Talk:Seattle/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Streets

Just came across List of streets in Manhattan. Wonder how many streets in Seattle (if any) are notable enough for an article... --Lukobe 07:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Aurora, probably. Is Pike notable for more than the Market? Yesler is notable for "Skid row".--SarekOfVulcan 19:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Aurora makes sense. Yesler, too. Pike, on the other hand, isn't even really notable for the Market, since that's Pike Place... Hmm, what else. Broadway and the Ave., maybe? Maybe Madison...maybe...maybe Lake Washington Boulevard... --Lukobe 21:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Aurora, sure. Lake City Way/Bothell Way might merit an article. Possibly Rainier or MLK. Maybe Jackson, both as an axis and because of the whole Jackson Street After Hours thing. West Marginal Way because of Richard Hugo's The Real West Marginal Way.
Broadway and bus route 9 are after NYC, as are numerous Broadways and route 9s. (Brooklyn : ) --GoDot 06:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd tend to do the Seattle boulevards as a group, rather than single out Lake Washington Boulevard: Interlaken Boulevard is comparably notable, as is Green Lake Way. I think Broadway, the "Ave." and Pike/Pine are better handled in their respective neighborhoods. Probably Madison, as the only street that runs clear from Elliott Bay to Lake Washington; I believe it also once had a ferry at the end. Yesler would have the additional aspect that it once was a trolley route that also went clear to the lake, and remnants of the old trolley route down from what is now the end of Yesler still exist. BTW, do we have anything on the defunct trolley lines or Lake Washington ferries?
HistoryLink.org, Seattle Municipal Archives, Seattle Room at SPL.
What boulevards there are were part of the Olmsted Brothers grand streets and parks plan for Seattle, little implemented. Cf. boulevard, drive, parkway in Pacific Northwest Garden History. --GoDot 06:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The "Mercer Mess" might deserve an article. And I could imagine an article on the former streets that are now all more or less footpaths through Seattle Center; if you look closely, the street grid pretty much continues through the grounds, with few interruptions. Also, if we could get a citation on which street is most interrupted by staircases... It might be 2nd Ave. N. - Jmabel | Talk 08:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of the other cities I edit, or follow have dozens of articles about individual streets. Most of them tend to be stubs though. We have plenty of notable streets by the standards other cities use - though I'd prefer starting a larger article about Seattle's streets with sections for the major ones, then start spinning out sections into articles as they get lengthy to avoid the stub problem. SchmuckyTheCat 09:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I like that idea, so long as it would come up in the search. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 09:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC) P.S. Why are we all awake at this time of morning on a Monday?
I like that idea. Streets of Seattle? Or we could commandeer Street layout of Seattle for the purpose, changing its name. --Lukobe 00:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, State Route 99 (Washington) (stupid name courtesy of User:SPUI ) has some Aurora info, and links to the Alaskan Way Viaduct and several other existant articles on Seattle's various streets. 24.18.215.132 01:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

(Washington) State Routes are now colloquially SR, as SR 520 or SR-520. --GoDot 06:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hybrid busses?

I was visiting Seattle and saw the busses. It looked like they were hooked on a electric cable above but at the same time they could unhook and go off down the street. I'm not a local so I was wondering what is up with that. Are they hybrids? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jess523s (talk • contribs) 23 January 2006

A little of both. Some are trolley-only, some can switch back and forth, and some are "true" hybrids-they switch to hybrid mode for the (currently-closed) tunnel, and run on the regular engine the rest of the time. See http://transit.metrokc.gov/am/vehicles/vehicles.html for more details.--SarekOfVulcan 03:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Lenin Statue and Seattle Politics

Seattle may lean to the left, but in no way does it have any specific ties to mother russia and russia's reverence of Lenin. Seattle has many more cultural ties to other areas of the world that are much stronger. And to have a statue of Lenin as a symbolic representation of who and what Seattle is, is ridiculous. Surely we can find a picture of something else that has been in Seattle a lot longer than this rescued Russian statute that was only relatively recently brought to Seattle.

Well, I don't really agree. When I moved to Seattle 7 years ago, this was one of the first landmarks that was brought to my attention. It's notable, for whatever reason. --SarekOfVulcan 17:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
7 years is not very long. I've lived in Seattle for 3 times that long. And 21 years is not that long either! The lenin statue is really a novelty thing, because who else has one? Other than Russia? But it surely does not represent Seattle. Unless you want Wikipedia to be interpreted as representing Seattle as a communist/socialist city. Which most wikipedians would not want to do. And I am sure that Seattle would not want that either.64.16.132.37 22:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but... Fremont. 'Nuff said. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 22:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it's the "People's Republic of Fremont," after all. This town is pretty lefty, and Fremont is decidedly so. --Lukobe 22:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC) (30-year resident [born here])

I think it is just Fremont wanting to be different and cooler than say Ballard or Wallingford. --8bitJake 22:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Fremont is different, and a fun place, and the lenin statue pic belongs on a page about Fremont, not the main Seattle page.--Floridagators 01:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I lived in Fremont and we are quite proud of the statue as well as the Fremont Troll. I think it deserves a place on the Seattle main page. It is a tourist point and it is quite political. --8bitJake 01:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I live in Fremont, and I like the Fremont Troll. Let's put that picture there! That represents Seattle better than Lenin.64.16.132.37 13:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that the statue of lenin is in front of a Taco Del Mar taco shop points out that the artwork is totally out of context and that is the politial statement that it is making. The context is more important than who the statue is of. --8bitJake 17:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Taco Del Mar wasn't behind the statue when the statue was put there, so I don't think it's accurate to read into that as being the political statement that the statue is supposedly making. Actually Fremont Hemp Co. used to be there. I think hemp is more associated with the stereotype of American leftists than a statue of Lenin is, so the statue wasn't exactly out of context at that time. Indeed, the statue is not out of context in Fremont. When Fremonst secedes, surely they'll mount their flag on the guy's head. And I think the statue is fine on the Seattle article, though it would be fine off it as well. It's a significant landmark for its uniqueness, and residents do indeed show it to visitors along with the troll, but are there more deserving landmarks than the statue that are not represented? I think in the case of any city it's kind of hard to represent everything of significance and what does end up in the article is pretty much arbitrary. That's pretty typical on Wikipedia in my opinion. Lastly, I suspect that those who don't want it on the page are trying to impose their own anti-leftist sentiment and should move to Bothell with the Seattle Times (at which point they should dive into editing the Bothell article and stay away from this one.) thoreaubred 04:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

More, look closely at the work, the artist, and the story the artist told in his interpretation of a commissioned work. By analogy, how does the piece qualify with respect to Oscar Wilde's criterion evaluating writing? Now how does it suit? Further, as Wikipedians, I suggest due care with Newspeak words such as conflated "communist/socialist" and casual meanings that have changed in just recent decades. --GoDot 07:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Casual meanings such as? --Lukobe 17:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
This could drift way off-topic too quickly. Maybe further on some more appropriate page. "Casual meanings such as" those of most any hot-button buzzwords in public life.
Briefly, I suggest the (past tense) Principles of Newspeak (plain) at the ending of Nineteen Eighty-Four. In popular usage, loaded or emotional words are used with similar intent and little regard to their dictionary meanings. "Communist" and "socialist", (even "Communist" and "communist", for that matter) are commonly conflated, "capitalism" and "freedom", though in meaning and historical practice they are quite distinct.
"However, there exist striking instances where Orwell's speculations have matched with reality. Orwell suggested that all philosophies prior to Ingsoc (English Socialism) would be covered under the term 'oldthink', bearing with it none of the nuances of these ideologies, but simply a connotation of badness. Since the Cold War, a similar effect has been wrought on the word 'communism', where it no longer bears with it, to most people, the doctrines of Marx, Engels, or Lenin, but rather a general bad connotation." [ Newspeak ] [Emphasis added]
To avoid getting tangled up in our personal perspectives, consider how "witch" was even more loaded than today in, say, politics and patriarchy in Mediaeval Europe or colonial Salem.
To the point here in this post: "The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of [insert desired correct Weltanschauung], but to make all other modes of thought impossible".[ Principles of Newspeak ] "The basic idea behind Newspeak was to remove all shades of meaning from language".* This often passes for discourse in a narrow political forum like pop culture or corporate media. Cf. Thought-terminating cliché.
_____
[asterisk]Newspeak, attribution not previously provided, from an afterword by Erich Fromm in 2003 U.S. edition. (Content of the foreword by Thomas Pynchon as well as the afterword is frequently plagiarized, as an engine search for key phrases demonstrates.) The foreword is also relevant to this thread (i.e., middle paragraph, p. xxi).

References

  • Orwell, George (1949). Nineteen eighty-four, "Appendix: The Principles of Newspeak", pp. 309–323. New York: Plume, c2003.
    Pynchon, Thomas (2003). "Foreword to the Centennial Edition" to Nineteen eighty-four, pp. vii–xxvi . New York: Plume, c2003.
    Fromm, Erich (1961). "Afterword" to Nineteen eighty-four, pp. 324–337. New York: Plume, c2003.
    Orwell's text has a "Selected Bibliography", pp. 338–9; the foreword and the afterword each contain further references.
    Copyright explicitly extended to digital and any other means.
    Plume edition is reprint of hardcover by Harcourt. Plume edition also in a Signet edition.

--GoDot 06:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Was Fremont Hemp Co. in the space that Taco Del Mar now occupies plus where the gelateria is now, or what? - Jmabel | Talk 05:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the precise makeup of the businesses on that block. Honestly, the last time I looked at the block that closely was a couple years ago when I was showing a visitor from out of town the Lenin statue (hah!) I just know that at some point in the last few years when I was down there I noticed that Fremont Hemp Co. was gone and Taco Del Mar was in its place. thoreaubred 05:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I know that it's the owner of the gelateria who landscaped the plaza, which has no official name, but (as far as I can tell) is increasingly coming to be known as "Lenin Square". - Jmabel | Talk 05:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Lenin Picture

Re Image:Fremont Lenin.jpg vs. Image:Fremont Lenin 2.png -- Then I don't know what's wrong with my monitor, because most pictures look fine, but all I see is a sea of black with some dim grey highlights. For all I know it could be a statue of a Greek fisherman lugging a net full of cod. The Taco Del Mar logo is more recognizable than Lenin. It looks like it needs brightening, which is why I added gamma and contrast to it. - Keith D. Tyler 20:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Missing Source

I'm working on a paper about seattle & tried to follow the link to the "Seattle: Booms and Busts" at http://pantheon.yale.edu/~eds25/DrizzlyCity.rtf It seems to be broken. Furthermore, it seems yale disabled crawling or caching all pages in the hosted domain--which means I wasn't able to secure a cached copy. If anybody is reading this and has a copy of the file, could you please send it to arthur (at) imaging-resource (dot) com

More to the point, since the author has given wikipedia blanket permission to use the paper, is there any way this file could be hosted as a source in wikipedia in order to provide access? This is obviously an important source of information for this article and others online (I've seen it referenced many other places online). -Wiki neophyte —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.42.179.196 (talk • contribs)

Wonder if the author, Emmett Shear, is still reachable at sarbandia@hotmail.com ? Might try e-mailing him directly. --Lukobe 06:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

First Starbucks location: contradictory

This article lists the current location of the old Starbucks at Pike Place Market as the second, not the original. However, both the Pike Place Market and Starbucks pages say that it is indeed the original location of the franchise. Which one is correct?

I believe that the original starbucks stand was inside the market, then later moved to its present location on the east side of Pike Pl. Aep 22:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
The one in the market is the original (and long predates the franchising). As far as I know, it has always stood on the east side of Pike Place, in the market, where it is now. Certainly it was already there in the late 1970s. However, it doesn't look much like it did when it was a single store. Now it looks pretty much like any other Starbucks. Then it looked more like Markus Coffee on Connaught Street in London (from the same era; I have no what Markus looks like today), only a little less orderly (throw in a small dose of McNulty's Tea & Coffee Company on Christopher Street in Manhattan). - Jmabel | Talk 22:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Further remark: I can't absolutely swear that they are in exactly the same storefront; I am pretty confident that they are within 100 feet of where they were in the 1970s. - Jmabel | Talk 05:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Starbucks Coffee has been at Pike Place Market since the coffee company was founded there in 1971. The current Pike Place Market location is NOT the original Starbucks store!

I called the downtown Seattle library and talked with a refference expert who has also been a Starbucks fan since the 70's. He looked up old Seattle phone books and confirmed that the original Pike Place Market location was at 2000 Western Ave from 1971 until sometime around 1976. The 1977 phone book is the first one to list the 1912 Pike Place location for Starbucks! There's the proof. If you don't believe me call the reference desk at the downtown Seattle Public Library 206-386-4636.

An anon has put a remark in the article that needs to be removed and figured out about this - that old phone books show the store at 2000 Western and now at 1921 Pike Place. Without going down there to look, or even pulling out a map - 2000 Western is Victor Steinbruck Park. I know the park existed in the late 1980s, but if it was buildings that needed to be demolished Starbucks moved across the street - meh. It's still the "same" store, and was probably still the only Starbucks at the time of the move, if it moved.
If anyone needs an excuse to go down there and research, here are some discounts this weekend: SchmuckyTheCat 19:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, are those addresses right? 2000 Western should be the east side of the street, and 1921 Pike Place should be the west side of the street, but the current Starbucks is on the east side of the street. What? SchmuckyTheCat 19:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
It's 1912 Pike Place. Postdlf 00:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the phone book claim is substantial evidence, even if it didn't require us to take an anonymous editor's word on his research. The fact is that there is a widespread belief that the one open at Pike Place now is the original. The City of Seattle is convinced that the one open at Pike Place now is the original. As are plenty of other sites online. The doubter posted in a comment on Image talk:Original Starbucks.jpg (moved there by me from the image description page) that in the mid 1980's, "it was common knowledge among all employees that the current store in Pike Place Market was NOT the original location." You'd think it would be easier to verify that were it true without having to resort on phone book hearsay. Absent conflicting evidence of comparable weight, I don't think we have a good reason to change the statement of fact that the current Pike Place location is the original. Postdlf 23:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, so I went ahead and asked Zev Siegl, one of the founders and the first paid employee.
Starbucks first location was at the intersection of Western Avenue, Pike Place and Virginia Street, on the northeast corner, in a long-gone building called the Harbor Heights Hotel. This is 1/2 block north of the current store. It moved to its present location a long time ago, in the late 1970's.
This would put the store at 2000 Western. There are also some city archive documents from that time period that identify that parcel with Starbucks 1-6-J R Block; Hotel Conklin; Market Tavern; Starbucks 2000-04 Western Avenue. So, this is the same store, but it moved locations. I don't think the current wording is incorrect. SchmuckyTheCat 02:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Interesting... Maybe a footnote should be added to explain the location change? Postdlf 16:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
In what way is a telephone book hearsay? If a business is listed in it five years straight under the same address (at a time when there was only the Bell System phone book, and a mistaken entry could cost a business a lot of money) you can be sure the address is correct. ProhibitOnions 23:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
It sounds as if the original Starbucks WAS north of the current store--as currently written the article makes it sound like it never moved. Will tweak, see what you think. --Lukobe 08:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
BTW, the source of my ignorance of the move is now apparent: I moved here in '77. - 15:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Snowfall is not uncommon as annual total can be up to 12 inches

Where did this snowfall accumulation stuff come from? It seldom snows in Seattle and almost never accumulates rarely lasting more than a day. Is something thinking of the eastern foothills?--Silverback 12:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The stat "annual accumulation can measure up to 12 inches" is probably accurate, but I agree not very common. I think it really depends on what part of the city you're in, as areas slightly north or east of downtown can have higher elevations and receive more snowfall. As this page points out:
Seattle does not get a 'predictable' annual snowfall. Since 1984, annual snowfall at the Seattle Tacoma Airport weather station has ranged from trace amount to 20 inches in a 24-hour period.
And average annual snowfall typically quoted seems to range from 7 inches to 12 inches which may be a geography difference or how you measure "snowfall."
While the existing sentence is concise, I agree that it is probably misleading and should probably be rewritten. I'll get the ball rolling with a suggestion:
"While snowfall is not uncommon in Seattle, accumulation rarely lasts for extended periods of time. In addition, Seattle receives less snowfall than most locations at the same latitude."
Of course, both facts above are owing to the marine environment, which could potentially be thrown in too. Feel free to tweak/completely rewrite that a bit. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? I haven't seen more than half an inch in years...

