figure). The regional climate is an interesting topic but calling out a narrow set of facts about suburbs isn't going to appreciably enhance the reader's understanding of Seattle's weather. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm grateful to Dennis Bratland for making the point that articles may benefit when the context of a subject is provided and by comparison with other similar or contrasting subjects. Contrasts and comparisons invoke other subjects to help the reader better understand the article topic. While content in this instance may be challenged and removed if not adequately sourced, it would be a mistake to remove it solely because "it does not concern the immediate topic of the article", in my opinion. In the North American Midwest, temperatures are much the same from place to place. The temperature may be forecast by looking at upwind temperatures. The temperatures of Hawaiian cities are often quite uniform. It is not "utterly common for cities that are miles apart to have different high temperatures". However, this does occur in the Seattle region because of inversions, elevation, winds and proximity to Puget Sound or the Cascade Range.[3] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I should have been more specific; I was referring to the claim of record high temperatures rather than temperature patterns in general. Part of the removed text was concerning the dubious claim regarding Issaquah's record high temperature. I'm glad you brought up the example of the Midwest, an area that I'm familiar with. The record high temperatures for Waterloo, IA and Cedar Falls, IA, which are literally adjacent to each other, are 109F and 105F respectively (per Weather Underground). There's nothing interesting about weather or climate that can be derived from these cherrypicked facts. Having said all of that, I'm not going to argue that the text not be re-added. I just wanted to add my perspective as to why I didn't think the removal was inappropriate. (Had I undertaken the removal myself, I would have just removed the specific claim regarding record temps.) Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the deletion itself seems OK. It was the rationale in the edit summary, "suburbs are out of scope for this article", that was the problem. Suburbs -- or anything else -- are not necessarily out of scope if they are being used for context, comparison, and contrast. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
You're right, and that was a lazy edit summary on my part. Ibadibam (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"The Obama voting precinct claim'

Pretty sure (in fact nearly positive) that the year Obama won all precincts was 2008, not 2012. Broadmoore, which is a wealthy gated golf course community was not a pro-Obama precinct in 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NRS11 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Culture, Performing arts

This section's a mess! Way too much stuff about alternative rock, incl. mention of obscure acts (seems like promotion) and bands who aren't actually based in Seattle. Contains nothing about visual art. Art museums and galleries are only mentioned under Tourism, which is reasonable, I guess, but seems strange. I think a Visual Art subsection and maybe a separate Music subsection should be added to the Culture section.Tomseattle (talk) 06:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

History subsections

@SounderBruce: What subsections do you think were deleted? Please take a careful look at this diff and then please explain what you think was deleted. Dwpaul Talk 02:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

My mistake. It seems that there's been heavy and unnecessary changes to the existing section layout, though, which warrants some kind of discussion. SounderBruce 04:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of Seattle

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Mars colonization

I have removed the paragraph about Elon Musk's Mars colonization project. It doesn't seem important enough at this time to include in the main Seattle article. It's interesting, sure, but until it actually happens, and distinguishes itself from the many other new companies in the city, this coverage is a bit out of scope. Ibadibam (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Persistent beliefs about dining in Seattle

The 10 Most Persistent Beliefs About Seattle Dining has a few points which should be added to the article, particularly that there is only one (1) restaurant in the city with a dress code, which should be expanded to point out that neither opera nor ballet patrons in Seattle dress up either. These things are taken for granted in many cites and so Wikipedia should point out these unique aspects of the city. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

This is an entertaining read and I'm going to send it to my friends, but it's an editorial (it could be titled "Kathryn Robinson's Beliefs About 10 Beliefs She Believes to be the Most Persistent About Seattle Dining") and not a reliable source per WP:NEWSORG. It also says nothing about opera or ballet. Are there any sociological studies on the phenomena her column discusses? Ibadibam (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what's wrong with SeattleMet, but there are numerous other sources that have covered this topic, and of course we would cite them too rather than only SeattleMet. For example, simply googling "seattle opera dress code" will result in numerous sources which we could cite. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
To me these sound like unencyclopedic factoids. While we can easily find a source that confirms that there is one restaurant with a dress code, does it even matter (is there some objective measurement of dress-code-per-capita) and is that actually unique (how many restaurants with dress codes does Portland have)? Same with dressing up for the opera. Is it a subjective generalization (I dress up for the opera, which makes "opera patrons in Seattle don't dress up" demonstrably false) and again, is it unique (have you been to the opera in San Francisco)? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean by unencyclopedic? The only reference I can find is WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC: "Saying something is 'encyclopedic' or 'unencyclopedic' are empty arguments" that is, a circular argument that gets us nowhere. What is the actual reason?

I'm saying I think it belongs because multiple expert sources have said so and I don't presume to second guess them. It's not our job to say our sources are wrong because of our personal opinions; at best we cite other sources that contradict them. A number of sources say it's not typical for only one restaurant to have a dress code, and for the norm to not to dress for the opera and ballet. Are you proposing to delete all the subjective generalizations from this article? What would be left? Census and climate statistics? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

We can include it if there are reliable sources to back it up. The existing article's content does contain some fluff, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do better. I searched "seattle opera dress code", per your suggestion, and found only more editorials. I can anecdotally confirm that formalwear is less common in the western U.S., including Seattle, but that's the same thing these various columns and blogs are doing. No one's actually operating from research. I suppose we could include this content if we frame it as a belief about the city's culture, and not a fact. For example, "some critics believe that Seattle diners and arts patrons are less likely to wear formal attire." Ibadibam (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Climate data

rmv lengthy? I have had one of my edits reverted for a lengthy climate summary like this one--2.216.8.9 (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

None of your edits have been reverted. If you want others to be able to tell which edits are yours, you need to create an account. Otherwise it's just people guessing which dynamic IPs go with which edits. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Average monthly hours-of-sunshine data missing. Average monthly rainy days missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C514:DFE0:6543:CD29:6096:B32A (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Sentence is misleading

This sentence: "The city developed as a technology center in the 1980s, with companies like Amazon.com, Microsoft and T-Mobile US based in the area." is somewhat misleading. It makes it sound like those companies started in the 1980s, which I know amazon.com did not, and am pretty sure T-mobile did not either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marr.justinm (talk • contribs) 00:04, 25 August 2014 I agree with you. The sentence is unclear. Amazon was founded in the 90s. Jaldous1 (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Fixed it by making it two sentences. I also took out T-Mobile as it is a German company that has a headquarters here in Bellevue--not Seattle. And I've not heard of T-Mobile described as being a part of Seattle in the way that I've heard Microsoft and Amazon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaldous1 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

T-Mobile USA is based in Factoria/Bellevue, so it is just as much part of Seattle as Microsoft (Redmond) or any of the other Eastside companies (Costco, Expedia, Valve, etc.). It also warrants inclusion as a large employer. SounderBruce 15:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Good point. It looks like those are in the economics section. Do you think that Starbucks warrants a mention in the summary at the top?Jaldous1 (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Est. Population

I updated the estimated population as of 2015 per [www.seattle.gov] to display the most current city information.--Tnativo (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It's from the About Page, correct? Personally, I'd wait for the next Census Bureau update for a new estimate, especially now that the infobox does not match the lead. SounderBruce 01:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Architecture

There is almost nothing here about architecture and cityscape, nor (as far as I can see) is there a separate article about the city's architecture. Besides individual notable buildings, I'd expect discussion of, among other things (1) formal landmarking, etc., (2) the distinctive architecture of some parts of the city (e.g. heavily 1890s Pioneer Square, industrial Georgetown, maritime Ballard, beachfront Alki) and the rise of streetcar neighborhoods in general, (3) the extensive presence of American Craftsman houses, (4) the rise of NBBJ (founded in Seattle, now a major international architectural firm), (5) the boom in skyscrapers since the early 1980s. Probably a lot else, this is just off the top of my head. - Jmabel | Talk 06:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind lending a hand in the Architecture of Seattle article. There's a few existing articles we can draw inspiration from. SounderBruce 07:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
At a quick glance, the Chicago & Kansas City ones look decent. Most of the others are either landmark lists with maybe one paragraph of prose (we already have that) or one paragraph each on a bunch of buildings, not much use since we can just do articles on individual buildings. But I might be interested in collaborating on this, especially if we can get a few more people in. - Jmabel | Talk 00:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm thinking we should sandbox it a bit first. Bruce, any objection to doing that in my user space at User:Jmabel/Architecture of Seattle (sandbox article)? - Jmabel | Talk 06:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd prefer starting it in the draft namespace, which by its nature is much more open than a user sandbox. SounderBruce 18:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
So, Draft:Architecture of Seattle? - Jmabel | Talk
Steinbrueck's A Guide to Seattle Architecture can't be checked out from the library; apparently it's hard to get your hands on. Joe, do you have a copy? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't have that one, but I have Jeffrey Karl Ochsner's Shaping Seattle Architecture; Maureen R. Elenga's Seattle Architecture; Janet Ore's The Seattle Bungalow; and Sally B. Woodbridge and Roger Montgomery's A Guide to Architecture in Washington State. All are pretty solid. If you want to borrow any of these, let me know. I probably have other relevant books, too, but those immediately leap to mind. - Jmabel | Talk 01:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I looked further at my shelves: Building Washington by Paul Dorpat and Genevieve McCoy; Classic Houses of Seattle by Caroline T. Swope; Lawrence Kreisman, Made to Last: Historic Preservation in Seattle and King County; and Built in Washington from the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Lots of others that could be relevant, but all of these should have a great deal of relevance. - Jmabel | Talk 01:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"Duwamps" section needs clarification

The Duwamps section never mentions "Duwamps" origin. It could be improved by mentioning this before introducing "Doc" Maynard. 171.217.40.221 (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Seattle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Black news matters

The media section mentions gay and Asian rags in addition to the general dailies and weeklies, but there's no mention of The Facts or The Seattle Medium, both of which are ubiquitous in large parts of Seattle that your contributors may not frequent. --Haruo (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The Seattle Medium (external link) --Haruo (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I added The Facts but not Seattle Medium, as it will redlink and cause notability concerns. To balance that I went ahead and removed the other non-notable publications from the paragraph. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the article is at Seattle Medium. I'll make a redirect. Ibadibam (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Surrounding municipalities error, technically

Why is it listed as Burien, Washington instead of White Center, Washington? It's actually the buffer zone between Seattle and Burien. Ujjwiki (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

White Center is not a municipality. Ibadibam (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Neither is Vashon, but we list that instead of Gig Harbor, which is next as the crow flies like how Burien is. We've had Vashon listed (I had to look it up) for at least six years according to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seattle&oldid=352989644#Surrounding_municipalities. Ujjwiki (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Good catch! I suggest you change it to White Center in that case, as that's more sensible than adding Gig Harbor, which has no ferry connection. Ibadibam (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Will do. Ujjwiki (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Religion table has to be redone

I commented out the religion table because it doesn't align with the crosstabs in the source[4]. The totals are broken down into sub-groups, to the table cells and rows need to be merged to reflect that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Religious composition of Seattle metro area (2014)[1]
Affiliation % of population
Protestant 35 35 35
 
Catholic 15 15 15
 
Mormon 1 1 1
 
Orthodox <1 0
Jehovah's Witness 1 1 1
 
Other Christian 1 1 1
 
Jewish 1 1 1
 
Muslim <1 0
Buddhist 2 2 2
 
Hindu 2 2 2
 
Other world religions <1 0
Other 4 4 4
 
Atheist 10 10 10
 
Agnostic 6 6 6
 
Nothing in particular 22 22 22
 
Don't know 1 1 1
 
Total 100 100 100
 

We could do it something like this -- not trying to group the Christian sects together. The ones of <1% are a problem for the {{bartable}} to display correctly. Should just make an image and not try to make wikimarkup do what it is not good at. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem with the way it was. The data hadn't been changed in any way, and there's no novel synthesis being made, so WP:OR isn't a problem. That the source saw fit to use a binary classification of faiths as Christian and non-Christian, and treat Christian denominations as equivalent to entire religions, doesn't mean that we have to follow suit, especially when it goes against our own methods of categorization (and it'll be a cold day in CfD before you ever see Category:Non-Christian religions). As long as we're not changing or obscuring the data, our objectivity is intact—moreover, it makes it more objective to reorganize the table as we've had it. Ibadibam (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
That's not what the source did. They did treat denominations as sub-groups of the entire Christian group. They put all the Christian affiliations together, accounting for the 52% of Seattle that is Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Mormon, or other Christian. The source could do that because they used an interactive web page that lets you drill down or collapse the hierarchies. What we did was make a naive table that flattened the hierarchies and added the Christians twice, creating a total that is greater than 100%. The problem is that:
= 52 + 34 + 15 + 3 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 4 + 37 + 1 ≠ 100
It adds up to 151. The 34, 15, and 3 add up to 52 but it aligns the columns as if you were supposed to add 52, 34, 15, and so on. We could build a really elaborate graph with a show and hide function, or group the rows and cells to align the numbers correctly, but that's a lot of table fiddling for what purpose I'm not sure. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Our table had indentation to indicate the subgroups. If that's not clear enough, we could format the text differently, and add an explicit total row (see example below). But the table you've proposed above equates entire religions with the denominations of a single religion, which is inaccurate and unobjective.
Religious composition of Seattle metro area (2014)
Affiliation % of population
Christian
Protestant 34 34
 
Catholic 15 15
 
Other Christian 3 3
 
Total Christian 52 52
 
Buddhist 2 2
 
Hindu 2 2
 
Jewish 1 1
 
Other faiths 4 4
 
Unaffiliated (religious "nones") 37 37
 
Don't know 1 1
 
We could also use Lua to create a stacked bar chart that would put all the Christian sub-groups on a single line. I can make a demo later if that sounds preferable. Ibadibam (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Adults in the Seattle metro area". Religious Landscape Study. Pew Research Center. May 15, 2015. Retrieved May 17, 2016.

Problem in lead image

For unknown reasons, at least on my Firefox browser, the lead image (image_skyline) isn't showing, instead I get a text link with the appropriate caption. - Jmabel | Talk 18:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not able to reproduce this in Firefox 48.0.2 on Windows. Are you still experiencing this issue? Ibadibam (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Climate math has some problems.

The table with weather averages/records seems to have at least one error. I don't think the annual average high can be 93+° given that the highest month is only ~90°. I would change it myself but I'm on mobile and can't seem to edit tables through the app. Also someone may want to check some of the other math as well. Larry13 (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

"Summers are sunny, dry and warm, with August, the warmest month, with high temperatures averaging 76.1 °F (24.5 °C), and reaching 90 °F (32 °C) on 3.1 days per year." The chart appears to agree. Where are you seeing 93°? Ibadibam (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Larry13: @Ibadibam:I think what Larry13 might be referring to is the 'mean maximum', the second row from the top in the climate table. To clarify, that would refer to the average highest temperature in the entire year, not the average daily highs that would be expected in summer. And for Seattle, that average hottest temperature per year really is 93.8 deg F. Western Washington, especially parts a bit more sheltered from the Strait of Juan de Fuca, are susceptible to heat waves coming across the Cascades.
It may seem a bit strange that the average hottest temperature a year is hotter than the hottest average monthly extreme maximum temperature (July, at 90.6 deg F); however, this make sense if you think about it. The hottest temperature can vary depending on month. It can occur in July or August, and maybe even sometimes June or September. When you average it all out, the hottest day of the year will fall outside of July enough so that when everything is averaged out, July will end up a bit lower than the average hottest temperature of the year. Hope that made sense. Redtitan (talk) 01:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Seattle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 26 external links on Seattle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Seattle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Seattle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Seattle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Seattle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Seattle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2018

Under the heading: "Post-war years: aircraft and software" change the second sentence of the final paragraph from "This initiated a historic construction boom which resulted in the completion of twice as many apartments in Seattle in 2017, which is more than any other year in the city’s history.[65]" to "This initiated a historic construction boom which resulted in the completion of 9,893 apartments in Seattle in 2017, which is more than any other year in the city's history and nearly twice as many as were built in 2016.[65]"

The current sentence is nonsensical, as we don't hear what the "twice as many" is compared too. Upon reading the linked articles, the reader discovers it's nearly twice as many as the second highest year on record. In this case, defining the quantity with a number gives the reader more exact information. The numerical data was found in the chart titled, "Seattle's Apartment Boom" at the following link which should be added to the citations: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/seattles-record-apartment-boom-is-ready-to-explode/ Checkereddan (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Done with some changes in phrasing. Gulumeemee (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Seattle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Isthmus? What isthmus?

Since when is Seattle located on an isthmus? It's a fairly narrow stretch of land perhaps, about 3 miles wide at minimum, but that land doesn't divide a body of water. Is Bellevue on an isthmus between Lake Washington and Lake Sammammish? No. Seattle is located near several bodies of water. Better to stick to the facts and just say "The city is situated between Puget Sound (an inlet of the Pacific Ocean) and Lake Washington". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.27.168.23 (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Divide? So if the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans are two different bodies of water, the there is no Panama Isthmus? OED says an isthmus is "A narrow portion of land, enclosed on each side by water, and connecting two larger bodies of land; a neck of land." The OED also says says a lake is "A large body of water entirely surrounded by land; properly, one sufficiently large to form a geographical feature, but in recent use often applied to an ornamental water in a park, etc." Lake Washington is a body of water. Peugeot Sound is a body of water. American Heritage and Dictionary.com don't even say an isthmus has to have bodies of water on both sides -- only water. And then of course there are the sources that say Seattle is located on an isthmus: [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2018

was zum Geier Bobderbaumeister12345678 (talk) 11:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 11:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2018

I'm hearing from reliable sources that one of the major nicknames for Seattle is "The Seed." I strongly suggest adding it to the "Nicknames" section, posthaste. Elicymet (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. My "reliable source" is that I've lived near Seattle for 10 years and have never heard that nickname. So you're going to have to provide a real reliable source if you want this added. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Alaska Airlines

Alaska was not founded in Seatac. Seatac wasn't even an incorporated city when Alaska was founded as McGee Airways in Anchorage in 1932. Headquarters are in Seatac, but the airline was not founded there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.185.66 (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. General Ization Talk 03:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Education

The lead to the education section is outdated, by about 10-12 years it looks like. This article was just published and may be a good source to start updating it. Just a thought. Kerdooskis (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2019

please change Density 8,398/sq mi (3,242/km2) to 8709/sq mi (3,363/km2) because pop density was not changed to reflect the 2018 estimate. Onebigunion80 (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 Done. Dude Danny, the source is already there... Reywas92Talk 22:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Annual Growth Rate

The lede paragraph mention Seattle's growth rate in 2013 and 2016, in separate sentences. Might it be better to combine this into a single sentence, or simply remove the data from 2013 and keep 2016 as the more recent statistic? Argentine84 (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Seattle for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Seattle is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Seattle until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 05:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2019

Change "Top 5 in May 2015 with an annual growth rate of 2.1%" to "top 5 in May 2015 with an annual growth rate of 2.1%" IAM751Member (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done JTP (talk • contribs) 22:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Change Seattle Seawolves titles from "1" to "2"

Change "The team began play in 2018 and won the league's inaugural championship." to "The team began play in 2018 and won the league's inaugural championship. They successfully defended the title in the 2019 season." Citation: https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/other-sports/seawolves-repeat-as-major-league-rugby-champions-with-try-as-time-expires/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4898:80e8:7:6468:653f:6c30:9b0d (talk • contribs)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 21:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Tip: Climate of Seattle article

The subsection of Seattle's climate is relatively long, a separate article could be created and condensed text that is in the main article of the city.Kubaski (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

In the Demographics section, a sentence mentions "increasing inner-city growth", where "inner-city" is used somewhat inappropriately to mean "downtown". Consider changing this to something like "increasing growth in the city center". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghcooper (talk • contribs) 20:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree.  Done --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

High minimum wage: reason for

The article states: “Owing largely to its rapidly increasing population in the 21st century, Seattle and the state of Washington have some of the highest minimum wages in the country.....” Really? The high minimum wage is due mainly to high population growth? Seriously? It’s extremely hard to believe that it’s not mainly due to some politicians thinking that it’s only fair to set it at a high rate. An economist would argue that high population growth would act to keep it lower. Boscaswell talk 10:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Weather Box contains too much data from potentially unreliable sources

The Weather Box under Climate includes far too much data, many metrics that aren't even in Template:Weather_box. Additionally, much of the data is being sourced from potentially unreliable sources Weather Atlas and Weatherbase, which goes against the standard method of only sourcing from NOAA and NWS for climactic data in the United States.130.76.24.23 (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Lushootseed name

Moxy has removed the cited Lushootseed transliteration of Seattle (dᶻidᶻəlal̓ič) from the infobox, citing WP:WIAN. I don't see the harm in keeping it in the infobox or another prominent position in the article, as Lushootseed names are acknowledged by the city government, the city is named for an indigenous Coast Salish person, and it wasn't an issue for several years in that position. Removing the name, however, introduces problems in trying to keep the page from succumbing to systematic bias by burying the city's living history. SounderBruce 23:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Correct we should not introduce systematic bias by displaying an obscure non-official name used by less then 1% of the population as one of the first things people see that has zero explanation in the article. . Pls refer to MOS:LEADREL.--Moxy 🍁 02:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I think it's fair to mention this somewhere, but not at the top of the infobox. The native name line is intended for what the city is known as by locals if it has been translated into English, like München/Munich or 東京都/Tokyo, not for modern transliterations back into a language spoken by few residents – it's Duwamish land but not a Duwamish city. I mean you could also give the Chinese transliteration 西雅图 but that's not the original name of the city either. Reywas92Talk 06:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
That would be fine, but there is no reason to remove such a fixture without consultation. It's just another part of the erasure of indigenous culture that we have a responsibility to recognize and avoid. SounderBruce 06:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Adiabatic expansion

The article says: "Prevailing airflow from the west is forced to cool and compress when colliding with the mountain range", but this doesn't sound right. It is expansion, specifically adiabatic expansion that cools air when it goes over mountains, and the air pressure decreases, not compression. And it is compression that warms it up coming down, though with less moisture. Gah4 (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Climate is absurd

Holy cow, mow many paragraphs can you write about rain? Red Slash 19:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Have you been to Seattle? Trust me, it makes absolute sense. Jhhillman (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

During July and August, Seattle receives on average, significantly less rain than Phoenix, Ariz., during July and August on average. I'm always annoyed at the misleading reputation for rain. The summer climate is wonderful. 76.250.61.86 (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments and questions

I read the article with interest and I made a variety of improvements, mostly punctuation, flow and layout. I have a series of comments and questions.

1. The Topography section that starts with "Due to its location in the Pacific Ring of Fire" and ends with "zones built on fill" should be rewritten in chronological order so that 1965 comes before 2001.

