Jump to content

Talk:List of neighborhoods in Seattle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]
Licton Springs for North College Park (or vice versa),
    • Atlantic including Judkins Park,
  • Harrison and Denny-Blaine. One that's telling is Wedgewood for Wedgwood, like an "r" in Washington ; )
* Like the CA and the CD for Central, Licton Springs is the precedent and N College Park is the current.
I've been adding well-known names as they're found, such as The Counterbalance for Lower Queen Anne, Lakeridge for Rainier View, etc. This article would be more easily managed if the names and caveats could be worked out before spinning off the Seattle neighborhoods lists. --GoDot 07:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--GoDot 03:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is thoroughly confusing. And should the following content really be in the article space?
As credible archivists, their work qualifies as a high-caliber secondary source. Indeed given the circumstances described (see above), as professionals, they could not but work and state that their work is non-partisan. Phelps is also a high quality secondary source, since much of her sources were Department archives of official documents and reports, in addition to professional journal articles, as well as books and articles back to the early 20th century. Phelps and Shenk et al have complete citations in the Bibliography, (See below.)[28] --Lukobe 05:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Putting the content out in the article space gets the infomation out where it is more available (it's apparently unnoticed in footnotes : )` --08:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Does this sort of information need particularly to be noticed? Seems like footnotes is the perfect place for it. --Lukobe 17:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The concepts of neighborhoods and districts in Seattle are apparently not well known. (All the neighborhoods articles I saw initially quoted the Seattle Atlas as offical, unread, since the Atlas explictly states caveats on every map I've seen). "(see above)" is coded ([[Seattle neighborhoods#Informal districts|above]]). [ed. --08:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)]
Are you sure about those articles quoting the atlas as official? I started most of those articles and I certainly never said that. Must have been subsequent editors.. --Lukobe 17:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just so.
We're left with getting the word out to neighborhoods editors, toward more accurate articles. 'Back when I started, most of the neighborhood articles I contributed to mentioned some map from the Seattle Atlas, and very nearly every one said the info was official. (I don't have a convenient way to dig them up, but my initial contributions to an article included that correction, with sources. Lots of folks don't bother with the fine print, footnotes, or caveats : )` Wedgwood is a good example in that it had mentioned two or three times that some info (in some way from the Atlas) was official. And Wedgwood is now looking like a rather good article. --GoDot 07:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consider as an equation:
(freebooting early Seattle) times
(New York- or Chicago-style wannabe pols*) times
(midwest Progressive Era reforms) times
(neighborhoods in the eras of pedestrians) times
(car culture urban development) times (conurbations)
integrated by (archivists and historians with basic professional integrity)
equals (credible interpretations of metropolitan neighborhoods and districts of neighborhoods).
This is manifested in various ways in the stories of larger or older cities all over the world. In the absence of an overarching totalitarion culture, the result of the tumult of multiple interests is diverse, overlapping, and somewhat contradictory; in this particular case, intrepretations of districts and neighborhoods. Consider taking a long walk through the byways, hang out at the third places, of some big cities all over. Is this unfamiliar to many folks?
* Ward-style politicians and back-room operators, in and out of official government
In some concise fashion, the credibility of the article should be established, since the concepts and informal, multiple indentities of neighborhoods and districts in Seattle are apparently not well understood.

--GoDot 06:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{See also}}

  • Component concepts are interrelated,
  • Cross-referencing reduces repetition
  • Mention implicitly emphasizes that component concepts are interrelated
  • {{See also|Seattle neighborhoods lists}} is a placeholder until some consensus can be reached on a concise explanation of neighborhoods and districts.
    • Attain some consensus and general stability with respect to the lists of neighborhoods.
    • Article size can be moderated by spinning off the lists sections.

--GoDot 07:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what, in this context, you are referring to as "component concepts". What concepts? Components of what? - Jmabel | Talk 03:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was using shorthand in trying to be concise. "Component concepts of" districts, neighborhoods, and their varied definitions. Please cf.
  • "many of the neighborhoods listed in this section have", in # Districts and neighborhoods section section, above.
  • Seattle neighborhoods#Informal districts
  • "Popular reference to neighborhoods" in # University Heights, below.
  • "Consider as an equation", a screen or so above.
  • Consider arrondissements in Paris, districts in boroughs of New York, and neighborhoods within them. Some New York boroughs (Manhattan at least) may also be good examples when they are considered both before and after the freeways were built. These considerations can be scaled down to correspond to analogs in Seattle.
  • Consider districts, neighborhoods within them; neighborhoods on scales for cars, on scales for pedestrians, and neighborhoods in historical eras of pedestrians. Until automobiles began attaining hegemony in about the 1920s–1930s, more people travelled by walking, bicycling, and streetcars; consequently urban concepts, particularly scale, were slightly different. There were more neighborhoods in similar areas with respect to today.

Now, how to tie all this up into "some concise fashion" so it can be clear to readers ; )`

--GoDot 22:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Areas and Neighborhoods list should be redone. Please. Go ahead and divide up the city geographically, NE, NW North, Central, etc. Don't use community and neighborhood names as headings because these don't necessarily encompass the items listed below, and these may be discrete neighborhoods of their own. Ktkeller (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University Heights

[edit]

How is University Heights "obscure"? The former University Heights School fills an entire block (its southeast corner is at NE 50th and University Way NE) and is now a community center and the site of a busy Saturday market. - Jmabel | Talk 01:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of University Park signs in the area, too. --Lukobe 03:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obscure:
[Latin obscurus, origin, covered; ob- (see {Ob-}) + a root probably meaning, to cover; cf. Latin scutum shield, Skr. sku to cover: cf. French obscur. Cf. {Sky}.]
2. [...] inconspicuous to the sight; indistinctly seen; hidden; retired [...]
3. Not noticeable; humble [...]
5. Not clear, full, or distinct
"Why, 't is an office of discovery, love,
And I should be obscured. --Shakespeare
-- 1913 Webster
adj 1: not clearly understood or expressed; "an obscure turn of phrase"; [...]
4: not famous or acclaimed; "an obscure family"; "unsung heroes of the war" [syn: {unknown}, {unsung}]
5: not drawing attention; "an unnoticeable cigarette burn on the carpet"; "an obscure flaw" [syn: {unnoticeable}]
-- WordNet (r) 2.0
uncelebrated, unrenowned, unsung. -- Moby Thesaurus II by Grady Ward, 1.0
Popular reference to neighborhoods such as University Heights (whose school (1903) is named after the neighborhood) are in less common usage today than in the eras of pedestrians (when people travelled by walking or by streetcar) and less common than during the decades when the U District was a family neighborhood with a significant population of children. See Public library branches, public schools, and public parks, and footnote. --GoDot 07:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that GoDot's comment here, to which I am replying, postdates my and Lukobe's related exchange on the same topic, below.
So can we remove the uncited description of these as "obscure"? Sounds like it just means the author didn't know this part of town very well. - Jmabel | Talk 01:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say so. I've made the change. --Lukobe 02:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GoDot, with your 4 August 2006 remark, are you suggesting that the problem is that I might be unfamiliar with the word "obscure", or that I might not own a dictionary? If not, what is your point? And then when it comes to the matter really at hand, you link Seattle_neighborhoods#_note-Dorpat_3461 which simply refers me to a book, but without giving a page number. Now that would have been useful to quote.

Obviously University Heights is not as well-known as, say, Capitol Hill, but so what? To call a place obscure is vaguely insulting, and seems to me to serve no positive purpose here. As far as I can tell, there is nothing obscure about the neighborhood itself, only perhaps about the designation. The University Heights Community Center (formerly an elementary school) has hundreds of visitors every day; the Saturday market there draws thousands. As for the designation being perhaps obscure: this from the man who wrote an entire article about a "neighborhood" called Pike Market? I can hardly think of a more obscure designation. - Jmabel | Talk 03:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure can be cool, obscure may be better known in lore than be Internet accessible. Obscure can be the more enjoyable before whatever it is becomes consumed by mega mass culture. (Like the Big Yellow Taxi.)
References provided. Wikipedia (WP) is a work in progress. 'might lighten up a little. This is s'posed to be fun. By and large, AFAIK (as far as I know), few are becoming independently wealthy contributing to Wikipedia. What proportion of WP articles have any references at all? What proportion of articles have any citations? Citations that are readily traceable if a link breaks?
Answer was directed to the question rather than a tangent. Dictionary reference provided that the word is appropriate in its context. 'could say "now less commonly known and used than in the eras of pedestrians and the decades Wallingford and the U District had relatively many families with children". Cf. following paragraph, "Popular reference to neighborhoods", above. --GoDot 22:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poor writing

[edit]

"…amid subsequent convictions for campaign-related money laundering…" How can something be "amid" something "subsequent"

"A setting for jousting between the city council and the mayor, controversies over accountabilities, cronyism, and ward politics were hashed out." I hav no idea how to parse this. I see two possibilities, both unsatisfactory. What does this mean to say?

  1. Most likely, dangling participle "A setting for jousting between the city council and the mayor" followed by declarative sentence in passive voice "controversies over accountabilities, cronyism, and ward politics were hashed out."
  2. The way I first tried to parse it) Subject: "A setting", preposition: "for", list item 1: "jousting between the city council and the mayor", list item 2 "controversies over accountabilities", list item 3 "cronyism and", list item 4 "ward politics", verb, but plural where subject was singular "were hashed out."

"They are based on such as a neighborhood map…": shouldn't there be a noun before "such"? Assuming, that is, we are using American English in an article on an American city?

"…including the paper trail of developing public libraries and schools." Sorry? Is this saying that constructing buildings is a paper trail? Or what.

"Seattle has elected its city council at large since 1910": why is this in the section on public libraries? The connection escapes me.

I could go on. I could also copy edit, but I usually try to do that only when I have reasonable confidence that I at least understand the author's intent, which I do not in this case. - Jmabel | Talk 00:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article size and clean up

[edit]

Note: "This page is 63 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." --Lukobe 05:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe spin off the list with
See also: Seattle neighborhoods lists
and {{main|Seattle neighborhoods}}. In this case, the lists might be okay even though Wikipedia is not about lists. However, to facilitate management, cleanup might better be completed first.
A path to cleanup might be first, a clear understanding, and then a clear explanation of the concepts of neighborhoods and districts in Seattle. See also Talk:Seattle neighborhoods#Districts and neighborhoods section. For now, Seattle neighborhoods lists (a placeholder for now) would be sparse in explanation. It would be a snip from ==North city== to before ==Annexed cities and towns==, plus a lead paragraph.
[ed. 08:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)]
Fill in the other common additional names for neighborhoods around Seattle, such as Atlantic City for Rainer Beach.
Is there a way to direct a Talk: page for a Seattle neighborhoods lists to Talk:Seattle neighborhoods? Use a plain-vanilla
  1. REDIRECT
at Talk:Seattle neighborhoods lists?

What is the useful purpose of the section, "Towns annexed 1905–1910"? Could it be deleted with near-zero loss of qualitative article content?

Article contains near-duplicate text after the lead paragraphs; duplication could be consolidated.

Documentation of source quality was moved from footnotes since apparently their content was not well understood.
The concepts of neighborhoods and districts in Seattle are apparently not well known. Cleaning up these could help article quality and might reduce size a little.

Too many subheadings? Some contain only a single paragraph.

So far, [citation needed] instances have lain unattended for about a week. (The duplicate dates needing citations may actually be typo errors, but I didn't write the original, so I don't know.)

Wikipedia articles should use reliable published sources. Published means published to the public. [...] The two policy pages that discuss the need to use sources are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. [...] bear in mind that edits for which no reliable references are provided may be removed by any editor.

[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]

--GoDot 06:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Style

[edit]

Dates as "1830s", "Decade: 1970s"; cf. WP:MOS #Years, decades, and centuries.

WP:MOS #Numbers in words:

  • Whole numbers from zero to ten are spelled out as words in the body of an article. Use numerals in tables and infoboxes.
  • Numbers above ten may be written out if they are expressed in two or fewer words, except in tables and infoboxes. Example: "sixteen", "eighty-four", "two hundred", "twenty million" but "3.75", "544", "21 million".

--GoDot 07:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"which in turn is based on such as a neighborhood map..." is not encyclopedic English

[edit]

I think this article may need copyediting now. --Lukobe 06:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idioms:
such as
For example, as in "She adores the English novels of manners, such as those by Austen and Trollope." [Late 1600s] [Ammer, Christine. The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms Houghton Mifflin, 1972.]

"I have a rare intolerance to herbs which means I can only drink fermented liquids, such as gin."

"Walters, Julie" [in the Observer 14 March 1999]. The Oxford Dictionary of Modern Quotations. Ed. Elizabeth Knowles. Oxford University Press, 2002.

"Even death is unreliable: instead of zero it may be some ghastly hallucination, such as the square root of minus one."

""Beckett, Samuel" [attributed]. The Oxford Dictionary of Modern Quotations. Ed. Elizabeth Knowles. Oxford University Press, 2002.

"Two such as you with such a master speed, cannot be parted nor be swept away, from one another once you are agreed, that life is only life forevermore, together wing to wing and oar to oar." [Robert Frost]

"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love." [Carl Sagan]

"Such as are your habitual thoughts, such also will be the character of your mind; for the soul is dyed by the thoughts." [Marcus Aurelius]

"And yet a little tumult, now and then, is an agreeable quickener of sensation; such as a revolution, a battle, or an adventure of any lively description." [Lord Byron]

"Research is of considerable importance in certain fields, such as science and history." [Fred Saberhagen]

--GoDot 07:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice that in all these cases, the form is ".....[NOUN], such as..." Your construction on, the other hand, is "...[PARTICIPLE] [PREPOSITION] such as..." and is not idiomatic. --Lukobe 03:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --GoDot 22:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Mann" and "Minor," etc., are still in here as neighborhood names?

[edit]

For some reason I thought they'd been removed. Neighborhoods that only exist on the city atlas have no business in this article. --Lukobe (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That people don't use the names on the city atlas is not sufficient reason to remove those names.jonathon (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page names for neighborhoods

[edit]

Seeing as how the Seattle, Washington page has been moved to Seattle, should the neighborhood pages be moved to Neighborhood, Seattle, instead of leaving them at Neighborhood, Seattle, Washington? Eco84 | Talk 17:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that in every case there should be redirects; I don't really care which direction the redirects go vs. which holds the actual article. If you move the articles, you'd definitely want to check for whether there would be any "double redirect" issues: I think some of these already have some inward redirects. (For example, I think this is the case for neighborhoods that more or less coincide with protected historical districts, or which had a different name in the past.) - Jmabel | Talk 18:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting

[edit]

What kind of reference is this? < ref name = Wilma_3761_4246 />

It was in the second section. If it is to be used, please explain what it means.

I just figured this out. The citation information for these is in the "Bibliography" section, below the references section. Obviously needs to be fixed ike9898 (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's a Little City Hall?

Things are spoken about outside any coherent time framework. There's way too much detail about the sources of the information inside the article. The article still needs a lot of clean-up to meet Wikipedia standards. For example, one day, the mayor of Seattle will change - yet this article treats him as if he's eternal. Dates are needed. There are many places where citations would have been appropriate, whereas other sections are over-referenced. It's almost impossible to know where some sentences begin and end, they're so buried in peripheral references.

What's freebooting?

This is typical of a sentence that is redundant and also unclear:

Taken all together, typically several well-documented interpretations can exist that each define a neighborhood in slightly different ways. See Wedgwood for a good example of multiple definitions of a single neighborhood.

First, this is getting trivial, not to mention redundant. But, if it is to stay, then either state that well-documented interpretations DO exist or leave it out. It looks like someone has provided tons of references, but it makes the reader suspicious that they are not enough when the point is belabored at such length in two different sections.

There are too many sections.

Anyway, I'm giving up. And I don't give up easily. I can think of five or six further tags this article needs. There is no relationship among the various sections, it's not coherent.--Levalley (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication of lists

[edit]

There seems to be huge and unnecessary duplication between the list of 'districts and neighborhoods' and the 'alphabetical list of neighborhoods'. Can anybody see a good reason why these shouldn't be amalgamated? Letsplaydrums (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this would now be considered adequately addressed. - Jmabel | Talk 04:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More work needed

[edit]

I've just finished a copy-edit here, and I noticed a rather large 'Bibliography' section underneath the refs. This may be 'legacy' material and might be better incorporated into the article using cite format.

Also, the lists are rather unwieldy - are they really necessary? Do other cities' articles have them? Maybe they could be spun off into an article such as List of Brisbane suburbs. Anyway, I'm done here for now. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pike-Pine Corridor??

[edit]

The Pike-Pine Corridor has developed its own distinctive identity and should be recognized. It has its own neighborhood plan document.

