Talk:South Lake Union, Seattle

United States: Washington / Seattle Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle (assessed as Low-importance).

Incorrect Information

The statement "Vulcan Real Estate is developing another 50 units of low-income apartments, called the Borealis Apartments, at the corner of Dexter and Denny (former site of the Deja Vu). Alley24 has 20% of its units set aside for those earning less than 60% of the median income." is incorrect. They are set aside for those earning less than 80% of the median income. And I would hardly call them "low-income apartments." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.88.119.66 (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link farm

Seems to me that this has turned into a bit of a link farm. - Jmabel | Talk 03:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit? It's a huge link farm.. Not to mention a nice advertising service. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been dealt with. - Jmabel | Talk 18:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring between this and Cascade, Seattle, Washington

We have an article on Cascade, Seattle, Washington. It seems to me that much of what is specific to Cascade—especially before the "South Lake Union" identity began to be pushed (maybe circa 1985/1990?) belongs in that article, with an explicit section in this giving maybe a 2-paragraph summary. Unless someone specifically objects, that is what I plan to do. - Jmabel | Talk 18:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps Cascade should be merged into this one. At this point in time there really isn't enough content to justify having two different articles. Definitely include a distinct section for the history of Cascade and another for the transition of Cascade and SLU merging into one, but I'm not sure that two articles is necessary. Another benefit of having two distinct sections for the history is that once there is enough content in the Cascade section, it can be split off again in summary style. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think some work I've been doing at Cascade, Seattle, Washington may postdate your comment, but right now I believe it is the more fleshed-out (and certainly the more solidly cited) of the two articles. - Jmabel | Talk 17:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you've definitely added quite a bit of information to the article since I last looked at it, so leaving a short summary here on this article for the Cascade article is fine by me. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oppose: These are distinct neighborhoods with their own character. It may need an update but merger doesn’t reflect the nature of the city. —¿philoserf? (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion

Request received to merge articles: Cascade, Seattle into South Lake Union, Seattle; dated: May/2020. Proposer's Rationale: Cascade is a higher-quality article (it has had more time to mature) and all of the information should be kept. However, South Lake Union is now the more predominate tern=m for the neighborhood. It should be noted that the Seattle City Clerk's Geographic Indexing Atlas lists Cascade where SLU is,[1] and I am not seeing the majority of sources showing the abridged version on the map at Cascade.[2] I think the history is all related and it is easiest to have in one place. In my mind it will always be the same even common name being different than the historical, and I think the sources support. I currently am not concerned with bloat or readability, but understand if someone objects on that basis. Discuss here. Orangejuicedude (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

oppose: These are distinct neighborhoods with their own character. It may need an update but merger doesn’t reflect the nature of the city. —¿philoserf? (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cascade and South Lake Union are separate neighborhoods that have long enough histories to warrant separate articles. Merging them together would create a messy article that has to balance way too much content. Sounder Bruce 22:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, given the uncontested objections and no support. Klbrain (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved