Talk:Seattle/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Requested move (September 2008)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. The wording on guideline Wikipedia:NC:CITY#United_States does not prohibit any move of this page, neither does policy WP:NAME, though the latter favors common usage. An argument strong in the oppose side is that a move would break a standard naming pattern, though as admitted there are already exceptions and this argument can be seen as circular applied to an individual case when, as it is here, the individual case itself is under discussion in a WP:RM. Guidelines reflect rather than prescribe usage per se, and it has been established by precedent of other US cities (e.g. Chicago, New York City) that omission of the state can occur. The argument, raised by Vegaswikian, about multiple usage with city-proper and metro area is a topical issue relevant to most major cities of the world, and it is difficult to see its relevancy to this particular discussion. As the city is clear primary usage and most users who've expressed an opinion favour the move, the result of the discussion is move. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to request that Seattle, Washington be moved to Seattle. This is because disambiguation is unnecessary; "Seattle" most often refers to the city. Moving would prevent everyone who types in "Seattle" from being greeted with "Redirected from...". Moving would also follow the lead of other articles about large cities such as Chicago, New York City, Oslo, and Amsterdam. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Previous move discussions can be found here, here, and here. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that those opposed all indicate that the guideline should be changed before moving. The guideline has indeed been adjusted to specifically allow for this and none of the oppose votes really address the issue of whether "Seattle" refers primarily to the city or if there is potential confusion for another topic. --Polaron | Talk 11:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose-Adding more "exceptions" based on the whims and fancy of a small group of editors at individual page moves creates more "Chicago/Philadelphia" like problems rather than deal with the issues on the appropriate settlement naming convention page. While there are strong and compelling reasons to maintain the City, State convention--an individual page move discussion is not the forum to get into all that. This discussion would be more appropriate over at WP:NC:CITY. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It should just be pointed out to those not familiar with the guideline that the U.S. city naming convention specifically allows Seattle as a possible exception if it is the primary topic of the name, and that whether a move should take place or not should be discussed on individual city pages. Please discuss the merits of the move itself as this is not against the guideline. --Polaron | Talk 11:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. As Booblehead points out, this has been proposed before. The purpose of a naming convention is to standardize the names of a common class of articles. Having consistently formed names aids both readers and editors. The more that naming conventions are adhered to the better it is for everyone. There are times when naming conventions result in individual article names that may not be the most popular names. There are no articles at Princess Diana, Spruce Goose, or Prius because there are rules for naming conventions for royalty, airplanes, and automobiles. The naming conventions are especially necessary in situations with many confusing or duplicate names. Rather than have to rethink disambiguation every time it comes up, the classes have special conventions so that naming is logical, intuitive, and non-controversial. Naming conventions are still just guidelines, and if there were compelling reason for this article to be moved despite the guideline then we should discuss that. But I don't see one here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Keep the standard naming convention of City, State. TechBear (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. There's a dis-ambiguation page at Seattle (disambiguation). Having this article here is too kind to people who would expect Seattle to be a dis-ambiguation page. Georgia guy (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Isn't that a reason to support moving Seattle (disambiguation) to Seattle? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    • No, what you say (moving Seattle (disambiguation) to Seattle is even kinder to such people. Georgia guy (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Well moving the dab page to the main name space is a more reasonable alternative if you could get consensus to that move. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support! Awesome! If you don't edit this article and simply want to rant about enforcing rules that may or may not apply, go away. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Comment Right. Because who cares about consistency? Let every page have its own rules, determined by the active editors. Phiwum (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • That's nice. Maybe you need to read WP:OWN. The editors of any article do not own it. There are policies and guidelines that must be considered. This is after all, a community effort and everyone needs to keep in mind the importance of consistency across the entire encyclopedia. Ignoring the negative impacts of a change may do more damage then sticking to policies and guidelines. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Vegaswikian, I'm sympathetic to what you're saying here, but would you mind explaining just what the importance of consistency is, in this case? What harm will be done if the article is named Seattle. Consistency is not necessarily desirable, a priori. Why is it desirable in this case? Or, if it is a priori desirable, then why? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Why limit the question to this case? Right now you can find any US city article at city, state. Yes, there are two three exceptions but why does this one need to be an exception? A case for making this an exception really needs to be presented and so far I don't see the case for an exception. One problem with the requested move process is that it is biased to editors of the article since the discussion occurs on the talk page there. Supporting existing consensus is not wrong. If you want to change that consensus, then you really need to build the case to change. Doing this on a case by case basis does not fix any perceived problems. The guidelines are bigger then this one article. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Why limit the question to this case? Well, I'm not suggesting that we limit the question entirely, but I do think that a general rule should be evaluated in terms of how it works in specific cases, of which this is one. There's no reason I can see not to talk about this specific case. As for building consensus for a change, that also happens gradually, in the context of specific cases, perhaps eventually reaching a critical mass.

          I would very much like to see an outline of the argument for consistency. I am very likely to agree with you, but I think that actually making the argument will be infinitely more convincing that arguing that you shouldn't have to make it. Why is it important that all (or the vast majority of) US city articles use "City, State" format? What is the specific concrete advantage of standardization in this area? Just say it out loud, so that others may learn. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Part of the common strategy. Carve out exception after exception from the city, state standard and then complain that the city, state standard is no standard at all and should be abolished. Phiwum (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • ...And that means that moving this article is a bad idea... why? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I notice that at Seattle (disambiguation) no competing place names are even mentioned, in fact all the disambiguations seem to be directly named after this Seattle, and also far less notable topics. It's also interesting to note the strong opposition here on grounds of principle, and I tend to agree with this. However, this is in strong contrast to the lack of consensus recently at Talk:Bronson Avenue (Ottawa)#Requested move, where similar issues were discussed. Andrewa (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are already two too many exceptions to the convention, and no good reasons to add more. —WWoods (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Has anyone actually read the convention? This isn't an exception to the convention, this is the convention, to name it Seattle. WP:NC:CITY states "Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier may be listed at City if they are the primary topic for that name. Cities that meet these criteria are: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York City, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle." 199.125.109.124 (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you understand what the word 'may' means? It does not mean it should be moved. And yes, many editors have read the conventions on participated in previous discussions. The convention as worded does not support this move as a requirement. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

    What "may" means, to me, is that I "may" move the article to Seattle, and no one will have any reason to object. However, it also means that if no one wished it to be at Seattle, then they can call it whatever they please. Not that it is very likely that will happen. 199.125.109.124 (talk) 04:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

    The anon is clearly not saying that the move is required, but rather that it is desirable. If your only argument is against the move "as a requirement", then you're not actually part of this discussion, because nobody is suggesting to move it "as a requirement". We're not asking whether it's required, but whether it's desirable. Arguments can be made either way; why not make them, rather than chase the ghost of moving the article "as a requirement", which nobody advocates? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support move. I'm sympathetic to the pleas for uniformity, but I'm also against idiosycratic wiki-rules that don't follow "real-world" usage. It seems that the naysayers here are part of a movement to defend the comma convention (which I generally support), and they seem to fear a "slippery slope". This is a reasonable fear, but given that we have a very good real-world criteria (the AP style guide) written directly into our naming policy, there doesn't seem like to much room to slip. Titling our article Seattle, Washington is idiosyncratic from an outsider's perspective (and only natural for those well versed in wikipedia settlement naming conventions), thus I think the article should be retitled.Erudy (talk) 02:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Have you actually read the naming convention? Clearly order is preferred in an encyclopedia to random article names. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Considering that nobody is advocating for "random article names," this point is a non sequitur. Why not argue against what people are actually saying, instead of some straw man that nobody would ever defend? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support As the others are, Seattle is one the major metropolitan areas of the United States, and there is no competing municipality with the anywhere even close to the same notability. I like the change. rootology (C)(T) 05:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Please, please, stop using the argument "we should follow the CityName, StateName convention" again. The actual convention here has clearly stated that we are allowed to use the form "CityName" for cities listed in the AP Stylebook, including Seattle. Naming this article "Seattle" is actually part of the convention. Based on this allowance, we should now move back to the basic and general naming conventions. In this case, the state name shouldn't be added, as "Seattle" does not bear any ambiguity. Yes, the actual convention doesn't say that naming it Seattle is a must, but I would appreciate if those opposing the move proposal could kindly suggest some concrete reasons for not moving. --supernorton 06:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support The city-state standard is really unnecessary for cases such as this. The city of Seattle is the primary meaning of the word "Seattle", and by far the most searched of all listed on the disambiguation page. Húsönd 05:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support It doesn't appear that anyone has any actual objection to this move other than a mistaken belief that this would be an exception to the current city naming convention. I really think the issue is extremely minor for the amount of discussion it has received, but absent any more substantive objection, it seems pretty clear what the consensus is. CAVincent (talk) 06:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support Just saying "strong" because it amuses me, does throwing "strong" in there makes an argument count more? Anyway, in the real world of journalism and other forms of professional writing, identifying Seattle as "Seattle, Wash.," is redundant and nonstandard and thus wrong, and identifying it as "Seattle, Washington," is doubly nonstandard and double wrong. Foogus (talk) 10:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per ample previous discussions and consensus. The support opinions above just happen to raise a different issue. That is that Seattle is not only used to describe the city proper, but also the Seattle metropolitan area. This establishes a clear existing ambiguity for the main name space. The issue with this is that to many readers what they think of as Seattle is in fact a part of the metro area and not the city. Is Seatac in Seattle? No. So unless someone can show clear and convincing proof that Seattle only means the city, then leaving things as they are is the smartest move at this time. Another point raised for the move is the naming conventions. If that is the issue, please have those changed and don't try to make another exception that makes the encylopedia look bad. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, Seattle is listed as a possible exception in the naming guideline. The question is if Seattle refers primarily to the city or might it be confused for something else. Since "Seattle" already redirects here, that implies this article is the primary meaning of the term. If that is not the case, someone should propose moving Seattle (disambiguation) to Seattle. If that move has consensus then you may have a point. Otherwise, your arguments are weak. --Polaron | Talk 21:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Echoing Polaron, "leaving things as they are" is actually the worst of the available options, as the rare individual searching for Seattle and expecting something other than the city is going to be directed here instead of the disambiguation page, while the rest of the people searching for Seattle are left to wonder why they arrived at Seattle, Washington instead. Which leads me to another point, which is that the current title implies to those who don't know otherwise that there is possible ambiguity with another location named Seattle, and thus is potentially misleading. Finally, I don't think anyone supporting the move is arguing that the move "must" be done because of the naming convention, but rather that it "may" occur under the convention and it is a move they otherwise support. CAVincent (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, SeaTac is wholly separate city from Seattle that is two cities removed from Seattle, as seen here. SeaTac's relationship with Seattle is basically that they share "Sea" in the name and that they have the bigger of our two regional airports. rootology (C)(T) 02:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

And... "The issue with this is that to many readers what they think of as Seattle is in fact a part of the metro area and not the city."

Where did you get that idea from? That's like saying when people think of New York City they're actually thinking of the New York Metro area, which is three states. Even before I was a resident, years ago, I never ever thought of the region when I thought of Seattle--the region is a sprawling exurb-laden mass of cities. You simply look across the lake and you've got a whole other skyline of another major city shining back at you. Seattle is Seattle. I've never heard of it otherwise in 28 years of life 3,200 miles from here, before I moved here. rootology (C)(T) 02:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As to Seatac, how many people arriving there don't consider that they are in Seattle? If you look at multiple categories they clearly contain articles that cover stuff not in the city. So clearly the editors are confused or they think that the the term Seattle covers a broader area then the actual city. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 07:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I fear that this is out of the scope of this discussion. You're discussing the ambiguity of the word "Seattle". The current situation is that Seattle redirects to Seattle, Washington, implying that the latest consensus has agreed that the primary meaning of "Seattle" refers to the city only. Based on this latest consensus, we propose moving Seattle, Washington to Seattle, as they are equivalent. This is what we are now discussing. I see your point, but if you wanna discuss the ambiguity of Seattle, you'd better propose moving Seattle (disambiguation) (or whatever you think the primary meaning of "Seattle" is) to Seattle. --supernorton 08:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As a many-time user of Seatac airport, I have never considered the airport to be in Seattle, and it is very clear to a user of that airport that, having landed, they have to get to Seattle somehow. That involves driving quite a few miles through space that is clearly not part of the city. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Just noting that, contrary to this oppose, neither the question at hand nor any of the supporting arguments involve the distinction between the city of Seattle and the surrounding metropolitan area. No writer uses "Seattle" to mean the whole metro area and "Seattle, Washington," to mean just the city limits. The metro area is also in Washington. Foogus (talk) 02:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be curious to see at least several major, mainstream modern news sources that refer to "Seattle" as the entire metro region. The validity in policy of the opposes are unfortunately dwindling. rootology (C)(T) 17:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support use of simpler common name in the absence of ambiguity. Plus, this is listed as one of the possible exceptions to the rule of attaching the state name to the title of a U.S. place article. --Polaron | Talk 02:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. No compelling reason to overturn standard naming format here. — AjaxSmack 00:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again, this is the standard naming format:

Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier may be listed at [[City]] if they are the primary topic for that name. Cities that meet these criteria are: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York City, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle.

Surely Wikipedia would not have gone to all the trouble of acknowledging these special cases in its policy if the special cases were to be ignored as a matter of principle. These are not exceptions to the policy, allowed but discouraged at the top of the naming conventions page, they are special cases in the policy, included for a reason. Foogus (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes we would go to that much trouble to craft a consensus. That language was a compromise so that it did not require or mandate moving of these articles and to allow future changes only if there was a compelling reason to change another to this form. The key word there is 'may'. Nothing in that section was ever intended to force a page move or to color a discussion using that guideline as supporting a move. There is a lot of history over this in various archives. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, but of course, consensus can change, and a lone article isn't bound by something like this. For example, Chicago and New York City are currently not redirects. If consensus supports moving Seattle, Washington to Seattle, it will need to be moved. rootology (C)(T) 19:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm entirely agnostic on this one, as long as appropriate redirects are still there. Given that they are, and regardless of which name has the actual article, this seems to me to be a tempest in a teapot. - Jmabel | Talk 20:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Wikipedia-wide convention versus US-wide convention. --Joowwww (talk) 09:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Policy basis and consensus for the move, proposal

I'm not seeing a policy-based reason to not move to Seattle other than personal opinions that "some people" refer to the entire Seattle metro region when saying "Seattle" but no evidence of this. Since we're basing this on conjecture, we have 'multiple' Seattle-based editors all saying that's simply not true (it's really not). We have no cited or sourced evidence beyond that, of the assertation that these "people" mean the Seattle metro area when they say "Seattle". Lets move in a week without new compelling evidence or policy reasons. I think based on consensus this is the best idea. The naming convention appears to be only a guideline and suggestion, which isn't even that uniformly endorsed, and isn't binding as a policy. rootology (C)(T) 17:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article move

Just because this article moved does not mean editors need to go around "fixing" redirects, as was done here. The guideline on not "fixing" unbroken redirects can be found here here. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move (October 2008)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Leave article as-is. I'm closing this discussion because it is going nowhere and obviously no one is buying my arguments. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Previous move and admin-closed consensus discussion was directly above this at Talk:Seattle#Requested move (September 2008)

I do not believe that consensus was properly reached for the above move from Seattle, Washington to Seattle. And furthermore, there is zero evidence that the city meets the criteria for an exception to the already well-established rule of naming US city articles by 'city, state' instead of 'city' alone. Therefore, I think the article should be moved back to Seattle, Washington, conforming to the WP:MOS requirement for the naming of US city articles. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Article should be kept at Seattle. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment No rationale provided. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:SENSE. If the naming convention says otherwise, then the naming convention should be changed - also with the rationale of WP:SENSE. Everyone knows what someone is talking about when they say "Seattle", and I don't think I've ever in my life said "Seattle, Washington". WP:SENSE, WP:SENSE, WP:SENSE. Better? —Wknight94 (talk) 20:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:SENSE also applies against the logic of moving the article. For example, an administrator should use common sense to see that there is zero consensus for moving the article before going ahead and moving the article anyways. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

That's something to address with that administrator. Good luck. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, per the September consensus, the guideline supporting city-only titles for this article, and common sense. Using Seattle, Washington serves no practical purpose. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep at "Seattle" (sorry, can't figure out what we're support/opposing here). WP:NC:CITY naming convention specifically mentions "Seattle" as the preferred name as an explicit exception to the standard comma-form. DMacks (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Meh. The naming convention page doesn't say the move should be made, only that it can be. I have never seen anyone provide one convincing reason that Cityname is better than Cityname, State, and frankly, such proposals always look like boosterism to me. I also take issue with WP:SENSE as a rationale, as it implies I, and anyone who disagrees, doesn't have common sense. And finally, it sticks in my craw when a discussion that (IMHO) ends with no consensus is declared to have consensus, and presented as a fait accompli. That said, these constant votes, followed by unending re-votes initiated by whichever side lost the previous vote, are annoying as hell. Flip a goddamn coin for every city listed at WP:NC:CITY#United States, and every year on the anniversary of the city's founding, flip another goddamn coin, and either keep it or switch it again. The idea that this article should be at Seattle makes no sense to me, and I hate seeing things done when they don't make sense, but even I can still live with the inconsistency of two dozen articles being at the wrong title as long as we can drop the subject forever. --barneca (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• My invoking WP:SENSE was more in relation to real life, whereas some folks here see a naming convention and consistency here as WP:SENSE. Understandable I suppose but I just don't think people in real life will care one bit about our naming conventions or consistency. OTOH, folks from well outside the U.S. may be confused by seeing "Chicago, Illinois". "What the heck is Illinois?" I hear someone in Uganda saying. "Am I in the right place?" To me, that's unacceptable, and we should be seeing things from the perspective of the casual reader in faraway lands more than from the perspective of editors and naming convention sticklers here. To me, that's WP:SENSE. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the explanation. I still honestly can't imagine anyone on the planet being confused by Chicago, Illinois, (not in a rhetorical device kind of "can't imagine", but in an actual "I just can't see that happening" way), but I accept the idea that you can. I think in this hypothetical case, the article name would be providing your hypothetical Ugandan with useful information. But I guess when there are very small benefits and very small costs on each side, then if you discount the other side's benefit, they look obviously wrong. Hopefully you can at least imagine that for someone who sees a small benefit to consistency, and no cost to it, that it seems like common sense too. I won't go one with this, except to re-emphasize the second half of my previous comment. --barneca (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• You see a small benefit to consistency? Me too. But consistency with what? The U.S. city naming convention to disambiguate names of cities that do not require disambiguation is in and of itself inconsistent with fundamental Wikipedia naming policy, and inconsistent with the naming conventions of city article names for most other countries. The problem with having Seattle at Seattle, Washington is that it wrongly implies, per normal Wikipedia naming conventions, that there is another Seattle of enough importance to warrant disambiguation. I mean, that makes sense for Paris, Texas, and even Portland, Oregon (because of Portland, Maine), but not Chicago. Yes, there are some other naming conventions that dab unnecessarily (names of royalty, aircraft, etc.), but for the most part these are special cases that are not nearly as well known as are the cities we're talking about. Further, I think the fact that these issues keep getting raised by new editors is evidence of how inconsistent this naming convention is with expectation because of other naming conventions that editors encounter in Wikipedia. So, yeah, hopefully you can at least imagine that for someone who sees a small benefit in terms of consistency, and no cost to leaving this article at Seattle, that leaving it such seems like common sense too. --Serge (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• (ec) Oppose. The relevant guideline is at WP:NC:CITY, not WP:MOS, and Seattle is explicitly specified as a case in which the unaccompanied name is sufficient. Deor (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You are correct in that WP:NC:CITY is the correct guideline -- I consider it to be a part of the manual of style. But you are wrong about Seattle being explicitly specified as an example -- it was only explicitly added to that list after it was moved improperly by the admin above. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not so; Seattle was included there in the list of cities mentioned in the AP Stylebook long before the September move of this article, as a look at the edit history of WP:NC:CITY will confirm. I don't happen to have an AP Stylebook at hand to check, but I can confirm that another widely used style guide, Words into Type, includes Seattle in the list of cities reference to which is "sufficiently clear … without accompanying designation of state." Deor (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it is you, sir, who are wrong. I was referring to the first line of paragraph 3, not the listing of all of the cities in the AP Stylebook. The line I was referring to reads: "As of September 2008, only four articles about U.S. cities do not use the "comma convention"—Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia, and Seattle (although Seattle's naming is currently disputed)." Dr. Cash (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Deor made the original comment: "Seattle is explicitly specified as a case in which the unaccompanied name is sufficient." He was clearly referring to the AP list of city names cited in the convention. You then decided to talk about the other part and declared that he was wrong. Unless I missed something, I think you owe him an apology for calling him wrong, twice. --Serge (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - The general philosophy for WP:NC:CITY can be summed up as "As short as is necessary to uniquely identify." Seattle is a unique city name and needs no state for its disambiguation. —  X  S  G  01:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is easily the primary meaning of "Seattle", and Seattle meets the criteria for being titled without the state qualifier per WP:NC:CITY. Cheers, Rai•me 01:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I'm not sure it's the primary meaning of "Seattle", and [{WP:NC:CITY#United States]] permits, but does not require, those cities to be moved to the single name. This is not actually an argument for the return move, but is an argument against the claimed reasoning for the move to Seattle, which I believe should be considered void. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• This would be an argument against the claimed reasoning for the move to Seattle, if the claimed reasoning was that WP:NC:CITY#United States required that move. But that was not the reasoning claimed by anyone, so you have not provided an argument against the claimed reasoning for the original move, much less basis to consider it void. --Serge (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose I didn't participate in the prior discussion since I try to avoid discussions of this sort. That said, I'm satisfied with that result and object to the reopening of this matter so soon after that discussion was closed. Allegations of administrator impropriety are best made at WP:AN or one of its subpages, not on article talk pages.[1] Such allegations should not be made casually, but backed with diffs. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Conventions work best when consistently applied. These is no compelling reason for this article to defy the convention. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Usability comes first, so Oppose Seattle is the name of the city, nothing else even vaguely notable is named "Seattle", so thats where it should be. And sense. rootology (C)(T) 05:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support immediate return to the traditional Wikipedia "city, state" form for U.S. cities. I concur with Will Beback. I also propose a immediate and permanent ban/block of User:Remember the dot by any administrator monitoring this talk page, for vandalizing Wikipedia. The original discussion should have been raised on the talk page for the city naming guideline to begin with and should have been moved there immediately after it was started. The fact that neither occurred is prima facie evidence of Remember the dot's bad faith. Chief Seattle and the Seattle metropolitan area are also strongly associated with the word Seattle by educated persons (because so many important things in the Seattle metro area like Microsoft and Sea-Tac Airport are actually outside of the city). --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Coolcaesar concurs with Will? I'm shocked! (sarcasm) I can't believe you guys are still defending following a pointless convention for the sake of following a pointless convention. --Serge (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• ? Evidence of this association? rootology (C)(T) 14:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Procedural Close this was discussed one month ago, that should be too soon to reopen. 70.51.10.188 (talk) 07:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too soon to reopen. --Serge (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Repeated RQMs are not the way to dispute an earlier RQM. If you think the previous RQM was closed out of process, take it up with the admin who performed the move. In regards to the merits of the proposed move itself, the title "Seattle" is not ambiguous (and I've been meaning to write an essay addressing the "all U.S. city names are ambiguous" argument and others). szyslak (t) 10:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• I see nothing wrong with DoP's closure of the previous RM discussion - no errors in reading or interpreting policy or users' statements. Although it did not require a move WP:CITY allows one, and DoP's thoughtful examination showed that this there were sufficient arguments to make it worth taking advantage of that possibility. Incidentally I have no personal preference for the title of the article, but this is by-the-by - the discussion has already occurred and was executed in an entirely proper fashion. Knepflerle (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Actually, I don't see any policy-based arguments made above in favor of the move, making it an improper close. But this appears not to be the proper venue for that discussion. On the other hand, what is the proper venue? WP:AN? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• You'd be in error, and that would be forum shopping. Wikipedia:NC:CITY#United_States is the authority, and says Seattle is valid, so the close was correct. rootology (C)(T) 14:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• It's not forbidden by WP:NC:CITY#United States, but there haven't been policy-based arguments in favor of the orginal move, either. I still think the result is unsupported by the arguments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Only one person in the previous request addressed the issue of whether the city is the primary topic for the word "Seattle". All other oppose votes were just saying exceptions to the guideline are not acceptable when in fact the guideline allows for this one as a possible exception if it is the primary topic of the name. Please focus on that issue. --Polaron | Talk 14:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Actually, you're still stating something factually incorrect. 199.125.109.124, Erudy, myself, supernorton, CAVincent, Polaron, and Joowwwww say otherwise in that September 2008 discussion, and more people yet here. While it may not be forbidden under WP:NC:CITY#United States neither is it required and the style guides provide specific exemptions for naming in the exact specific case of Seattle. Based on all of that, this is a moot argument, consensus was closed in favor of the move, and the policy is firmly in favor of leaving at Seattle where it should have been all along. If enough people arrive without being canvassed or told falsehoods or spin about the above discussion or which policy is authoratative here--the WHOLE policy, including the specific exemptions for certain US cities like Seattle, without excluding them--then we can see if consensus does change based on side factors. Everyone needs to stop citing the MOS (has no authority here) and leave WP:NC:CITY#United States alone, because NC:CITY doesn't support your position to move it to Seattle, Washington. Quite the opposite! rootology (C)(T) 14:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Arthur, your statement imply there is a requirement that policy-based arguments be made in order for this move to succeed. What requires that? Anyway, as rootology notes, the authority here is Wikipedia:NC:CITY#United_States and it specifically states that this article may be at Seattle, per a discussion such as this one. That said, there is a policy to name articles using "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things" albeit except "where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication". But the assumption with that exception is that the naming of certain classes of subjects (like aircraft) makes sense to follow some convention that is not necessarily the most common unambiguous name for each article in the class. Whether the class of U.S. city names is such a class is an issue that, as you know, has been disputed for years. The fact is that a handful of people decided years ago that it made sense, and used a bot to rename all of the U.S. cities accordingly. That's what established the "convention". It was not the organic/grassroots process that leads to exceptions that are true naturally accepted as convention. So the debate rages on. Some time ago the compromise was reached that at least cities on the AP list could be at City only, following a discussion, but your argument indicates you're not even accepting that. --Serge (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The closing admin claimed, in his/her reasons, that there was a policy-based reason for moving to Seattle, and none for leaving it at Seattle, Washington. That is incorrect, and probably would be grounds for revisiting the decision. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There has twice been consensus to keep Seattle where it is now, in two months, and the discussion has moved to the naming convention page. You've also again (did you see it?) missed where I replied to you pointing out the users who supported the original per policy, and whether you disagree with the AP exemptions doesn't make them any less valid. rootology (C)(T) 16:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you're too new to Wikipedia to remember what happened. The AP exemption was put in by a bunch of immature trolls who took advantage of the fact that the more mature and experienced editors like myself were too distracted at the time. If I had the time and energy I would have taken to arbitration and gotten them banned like User:Ericsaindon2 (first ArbCom put a temporary ban on him for his NPOV pushing on Anaheim Hills and then he started evading with sockpuppets and was permanently banned for that). But I was too busy drafting summary judgment motions for my paying clients at the time. The point is, there was no real consensus for that exemption to begin with. The original policy should have remained intact. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That is some astonishing bad faith and civility stuff, right there. Referring to longstanding members of the community as immature trolls just because the ultimate consensus went not the way you wanted isn't exactly helpful. Wikipedia isn't a democracy, and at the same time consensus doesn't have to honor or listen in the end to whatever the minority viewpoint is at a given time. Unfortunately, for better or worse, etc.--its just the way the system is). In any event, it appears there is consensus now through all the discussion on multiple pages (Boston, here, New Orleans, and the Naming conventions) that re ongoing now. And between you and me, I think the thing most broken on Wikipedia is the ability of ANY small group to filibuster a larger group indefinitely (I'd make that sanctionable to be frank since it's disruptive to change), and I'm not a new kid on here myself. rootology (C)(T) 13:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Arthur, that is not what the closing admin claimed. The closing admin gave a number of reasons, among which was that there was no policy against moving it. Really, with article moves, 95%+ of the time the policy ain't tight enough to overrule the balance that emerges from any particular discussion, and when it is likely to, it is generally so obvious that the move will not be requested in the first place (e.g. you wouldn't request Seattle be renamed Siatail, because it is obvious that it violates policy). There needs to be clear policy/guidelines prohibiting or forcing a standard clearly supported by community practice and consensus general in the community. A guideline, as you will see by reading about what guidelines are, has no force beyond the community practice and consensus that it is supposed to represent. If the title of a prominent page is under discussion, this in practice usually amounts to proof that consensus does not exist more generally and therefore that the RM discussion can be isolated. The guidelines certainly do/did not prohibit the move, and the practice is that for US cities most take the state but a handful don't, the handful being prominent cities to which there is no clear guideline or precedent reason why Seattle couldn't in theory be added. This is ignoring the fact that the current de facto convention for most US cities [i.e. to have the state in the title] contradicts the standard of wikipedia more generally, where primary and common usage (policies, not guidelines) are the main factors. In this case the arguments for a move were better and more were in favour, so that's in essence why it was moved. And the renewed discussion seems to indicate this is still what the community wants. If this changes, it will probably be moved back (unless of course some standard - policy or guideline - emerges with so much support as to make the discussion irrelevant, a development I'd venture is pretty unlikely). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

2 questions on recent edits

"Seattle is part of the 13th largest combined statistical area (CSA) in the US," no citation. Could be true, but without a citation it's just noise.

"agnostics and atheists" was changed to "irreligious people". Seems to me an odd choice. The former has a reasonably precise meaning. The latter seems more judgmental and less precise. - Jmabel | Talk 04:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

For the CSA, I searched and found this, but it's raw data - if you sort the data manually, then Seattle is the 12th largest, not the 13th largest (note, the CSA covers Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, while the MSA is Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue). But, because it requires analysis to be performed, it would likely be original research. I haven't been able to find the data pre-evaluated/sorted anywhere to show the size rankings.

I agree with the "irreligious" comment - the original wording was more precise. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

References

Guys, Reference no 175 is throwing off the layout of the entire page. Would someone please put it into a TinyURL. Otherwise the page looks very unprofessional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.71.234 (talk) 03:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Population

As of April 1, 2009 the population is 602,000 according to the Office of Financial Management (http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/april1/finalpop2009.pdf). So please stop reverting it to 589,541 and 598,541, when your not even verifying a source. Tboy206 (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully this has been taken care of, since before even reading this discussion I changed the population to the new figure. 76.22.62.8 (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Religion section

I removed the religion section because I couldn't find any reliable sources to support the claim that Seattle is the most "unchurched" city in the country. I found plenty of unreliable sources that referenced this, but completely struck out with the reliable ones. I'm also not sure if an entire section is needed just for religion? Perhaps a paragraph about religion could be included in the Demographics section of the article? Something about the percentages of each religion and what not and maybe reference to Mars Hill could be included. Anyways, here's the content of the section I removed:

Washington has been named the most "unchurched" state in America, while Seattle has been named the most "unchurched" city in the country, having more irreligious people than any other major city in the US. Regardless, Mars Hill Church is one of the largest churches in America, and there appears to be a relatively large diversity in religion.

If anyone finds a reference to the unchurched comment, I don't have a problem with it being added back in. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

See also previous section. "irreligious people" was a recent (and I think ill-conceived) substitution for "agnostics and atheists". I don't have a citation offhand for Seattle as such, but this appears to cite for Washington being the most unchurched state. - Jmabel | Talk 18:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's another reasonably reliable citation (for the region, not the city): HistoryLink Essay on Mark Matthews. - Jmabel | Talk 05:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent ref messup

Someone has inserted <ref>{{web | url=http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/citytown.jsp |publisher=USPS | title=Zip Code Lookup | accessdate=2008-12-11}}</ref> as a citation for Zip Codes. I'm not sure what they meant to do, but all this does is insert a deletion notice into the Notes section. - Jmabel | Talk 18:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That was me screwing up. Andrew c fixed the problem though. Sorry about that. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Recentism?

Why is the 2001 quake listed as a major event in the history section, but the larger 1872 and 1949 quakes are not? I can see not counting 1872 (there wasn't much of a city there at the time) but as far as I can tell the '49 quake had far larger consequences than the 2001 quake. - Jmabel | Talk 05:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Some unsourced sections pulled from the page, for us to source

Part of the Featured article review cleanup:[2]

Spoken word and poetry are staples of Seattle arts, paralleling the explosion of the independent music scene during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Seattle's performance poetry blossomed with the importation of the poetry slam from Chicago (its origin) by Paul Granert. This and the proliferation of weekly readings, open mics, and poetry-friendly club venues like the Weathered Wall, the OK Hotel, and the Ditto Tavern (all now defunct), allowed spoken-word/performance poetry to take off.[3]

Seattle began an economic recovery as a major point of departure during World War II for troops heading to the North Pacific, and Boeing manufactured many of the war's bombers.[4]

It looks like that was the only egregious stuff that needs sourcing. GoneAwayNowAndRetired (C)(T) 17:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The latter is clearly true and shouldn't be hard to cite for. The first is mostly on the mark, though the fact that all of these venues have folded speaks volumes about this scene having peaked a decade or so ago. We could probably cite for everything there (except a claim that the scene remains a staple), but it would probably take half a dozen different sources. - Jmabel | Talk 18:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Race

I think perhaps there should be a bit more about racial/ethnic minorities and race relations in the article.

We do mention the anti-Chinese riots in the 1880s; we don't mention anything about what happened to the Japanese (and Japanese-Americans) in the WWII era. Also, we don't mention the importance of trade with Asia in the city's economic history, nor do we mention what for the political emergence of the Asian community in past 40 or 50 years (especially such Chinese Americans as Wing Luke, Ruby Chow, Cheryl Chow, Gary Locke, and Charlie Chong).

Similarly, we don't mention Seattle had one of the stronger chapters of the Black Panthers, nor that it was a pioneer in voluntarily desegragating its schools but has had ongoing controversy over the means of doing so, nor the emergence of quite a number of prominent black politicians (most notably Ron Sims, Norm Rice, and Larry Gossett). Going back further in history: Seattle had an interestingly influential, if small, black presence in the late 19th and early 20th century, including William Grose, one of the most prominent pre-Fire hotel men, and Horace Cayton, quite a notable journalist.

On another ethnic front, no mention here of Seattle as a center of "urban Indian" culture, including the careers of Bernie Whitebear and his siblings and the institutions that they created.

Broadly on this front: the fight over open housing in Seattle is well enough documented that I used it as a case study in the fair housing article.

I'm not going to head here unilaterally in what is, after all, already a featured article, but as has been remarked "featured doesn't mean finished." I'd be interested in hearing from others. - Jmabel | Talk 00:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't disagree with you here. My only concern is that if we start adding too much detail in this article, it won't comply with WP:SS any longer. The sub-articles for this article are more appropriate for indepth exploration of race and race relations within Seattle. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

How about a mention that Seattle's proportion of non-Hispanic whites more closely reflects the American national average than most other American cities of similar size or larger (hence reflecting less white flight)? Just a thought. I understand that mentioning white flight may be controversial and maybe even presumptuous. The suggestion is open to scrutiny. 76.22.62.8 (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Weather Graph incorrect

The weather graph is incorrect, it needs to be updated to reflect the actualy record highs and lows for Seattle-Tacoma International airport, which records the data for Seattle. Otherwise, many of the average high/lows and all records are very different as you can be measuring from a multitude of places in and around Seattle.--76.22.21.99 (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sea-Tac Airport is the "official" measuring station for Seattle, so that's what is used. If you have another source that you'd like to use, you're welcome to provide it and we'll considering using it. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont think that the data in that graph is from Sea-Tac's records, because in 1950, Seattle's lowest temperature was 0F in Jan. at Seatac. The graph indicates like 11 or 13F.--76.22.21.99 (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This appears to have been fixed by Jerrod1.[5] Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does. I was going to comment yesterday but forgot.--76.22.21.99 (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed, but it appears that the graph has been changed again. I feel since all the weather records mentioned in the article pertain to the Seattle-Tacoma International airport, the graphs data should be using the weather averages and records from there. --98.225.48.221 (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Citation tags for tribal names

As this came up on the current Featured Article Review, I pulled this here for us to check over. Thoughts? See here for more. GoneAwayNowAndRetired (C)(T) 02:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The tribe seems to agree with Dkh<shttp://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seattle&action=edit&section=7up>w’Duw’Absh[6] Problem being, I'm not sure I would count the source as a WP:RS as it is a WP:SPS. The tribe spells Xachua'Bsh as hah-choo-AHBSH but that seems to be more of a phonetic spelling than the "correct" spelling.[7]--Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sewardpark.org seems to agree with Xachua'Bsh.[8] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Duwamish (tribe)#More about names seems fairly well sourced and points out that the modern Duwamish tribe is an amalgamation of several groups that once went by different names. There were at least the two groups: Dkh^w'Duw'Absh, the People of the Inside, and Xacuabš or Xachua'bsh, People of a Large Lake. I have the book "Native Seattle" by Coll Thrush. He uses a slightly different system of putting Whulshootseed names into a "practical alphabet". And I don't think he gives the names of the peoples per se. But he does give the Whulshootseed name for Lake Washington, XacH7oo, and notes that this word "gave its name to the Hachooabsh, or Lake Indians, a branch of the Duwamish proper..." He also gives the name for "Inside Place", dxWduW, noting "this word is the base of the term 'Duwamish'..." and that the people of the lower Duwamish River and its original delta mudflat area made up the other main branch of the Duwamish people. I suspect exact pronunciations differed from group to group as well as over time. For what it is worth there is an interesting page at HistoryLink, here, on the pronunciation of various people and peoples. Unfortunately they seem to have opted not to write out any of the Lushootseed. There is an audio file on the pronunciation of Chief Seattle's name. Unfortuantely again, the audio quality is not great, making it hard for me to tell the subtle differences being pointed out. Still there is information about the "glottalized barred lambda", which is claimed to be in the proper pronunciation. Anyway, I'm not quite sure what this thread is addressing exactly, but perhaps these links will be useful. Pfly (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• The section Pfly alludes to has been partly rewritten (for clarity) and is now simply called Duwamish (tribe)#Names. - Jmabel | Talk 05:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Improving Seattle page

I am thinking about adding a link on the Seattle page to connect to the "Puyallup Fair" page. Xwiki22 (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

What for? Puyallup is a fair distance from Seattle.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Or, more precisely, it isn't even a part of Seattle. Isn't the Puyallup Fair a state fair out in the country? 76.22.62.8 (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

HAD pro basketball. How is this still relevant?

This information was added by an anonymous user earlier today. I respect Sarek's judgement too much to engage in an edit war over this, but I'd like to see some discussion. Seattle had NBA and WNBA teams. We no longer do. How is mention of them still relevant? TechBear (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Because one of them played in Seattle for 40+ years? And we still have WNBA in the Seattle Storm; they never left. GoneAwayNowAndRetired (C)(T) 14:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The addition made by the anonymous user, which I deleted and which Sarek reinserted, says that Seattle HAD a WNBA team. Anyway, looking over the whole section, I see that both teams are already mentioned and that the Sonics' departure is already noted, making the added paragraph redundant. I will redelete. TechBear (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

seattle is the (seattles best) coffie capitle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.211.159 (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Mayor's Office is Nonpartisan

In the right sidebar it says Greg Nickels (the current mayor) is a Democrat; while technically true, the position of mayor is nonpartisan and he was not elected as a Democrat, so this is slightly misleading and might be better explained or omitted or replaced by "nonpartisan" here. 98.232.92.243 (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Gov't and politics

I question the bias of this section, it seems to portray the politics of the region in a negative light "leftest" primaraly being a negative term and does not take into account the large Green and Reform party presences, who voted Democrate in order to beat the Republican Party in the presidential election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Severbeck (talk • contribs)

You seem to have fixed the "leftist" issue, so thanks for that. Other than that... If you can find a source for your Green and Reform assertions, then it can be included either here, or on the sub-article Government and politics of Seattle. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Images in article

We have (depending on what you count) somewhere between 8 & 10 pictures in this article that are basically skylines. Might we sacrifice a few of these to add a few other images of some neighborhoods, buildings, parks, etc.? - Jmabel | Talk 05:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me note that some of the skyline photos are outdated, particularly the ones from West Seattle. Not a major difference, but the old ones don't contain the WaMu Center (now Chase Center). On the note of a more diverse set of photos, I think Gov. & Politics could use a picture of city hall. Under Transportation, I think a picture of the King Street/Amtrak/Sounder station could be one good candidate. The Neighborhoods section could use a photo besides the skyline, maybe one of Magnolia or something. Sherwelthlangley (talk) 06:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

There are tons of photos on Commons, if someone wants to choose different ones. I hesitate to do it, because so many of the possible photos are ones I took. - Jmabel | Talk 06:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Weather Graph Again

Since this is such a highly rated article, the records should all be brought from the same place. Considering that the article mentions records from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, it is best that we use the records from there (also in light of todays incredible 103 degrees, which has now found its way onto the chart, despite the data coming from somewhere else) --76.121.4.143 (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have changed to read the official records now. --76.121.4.143 (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

of which 7.5% were non-Hispanic *

Every sentence seem to end with the above phrase. Is it really necessary? I initially though of deleting it, but then thought it would be better asking the purpose. Seriously, is it worth qualifying every statement with "of which put a number here % were non-Hispanic". Lets pull it out unless its a Seattle lingo

As of the 2005-2007 American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, White Americans made up 70.5% of Seattle's population; of which 67.9% were non-Hispanic whites. Blacks or African Americans made up 7.8% of Seattle's population; of which 7.5% were non-Hispanic blacks. American Indians made up 0.9% of the city's population; of which 0.6% were non-Hispanic. Asian Americans made up 13.5% of the city's population; of which 13.4% were non-Hispanic. Pacific Islander Americans made up 0.4% of the city's population. Individuals from some other race made up 2.8% of the city's population; of which 0.2% were non-Hispanic. Individuals from two or more races made up 4.2% of the city's population; of which 3.7% were non-Hispanic. In addition, Hispanics and Latinos made up 6.2% of Seattle's population.[175][176]

i oppose the omision of not saying how many of the whites are not of hispanic origon thats a important thing.we must say that line people want to know how many hispanics are in there cities.in the future non hispanic white population will not be the majority of the US. 99.164.107.144 (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC) necropolis20

I came to comment on the same thing. It sounds not just weird, but misleading: in "Asian Americans made up 15.4% of the city's population; of which 13.4% were non-Hispanic.", what does the "of which" refer to? If "Asian Americans", it suggests that 86.6% of Asian Americans in Seattle were Hispanic; if "the city's population", it suggests that 86.6% of Seattle is Hispanic. Both are obviously false.

Reading the linked reference on this one, it looks like 15.4% of Seattle is of Asian descent, and 13.4% of Seattle is of *only* Asian descent (i.e., not "Two or more races"). The figures are completely independent of the Hispanic figures, so I can't figure out why "non-Hispanic" was even mentioned with respect to these other groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.16.40.113 (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Population

The population numbers are inconsistent since they are for different dates and have different sources. 66.224.233.253 (talk) has edited based on State of Washington numbers.[9] Wikilinked Table of United States Metropolitan Statistical Areas (in the infobox) is consistent with the other cited source, i.e., 3,344,813.[10] I think we should use the census.gov numbers throughout since we link to tables based on those data. Those data are timely enough for our purposes here and are a consistent source for all US cities. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Neighborhood map needs to be included

there needs to be one of thos maps that shows neighborhoods like there is for Other cities like Akron ohio.

.21321021654321320.0251684650 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.124.153.98 (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe 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 edit this page link at the top. 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. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The tricky thing on this is that few Seattle neighborhoods have official boundaries. - Jmabel | Talk 06:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The map at right, which ShadowDragon and I did, might be the closest thing we've got; it's map of prominent places, though, rather than neighborhoods. I could try doing a neighborhoods map. - Jmabel | Talk 06:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The Seattle City Clerk's Neighborhood Map Atlas is public domain (see Commons:Template:PD-Seattle-Neighborhood-Atlas), but doesn't seem to have any one map that would serve this purpose. - Jmabel | Talk 06:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This map is generally considered the best available map of Seattle's neigborhoods: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.bigstickinc.com/images/largeview_seattle.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.bigstickinc.com/seattle_map_large.html&usg=__H82PNIfz8Z4eEtNjdQgSdYCA9nk=&h=781&w=520&sz=217&hl=en&start=1&sig2=8LnftukQkDfl0cMeU6FRzQ&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=wqGk3vuwGJSEWM:&tbnh=143&tbnw=95&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dseattle%2Bneighborhood%2Bmap%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4GGLL_enUS317US317%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1&ei=EjMbS62nGZDStQPo08j8BA (sorry for the huge link). --76.121.4.143 (talk) 04:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Please, no. Considered by whom? There are so many things wrong with it. See my review here for details. http://www.amazon.com/review/R3OZUOLQU7GRXF Jmabel, I'd love to see a neighborhood map sometime, perhaps based on the City Clerk's map? Wish I had the time to help right now.. --Lukobe (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

split article - Culture of Seattle

This article is awfully long, I think this culture of the city deserves it's own article as similar cities have theirs.--Levineps (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Arts in Seattle, Sports in Seattle. ..., exist; maybe the summaries should be trimmed. Walter Siegmund (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

length

maybe we ought to trim down the climate section, and move it to a new subpage. --- 华钢琴49 (TALK) 22:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Seattle an isthmus?

I reverted this edit because I'm a nob and got isthmus and peninsula confused (it's early, I haven't had my caffeine yet). While the land Seattle is on does technically qualify as an isthmus (narrow strip of land connecting two bigger land masses), I've never actually heard/seen it being called an isthmus. Is there a reliable source out there that calls it an isthmus? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. Found a USGS source and updated the article. :) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is common knowledge. If anybody can point to a map and say two big clumps of land (north and south Seattle) are connected by a narrower clump of land (Downtown, Capitol Hill, Mount Baker), then it's not implausible to assume that it's located on an isthmus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandon1978 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Seattle does not sit on a true isthmus. A true isthmus connects two separate land masses. Sherwelthlangley (talk) 06:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The last statement is nonsensical. An isthmus is two landmasses joined by a smaller one in between. Two separate landmasses cannot be connected--this is why they are separate. If the two landmasses were connected by a smaller one, however, all would comprise an isthmus. Seattle consists of two larger landmasses joined by a narrower one consisting of Downtown, Lower Queen Anne, Capitol Hill, and Mount Baker. Therefore, Seattle sits on an isthmus. 76.22.62.8 (talk) 10:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Seattle is not on an isthmus because an isthmus is the only pice of land connecting two landmasses. While Seattle is loncated between two larger bodies of water, one is a lake. Therefore, north and south Seattle are not connected by any ithmus because one could navigate around the lake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.98.113 (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The dictionary definitions I just read do seem largely in agreement about the need for an isthmus to connect two otherwise separate landmasses, the Isthmus of Panama being a classic example. But actual usage turns up a number of "Seattle-like" cases. The Madison Isthmus is between two lakes but seems to be a widely used term, even by the government of Wisconsin, eg, here and there. The Karelian Isthmus is between Gulf of Finland and Lake Ladoga. Saint Petersburg is said to be at the southern end of the Karelian Isthmus. So, usage of the term does not always conform strictly to the dictionary definition. I think the meaning on this page is clear enough, but note that there is no name for Seattle's isthmus, as far as I know, and people here don't talk about it as an isthmus in regular speech I've heard. I suppose it could be rewritten "..situated on a narrow strip of land..". That would perhaps be more pedantically correct, but less elegant. Personally I don't care either way. Pfly (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, um, "nevermind". I now see that Bobblehead found a source for Seattle being on an isthmus (cited to the USGS no less). It's linked at the second mention of the word "isthmus" (ie, not in the lead, per WP convention). Looks good to me! Pfly (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The more accurate description could be "a pair of North-South peninsulas meeting at a natural, thin water boundary." The more simple version would be to specify "interior isthmus." Gulesave (talk) 05:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Northernmost?

The first line of the page reads:

• Seattle (pronounced /siːˈætəl/ ( listen) see-AT-əl) is the northernmost major city in the United States

This statement is clearly true for the continental US (which isn't specified), however, depending on the exact definition of a major city, Anchorage, Alaska might also count, making it further north. Anchorage has about half the population of Seattle, but major city isn't defined clearly, and I'm not sure whether this should be changed to read continental or left as it is. Dylan (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Part of why Anchorage has such a relatively large official population is that its city limits contain pretty much its entire metropolitan area, whereas Seattle is the main city of a large metro area. - Jmabel | Talk 17:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The first line currently reads:

Seattle (pronounced /siːˈætəl/ ( listen) see-AT-əl) is the northernmost major city in the Western United States

This has been reverted back to contiguous. Western is too restrictive - the northernmost major city east of the Rockies is probably Minneapolis, which is ~3 degrees further south. It still depends somewhat on the definition of major city - Spokane is further north with a population of 203k, and while Spokane is a major Western city, I don't think it counts as a major contiguous US city. In any case, contiguous is better than Western - Anchorage is a major Western city further north than Seattle. Promethus6 (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Presidents of the United States of America

In the lede, the The Presidents of the United States of America are given as an example of grunge. This strikes me as ridiculous. I fixed the link, which was to a disambiguation page; I didn't go back and work out where it got put in this (featured) article. I believe it should be removed. The Presidents are no more a grunge band than they are a string quartet. - Jmabel | Talk 17:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Dubious numbers

Numbers changing without references changing. Someone should review. - Jmabel | Talk 18:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Looks like it has now been reverted. - Jmabel | Talk 02:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The new numbers are from the US Census Bureau estimates for 2009. --67.168.160.10 (talk) 04:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Viaduct to be replaced with tunnel

Really? Thought they (city council, etc) were still thinking about it - and I thought some committee just recently reported that the ground was unsafe for a tunnel. Please cite the source that mentions that the viaduct will be indeed replaced with a tunnel. Thanks. 174.21.247.192 (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• No - the thinking about it is the contractual language between the city and state, and no committee has said the ground is unsafe. Of course, nothing is a done deal, and everything in Seattle is about unending process, but the tunnel is the current move-ahead replacement plan for the viaduct. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Depends on which tunnel. The original proposal was for a combination tunnel / sea-wall built underneath what is now Alaskan Way. The exisitng viaduct would be removed first. The current plan calls for a tunnel further east, under 1st Ave. It would allow the viaduct to remain open during construction and the route is supposedly in more stable ground. If built, it will likely be re-named the Greg Nichols Memorial Tunnel at some point in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.203.49 (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Montage as main image

Hey guys, I'm thinking of using a montage as is the case with most city articles. Examples of cities with montage images include: London, Cairo, Shanghai, Melbourne, Tokyo, Osaka, Singapore, Vancouver, Los Angeles, New York City, and really, a lot more. I'll use various pictures on the site for this.Dolphin Jedi (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm liking the new montage, but I think it's a downright shame that Pike Place Market is not included... that's like THE Seattle highlight besides the Space Needle. Could also put in EMP - that might be good. NRS11 (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

What Does "Mild" Mean?

"... with mild, wet winters and mild, relatively dry summers." Now, I have my idea of what is meant by "mild" and I imagine it is the same as what the author meant. Maybe. Who really knows? I would like the weather section to be a little more specific and the avoidance of vague terms such as "mild." Now, if in meteorology the term "mild" means a specific thing, a hyperlink or something like that would be in order. 75.48.20.143 (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that the expandable "Climate data for Seattle" at the bottom of the climate section provides specificity. But, if you can improve the wording, please do so. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I looked around a bit for a Wikipedia page that could be linked to for "mild", or anything even generally helpful, but couldn't find one. I don't think the word has a special meaning in climate and weather fields. It just means less extreme, or closer to "average", than normal--the regular dictionary definition should serve. In this case, mild winters and mild summers means just that--temperates do not vary as widely as common elsewhere in the US. Summers warm not hot, winters cool not cold. It is not clear that it is temperature being described? Seattle summers are not "mild" in terms of sunshine, nor winters in terms of cloudiness! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfly (talk • contribs) 22:55, 2010 November 7

"Mild" is like you said, not too hot in summer, not too cold in winter. As compared with, say, Miami or Minneapolis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 census inaccuracy

The Census has not released 2010 numbers for Seattle or Washington state. As far as I can tell, the "630,320" number is simply made up. Is there any evidence for this number? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgwah (talk • contribs) 05:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Flag

Shouldn't the city flag be featured in the infobox? This seems to be the convention with other major cities, including Portland, Oregon, San Francisco, and Vancouver.Neumannk (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Distances in the second paragraph

The distances listed in the second paragraph are mostly driving distances rather than actual distances. This either needs to be specified or the numbers need to be corrected. --Pleasantville (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.133.129 (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Film Festivals

If SIFF is mentioned in the tourism section, then why is the Polish Film Festival under performing arts? And, for that matter, why is the Polish Film Festival mentioned at greater length than the much larger SIFF, and to the exclusion of easily a dozen other festivals of comparable importance (not to put down the Polish fest, I like it, and it's a good one, but so are Noir City, the Jewish film festival, the Arab film festival, the Gay & Lesbian film festival, etc.). - Jmabel | Talk 02:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Largest City in the Pacific Northwest

Seattle (pronounced /siːˈætəl/ ( listen) see-AT-əl) is the northernmost major city in the contiguous United States, and the largest city in the Pacific Northwest and the state of Washington.

Isn't Vancouver, BC the largest city in the Pacific Northwest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.144.255 (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"Pacific Northwest" usually means U.S. To Canadians, the area is their Southwest. - Jmabel | Talk 05:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

All the Canadians I know say "Pacific Northwest", especially those living in British Columbia. But in any case, Seattle is larger than Vancouver BC. Pfly (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Music again: Queensrÿche grunge?

In the passage on grunge, I see someone has recently added "...and Queensryche, who reference Seattle in the title of their song Jet City Woman." I wouldn't usually consider Queensrÿche grunge - they seem to me to be pretty straight-ahead metal - and they really weren't based in Seattle, they were based in Bellevue (east of Lake Washington). The suburban metal scene certainly fed into grunge, but so did a lot of other things. I'd be inclined to remove this, but figured I'd come here first. - Jmabel | Talk 05:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Climate section

24.19.214.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has made a number of edits to the climate section.[11] They include changing "relatively dry summers" to "very dry summers", "partially protected from Pacific storms" to "largely denied the experience of Pacific storms", and "[t]hunderstorms occur only occasionally" to "[t]hunderstorms occur very rarely". I don't think the first change is accurate since typically the period from June 21 to July 12 is not particularly dry on average. The second change strikes me as awkward and less accurate. In the third, "[t]hunderstorms occur rarely" (without "very") would be better, I think.

"Snowfall of six inches or greater has occurred on only 15 days in the past 61 years, none since 1990" is contradicted by the following sentence. This editor's last change seems unhelpful to me. It replaces a meteorological record of a 1916 snowfall with an account of a poorly characterized 1880 storm with deep drifts. While I think it is fine to mention the earlier storm, it should not supplant the 1916 event. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Landmarks/Smith Tower

This statement in the Seattle article, Landmarks section, is incorrect: "The Smith Tower was the tallest building on the West Coast from its completion in 1914 until the Space Needle overtook it in 1962."

The Smith Tower may have been the tallest building on the West Coast in 1914, but the Los Angeles City Hall surpassed it in 1928. The Space Needle overtook Smith Tower in the case of Seattle's tallest buildings, but not for the entire West Coast. There were other taller structures on the west coast long before the 1960's.

This correction should be made to the Seattle article as well as the Smith Tower article which makes the same identical statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.88.48.58 (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Nirvana

Nirvana is not from Seattle

Technically true, Nirvana formed in Aberdeen, Washington. However they are best known (made famous) through Seattle, so that part of the section stays.

Hmmm. The article says Cobain spent his "formative years" in Seattle. He seemed kinda formed to me when he was living in Olympia after leaving Aberdeen, but maybe he got reformed when the band moved to Seattle. Clearly, fixing this weaselly bit of mis-implication would just result in someone changing it back, so I'll let the youth of America be misled by Wikipedia.

--

Cobain lived in Seattle for roughly 18 months, therefore, to call Nirvana a "Seattle" band is quite inaccurate and non-encyclopedic.

The entirety of both Bleach and Nevermind were written in Olympia, Washington, and Kurt often chastised others (myself included) when we dared suggest that they were a Seattle band. His retort was always "We are not from Seattle, we are from Olympia!"

As such, I do believe that the Wikipedia article should at least attempt to be accurate.

Sup-Pop was a Seattle label, but Nirvana was not a Seattle band. In fact, before Nevermind broke, Nirvana was often rejected by the Seattle music establishment. Roxy Codone (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

An interesting perspective from someone who knows the Pacific Northwest, but not from a global perspective. "Seattle" represents the whole NW music movement from the late 80s. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

It represents that to you, to others, it does not. Are you familiar with K Records? How about Kill Rock Stars? Very integral to NW music, but not in Seattle. I think you need to remember that Wikipedia is not infotainment or a cultural platform. It is supposed to be factual. Encyclopedic. Simple declaring that Seattle = The PNW music scene because that's what you saw on MTV or read in Melody Maker actual plays to a mainstream bias that is usually rebutted by more authoritative sources. Roxy Codone (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Precipitation

Most of the precipitation falls as drizzle or light rain.

This is incorrect. By volume, most of Seattle's rain falls as moderate rain or downpours. In November, Seattle is the rainiest large city in the USA by both inches and number of days. It places quite high in December and January as well. Seattle gets many days of heavy rain in the Fall and Winter, and this heavy rain accounts for a significant amount of its yearly accumulation. Days in which only light precipitation or drizzle falls, accumulation amounts are typically less than .1". Obviously, this cannot account for the majority of rainfall that Seattle receives, for if it did, it would have to rain every day of the year for us to reach 36". Roxy Codone (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is a chart that might help clear up the misconceptions on both sides of the "it rains all the time"/"it only drizzles" myth.

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?waseat

Seattle gets 155 days per year of rain. 94 days see moderate rain, 61 see light rain/drizzle, 27 days see moderately heavy rain, and 5 days see very heavy rain.

If you examine charts of cities such as New York, Washington DC and Atlanta, you will find that Seattle is not far behind in the number of moderate/heavy days of rain. While the East tends to get heavy rain shows in the summer, we tend to get them in the Winter. After the winter is over, we tend to get a misty drizzle for a month or two in Spring, but this drizzle results in very little rainfall accumulation (often trace or .01").

Just as it is inaccurate to say that it always rains in Seattle, it is also inaccurate to say that it is rare to get heavy rain in Seattle, and that we get most of our rain from drizzle.

The fact is, we get most of our rain from the same sources as everyone else. Moderate rainshowers which occur on nearly 100 days per year. The drizzle we get is on top of moderate showers, not in place of them.

The reason our total inch numbers tend to be lower than places like NYC, is because we have a dry season in which it does not rain at all for 3-4 months. However, were you to take the other 8-9 months, and extrapolate their averages over 12 months, you would find that we would get the same, if not slightly more rainfall than the East Coast.

Heavy rain is not rare in Seattle, and we get very little of our rainfall totals from drizzle. Most of it comes from moderate-to-heavy rain showers which give way to light drizzle from March - May. 107.62.150.238 (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding this edit: [12]

I believe that rain is normally measured in millimeters, even when there are hundreds of them, not centimeters. See Precipitation_(meteorology)#Measurement, for example, or State of the Climate: National Overview.   Will Beback  talk  02:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ooops. Some of them already had centimeters, so I thought it didn't matter! Jeancey (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Normally, you'd be right to convert inches to centimeters. But meteorologists have made a habit of using millimeters for precipitation.   Will Beback  talk  02:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding an edit by 174.31.245.226 in September 2011 changing the last year of a 6+ daily snowfall in Seattle from 1990 to 1996: While some places around the Seattle area may have seen more than 6 inches of snow on one day in 1996, the official measurement at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport reached a maximum of 3.5 inches in 1996, on January 19. The 14 official days (1/1/1950 was in the database twice) where snowfall reached or exceeded six inches at the airport since 1948: 20.0" on 1/13/1950, 14.9" on 1/27/1969, 10.0" on 1/26/1950, 9.3" on 12/31/1968, 8.9" on 12/23/1965, 8.8" on 12/26/1974, 7.9" on 1/25/1972, 7.8" on 11/21/1985, 7.6" on 11/27/1985, 7.0" on 1/29/1969 and 2/28/1962, 6.8" on 1/1/1950, 6.3" on 2/17/1990, and 6.0" on 3/1/1989. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.214.36 (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the 6"+ snowfall amounts. January 18, 2012 must now be added to the list of number of days with more than six inches of snow at Sea-Tac. The official climate report lists 6.8 inches of snow at the airport as of 5pm, which currently (assuming no more after that time) places 1/18/2012 tied with 1/1/1950 as the 12th snowiest calendar day at the airport since 1948 and snowiest since November 27, 1985. This means that the sentence stating that Seattle has received only 6+ inches of snow 14 times in its records (since 1948 at the airport), and none since 1990, must be restated to read 15 days (and only once since 1990?). I would reword this myself but can't seem to edit the page right now. 24.19.214.36 (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC) Okay, I was successful in making edits necessary because of the 1/18/2012 snow in Seattle. 24.19.214.36 (talk) 06:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the line "Despite being on the margin of the rain shadow of the Olympic Mountains, the city has a misleading reputation for frequent rain." ... I'm not sure how misleading the reputation is. Seattle gets more rain days than almost any other large U.S. city (I believe the lone exception is Pittsburg), and overall, Seattle gets measurable rain on 40% of its calendar days. Excluding the 3 summer months (which leaves 75% of the year; a super-majority of days), the chance of rainfall on any given day is closer to 60%. Most people would consider this "frequent", although the word itself is somewhat subjective.

In addition, it is very important to note that most of Seattle's weather stations are near the Puget Sound's eastern shores, where the air is warmer during the rainest months. This leads to greatly diminished and misleading "official" rainfall totals, as the totals rapidly pick up as one gets further away from the eastern banks of the sound.

For instance, Bremerton, roughly 15 miles southwest of Seattle, gets over 50 inches of rain annually, while Issaquah, roughly 15 miles southeast of Seattle, gets 65 inches of rain annually. While Seattle proper escapes very high totals due to its location on the sound, these other cities would be in the Top 10 wettest cities in the USA, if not the Top 3, and they are both in the Seattle Metropolitan Area -- one not more than 20 minutes from Downtown.

The point being that if someone moves to the Seattle suburbs because they read on Wikipedia that the rain here is overstated, they are going to be in for a very rude awaking when, in their first year of residence, they get 70" of rain in their Redmond Highlands back yard (a quite routine occurrence). Seattle Rex (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

New aerial photos

I took a bunch of aerial photos of Seattle in the last couple of months. Leaving some of them here in case anyone wants to integrate them into the article. Also, if anyone has suggestions for aerial photos I'm open to taking new ones. Jelson25 (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Downtown and the Space Needle

An aerial view of Downtown Seattle

Seattle, Lake Union and Mt Rainier

Your photos are fantastic. 70% of Seattle is zoned for single-family homes (which dominate the areas N of 35th and S of Washington), so perhaps a shot of the northern third and southern third of the city to show the somewhat dramatic difference between central Seattle and the extraordinarily green outer neighborhoods (especially N of the cut). It would make for a good compare/contrast of the cityscape. Seattle Rex (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Religion in Culture

Seattle is notoriously an anti-religion city, yet several large churches have changed that trend, which is significant. Seattle was considered to be the least churched city in the USA, in contrast to the Jesusland of the south. This should be called out at part of seattle's cultural section, with a religion subsection. Mars Hill Church is the largest church in seattle, and has recently displaced seattle as the least churched city in the usa, and may be worth noting, as well as some of the other large megachurches. This would add value to this page that seems to be lacking. There are several large churches on the east side of seattle metro such as East Lake and the City Church which have several athletes and local celebrities in their attendance that are significant sources of culture. I suppose I'm not sure what is the correct place or format to add something like this to this article. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.34.158.233 (talk) 05:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

NYT resource

Seattle Bans Plastic Bags, and Sets a 5-Cent Charge for Paper by William Yardley published NYT December 20, 2011

99.19.40.211 (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)