2. "Thunderstorms are rare, as the city reports thunder on just seven days per year."

Is this on the average? Is it per year? This is vague.

3. "The Seattle Aquarium has been open on the downtown waterfront since 1977 (undergoing a renovation in 2006)".

This is old news and if renovation has ended it should be updated.

4. "Oak View reported that their initial goal of 10,000 deposits was surpassed in 12 minutes".

What is Oak View? It's not clear.

5. The Transportation section says "city of SeaTac".

Is it really a city? I don't think so.

SeaTac,_Washington was incorporated in 1990. Lukeschlather (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

6. "Unfortunately, due to issues with the world's largest tunnel boring machine (TBM), which is nicknamed "Bertha" and is 57 feet (17 m) in diameter, the projected date of completion has been pushed back to fall 2018 (with tolling set to begin in 2019)."

This probably needs to be updated.

7. The image of the Seattle Great Wheel has a car in it that really shouldn't be there.

ICE77 (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020

Also known as the big orange 2601:543:C800:120:F0EB:86E:3C3F:94EE (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Gold Rush, World War I, and the Great Depression - off topic section about Alexander Pantages

In the history section "Gold Rush, World War I, and the Great Depression", the final paragraph concerning Alexander Pantages is off topic for the section and lacking citations.

CapableBadger (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Infobox collage improvements

I think the selection of images in the infobox could be improved. The very top one is great, but apart from that, the aerial ones aren't great options because it's hard to make out any detail at the size they render. There's no image of the Space Needle, probably Seattle's most iconic visual calling card, and the Public Market image should probably be on the left so that it faces in. I'll leave the discussion up to those of you more familiar with the city, but just wanted to get it rolling to help keep this page in featured shape. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2021

Update one picture to a more modern-day feel Cheezbalfluffy (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 11:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Montage

On 11 February I compiled existing and new images for the photo montage on the lead image of this page. The change was reverted by another user on the basis of the selected sites the images portrayed being shown later in the article. I believe the Seattle page should follow the standard of most other major American city pages and have a photo montage that well represents the city instead of one that consists of almost fully images of the city skyline. Please view the revision history for the montage I submitted of 11 February which I believe should be the montage for the lead image of Seattle. Yankees999 (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2021

96.232.40.214 (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a climate chart for seattle here :

See or edit raw graph data.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Where is this data sourced from? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2021 (2)

96.232.40.214 (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The october low is 46 not 44 Just A Climate Guy made that wrong at line 248 please fix that

 Done The source said 47, though, which is what I did. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Seattle Symphony photograph depicts small ensemble

I actually like the photo currently posted, but the ensemble size is small for a performance by Seattle Symphony and may relay a misleading image of the size of the orchestra which is much larger for most performances. Rhapsody in Blue was not composed for a full symphonic orchestra and so this makes sense for that performance. This photograph shows a more typical ensemble size. This shows a choral accompaniment for Beethoven's Symphony No 9.

I do not feel I have any photographs of appropriate quality to add but I will look into it, but if someone else could I would appreciate that. KitsuneLogic (talk) 10:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

FA in need of review

This older Featured Article no longer meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Issues:

  • I've highlighted some unsourced statements, but there are many more (in Topography, for instance, or the sports table, etc);
  • the article is lengthy;
  • potentially dated statements, many statements dated to the early 2000's. RetiredDuke (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2021

I am going to update the total population of the city. Eyzko (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Someone please update Seattle's population!

Now that Wikipedia is becoming a procedural nightmare clique, someone please update Seattle's population! I don't have time for jumping through hoops. New census figures have been out for weeks. Lame, that everything's becoming less and less democratic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.56.124 (talk) 08:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


Economy

Why does the economy section include so many companies that are not based in Seattle itself? Is Fortune reliable for incusion shoudn't we have a source that expains the connection to Seattle? Aliasiqbal (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seattle/Archive_7&oldid=1137178114"