Misplaced Pages

Talk:Seattle

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk | contribs) at 11:11, 18 September 2008 (close poll - article moved). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 11:11, 18 September 2008 by Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk | contribs) (close poll - article moved)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Seattle article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Featured articleSeattle is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 17, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 29, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 15, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
November 19, 2007Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconUnited States: Washington / Seattle Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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 Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle (assessed as High-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCities
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities
WikiProject iconUnited States: Washington
WikiProject iconThis 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 Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Washington.
Template:WikiProject Seattle Mariners

Template:V0.5

Map needed
Map needed
It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Washington may be able to help!
  Seattle meetup 6     
  Date: April 8 and April 18, 2009
  Place: UW Seattle campus
  Seattle meetup 5 occurred June 19, 2008
Archiving icon
Archives
2004 - Jan 1, 2006
Jan 1, 2006 - Sept 7, 2006
Sept 7, 2006 - Jan 1, 2007
Jan 1, 2007 - Oct 1, 2007
Oct 2, 2007 - now

Requested move

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 Misplaced Pages:NC:CITY#United_States does not prohibit any move of this page, neither does policy WP:NAME, though the latter favours 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, 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 05:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Previous move discussions can be found here, here, and here. --Bobblehead 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)
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)
  • 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 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 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)
  • 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 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 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 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)
Once again, this is the standard naming format:
Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier may be listed at ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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.
Categories: