Talk:Northgate, Seattle, Washington

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on October 13, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents 1 Style notes 2 Accurate content, sufficiently significant content 2.1 Northgate as a collection of neighborhoods 2.1.1 References 3 About "Northgate" and what is notable

[edit] Style notes

Summary: +, cit, so cl, rephrased; see Talk. MoS
Explication: See Talk:Seattle, Citing sources.

Note re. Street layout of Seattle provides references for accuracy. Redundancy may be reduced. Cf. "Style" section at Neighborhood articles issues

Bug: <ref="multiple, awdevelopment">, etc. DNF.
See "Style" section in Talk:Seattle, Citing sources.

Are so many references necessary? They appear to be something like three times the length of the article. Also, is it just me, or do I see duplications between the two reference sections (those linked to actual notes and those "manually" generated)? --Lukobe 06:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Q&A at Talk:Seattle, Washington#Citing sources, since this applies to articles in general. --GoDot 03:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is "/" a formal grammatical character?
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=%2F returns that it has meaning in math and computer science.
In the Middle Ages, one slash (/) represented a comma.
English
The most common use is to replace the hyphen to make clear a strong joint between words or phrases, such as "the Ernest Hemingway/William Faulkner generation". Yet very often it is used to represent the concept or, especially in instruction books.
The symbol also appears in the phrase and/or, a prose representation of the logical concept of logical disjunction.
--Slash (punctuation), but no references cited. AFAIK, its usage in formal writing is generally considered less than preferred.

Recommendation by WP:MoS: Slashes:
Avoid joining two words by a slash, as it suggests that they are related, but does not say how. Spell it out to avoid ambiguities. Also, the construct and/or is awkward outside of legalese. Use "x or y, or both", to explicitly conjoin with the inclusive or, or "either x or y, but not both", to explicitly specify the exclusive or.

"Include the punctuation mark inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation mark is part of the quotation" --WP:MoS#Quotations.

--GoDot 03:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accurate content, sufficiently significant content

Colllege Way and Meridian Avenue N are not quite the same; the former was intentionally routed when the college was built: note the anomalous curve with respect to other avenues, that the arterial ends with a tee at 95th St, where Burke Ave continues [map].

More verifiably, the headwaters are not under the mall property, but the stream flows under the property. The mall land was previously a late-transitional shallow lake at the bog stage--a retention area, not otherwise a source. The original text more accurately reflects the citations. The headwaters are the surviving sources: Licton Springs, Pillings-Sunny Walters Pond, a nameless stream in the lot north of the Target complex. The NSCC reserve is technically downstream, but I'm trying to be most concise.

Good point --Lukobe 04:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The sense of metaphorical palimpsest (and pentimento) is more lyrically illustrated in the transitional construction, "former 1940s suburb, former dairy farm, former bog", and the four groups of people who have used the land. It was structured thusly for that particular prose purpose. For accuracy and historical signifigance with respect to the neighborhood, the area was a suburb and recognizably urban (1954 [1]) nearly as long as it was a farm--long enough that a lotta people called the area home, and vigorously contested the eminent domain).

---

Following copied to Neighborhoods articles issues Talk:Seattle#6. Seattle neighborhoods|6. Seattle neighborhoods at Talk:Seattle. --GoDot 04:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Street layout of Seattle is a useful internal link that is particularly relevant to content of metro neighborhoods articles, since such info is of particular interest to anyone wishing to navigate a city. Its codification has been a big deal in Seattle public works (cf. Phelps, Samson). The layout patterns of New York are famous. As such it is also a distinctive aspect of community character, demonstrably so with respect to those of different cultures.

--GoDot 03:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC).

Maybe we should add a link to it in the neighborhoods template. In fact, I think I will do just that. --Lukobe 04:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

A concise description would be useful, as for West Seattle just above it. Lake City may well have enough neigborhoods (and its own history) to be treated as is West Seattle. For consistency, there could be four such: West Seattle, Rainier Valley, Northgate, and Lake City. Bryant and Ravenna might be left in the main category, but grouped together since they are also known as Ravenna and Ravenna-Bryant, as could Licton Springs and North College Park, two names for very nearly the same neighborhood. All together, these actions might make the main group more readable as well. --GoDot 05:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

On this detail, north Wallingford is nebulous with south Green Lake, and that indefinite Twilight Zone is aka Tangle Town (where is it possible to get appropriately bewildered by the tangle of street layouts : ) --GoDot 02:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to modify the template: I am sure you could do good things with it. (For that matter, Downtown might be thrown in with West Seattle, Lake City, and Rainier Valley.) --Lukobe 06:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:NOR and WP:V at WP:CITE, some standard verification should be provided beforehand : ) --GoDot 02:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Northgate as a collection of neighborhoods

Copied to Neighborhoods articles issues Talk:Seattle#6. Seattle neighborhoods|6. Seattle neighborhoods at Talk:Seattle.

North College Park is shown on the map as part of the Northgate district of neighborhoods. This should be retained. See article text.

Accuracy is a goal
Northgate is more accurately an informal quarter, district, or borough comprised of four or five neighborhoods (six, including the namesake shopping center) [map]. Previous construction was more consistent with citation.
Northgate and North College Park are most-recognized in the district, though North College Park for NSCC, named with respect to Central and South, with the name of the mall being incidental.

Northgate Mall was carved out of Maple Leaf neighborhood; Maple Leaf more accurately belongs in this Northgate district of which it is the SE quadrant. Cf. citations.

I don't think anybody considers Maple Leaf to be part of Northgate these days. --Lukobe 04:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

With respect to an encyclopedia, however, the question is, "what does the verifiable relevant information say?" What is the reference? What has been found so far all documents that Maple Leaf is also a quadrant of the Northgate district; large-scale commercial development originated with the namesake mall and was still mostly in Maple Leaf (south and east of the mall) until the Target complex recently became fully occupied.

If the verifiable relevant information is wrong, then I do not believe we should follow it. --Lukobe 06:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

See reply just below. --GoDot 02:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Independent of this, with regard to your consideration, how does that correspond to topography? People tend toward more belief in what they see. Substantial northwest Maple Leaf overlooks Northgates (south Northgate complex, Northgate Mall, Northgate Way), Maple Leaf northern arterials and commuter bus routes flow into Northgates, and those commuters see more of Northgates than Maple Leaf. This has become increasingly true in recent decades with the Park and Ride interchange.
In summary, so far, there is sufficient body of verifiable evidence that Maple Leaf is also a neighborhood of the informal Northgate district or borough.

Ask residents of Maple Leaf if they think they live in Northgate and most will say they don't. Those who say they do may not think they live in Maple Leaf! We should be accurate, but as far as I am concerned that means accurate to facts on the ground. --Lukobe 06:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Apart from talk pages, Wikipedia:No original research.

Northgate and Maple Leaf are not exclusive. Maple Leaf is a member of the set of Northgate neighborhoods. A Venn or Euler diagram would illustrate. Maple Leaf (A) is a proper subset of Northgate assemblage (B).

Per citations, Northgate is a commercial shopping center and an informal assemblage of neighborhoods, as distinct from a Northgate neighborhood per se, per cited maps^[1] as well as other valid citations. Names and boundaries are informal. Apartment dwellers near, say, a Northgate Mall car park might consider their neighborhood as Northgate, but so far, that has not been shown to be verified.

Isn't the decision per Wikipedia? By dictionary definitions, Wikipedia recommendations, and logic, that which is verifiable with respect to Wikipedia accepted sources is therefore accurate.
NB: The formal academic standard is likely far more rigorous than necessary for non-technical, non-emotionally charged topics like neighborhoods, but the WP standard^[2] should apply.

This policy in a nutshell:
Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
[...]
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.
{Wikipedia:Verifiability {WP:V}}

With regard to this particular issue, citations provided qualify per the list at Reliable sources # Evaluating sources. All my citations do, apart from reference to other WP articles,[2] with exceptions noted. --GoDot 02:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: Relevant entries can be moved to a Talk:Seattle subsidiary page as soon as the large size of the Talk:Seattle page is resolved in whatever way.

Please, let's. Looks like it's been shrunk. --Lukobe 06:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

_____

[edit] References

1. ^ About these maps:
   Shenk, Carol; Pollack, Laurie; Dornfeld, Ernie; Frantilla, Anne; & Neman, Chris (n.d., maps .Jpg c. 13 June 2002). "Seattle City Clerk's Office Neighborhood Map Atlas", Information Services, Seattle City Clerk's Office. Retrieved 21 April 2006.
   Sources for this atlas and the neighborhood names used in it include a 1980 neighborhood map produced by the Department of Community Development, Seattle Public Library indexes, a 1984-1986 Neighborhood Profiles feature series in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, numerous parks, land use and transportation planning studies, and records in the Seattle Municipal Archives.
   [Maps "NN-1120S", "NN-1130S", "NN-1140S".Jpg dated 13 June 2002.]
2. ^ Providing sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy. This means that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor. See those pages and Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more information.(WP:CITE)

--GoDot 02:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

---

[edit] About "Northgate" and what is notable

"Northgate neighborhoods are (north to south)": items are presented in pairs in order to fit the stated order. --GoDot 05:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Summary: Style
Expansion: Some per Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

Is the Thornton Creek watershed, under a heading "Locations within Northgate", a little awkward? The essence of the paragraphs is a description of the most distinctive characteristics of the topic. If it was "locations", we might mention the big box stores and the prominent office parks, but those don't describe character other than generic corporate. How 'bout adding the cemetary complexes (at least one of them a park style, one of them memorial), or the large hospital complex? The exclusive private lake is rather unique.

"The Sheihk Idriss Mosque" (usualy Sheikh): in conventional reporting style, the most significant is usually stated first, "[a]n octagonal dome and a symbolic minaret". Further, the name and the funding are, "not to put too fine a point upon it" : ) , controversial. Since WP:NPOV, if the name is mentioned, there incurs the obligation to cover the multiple sides of the issues thus raised. Until someone wants to cover those bases, it would be more diplomatic to leave all that unsaid. Besides, the architecture is the most salient to the topic of the article, then that it is a mosque, the date, and then the name is relatively not so important. Most readers don't also read Arabic, and for those who do, let's remain true to WP:NPOV.

Hint: the mosque is Sunni, the funding is Saudi. Does that ring any little bells yet?

--GoDot 06:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I read the stuff about the mosque and said "what the hell is this going on about?". The name is important. It's a named thing first, then it has details. There is nothing controversial about the name.

"Nothing controversial": Please have a look at who the name is, and who re. the patrons and politics about Saudi evangelism. --GoDot 17:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like the section heading name, change it, but the article needed to be broken up a little.

The stuff inside the ref tags needs to be severely cut. If you need that much info, do something else with it. Too much "code" like stuff in the text is an impediment to casual users making edits. SchmuckyTheCat 06:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

_Accuracy_ is a Wikipedia goal and one of the Wikipedia:Five pillars (verifiable, in 2. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.) [The] purpose [of citations] is to help further Wikipedia as being credible, that anyone can readily verify the sources.

WP:MoS (Wikipedia:Manual of Style) recommends that on-line references (refs) include formal citations, date retrieved, and bibliography (where available) because links can break, and the complete citation readily allows alternative verification even without that link (per Embedded links).

The following is quoted from Wikipedia:Citing sources (shortcut WP:CITE:

1 Why sources should be cited, 2 When to cite sources

• When you add content
  • If you add any information to an article, particularly if it's contentious or likely to be challenged, you should supply a source.
• When you verify content
  • You can add sources even for material you didn't write if you use a source to verify that material. Adding citations to an article is an excellent way to contribute to Wikipedia.

3 How to cite sources

• Citation styles
  The following are different methods that you can use to insert references in Wikipedia articles.
  In-text citations can be made using the Cite.php system (preferred), or Harvard style for certain specific technical areas.
• 3.1.3 Complete citations in a "References" section
  • Complete citations, also called "references", are collected at the end of the article under a == References == heading. Under this heading, list the comprehensive reference information as a bulleted (*) list, one bullet per reference work. [This is done automagically when the <ref> command set is used.]

Just because it's policy doesn't mean its to-the-letter implementation makes for a usable encyclopedia --Lukobe 23:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Summary: + link neighborhoods map, ft heading, mosque, NSCC wetland; + reply; see Talk.
Explication: Add link to map, add short full text (ft): change heading == Locations == to == About == (both about the term and what's characteristic about the area), or, "== About 'Northgate' and what is here ==". Rephrase re. mosque, rephrase re. NSCC wetland. Order paragraphs under heading to match order in summary topic paragraph. --GoDot 17:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)