Pike-Pine falls between Capitol Hill to the north and First Hill to the south. Some consider it the southernmost neighborhood in Capitol Hill. Perhaps it should be included in the list of Capitol Hill sub-areas.Chesterct (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misc. issues

[edit]
Galbraith House
  • Why do we do a geographical list followed by a so-called alphabetical list, but the alphabetical list is still somewhat hierarchical and geographical? This seems to me to be a very sloppy organizing principal. Would anyone object to my fusing this into a single list, possibly with some sort of table-based organization, similarly to what we do elsewhere for lists of historic districts, NRHP listings, landmark listings, etc.? (Some of this would still be a bit redundant to the list of annexations, but at least the redundancy would be a bit more limited.)
  • Why, why, why do we have URLs inline when discussing Columbia City & Hillman City?
  • Does anyone know what "In addition to the central, N, S, E, and W designations for the main campus of the University of Washington" is even supposed to mean? And if you do, could you reword for clarity?
  • The "North Capitol Hill and Stevens were formerly Renton Hill" is completely contradicted by the cited source, and I believe the source is accurate. That source describes Renton Hill as a "residential district in the vicinity of 18th Avenue and Madison Street" (and goes on about some length about it). The Galbraith House (picture at right) would be typical of Renton Hill. This is nowhere near North Capitol Hill or Stevens.
  • Why do several neighborhoods lack internal links? If the merit mention here, they presumably merit articles. If they don't have articles yet, that's not a reason to omit links.
  • "New Holly (or Holly Park per City of Seattle)". Well, it was firmly "Holly Park" until the recent (2000s) effort by a developer to rebrand it.
    • FIXED. -
  • The section called "Future" looks like it hasn't been revisited in 5 years or so.

- Jmabel | Talk 06:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC) And another[reply]

  • "Lower Queen Anne (the Counterbalance)". The "Counterbalance" is not Lower Queen Anne, it's Queen Anne Ave as it goes up the hill. The name comes from the counterbalance for the old cable car as it ascended the hill. Lower Queen Anne is also known as "Uptown", a name missing from the article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brighton: from the article, "Brighton (the lakeshore next to this neighborhood was once called Brighton Beach, but has since been subsumed into Seward Park by all residents and by the City of Seattle Department of Neighborhoods)". I believe that Brighton Beach referred/refers to an area more down toward Rainier Beach and present-day Beer Sheva Park, that the name is still somewhat in use, and that while perhaps the more northerly part of historic Brighton Beach is now considered Seward Park the more southerly portion is not. Neither I nor whoever wrote the present text has any citations, so I've just marked it as needing citation. - Jmabel | Talk 23:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I wait to see if anyone responds to any of this, I've been working on normalizing the citation mechanism a bit. - Jmabel | Talk 05:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am not checking every citation as I clean these. I am just trying to present more or less the same information (minus some egregious stuff such as listing all the citations made by one of our sources) in a more conventional format. In particular, I am not vouching for every citation actually saying what it is claimed to say; as noted above, at least one (see "Renton Hill") did not. - Jmabel | Talk 03:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The vague citation "Hatt, Schmid, Nobbe, & Mitchell" came in this edit nearly 5 years ago. User:GoDot who made the edit stopped contributing not too long after. It's hard to tell exactly what his source was, but presumably that's Paul Hatt, Calvin F. Schmid, Charles E. Nobbe, and Arlene E. Mitchell. The last three collaborated on Nonwhite Races, State of Washington (Olympia WA, 1968); I am unaware of Hatt ever having worked with them but his 1945 University of Washington Ph.D. dissertation "A Study of Natural Areas in the Central Residential District of Seattle" is on-topic, so I'd guess that is the work in question (the Internet is a wondrous thing). I'll try to follow up for content & see if those two works are, indeed, sources for what is cited; I expect they are. - Jmabel | Talk

I've now gotten all of the even moderately low-hanging fruit in terms of cleaning up existing citations in this article. If someone else wants to further improve the citation mechanisms for older material, fine, but I'm moving on to the text itself. - Jmabel | Talk 23:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a bunch of work into this the last week or so. I am afraid I won't have much time this next week, and it may be about May 10 before I really get back to this. I hope no one minds my leaving the {{Under construction}} tags in the article. Please feel free to make other edits, I promise to resume the reconstruction no later than May 12. - Jmabel | Talk 06:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current status

[edit]

OK, I put a bunch of work into this and addressed the most salient issues. No doubt the references could still be generally improved and (in the cases of those that are vague) simply checked, but the referencing quality is now, I think, within the range of par for the course. Anyway, I think it is someone else's turn to take it the next step.

The section called "Future" (under annexations) could certainly use an update. Nothing like an out-of-date crystal ball. - Jmabel | Talk 05:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wedgwood or Wedgewood

[edit]

So...is it Wedgwood or Wedgewood? The City of Seattle Neighborhood Atlas has it with an e. You get hits for both spellings on Google. One wonders if there can even be an official spelling for a neighborhood?

Perhaps, once the article is written, a redirect from one to the other is in order. --Lukobe 20:45, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

I live there! No "e". The city's site [1] is, indeed, wrong (and I also know a few businesses who misspell it), but the signs at the edge of the neighorhood are consistent, as are most of the businesses (e.g. [2], [3]) and the community council [4]. It was named after the Irish porcelain-maker Wedgwood, the favorite of the wife of Al Balch, the developer who named the neighborhood. And, yes, once that article gets written, a redirect is in order, since the misspelling appears to be (remarkably) common. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:31, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Judkins Park is a subset of Atlantic neighborhood (there are many such around town). Need correct the article, too. Please see References and maps. --GoDot 04:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White Center?

[edit]

If White Center is not part of Seattle, why is it included here? Lupinelawyer 05:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Probably just an error. Feel free to fix. I, for one, had no idea it was outside city limits. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:04, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
Okay, maybe we can fix it (move, etc). Technically "it extends a few blocks" into the City of Seattle as an unincorporated CDP in King County, but during my decades of living in Seattle NOBODY considered White Center part of Seattle, let alone a "neighborhood." ref the initial Rambot article (unincorporated) and the city nbrhd map of south Delridge: http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~public/nmaps/html/NN-1550S.htm Lupinelawyer 14:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Subdistricts and dates of annexation

[edit]

The subdistricts of, say, West Seattle, don't need to be marked as such. They can stand on their own. And Genessee is part of Rainier Valley, unless there's another such minineighborhood in West Seattle. Lastly, it would be great if whenever someone added a neighborhood they also added the incorporaiton date, because it's difficult to go back and look those up. --Lukobe 06:04, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

There are disticts and neighborhoods contained in those districts, with many overlapping or coextensive names (e.g., U.District). Not clear why we don't just point out when districts of the city were annexed. Wouldn't such dates naturally be the same for all included neighborhoods? E.g., "everything west of the Duwamish" is "West Seattle," in one sense, yet the same is designated (at least by the city) as including Delridge AND West Seattle sections (and part of the Industrial Zone, but let's ignore that), each with multiple neighborhoods. There may be other neighborhoods that have been annexed to an adjacent district since then (with its own date), but otherwise everything in a district would have the same annexation date, as "part of" the district. Also, (SW) Genessee is a designated neighborhood that is part of the West Seattle District, including Genessee Hill, and the area known as "The Junction", i.e., the Alaska St/California Ave vicinity, W of the Fauntleroy valley. What is a "mini-neighborhood"? Thousands of people live in Genessee. Lupinelawyer 16:13, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm not exactly sure what I meant by "minineighborhood"--perhaps the same you mean by "district." Maybe it would be best to list these in this manner?
  • West Seattle
    • Delridge
    • Genessee

etc.

I don't go by what the City Clerk's map says, if only because, according to http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~public/nmaps/aboutnm.htm, "The Seattle City Clerk's Office Neighborhood Map Atlas is designed for subject indexing of legislation, photographs, and other documents in the City Clerk's Office and Seattle Municipal Archives... It is not designed or intended as an "official" City of Seattle neighborhood map. There are many different ideas of what neighborhood districts exist in Seattle and what their names are, but the purpose of this atlas is to define neighborhood district names and boundaries in a way that improves document indexing and retrieval." I mean, nobody considers the President of the UW's house to be in the Central District, but that's what the map says is the case.
Anyhoo, it does make sense to keep dates just on the "major" listings.

--Lukobe 22:04, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Just because the City Clerk ofc wants to distance itself from the naming and boundary issues, I know of no other comprehensive index of the Seattle neighborhoods, perhaps making their nmaps the de facto standard from which deviation should require justification. I like the district/division/neighborhood sort of hierarchical listing, like you propose. Sure, the Clerk's boundaries may be screwy here and there, but I find few major flaws in their outlined core of nbrhds I was once familar with. Of course, such things do change with time. Lupinelawyer 06:33, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. I still think it's best to demarcate the neighborhoods as we feel them to be without reference to the city's map, though. It's a good reference but I don't think it should necessarily be our standard. --Lukobe 06:51, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Cool new template

[edit]

I dig the {{Seattle neighborhoods}} template. All those subdivisions of West Seattle, though, make me wonder why we don't have similar subdivisions for the other neighborhoods--or if those subdivisions really all deserve their own articles.

I guess the source of the multiple subdivisions is that City Clerk's map, which I formerly criticized as not being entirely accurate in the sense of reflecting what people themselves think of where they live. Now, however, I'm wondering if we shouldn't stick directly to what it says if only to avoid running afoul of the "no original research"/"content should be verifiable"/"cite your sources" rules. I must admit I didn't stick as closely to those as I should have when I was creating many of the articles.

-interesting idea; the division here between south end neighborhoods seems a bit arbitrary otherwise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.73.195 (talk) 02:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where this should go... but cool template, anyway.

--Lukobe 02:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If you want to revise the nesting, or whatever, go ahead, I just reflected the structure given on this page. I assumed someone had thought it through. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe--if I ever get the time. Things have been quite busy lately. And I still am worried about the "no original research"/"content should be verifiable"/"cite your sources" rules--I think, strictly speaking, we're violating them all over the place in the Seattle-related articles, though I'm still quite proud of all of them...anyway, like I said, not sure where this should go. I'll look into the nesting..maybe...someday :) --Lukobe 08:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very skeptical about how far some people now want to take WP:NOR. See you at the meetup? Something we should talk about. -- Jmabel | Talk 10:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's good news. Probably won't be able to make the meetup, but will definitely discuss it if I'm there.. --Lukobe 20:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Style and accuracy

[edit]

Summary: +, cit, so cl, rephrased; see Talk.
Explication: See Talk:Seattle, Citing sources. Added headings == Informal districts ==, == Annexed cities and towns ==

"Some neighborhoods do not have widely-recognized names for their greater districts, such as northwest Seattle" (area 1): about four, including greater Sand Point (area 4), greater Green Lake-Wallingford (area 6), and area 18, Duwamish River.
For indexing etc., areas are numbered N to S, clockwise from the NW. South.htm areas are numbered from the SE, counterclockwise. The numbers are for convenience only.

Reducing the type size of "WEBSITE ARCHIVE BROWSE-BY-DATE" would be nice.

Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context, (WP:CONTEXT). Suggestion: Evaluate whether [[year]] is particularly relevant.
tide lands first occurence only.

<!-- {{Citation needed}} --> noted where needed to distinguish from citation following.
Bug with multiple uses of the same footnote corrected using the form <ref name=Foo>Foo</ref> on the first listing and then <ref name=Foo /> on subsequent references. See also "Style" section in Talk:Seattle, Citing sources. (ed. --10:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC))

(2) AFAIK (as far as I know), such notes have all been removed. I've done a global search & replace of my edits for all citations needing "ref name=", and cleaned up the formatting of citations done as well. If any instances of a note or of ref "multiple" are found, let me know, I'll fix 'em.
(1) Flag {{Citation needed}} is to distinguish from data that is verifiable by Wikipedia rules (Wikipedia accepted sources). A flag remains at each instance where there is inconsistent data without source reference. The original editor might know; I leave existing edits alone as much as can. References have not appeared since flags were posted 30 May, so flags moved from within comments to more obvious superscripts. Wikipedia:Reliable sources says text without reliable references provided may be removed. Articles edited having {{Citation needed}} flags in comments, footnotes, or in the text have been made fully compliant with Wikipedia:Cite sources except as so noted.
See also Talk:Seattle #Inline Citations.

--GoDot 17:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"[T]ide lands platted 1895" per Phelps. Verified data per Phelps in this article has not necessarily been copied to neighborhoods articles. Some NE neighborhood articles pending, others not. (Of course, you may copy the dates in the == Alphabetical list of neighborhoods ==, subject to the caveats in <!-- comment --> : )
NB: Phelps drew almost entirely upon primary sources. As a credible archivist, Phelps qualifies as a high-caliber secondary source, per WP:CITE, Wikipedia: # What sources to cite. (Also, Speidel drew extensively on primary sources and was similarly credentialed as a journalist.)

Alphabetical list of neighborhoods: Lake City, Rainier Valley, West Seattle neighborhoods were left not consistent with sort; Northgate added.

Towns annexed 1905–1910

[edit]

Sorted "The following towns were annexed by Seattle from 1905 to 1910". Would explaining why this period may be of signifcance be useful to readers? --GoDot 04:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section headed "Towns annexed 1906–1910" [changed to 1905–1910] might be removed, too, or explained. I've not figured out what importance the paragraph serves. --GoDot 17:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Columbia City, Georgetown, South Park, and West Seattle dates are not very consistent with the section heading. --GoDot 03:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Districts and neighborhoods section

[edit]

It should be made clear to the reader that many of the neighborhoods listed in this section have no existence outside of the city clerk's map and the city's indexing system. Examples: Pike Market, Mann, Minor, Mid Beacon Hill, etc. Also that, e.g., Harrison-Denny Blaine only is part of the Central District on that map and in that system--as I pointed out elsewhere, this implies that the University President's house is in the Central District, which we all know is false. --Lukobe 18:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. - Jmabel | Talk 00:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I shall do so. --Lukobe 01:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"many of the neighborhoods listed in this section have"

In some ways, most do. See the Neighbors project, Webtowns at the P-I and Seattle Neighborhoods at HistoryLink.org, as well as archives at local neighborhood papers. Note also that official designations went out of existence with the referendum in 1910, so anything subsequent in print would necessarily be compromise. See 1.1 Defining neighborhoods, "Public Library branches [...]". Note that with the various ways of defining neighborhoods, (and with human nature) variations would not be surprising. Beacon Hill and Queen Anne (QA) may have been divided by compass direction since they're otherwise so expansive, but a search of the archives of their local papers may well show that QA residents, the paper trail of merchants and Realtors, historically use the same designations. QA residents and neighbors use them in conversation. QA can be very insular, like West Seattle, and the designations natural.
"Central Area" appears to be precedent over "Central District" [historylink.org Thumbnail History]. That would be one valid source for boundaries. Atlantic Pizza is after the Atlantic neighborhood before the freeway cut was built.
"It should be made clear" is extensively discussed in the detailed section, "1 Informal districts", and subheadings.
Please see footnotes, # Informal districts, last paragraph. Sporadic cross-checking with Phelps, with the P-I Neighbors archive and Webtowns in the course of reasearch has so far been consistent, with the occasional (egregious) graphical error noted, such as between Maple Leaf, Roosevelt, and including the Maple Leaf reservoir; Wallingford missing from the text for Area 6, a district with no widely-recognized name. Note that per Wikipedia standards, the footnote sources qualify as secondary sources (see Talk:Seattle # About sources cited). Shenk et al have been trustworthy with respect to the off-line research done in the Seattle Room at the library and in the archives of the City Clerk. Until we have better, what we have meets recommendations. [Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Some_definitions]
Citations per Wikipedia:Cite your sources since comprehensive sources just don't exist, that I have found, and some details are contested. So far, where inconsistencies have been found, I've noted sources. A Missourian-sentiment reader can just click on demand : )
Besides calling up the catalog and schlepping to the local library, resources for editors are at Seattle neighborhoods #Informal districts note, #Informal districts note, #Districts and neighborhoods note; Talk:University District Refs for, and the immediately following Refs to meet.
Conclusion: This is explicitly discussed extensively in the article, with different and corroborating citations. [ed. --08:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)]
To do (per respective sources):
  • Add The Junction to Genesee,
  • Highpoint for Gatewood,
  • Westwood for South Delridge (West Seattle).
  • Rename such as Judkins to Judkins Park [5],
  • Expand Judkins Park to explain largely the demise of Atlantic neighborhood with freeway construction, and any distinction with respect to Atlantic City neighborhood.
    Use and redirect for the most-commonly used names, such as
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Neighborhoods in Seattle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Neighborhoods in Seattle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral districts v. neighborhoods

[edit]
Seattle City Council District map

There needs to be some sort of information in this article about the electoral districts for City Council seats that went into action in 2015. There is some information in the article Seattle City Council. The map there is also useful. The main problems as I see it are that some traditional neighborhoods are in more than one council district, and that often people say "district" when they mean "neighborhood" or vice versa, and now that there are actual official "districts" (quite distinct from the preexisting state and federal legislative districts), this imprecision can in some cases be quite confusing. I don't know exactly what changes to introduce here, but I'm sure something should be done. --Haruo (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Neighborhoods in Seattle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of neighborhoods in Seattle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on List of neighborhoods in Seattle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of neighborhoods in Seattle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_neighborhoods_in_Seattle&oldid=1206697630"