Talk:The Ave

Picture removal by Gephart
Much as I understand Gephart's reasoning, the picture is a good way of conveying the Ave's personality. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 08:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please explain that to me. It shows one shop that is one the ave, the center point of the picture is the mallards, which, are rare if ever found on the ave due to the increased foot traffic.  If you want one of your pictures on wikipedia so bad, go up to 45th and university way and take a picture of the ave and replace the other one.  This picture conveys absolutely nothing about the ave and is therefore grounds for removal.--Gephart 20:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please WP:Assume good faith Gephart. It has nothing to do with me wanting "my picture" there, I beside already have dozens of pictures on wiki already, so my ego is satisfied. I think the picture conveys some character. And as far as I see it, the page does not lose out by having the additional picture. If you can put a picture of something similar, perhaps more characteristic that mallards, by all means go an replace the mallards pic with it; but in the mean time, removing it is rather pointless. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, it is now obvious to me that the removal of this picture is causing you some personal vindeda. I have asked you numerous times to explain to me how the picture explains character, which you have failed to do.  Please understand that i am removed the picture because
 * A) It explains nothing about the character of the ave &
 * B) It is just serving to clutter up the page. If the article were longer and there were room it would be fine to keep, but the article is already small and this picture just serves as clutter.
 * I guess, by your failure to explain a few basic questions and your unwillingness to listen to my point of view, you have just declared an edit war, which i hope can be dissolved quickly. I suggest you go to the ave, take another picture like i suggested (at 45th and university way) and replace the one that is already on there.  That way, your ego will be satisfied.  Thank you and goodnight.--Gephart 23:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * My failure to explain a few basic questions? I don't recognize this. Character is an impression, not an explanation. Just because someone disagrees, doesn't mean they aren't listening. I suggest assuming bad faith and declaring edit war in the edit summary box is bad form; esp. as you've violated 3RR (which you've been listed for) in order to get your way. Please calm down, and be more prepared to engage in discussion before starting a revert war. Thanks. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's a quick outside opinion (sorry, Gephart, but I'm sort of wiki-stalking): I'm not totally convinced that the picture really adds a lot to the article. It doesn't say a whole lot about the character of the street, unless The Ave. is one of the few places where ducks congregate in the city. (I'm being biased here; I live in a state where ducks are pretty common, and can be found in a lot of lakes, the occasional backyard, and crossing streets.) On the other hand, I don't see any particular harm to the article in keeping it in there. It's a short article (less than a screenful for me), and having two pictures on there isn't causing a major problem. I've seen GeoCities and MySpace pages that have about a million pictures, with twinkly, sparkly animations and visual effects that produce headaches, so that puts this article into perspective. My recommendation: Keep the picture for now, and if someone comes up with a picture later on that shows unique features of The Ave., replace the duck picture. In the grand scheme of things, this isn't worth getting really upset about. -- E lkman - (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I second this and am reinstating the picture. --Lukobe 22:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement too, not a great picture but all the same, wait for something better to come along. Lets keep the toys in the pram! Amelvin 16:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Both pix are __too dark__ where detail is needed. People like to see people's faces in pix (or the faces of animals : )  Manipulating the pix to show more detail in the shade could make them fine for as long as until replaced.  Are such as ducks often out and about early mornings or non school days when such as Ave Rats are elsewhere?  A lot of urban wildlife has similar habits.  Cf. Dolan & True, pp. 144–152, reference at University Slough. --GoDot 07:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Style notes
Summary: +, cit, so cl, rephrased; see Talk. MoS Explication:  See Talk:Seattle, Citing sources.

"Among these are". What is the definition of a cultural facility? What are the most significant? Live theatre? (The Playhouse, since 1929, on The Ave but entry on 41st or so.) The Grand Illusion, right over, one floor up but not precisely on The Ave? Is that the Varsity is owned by Landmark Theatres significant to the intent of the article, distinctively characterizing The Ave?

Both local newspapers of record officially use "The Ave", no period; local North Seattle Herald-Outlook also, 'though they don't have a formal manual of style for that. Major weeklies?

--GoDot 07:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

That dot
Shouldn't this article be moved back to The Ave? If local consensus (Times & PI) has it that "The Ave" be without a period, and the article itself calls it The Ave, why not the article title? hateless 00:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

More on style
Note re. Street layout of Seattle provides references for accuracy. Also may reduce redundancy.

Citation needed noted in a comment where needed to distinguish from citation following. See "Style" section in Talk:Seattle, Citing sources. See same for "External Links" -> "Further Reading", per MoS

Lamps
The Ave is also an excellent place to purchase a lighting device. I love lamp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.240.124 (talk) 06:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

--GoDot 07:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"The Ave" (a proper noun like The Economist) is the proper form, per citation. Is "because of the thoroughfare's importance," more awkward than "because of the importance of the thoroughfare"? Does the thoroughfare actually have possession?

"Include the punctuation mark inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation mark is part of the quotation" (WP:Mos). A References section, which contains only citations, helps readers to see at a glance the quality of the references used. (WP: Citing sources # "References" section in addition to "Notes")

--GoDot 05:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Accurate content, sufficiently significant content
Accuracy is a goal.

That "The Ave declined significantly" was itself significantly due to substantial ongoing lack of capital investment in The Ave. This phenomenon is itself a significant component of urban vitality with respect to other neighborhoods or various developments. Over decades, this and lack of creative investments are among the causes of urban decay. As such the causal phrase is important to an accurate assessment. That University Book Store moved to The Ave after a fire and into a former pool hall is illustrative of origins and of the character of The Ave. Recall that the year was in the midst of Prohibition, that fire has been one of the signal events in urban development, and these two had this effect upon The Ave. In hindsight, they were seminal contributions to the development of the character of The Ave--in still further ways, as a look at property ownership on that block demonstrates.

--GoDot 05:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What is a sentence like this doing in the article?
"The Ave. It's not a mall." Out it goes. --Lukobe 05:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)q


 * Minus the first two words, this is now in the article with four (confusing) citations.


 * The citation style in this article is, to put it mildly, idiosyncratic. Given that User:GoDot, the person who insisted on this idiosyncratic citation style has not edited in over 10 weeks, perhaps it would be possible now to return it to a sane style? - Jmabel | Talk 22:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

third place
Is that defining paragraph really necessary? Third place is already linked. This is the article on the Ave., not on third places in general. --Lukobe 05:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

General Style
I feel like I am reading some sophomore philosophy major's paper on existentialism of place, and that it's inappropriate for wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manzell (talk • contribs) 08:29, 2006 November 8 (UTC) —Asatruer— 19:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.

Marmor, Dorpat?
Does anyone know what these mean (if anything)? They've been found on the U-District page, too, and I have no clue if they're meaningful words or just gibberish. --clpo13 13:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Dorpat would be Paul Dorpat, a notable local historian who I believe is involved with historylink.org and who has a column in the P-I pairing "then and now" Seattle photos; he's done several books of these photos.
 * Marmor: not a name I knew, but something of his is listed in the list of references at the bottom of the article. - Jmabel | Talk 03:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks. Sorry about deleting that in the U-District page, then. I couldn't find any references elsewhere on the 'Net, so I thought it was just vandalism. --clpo13 02:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Trying to measure the number of cafes
This is one of those places where I am so frustrated by Wikipedia's ban on original research. The article has the absurdly low "at least six cafes on the Ave or its alleys". I don't know where that number comes from, nor what they consider a "cafe", but it seems to me that well within any reasonable definition, the scene includes:
 * Solstice
 * Cafe Zoe
 * The original Allegro (on an alley parallel to the Ave); arguably, its second location in the College Inn also counts
 * The Ugly Mug (half block off)
 * The Cafe at the corner of 42nd that used to be the Roma, but I can't recall its new name
 * Sureshot
 * The Continental
 * Caffe Apassionato
 * WOW Bubble Tea
 * Shinka Tea Company
 * Yunnie Bubble Tea
 * Pochi Tea
 * Gingko Tea House
 * Tully's
 * Starbucks
 * Wannabee (one block off)
 * Still Life on the Ave (at the Grand Illusion); technically, the entrance is around the corner, but it is clearly effectively on the Ave.

This doesn't even count hangouts that are mainly bars or restaurants or takeout food joints, nor does it count things like U. Bookstore and Bulldog News, both of which have busy espresso operations, nor does it count ice cream stands. And I'm sure I'm missing something, this is all just offhand. - Jmabel | Talk 01:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Blue Scholars lyrics
I fixed them from "Fuck class" to "Cut class", which is the correct version. I'm glad that someone included it on this page, though. Naturalprocess 07:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have the album sitting in front of me and playing, it 110% is "Fuck class" on the album, NOT "cut class". Additionally, in their live performances they say "Fuck class". Don't know where you're getting your info, but it's not from listening to the primary source. Coldpenguin (talk) 04:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Cut class" is an edited version. "Fuck class" is the original lyric and should be used here. Furthermore, is there a reason that we're censoring it? 24.16.95.168 (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I love lamp.

Ave Rats
"When in groups, they can be particularly unsettling in appearance. Many of them are victims of abuse and addiction to narcotics, particularly cocaine and methamphetamine; most are aimless, looking for something to do. They commonly cluster in groups all along the Ave, buying and selling marijuana and doing hard drugs in the alleys."

Really? What's the source for this material? It seems inflammatory to me if it doesn't have an actual source. 71.227.159.195 (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

"When in groups..." sounds like a stereotypical crotchety old man who has incredibly biased language (just like what I just used to describe him/her) and should just avoid the ave instead of attempt to slander it on wikipedia. It's definitely fair to say it's got a large 'counter-culture' influence, even though that is actually a somewhat colored word, but saying they are unsettling in appearance is an inflammatory OPINION and doesn't belong on wikipedia. Circuses, spectacles, whatever, that ATTEMPT to be 'unsettling in appearance' wouldn't even be described as such on wikipedia, at least not so frankly, but more objectively as 'having an alternative appearance' or somesuch. There also is no credible cited source to say that these 'counter-culture' kids use cocaine or meth, but instead this is an assumption from the same crotchety old man. In fact, in MY experience, 'counter-culture' people are becoming less and less involved with drugs these days (I obviously wouldn't put that in the article though, because that would be assigning my generalization, perhaps inaccurately--Something the 'Ave Rats' writer should keep in mind).

removing POV template without ongoing discussion per Template:POV instructions
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)