external links needs pruning

I'm goin' in! Feel free to re-add ones I delete if you really think they're important, but as it stands, I think there are too many in there... --Lukobe 02:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Zombie Party Killings

A GUNMAN killed six young people at a "zombie party", where revellers were made up to look dead yesterday.
The killer shot himself in the head when challenged by police as he left the murder house.
Two wounded party-goers were taken to hospital.
Seattle police scoured the scene for clues as to what prompted the shooting spree in the city's trendy Capitol Hill neighbourhood.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18614547-38198,00.html

Why the heck hasn't this been mentioned? Been trying to see if it has an article already created, the details I've read so far sound like the theme of a hollywood b-grade movie.  :/ Hope no one here is affected by this. 211.30.80.121 04:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Because Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. I don't think this article mentions Wah Me either, though I believe somewhere on Wikipedia, Wah Me has an article, and I'm sure this will too. SchmuckyTheCat 15:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It might get it’s own article eventually but it is way to soon to write an encyclopedia article when there is so little facts known on this tragedy. There is a current media storm and it will take some time for the truth to come out. --8bitJake 00:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • actually, after I responded above, I found an article already existed, Capitol Hill massacre, but it was a massive copyvio, so I re-wrote it. I still don't believe it needs a reference in the main Seattle article. SchmuckyTheCat 00:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Map w/landmarks

{{reqmapin|the Seattle area}} Any volunteers to update/flesh out Seattle_map.png? The original creator appears to have abandoned it and I don't have the time to do it myself (it was wishful thinking on my part when I said I might do so six weeks ago). --Lukobe 08:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Goodwill

Does anyone really use "City of Goodwill"? Wasn't that just a publicity thing around the Goodwill Games? - Jmabel | Talk 16:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It's been about a week; no one has answered, I'm removing it. - Jmabel | Talk 04:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Chinook

("alki" being a Chinook word meaning, roughly, "eventually")

Was Chinook Jargon or Chinookan languages intended? There should be source for this statement either way. —Firespeaker 10:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This can be found in any number of guides to Seattle and on many Web pages. I'm a relative newcomer to the area, but it was one of the first things I learned about Seattle, and I was surprised it wasn't mentioned in the article. Says the P-I: "In these early days, an anonymous pioneer with a sense of humor modified the name of New York by appending the Chinook word 'alki' -- which means 'by and by.'" Seattle's convention and visitor bureau has much the same story, though they confirm it is Chinook Jargon. ("By and by" rather than "eventually" seems to be the canonical translation of "alki," but I used "eventually" since "by and by" is a bit archaic). The Chinook Jargon article does list Alki. I made some minor tweaks the sentence today. Jerry Kindall 22:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Rat City Rollergirls ???

Does this amateur sports team really need to be listed in the table with the other Seattle professional sports teams? If so, why not Seattle Junior Hockey or the UW Huskies? I feel it just doesn't belong there. 71.121.137.40 02:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

They've been getting a lot of attention lately. I could go either way on this. - Jmabel | Talk 15:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well it is becoming a part of the Seattle music sceen and Seattle culture. The Seattle Times had a blog and covered the Rat City Rollergirls on the nationals. I sort of think the Huskies should be listed since that is a major regional team.--8bitJake 19:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Neighborhood articles issues

Citing sources

Featured article removal candidate

This page is getting very big

Wanted articles

New article or section needed

Sports in Seattle article

northgate

Dates

Climate

Inline Citations

Skyline photo?

The Klondike Gold Rush & Seattle

Is Bellevue a Suburb?

Talk Page makes news.

Personal trip blog

Emmett Shear

demographics / jewish federations shooting.

Disambiguation

Seattle history

The statement made regarding Boeing's largest division being headquartered in Bellevue is untrue. Boeing Commercial Airplanes headquarters is in Tukwila.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.17.66.135 (talk • contribs) 09:06, August 12, 2006 (UTC).

Good catch, but it's actually in Renton. Or, at least the address is. --Bobblehead 10:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Economy

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 01:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Seattle, Washington → Seattle – use common name for world-famous city with no ambiguity issues

Reasons to move

  1. Seattle, like Chicago and New York City, is well known even without the state name. [citation needed] Almost no one says they're from "Seattle, Washington."
  2. The state name is not part of the name of the city.
  3. No other place is called "Seattle" and there is no chance of confusing it with any other location.
  4. Seattle already redirects here, therefore there are no known disambiguation issues, and no reason to disambiguate.
  5. World famous U.S. cities should be treated no differently from world famous cities outside of the U.S. (Paris, London, Montreal, etc.) -- use the unqualified city name for the article title.
Correction, a world famous city must have a population of 2 million people. Seattle has less than 1/4 that number. Ericsaindon2 04:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
What definition is this from? Are you referring to the political boundaries, the built-up area, or the metro area? I can probably also get you a few cities that are of similar size to Seattle (using the boundaries you want) that are clearly major cities. --Polaron | Talk 04:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not using boundaries I want. I am using boundaries established by the city that heads that particular area. Metro areas are not necessarily part of that city, and cannot be considered part of that city in the article. Only what the city defines as the areas it includes are considered part of the city. Ericsaindon2 05:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
So the population within the administrative boundaries of the city government are what determined whether a city is "world class" or "world famous"? --Polaron | Talk 05:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
You can't take the size of a city to determine if it is "world famous". Budapest, for example, is well under 2 million people. So is Vienna. And Warsaw. (They are all about 1.6-1.7 million.) Phnom Penh is half that size, Las Vegas. All of these are certainly world-famous cities. And history can make a much smaller place world-famous. Bethlehem has a population so small that they'd fit in a good-sized soccer stadium. Conversely, there are probably cities of 2 million in China that almost none of us could name. How many of us could place Tianjin (over 5 million) or Wuhan (also over 4 million) on a map. - Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
But if you go to Wuhan, they would probably not know where Las Vegas, San Francisco, Miami, San Diego, Seattle, etc. is. It works both ways. 69.232.58.207 07:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The naming guideline for US cities currently has two exceptions but does not say anything about what makes one an exception. For those who oppose the move, why do you believe this is not a suitable exception. The simple name is unambiguous and, I would argue, rather well-known even without appending "Washington". Simply arguing that is is against the guideline is not a good enough reason because the guideline is not policy. In fact, in this particular case, it is inconsistent with the more encompassing "Use common names" policy. Why do you think we have the article titled Bill Gates instead of William Henry Gates III? --Polaron | Talk 00:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for everyone but I think a large crux is that instead of working on consensus for changing the guideline (and improving the overall consistency of the Encyclopedia), we're leapfrogging around city to city trying to create exceptions-which, as you pointed out, are not even well defined. This creates even more inconsistency in the overall project, which is counterproductive. Let's fix the guideline first instead of trying to poke more "exception holes". Agne 01:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Support per reasons listed above. --Polaron | Talk 13:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. --Usgnus 13:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I proposed this above. SchmuckyTheCat 15:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral see comment below Oppose settle the discussion on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) first. Bobblehead 16:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support it makes sense --Edgelord 18:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Consistency is a Good Thing. --SarekOfVulcan 18:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. This request violates WP:POINT. Violates US city naming standard. If you want this to change, then change the guideline so that requests can be judged on some basis other then a few editors who happen to follow the article involved or this article. Vegaswikian 19:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I hope you have a good reason other than blindly following some naming guideline, which is actually inconsistent with the wider use common names Wikipedia-wide standard. --Polaron | Talk 19:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • And what gives Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) any more precedence over Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) which specifically relates to the article in question? There's already a discussion over (settlements) that you are a part of. Settle that first and then come back here. Changing vote to oppose.--Bobblehead 20:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
        • The US city naming guideline already allows for exceptions (Chicago and New York City) if it can be argued that the unqualified name is more commonly used. Whatever the outcome of that discussion, that has nothing directly to do with addressing thr reasons listed above for moving the article to what the city is actually called. It's not like people will suddenly be confused about what "Seattle" is if we drop the "Washington". --Polaron | Talk 20:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
          • And it's not like they'll suddenly be confused that they have the wrong Seattle when they see "Seattle, Washington" in the article title after typing "Seattle" into the search box. Finish the discussion over on (settlements), then come back here. Or, if you really want, get Seattle added to the exception list, then come back here. --Bobblehead 21:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
            • But nobody says they're from or live in "Seattle, Washington". The current name gives the impression that "Washington" is part of the city name. And the way to become an exception is to convince people that it deserves to be exempted. There are still no substantive reasons provided that indicate why we should have "Washington" in the name of the article. --Polaron | Talk 21:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Bobblehead, readers who come upon the article titled Seattle, Washington will probably not think they have the wrong Seattle, but they might think (especially if they're from another country), that the name of the city is Seattle, Washington, when, in fact, it is Seattle. Or, they might think there must be another Seattle since there was an apparent need to disambiguate this one. Why not keep it simple? Why disambiguate when there is no name collision issue with Seattle? Why confuse the readers unnecessarily like this? Why not move the common-name specification (the title) to Seattle and be done with it? --Serge 03:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
              • Actually, yes, people do say they come from Seattle, Washington all the time. Especially when speaking to people that do not come from the Pacific Northwest. In looking at the edit history and archives on the (settlement) page it appears that the move of Chicago from Chicago, Illinois on August 20 was the cause of the current ongoing discussion regarding the convention on how to name US cities, so citing that as an example of exceptions is faulty. It also appears that moving from the convention of City, State has been brought up several times before and each time has been rejected due to lack of consensus. Making an end run around the convention by going to each city's page is unacceptable. Resolve the dispute on (settlement) then come back here if they agree to using City. You have still not provided a substantive reason as to why this article needs to be moved from Seattle, Washington to Seattle. It has also been established in prior ArbCom cases that when an arguably arbitrary decision has been made, unless a substantial reason it should be change, it should be accepted. In this case the arbitrary decision was to name this article Seattle, Washington, so accept it. --Bobblehead 21:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
                • The reasons are listed above. And naming conventions are not set in stone. They can be changed if enough people think they should. --Polaron | Talk 21:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Totallypostal 21:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. No brainer. --Serge 03:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There's nothing wrong with the current name, there's been no discussion of this move prior to the strawpoll, and there is a discussion of the larger question of the naming convention for U.S. cities already in process. -Will Beback 07:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • There is something wrong with the current name: it does not reflect the name of the subject of the article, which is Seattle, not Seattle, Washington. If it's not important to reflect the name of the subject in the title, why not just call it X1WU7@d3v$%? And if the title is supposed to reflect the name of the subject, why do it half-assed? --Serge 07:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • There has been some discussion above (see "Disambiguation") about moving this to the unqualified name 3 weeks ago. No opposition was voiced since then and this requested move is a logical next step. --Polaron | Talk 15:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. BlankVerse 13:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Seattle redirects to Seattle, Washington. More opposition from the religious guideline followers. -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 22:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support 99% of people around the world will think of the location in Washington State. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 09:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:POINT. I do think this matter needs to be settled at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) before making an example here. Secondly, I personally contradict the statement But nobody says they're from or live in "Seattle, Washington". I deal with individuals and business interests throughout the US and world and without even consciously thinking about it, I refer to my location as "Seattle, Washington". It doesn't reflect any ill upon Seattle's status as a "World Class City", it just seems more formal and proper. To that extent, it also seems to be more encyclopedic when you look up in Britannica you see Paris, France; Chicago, Illinois; and Seattle, Washington. Agne 14:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • You're right -- I should have said a vast majority do not rather than nobody. The current naming convention allows for exceptions so we should be talking about why Seattle does not warrant exemption. Also, does Britannica really refer to the city as "Seattle, Washington"? --Polaron | Talk 14:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
