Talk:Seattle/Archive 3

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

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

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

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

Geography: location
This paragraph is weird. Is it even necessary? There is already a title-style georef for the article.
 * Seattle is located at 47°37′35″N, 122°19′59″W (47.626353, −122.333144)¹, which is a spot in the middle of the Marriott Residence Inn at 800 Fairview Avenue N, on the south end of Lake Union.

-- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brianhe (talk • contribs) 15:44, 18 October 2006.
 * Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
No consensus, early closure per WP:SNOW. Interested parties kindly requested to visit Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements). Duja 08:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Seattle, Washington → Seattle — This is the only Seattle there is. There is no Seattle (disambiguation) article. The addition of the state name is unneccesary. There was a previous vote on this from August 25, 2006 to August 31, 2006: The result was no move. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 08:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey
Add  * Support   or   * Oppose   on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~.

Support
&Strong support There's only one Seattle. What's with this stupid Wiki bueurocracy - just move the god damn page! Xania 19:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support as per request. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 08:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly support. Seattle is a world-known city, and does not need the state name. See for example New York City, Chicago, and Philadelphia. --- Dralwik|Have a Chat My "Great Project"
 * Support - As a World city, I feel Seattle merits an exemption from the City name, State name standard. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. If there are exceptions made for Chicago and Philadelphia, there's no reason not to make one for Seattle. Croctotheface 23:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. see comment below. —Asatruer 23:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support absolutely, there is no other Seattle. SchmuckyTheCat 00:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support.--DaveOinSF 00:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong support, as per usual. john k 17:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong support --Polaron | Talk 18:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Oppose. No reason has been offered for this move. Nothing has changed about the circumstances since the last vote. The general usage, as specified by the guideline Naming conventions (settlements), is for U.S. city artuicles to be named "city, state". Thousands of articles are named this way and there is no special reason why this article should be named any other way. -Will Beback 09:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Will Beback. —  AjaxSmack    10:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my comments at Talk:Los Angeles, California. The current "city, state" naming convention creates consistency across all U.S. articles.  --musicpvm 14:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - stay consistent. Krugs 16:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Seattle was named after chief Seattle, which means it is NOT the ONLY Seattle —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeff Soapy Smith (talk • contribs) 12:28, 2006 October 21 (UTC)
 * Comment. Your point makes it make sense to you that Pi should be at Pi (mathematics) because it was named after the Greek letter. Georgia guy 20:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: actually, that does make sense. AJD 01:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep. Would be interesting to see why that is the case.  Vegaswikian 06:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Will Beback. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per Will Beback and the last vote as well an oppose to the needless attempt to create more exceptions. Agne 23:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per Will Beback and Agne. We just had this debate, creating more exceptions is not the solution.   --- The Bethling (Talk) 00:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Didn't we already have this discussion. Try to find consensus for a mass change at WP:NC (settlements) instead of the piece meal approach. --Bobblehead 01:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Will Beback. AJD 01:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose (procedural) per Will Beback. But I will support a change through WP:NC:CITY amongst a group nomination. Tinlinkin 04:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's my opinion that ALL city articles (not just the US) should be city, state/province format (i.e. Toronto should be at Toronto, Ontario). TJ Spyke 05:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It has been suggested by those who oppose and support a change in the guideline how to handle these individual nominations which are not getting us any closer to a consensus.  Let's resolve the larger problem.  Vegaswikian 06:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Very stongly oppose. per Will Beback and others. Blank Verse 13:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose: just stay with standard and stop rehashing this every few months in an effort to create exceptions. Jonathunder 17:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Add any additional comments:

There is a list of exceptions to Naming conventions (settlements) listed in that very guidline. This list of exceptions, as Will Beback has stated on that talk page, is created by the decision of the editors of that city's article, that would be us. Citing that guideline for why you oppose this change is counter-productive given that this is also a vote to change that very guideline. It should be noted that this is a guidline, not a policy and the policy Naming conventions makes it clear that there is no specific naming convention for cities, unless there are multiple cities of that name. —Asatruer 23:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with those exceptions is that outside of New York City, there really doesn't need to be an exception for each and every relatively major US city. As the discussion on WP:NC(CN) the "Common name" argument is actually a misused of the Common Name policy and that usage actually conflicts with the naming convention guideline WP:PRECISION. If there is truly an issue with the naming convention then it is the naming convention that should be discussed and possibly changed. This leap frogging from city to city, trying to make more and more exceptions is a band aid solution at best and at worst a tap dance with WP:POINT. Agne 00:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

According to how it seems WP:NC:CITY comes up with its exception list for US Cities, it is by the editors of that city's article. If this is not so, please demonstrate to me otherwise. If this is the case and you have a problem with this you should try and change that guideline practice first, rather than gaming the system by opposing this vote here when what you really oppose is the exception list. If there was no exception list, of if it were propriety to come to a consensus in that guideline's talk page as to what should be added to that exception list rather than here, I would oppose this change till such time that the guideline were updated. —Asatruer 04:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's goal is to create a quality encyclopedia. Consistency in presentation is a facet of a quality encyclopedia that we all so ardently desire to produce. As another user noted on the Texas cities move, exceptions should be made things that are exceptional--those few outlining cases that despite the best good faith efforts, don't quite fit in. This leap frogging from city to city is a desire to create exceptions instead of simply dealing with the things that don't fit in otherwise. Agne 04:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I was going to oppose on the grounds that it is easier to type "Seattle, Washington|Seattle" than it would be to type "Seattle", "Washington (U.S. state)|Washington", but in checking I found the page on the state is simply called "Washington", which surprises me. If the state of Washington is more notable than any of the many other Washingtons so as to get its own page, maybe Seattle should too. But I don't care enough to offer a vote, just this observation. Pfly 18:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Bands
I THOUGHT I PUT SOME USEFUL INFO IN THERE ABOUT THE BANDS FROM SEATTLE! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.56.89.186 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey on proposal to make U.S. city naming guidelines consistent with others countries
There is a survey in progress at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) to determine if there is consensus on a proposed change to the U.S. city naming conventions to be consistent with other countries, in particular Canada. --Serge 05:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * However the proposal would allow U.S. cities to be inconsistent with the vast majority of other U.S. cities and towns, which (with a few exceptions) all use the "city, state" convention. -Will Beback 23:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * oh noes! redirects are cheap. SchmuckyTheCat 03:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just like the current Seattle redirect. Agne 06:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Numbers
Apologies that I don't have time to look into this right now, but it looks to me like census numbers have been changing around without solid citation. Could someone work out what is going on here? - Jmabel | Talk 01:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed the numbers back to the 2000 census data some time ago, and they've been changed back to those same uncited figures again. I guess I'll change them back...
 * To whoever is using those uncited numbers: please provide a source, and at least make sure your numbers add up to somewhere close to 100 percent. Zutano 04:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Significant buildings
The early-1960s Minoru Yamasaki-designed IBM Building is 25 stories high. Located in downtown Seattle, it is similar to the former Towers 1 and 2 of the World Trade Center. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.175.225.22 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 2006 November 1 (UTC) —Asatruer— 22:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, might merit mention. Borderline, I'd say. - Jmabel | Talk 01:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * He was the architect of the Rainier Tower also. -- Brianhe 01:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup. They are diagonally across the the street from one another and the "beaver chew" of the Rainier Tower has exactly the same form as IBM's arches. - Jmabel | Talk 23:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yamasaki's article makes no mention of an IBM Building, and said building's article is about a building in Johannesburg, but the Rainier Tower article does mention the IBM Building and that Yamasaki designed it. A reliable source would be nice.


 * The wikilink that 205.175.225.22 gave was wrong, it should have been something like IBM Building (Seattle) but the article for a Seattle building has not been created yet. As for a reliable source, is there a problem with A Guide to Architecture in Washington State, cited in the Rainier Tower article? -- Brianhe 01:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Here is a good online citation, from the ever-reliable HistoryLink. - Jmabel | Talk 23:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Created article IBM Building, Seattle stub. BTW, A Guide to Architecture in Washington State has entries for both IBM Building and Rainier Tower which are now referenced in each article by page number. -- Brianhe 03:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Seattle Jr. hockey team
we need to add the seattle totems junior hockey club into sports section —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.5.87.218 (talk • contribs) 20 November 2006.

Population
There are conflicting population numbers for the Seattle metropolitan area -- what numbers are right? This article says 3.8 million, but the United States metropolitan area page says 3.2 million. Also, the Seattle page says 3.8 million but does not cite the US Census Bureau. -- Dustingc 19:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find a source outside of WP, but the article on the Seattle metro area states that the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue-Everett area is 3.2 million, and that if one includes the long-range commuter areas of Olympia and Bremerton, it's 3.8 million. That accounts for the discrepancy, I'm guessing. Personally, I think we should go with the smaller number. I grew up in this area, and I believe that even if a few people commute from Olympia, it's not really part of the metro. L Glidewell 02:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Misc issues

 * While Nickels is, indeed, a Democrat, the Seattle mayoralty is technically a non-partisan office (as are the 9 seats of the city council); we should say in the infobox something like "leader_title = Mayor (non-partisan office)" or "leader_name = Greg Nickels (D - office is non-partisan). Any preferences?
 * Seattle's Best Coffee was in Seattle, but as Stewart Brothers' Coffee; then they were bought out and the name was changed (but with the same initials); then the company was bought out again and is now part of Starbucks. Should we clarify at all?
 * No we shouldn't everybody knows SBC as Seattle's Best Coffee. There is no need to be this specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.72.10 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 4 December 2006

- Jmabel | Talk 18:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Settlement in the Duwamish Delta: used to say 6th century CE, now says 6th century BC (over a millennium earlier). Reference given is a print reference. This needs to be verified.
 * The entire "Major highways" section was removed. I suspect vandalism, but there have been so many edits here that I'm not willing to try to track it down. Any reason not to simply restoure it?
 * Having received no response, I will edit to how I think it should be; on settlement in the Duwamish Delta, I simply don't know what is correct, so I will leave that until I or someone else can check cited of citable sources. - Jmabel | Talk 06:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not believe that the supreme court has yet ruled the racial tie-breaker unconstitutional, I think it is due for a ruling in early 2007* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.86.67 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 8 December 2006
 * Precisely. They just heard the oral arguments in the last week or two. - Jmabel | Talk 22:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"While Nickels is, indeed, a Democrat, the Seattle mayoralty is technically a non-partisan office"

I know this hasn't actually been changed--but what do you mean by a non-partisan office? Just that there's not a separate primary? L Glidewell 02:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Washington State has three modes of elections:
 * Partisan elections: there is a partisan primary, then a general election with candidates parties are indicated on the ballot.
 * The type of non-partisan elections used for the Seattle mayoralty and city council: there is no indication of party on the ballot, and the top two vote-getters in the primary go on to the general election.
 * A variant type of non-partisan elections, used mainly for judgeships: in these, if anyone gets over 50% in the primary, then there is no general election.


 * In many ways, in the non-partisan elections (especially the latter type), the "primary" is more like a general election elsewhere, and the "general" is more like a run-off. - Jmabel | Talk 06:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Got it. That's pretty typical of municipal elections, in my experience. In any case, I just looked at his home page, and he doesn't mention party affiliation there, so maybe it's best to leave it out altogether. The (non-partisan office) thing would be okay, too, but my preference is to leave it blank. L Glidewell 17:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * He's held partisan offices in the past (as a Democrat) and the local Democratic organizations all will only endorse a candidate who says he or she is a Democrat, so he has to assert it when seeking endorsements. There is no question that Nickels, as an individual, is a Democrat, but there is equally no question that the office is not considered a partisan office. - Jmabel | Talk 07:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There isn't any doubt if Nickels the person is a Democrat or not(he is), but that probably should not be included on the infobox as it is about the position he holds and not the person. Think of it as the equivalent of not including "father of two" after his name. --Bobblehead 07:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Lenin Statue Photograph
The photo of the Lenin statue was deleted by someone who wasn't signed in (and with no reason given), so I reverted as suspected vandalism. However, I can see why someone might think the photo doesn't belong in the Government and politics section of Seattle. It doesn't really pertain to Seattle's government, and it seems to imply a tie to communism. I like the photo, but maybe it should be moved to the Culture section or somewhere else? DustinGC 19:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You beat me to fixing that by about five seconds.:) But, now that you mention it, it really is weird to have that picture where it is. I vote for the Culture section. Second choice would be Landmarks. L Glidewell 19:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a connection I hadn't made, but very well put. Someone is probably trying to make the connection between Seattle and communism as noted. The statue is in Fremont as an art sculpture and note for any government style.  How about including the picture in the Other attractions section? Landmarks would be a better fit, but the picture of Pike's Place Market is already there. --Bobblehead 22:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * On second thought--could we maybe put it in the "Gallery" section? That would make the most sense, imo. Plus, the same image is already on the Fremont neighborhood article. L Glidewell 01:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)