      • No, it's Seattle in Britannica, not Seattle, Washington, of course. But Brittanica doesn't have a bunch of amateurs hacking on it that insist on adhering to a silly convention for no reason. --Serge 20:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm talking about the good ole fashion book Britannica. Amazing that folks still have those :p In my case the 1995 edition, though I doubt that the name usage is outdated. Agne 00:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support There is only one Seattle. No further clarification should be needed for a uniquely named, well-known city-Veronique 22:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This is what the guidelines specify and necessary for style comformity with other similar articles. Seattle isn't the most famous city in the world, but I regularly use it unqualified with people around the world with no resulting confusion. Don't worry about fixing redirects - that's easy with a bot. Deco 01:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. And cannot imagine how this is supposed to be WP:POINT. - Jmabel | Talk 01:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:POINT comes into play in that this is essentially a new naming convention for cities that is being etched out here as it was on the Chicago page and as it is being done with several other cities like Augusta, Georgia, New Orleans, Louisiana, Calgary, Alberta, San Francisco, California, Winnipeg, Manitoba and others. This is not the proper path to create a new naming convention and this has been pointed out by several users. Clear consensus from the community should be given and a guideline established before trying to through the idea up, like sticks in the air, with several different cities and see how they land. Agne 04:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • This move is not to illustrate a point. If I were to do that, I would have proposed moving to Seattle, Washington, United States -- a more complete name that is not inaccurate and would be even clear to people who don't know where Washington is. Or I could have proposed moving to FIPS 63000 -- a completely unambiguous and very precise label used by the Census Bureau for the incorporated city known as Seattle. --Polaron | Talk 21:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
        • No, then you would just be making a different point. The simple question is, why not change the naming convention first? Why not work within the Wiki community as a whole to garner consensus for your naming philosophy? I think that it is what's most troubling about this proposed move and the rash of others. It's like a divide and conquer approach. There's the vanity appeal of "world class city" as if a city's reputation is on the line based on a mere title name. Then once one city to go along with the change, they start getting used as an example. "See, so and so, is named like this and they're a world class city." It's a way of circumventing generating true consensus and making positive change in the naming convention. (which I agree are not perfect but this is not the way to go). That is why this action is consistent with WP:POINT. Agne 02:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A world class city or a world famous city is defined as a city that has a population in excess of 2 million. This city does not even top a million. It is similar in size to Milwaukee, Wisconsin and Fresno, California; neither of which do I consider world class cities, or world famous cities. Cities over 2 million people, or the world class/famous cities should be able to use their name without the state, but this city is not one of those. Ericsaindon2 04:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
These would be most of the world class cities here . There are currently only 91 cities of world famous status, or with a population of over 2 million. Ericsaindon2 04:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
And of course, the metro area population of Seattle is nearly 4 million. --Usgnus 07:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The city of Seattle and Census both put the population at just over .5 million. A world class city only includes the defined boundaries by the city, not suburbs and unincorporated areas. Trust me, I know that a city like Seattle would not be recognizable by anyone outside the US. To be a world famous city, you must at least have 2 million people, and Seattle falls well short of this. That is just the way the ball bounces! Perhaps your arguement would be better argued at Houston or Los Angeles, where they do meet this criteria of being a world famous city, because frankly, Seattle has no major significance on a global level, nor does it reach the population criteria. Two reasons why the name Seattle could not stand alone. Ericsaindon2 09:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
"Trust me, I know that a city like Seattle would not be recognizable by anyone outside the US." Is that a joke? I deal with people on an international basis everyday. More of them know Seattle as a major city on the west coast of the US than they do that Washington is a state. The size of a city within its legal borders makes no sense because that criteria isn't even consistent within the US, nevermind the world. For that matter, the Chinese can designate a new city, like Shenzen, and move 5 million people into it in a single decade. That doesn't make it world famous. SchmuckyTheCat 19:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Being a European myself, I found this statement pretty insulting. Ask any 12-year old kid in Denmark about the location of the main cities in the U.S. and he/she would get most of them right. I think I learned them by heart back when I was ten, and back then TV didn't show tons of U.S. material. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 19:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It is pretty obvious that Europeans know our large cities, and we know theirs. But, we obviously do not know Asia's large cities, and they probably have never even heard of places like Seattle. Maybe I was a bit harsh, but since we deal with the Eurpoean people often, most probably know, but other than that, it is a pretty limited knowledge. --Ericsaindon2 22:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - the dubious argument of "world class city" fails, since the article global city states that there is evidence of Seattle being one. --Stemonitis 13:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for consistency. FairHair
  • Strong Support: Per nom. and a terrible naming convention. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Let me see if I got this straight. Over-populated but otherwise unremarkable third world cities are "world class cities" because they are larger than 2 million. Seattle is not because it's probably much better known around the world as a cultural bellweather and economic center of the U.S. west coast but doesn't have the requisite numbers of humans. Sorry, it's the other way around. Quality, not quantity. My idea of world class cities: Seattle, Minneapolis, Tucson, Pittsburgh, Atlanta. Puppy Mill 02:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Re: to all above, not just Puppy Mill. The World Class City argument is moot (whether you support the change or not). Seattle's world class status is not what's up for debate because whether or not the article is titled Seattle or Seattle, Washington the Seattle's culture and status is the same. Having lived here, I think Seattle is a World Class city but I don't tie the city's worth up into a title. At best, it's just a distraction debate. At worst, it's an emotional vanity appeal in either direction. Agne 03:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support--DaveOinSF 04:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. For the same reasons I oppose the move of Boston on its talk page. If there are more than a handful of execeptions then the problem is with the guideline, and it should be changed. Adding new execptions just makes the situation more disorganized. - The Bethling 05:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Bubba ditto 15:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Mellow honey
  • Oppose. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as long as the redirect works. Better to keep it uniform with other US placenames. --Guinnog 00:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Krugs 03:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. josh (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: not a strong enough reason to change the existing practice. Thumbelina 17:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • What would be a strong enough reason in your opinion? --Polaron | Talk 21:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The convention is a good one and there's no reason to make an exception for Seattle. The only reason to do so for New York is that New York, New York means something other than the whole city. —wwoods 18:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose and agree with Agne. Olessi 00:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support "Seattle" is called just "Seattle" in my World Book, and there is no reason to use disambiguation information in the title of this article. Jecowa 18:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments
Why bother? Seattle is already a redirect to this article, seems more bother to move and then fix all the broken redirects. However, if y'all want to go through the hassle, have fun.;) --Bobblehead 16:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No major problems when Chicago was moved from "Chicago, Illinois" --Polaron | Talk 16:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
~2500 links into the current name, ~2000 to the Seattle redirect. Only ones that need fixing are double re-directs, which will be a few dozen. No big diff. SchmuckyTheCat 16:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Which is why I'm neutral on the subject. In my opinion, having or not having ", Washington" after Seattle in the article name is purely cosmetic because with redirects it doesn't really matter.--Bobblehead 18:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
It does matter because it gives the impression that "Washington" is part of the name of the city. Plus I don't think that double redirects resulting from the move would even be more than 10. --Polaron | Talk 18:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The reason to bother is that the title of any Wikipedia article is supposed to specify the most common name used to refer to the subject of the article. In this case, the title should specify the most common name used to refer to the city of Seattle. Like Cher is the most common name used to refer to the artist, Seattle, not Seattle, Washington, is the most common name used to refer to this city. Why imply that disambiguation of the name is required because there is a collision with some other Seattle, when there is no such collision? Why unnecessarily confuse readers with the wrong name? This is a no brainer. --Serge 03:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Seattle, Washington is not the wrong name for the city, it is just a more formal name. It's the equivalent of referring to a person that goes by Bill as William or referring to someone as their first and last name rather than just their first name. Please explain how referring to the city as it's more formal and equally correct Seattle, Washington will confuse people? Your example of Cher is faulty because that is the name she uses when performing and only family members and personal friends would know her by Cheryl Sarkisian LaPiere. That is simply not the case with Seattle, Washington. It is known by both. --Bobblehead 19:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
So, you're saying that the , Washington is part of the (formal) name of the city? Others contend the , Washington part is not part of the name, but just disambiguation information. Which is it? Who knows? Why impose a confusing title when Seattle is so clear, simple and unambiguous? --Serge 16:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

So far not a single substantive reason for opposing the move has been put forward by those who oppose. Sticking to the US city naming guideline is not a valid reason because the guideline allows for exceptions. Those who oppose making Seattle an exception should state why it does not qualify as one. The reasons to support the move are that there are no ambiguity issues with Seattle, and it is a well-known major city both in the US and internationally, and that the state name is not part of the city name. --Polaron | Talk 15:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I'm bewildered at the sentiment that adding Seattle, Washington would confuse a reading as to what the city's name is. I think that is assuming a rather low level of intelligence on the reader not to distinguish the comma as separating the city from state. As for a common usage, type in "Seattle, Washington" in Google News and you'll see papers from across the world refer to Seattle, Washington or Seattle, WA in contrast to just Seattle. Agne 14:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
"Seattle WA" and "Seattle Washington" combined is still outnumbered more than 33:1 by "Seattle" -- Less than 3% usage of the city name with the state name. The AP Stylebook also includes Seattle in its list of cities that can be written without the state name. --Polaron | Talk 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Polaron, you still have not provided a substantive reason for WHY it has to be changed from Seattle, Washington to Seattle. Simply put.. Until a decision is made on (settlements) there simply is no substantive reason to go against the existing guideline and change the name of the article. Seattle is a redirect to Seattle, Washington. Seattle, Washington is as common a name for the city as just Seattle. Seattle, Washington will not confuse people as to whether they are looking at the correct city or not. I've told hundreds if not thousands of people that I'm located in Seattle, Washington and not once have I had someone ask if its the Seattle Pearl Jam is from. --Bobblehead 19:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, keep it "Seattle, Washington" Soapy 21:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The reasons are listed in the nomination. It's not that "Seattle, Washington" would confuse people about the topic but that is not the correct name of the city. Why insist on an inaccurate name just to follow some naming guideline? We should use the simplest name that is is unambiguous. The primary reason state names are used in titles for US city articles is to distinguish places with the same name. But there is only one Seattle. As you said, "Seattle" redirects here and is simpler than "Seattle, Washington". There is not even a disambiguation page! And whatever the decision on the US city naming guidelines, even if status quo is kept, the guidelines allow for exceptions. So what is wrong with using the simple name since it is unambiguous? --Polaron | Talk 00:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Does it cause harm?

  • A couple thoughts. To merit a name change you will need to prove that-the status quo harms the integrity of the article in some fashion and/or the name change would offer substantial benefit to the article that it otherwise would not have. To that extent..

Does it harm the article? Despite the repeated assertion, Seattle, Washington is not inaccurate. To be technical, if you happen to be standing under the Space Needle your location is Seattle, Washington U.S.A (and add in North America, Planet Earth if you like). Now obviously for cosemetic purposes, such a long title wouldn't do. In this regard, you can argue about the relative "harm" the slightly longer name might give but that harm would be soley be on cosmetic features since the presence of the "Seattle" redirect eliminates any practical harm. Does it harm the "image" of Seattle as a World Class city? In comparing the name of Seattle versus the naming of other cities like Paris, Chicago, London, etc in their articles hints of being a vanity arguement since it's soley tied up in the impression of the Wikipedia articles. I would even say it's slightly POV, since we should let the reader decide for themselves in the factual information in the article (our Parks, museums, events etc) of Seattle's status as a World Class City versus trying to use a naming covention as this "bench mark" for this status. Does the name change offer any substantial benefit? Will the change increase readership of the article? Will the change make understanding of the topic any easier? Will the change benefit Wikipedia as a whole? To all of these, the obvious answer is no. To the last statement, you can even say that the change will negatively affect Wikipedia because of the attempt to circumvent developing consensus on the naming convention guideline. As a whole, the Wikipedia community will be benefited if consensus is established there first instead of having several talk page battles on individual city articles.

Unless the "Seattle only" contingent can make a case that there is some substantial benefit to the change or that having Seattle, Washington harms the article in some way, there is no merit for changing the name from the status quo. Agne 01:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course there's a significant benefit: per WP:NAME policy, "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." (emphasis added). --Usgnus 01:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Linking to those articles easy and as second nature is already done as evident by the 2,500 links to Seattle, Washington and 2,000 links through the redirect Seattle. And similarly, can you contend that the majority of English Speakers would not recognize or see ambiguity in "Seattle, Washington"? So again, the question is, what benefit does the name change have over the status quo? Agne 04:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Fewer letters to type. --Usgnus 07:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
You're not typing anymore letters now. Hence the practical application of redirects. It's like typing the 5 letter Dubya instead of George W. Bush and I get to the same page. So again, we're back to sitting at no substantial benefit that would merit the name change. Agne 15:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Not entirely true. Newbie editors don't know or understand redirects and pipes. They want to link to Seattle, but see the name is "Seattle, Washington" so they paste the entire name, ruining the flow of their prose with the un-necessary comma and state.
Also, "status quo" is anti-thetical to the wiki concept. We don't keep things as they are just because that is how they are.
The editors of this article met no objection to moving it. I don't think anyone objecting to this move have ever edited this article. Instead, they are here trying to enforce their own personal vision of process and guidelines - as a point of fact, guidelines that explicitly allow exceptions like this one! Concensus bureaucracy at its most absurd. SchmuckyTheCat 18:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Re: SchmuckyTheCat, Newbie editors do a lot of things imperfect-such as improper capitalization and not including reliable sources. It's a common occurence but we don't alter the WP:MOS or WP:V because of the prevelance of newbie editors doing so. As for editing the article, when I came here the article was already FA status (elevated to such under its current naming convention) and there was nothing of value for me to add. However, I can help protect the FA quality of the article as well as the integrity of the Project as a whole. There is a proper course for changing naming convention and myself, as well as other editors, have tiredlessly advocated our fellow editors to take that proper course.Agne 03:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there are several editors that edit this article that are opposed to the move. Besides, since when did editting an article become a criteria to voice an opinion? If that's your stance, then this entire proposal needs to be retracted since prior to this proposal and edits to the article to support it Polaron made all of 1 edit to this article and that was to add the surface area. --Bobblehead 19:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the contention with the longer title is that it is not the simplest possible name. For example, the article on the current US president is at George W. Bush and not at President George W. Bush. Both names are correct and one is more complete but the simpler one is used since there is no doubt about the topic even at the simple name. --Polaron | Talk 21:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Except in the example of George W. Bush, that's his title and one he will hold for only 8 years of his life. If the article were solely about his time as a President, then it might be applicable. So no, titling the GWB article President George W. Bush is not correct. The presence of redirects from the various shortening of Seattle, Washington also makes the point moot. --Bobblehead 21:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
How about George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States? Would you support titling the article that way? --Polaron | Talk 21:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe the example you're going for is George Walker Bush. It's longer and is an equally correct name for GWB. But, on the other hand, if all that matters is length, why isn't GWB an acceptable article title? It is a common shortening for his name, disambiguates him from his father GHWB and minimizes the number of characters one has to type. But at this point. Just going round and round. It all goes back to, solve the issues on (settlements) then come back with the proposal. The people complaining about WP:POINT won't have an excuse then. --Bobblehead 22:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
But Wikipedia doesn't use abbreviations as titles. In any case, if "GWB" is more commonly used and is not an abbreviation and is unambiguous then yes we probably should use that as the title. --Polaron | Talk 22:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia does use redirects and that solves all practical concerns. Once again, we're back to the starting point where there has not been any demonstrated substantial benefit to making the change. Agne 03:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Other Relevant Discussions Pertaining to Proposed Name Change

Recent edits

elevation data

Large City Strawpoll Construction

Primeval

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI