Talk:Bellingham, Washington

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cities, towns, and various other settlements on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the priority scale.
Washington Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Washington, a comprehensive WikiProject dedicated to articles about topics related to the U.S. state of Washington. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or join by visiting the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.

Contents

[edit] Local Culture additions

I've added a Local Culture section with events and landmarks. Feel free to add as you please.

Wndrby, 23 Oct. 2006 (UTC): Really, really- the pavillion is finished. No need to change it back :P --

Frey at last 05:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to this article. They are good. Bellingham Wikipedians unite. -- Dwiki 06:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You know, I am dismayed at the route the Bellingham page has been going, with politically charged or biased entries that are better served in some other way (i.e. most of the Future Development section). A healthy dialog on growth issues is one thing, but I think this is a bit much for a general community page. Maybe a linked page from the Bellingham community page just on development issues would be better. Am I alone in this idea? I would rather the community page emulate cities that provide more content and substance like San Francisco, Portland, Oregon or Eugene, Oregon. I would gladly make the edits and changes to head in this direction, but want to open this up for a general discussion first...

I'm not interested in logging in at the moment to make any edits (I was indirectly threatened by a Wikipedian and I need to make a new User name and profile), but I thought it would be good to mention under "Theater" that as well as the Whatcom Theatre Guild we have the UpFront Theater established by Ryan Stiles, and perhaps make note of the Summer Stock productions put on up at Western each year. All in all, I think the B'ham page is great! 63.231.50.47 21:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Most Northwesterly

Whatcom County is not the most northwesterly in the lower 48. That honour should go to Clallam County, Washington.

 ?
depends on how you define "northwesterly." Clallam is more west than Whatcom but less north.

[edit] Pipeline Explosion

Added some detail about the pipeline explosion from the NTSB report and from having seen that smoke cloud personally. Scary. The photo shows old Fairhaven, and a favorite coffeeshop of mine. Downtown Bellingham is a mile north of where the photo was taken.

Wac 04:26, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] re: Vandalism edit on 04:31, 9 Mar 2005

Article was edited on that date to remove "vandalism". Portions were removed that noted the cause of the pipeline explosion to be youths playing with fireworks. I'd agree that the phrasing in that version was crude and somewhat insensitive, however that is, to the best of my knowledge, as a bellingham resident, the suspected cause of the fire.

Hi. You're confusing two edits. My edit of March 8/9 (depending on time zone) was the anti-vandalism change, modifying income numbers in the demographics section. The edit of March 30/31 by 66.165.10.26 (odin.restek.wwu.edu) changed the text about ignition of the vapors. See [1]. This IP seems to have had a couple problems adding "nonsense" to articles. See User talk:66.165.10.26. Feel free to edit the text to change it back. References to newspaper articles or other such confirmable source would be a good addition though. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "City of Subdued Excitement"

Hadn't heard this before but I suspect it's related to nearby Vancouver, BC's tag of "No Fun City". And it's true - I've had more fun in B-ham than in Vancouver; small but fun, vs. big but repressive . . . Skookum1 22:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The "City of Subdued Excitement" label is not widely used nor an official slogan (the weekly alternative paper that used it the most is now out of business) We are a laid back kind of town...and you can have lots of fun here!

I absolutely disagree. I am a 25 year Bellingham resident and can state emphatically that the slogan of Bellingham, official or no has been "The City of Subdued Excitement" since way before the Weekly dropped the "Every Other". I may think it's sort of dumb, even, but it's the slogan. Googling "city of subdued excitement" finds 917 hits, and I doubt any of those don't directly refer to Bellingham. If you can find any other slogan even tangentially attributed to Bellingham, feel free to post it here. Bellingham has a motto - it's ad hoc, there was no subcommittee devoted to finding it, but it's real. I'm reverting this, although I'm open to reasons why the slogan should be removed. -Dwiki 10:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Edit: just realized that I forgot to contest the fact that this slogan is not widely used. It is. I'm sorry if my edits here are erratic, I feel very embarrassed defending this dumb slogan, which I never really even understood or endorsed. But seriously, tons of people use it, to the point of it being annoying. -Dwiki 11:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
oh, and full disclosure: I was the one who put "City of subdued excitement" in the first place. Okay, now discuss: -Dwiki 10:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I haven't been in Bellingham in a couple monthes, but I swear "City of Subdued Excitement" is incorporated into a wall mural. Maybe the one on the side of the Fairhaven Pharmacy? Or somewhere near the history museum sounds more like it. Whitejay251 11:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it's on the wall of the old Lone Wolf building next to the Museum. Check it out - Dwiki 23:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I personally like the slogan the tourism office is using "A Refreshing Change". More progressive and shows that our town is different in a positive way.

This should nonetheless be noted as unofficial, and footnoted citing a few prominent uses. - Jmabel | Talk 07:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The slogan is also on a wall mural on State St., though as another fact, the slogan is copyrighted by a guy, whose name i don't know, but has prevented others from using it. Murderbike 19:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism (November 2006)

Somebody (71.231.38.152) is vanalizing this nickname and instead calling it "City of Generic Logos". While "City of Subdued Excitement" is not official it is commonly accepted as such. This malicious visitor is clearly protesting the new city logo (which admittedly I dislike as well) and has also made the change "He is also the one who hired a Seattle company to design a generic Bellingham logo." in reference to former mayor Mark Asmundson. Does anybody know how to bar this user from making changes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaufle (talk • contribs) 2006-11-12 11:47

See Wikipedia:Vandalism for tips on how to deal with vandalism, as well as Wikipedia's policy on various kinds of vandalism. As you see in this case, other editors noted the changes and reverted them promptly. The vandal eventually gave up. This user's contributions are listed at Special:Contributions/71.231.38.152, so you can check to see what other mischief they may have made. It looks to me like their other changes were helpful, not vandalism. Hope this helps. --Jdlh | Talk 19:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Unexplained "Curse of Bellingham": A Dissertation on Dislocation Hell

My controversial essay bashing the town of Bellingham, WA and its mysterious curse, is finally done. You will find info about it that you won't find anywhere else. Read why I consider it to be the most boring, stuck up, and anti-social place on the planet (or at least in the ten countries I've been in). Also included are many point by point comparisons to how it is in Europe/Russia, where my best memories and experiences are. Here is the link:

www.geocities.com/wwu777us/Bellingham_Curse.htm.

You might find it interesting. For your preview, here is the table of contents.

I removed the attached table of contents because people who are interested in reading this essay can simply visit the above link and all that improperly formatted text was gumming up this page. -Dwiki 10:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hermosa - Bellingham's pirate republic?

Any of you Bellinghamians (ites?) ever heard of a pirate colony called Hermosa, possibly/supposedly connected with the mysterious Spanish party at Kelowna which got wiped out on its way "home" via the Similkameen? Supposedly Hermosa was Fairhaven, or the author theorizing/demonstraing this dubbed it that in lack of any other, and it was supposedly a pirate haven of sailors who had fled north from the limits of the Spanish/Mexican navy, which then was no farther north than San Blas; according to the gist of the legend, part of the reason for the voyages sent north from that garrison-port were to secure the interests of the Spanish king; but curiously the Spanish did not seek to penetrate the Strait of Juan de Fuca, as if held off. References are scattered but have been summarized in at least two accounts that I can think of, two which I think I have around the house. Just wondering if this is known about down there....Haven't been able to dig up any native stories that back this up, other than the massacre at Keremeos, but there were indications of "un-Indian" activities in some of the early reports from the Strait of Juan de Fuca; most strikingly, crucifixions of victims, then unknown in native culture in this region. The Spanish may have only feared the Euclataws or the then-powerful Cowichans and Suguamish, but at least one account I read analyzes some of the accounts which hint at something known to the chronicler and his captain, but recorded deftly, as if not to admit to the existence of something; that particular account I don't have but if I gave it some thought I could come upwith the author; one of the local journalist-historians.Skookum1 06:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Please stop

To the anonymous blowhard (ISP 207.69.137.34 and/or 172.185.90.63) who keeps using this talk page as a place to blather about how much you hate the Pacific Northwest: please stop. Your opinions are extremely subjective and POV, and contribute nothing to this discussion. Stop trying to pass off your prejudices as fact; just because you didn't enjoy yourself in Bellingham, it doesn't mean you can use Wikipedia as a forum to air your prejudice (and yes, prejudice is the correct word: your posts suggest you value shallow, superficial judgments above empirical data). So please: stop! Stlom 01:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

However, the inane comments removed by stlom may be useful as a textbook example of Tin-foil_hat.  :) Thewalrus 09:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bellingham Weekly

What happened to the Bellingham Weekly? When I last lived in Bellingham, there were several competing weekly papers. Somebody told me that they merged, or one went out of business. I remember the every other weekly, the echo (classified ads) and a couple of others. Thewalrus 01:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The Echo's still around. The Every Other Weekly became the Bellingham Weekly. There was a falling out amongst the BW's editor and the owner, from what I understand. I heard that the staff & editor were fired, re-hired and then fired again, although this is all hearsay. The staff and editor started a new paper which is called the Cascadia Weekly. It is now funded by Bob Hall and David Syre, but it's basically the same paper. --Dwiki 22:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] conservative?

any info on whether this town is more conservative or liberal by american standards?

Overall it's pretty liberal, like most of western Washington. Stlom 10:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

...there are lots of military people around that area, and also there is a homeland security office there, which may attract some conservative types.

it's a northwest college town, but traditionally a lot of employment came from extraction industries (timber, fishing). hence there's a tendency toward extremism, at least on environmental/land use issues. whatcom county is probably skewed conservative, but I believe the city itself skews slightly liberal.

- I am absolutely sure the city skews left, but maybe high school and college students create an even more disproportionate impression. But overall, especially if compared to other parts of America as a whole, definitely liberal. Frey 07:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Just look at how washington votes: every county with the exeption of whatcom, and king vote conservitive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.125.230 (talk)

[edit] Cleaning up "Notable citizens"

The "Notable citizens" list is getting extensive. I think it needs to be cleaned up. Before I be bold and do that work, I'd like to gather consensus about what to do. I'm adding a series of proposals below. Please put your response as a bulleted item below the proposal. If I'm missing points, please add them. I'll give this a week, and if I see a consensus, I'll proceed. Your thoughts? --Jdlh | Talk 19:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 1: follow WP policy on Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Lists of people. This says that "the list should be limited to notable people: those that already have a Wikipedia article or could plausibly have one, per this guideline." This may call for deleting some people on the list that aren't notable (4 entries on the list don't have articles, so may not be notable). --Jdlh | Talk 19:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

♦ Generally in agreement, however Joel Connelly (misspelled in the article, I'll fix that in a minute) does not have his own page but is referenced in a lot of Wikipedia articles so therefore I propose (even though I rarely agree with him) that he is notable enough to stay on the list. Khaufle 03:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Bands are worth covering, but aren't people, so don't belong in the "Notable citizens" section. Move any bands in "Notable Citizens" list to "Local Music Scene" section. If that gets unwieldy, someone else may want to create a "Notable bands of Bellingham" section, or even a "List of Bellingham bands" article. --Jdlh | Talk 19:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

♦ I definitely agree that bands should be removed from the list and added to the "local Music Scene" section. They are not individuals but a group of individuals. While that particular section isn't very extensive right now it seems that a quarter of the updates for this article have to do with that section so it seems to me that there is enough interest and enough potential content to warant having a new article developed for this section. Khaufle 03:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 3: (revised, see 3a, 3b, 3c below) follow WP policy on attribution to reliable sources by calling for citation of evidence for each person's Bellingham connection. For any red-link article, that means calling for a "ref" tag with a citation by the red link in "Notable citizens" list. For any blue-link article where the article doesn't mention a Bellingham connection, calling for a "ref" tag by the blue link in the "Notable citizens" list here. For any blue-link article which mentions a Bellingham connection but doesn't cite a reliable source, call for a "ref" tag by claim in the person's article. Any place where this proposal calls for attribution but it's not there, add a "fact" tag to say a citation is needed. In practice, I expect I'd add "fact" tags to many of the entries in the list right now, or in the corresponding articles. --Jdlh | Talk 19:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

♦ Considering I can hardly follow what this is saying - being completely awake and sober - I say forget option 3. If Wikipedia makes their policies so convoluted and a pain in the a$$ then they shouldn't be upset if the policy isn't followed. Khaufle 03:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Khaufle, don't blame WP for the convolution of Proposal 3. That was my effort to apply the attribution policy to the case of notable citizens. Let me cross out break Proposal 3 into parts, and see if that's easier to understand. --Jdlh | Talk 08:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 3a: where a person on the Notable Citizens list does not have an article already (i.e. has a red link), check to see if the person used to have an article, which was deleted because they weren't notable. In that case, delete the person from the notable citizens list. Otherwise, they may stay on the list but, in the spirit of the WP policy on attribution to reliable sources, there should be a footnote attached to their name with a citation showing their local connection. If there's no footnote, it's appropriate to put on a "fact" tag saying a citation is needed. --Jdlh | Talk 08:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 3b: where a person on the Notable Citizens list does have an article, but the article does not mention the local connection, then the editor adding the notable citizen to the list should add a statement to the person's article, documenting their local connection, with attribution to a reliable source. If there's no such statement in the person's article, it's appropriate to put a "fact" tag on the person's entry in the list to show the article is missing evidence for a local connection, and perhaps the person doesn't belong on the list. If it seems likely that there is no local connection, delete the name from the list. --Jdlh | Talk 08:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 3c: where a person on the Notable Citizens list has an article, and the article mentions a local connection, but there's no attribution to a reliable source, then it's appropriate to put a "fact" tag against that unsupported mention of a local connection. In this case there's no tag on the name in the list.--Jdlh | Talk 08:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I take Khaufle's comments as generally in agreement, and don't hear any objections, so I'm going ahead with the proposals as outlined above. --Jdlh | Talk 03:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations to Khaufle for adding the first reference to attribute a notable citizen's Bellingham connection! As a further step, I encourage editors to move descriptions and references like these from the Bellingham Notable Citizens list to the person's main article. Step by step, we all move Wikipedia forward. --Jdlh | Talk 19:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been a month, and 14 of the entries are still tagged as needing citation. Six of them are red-links. If I don't hear objections, in a few days I'll delete the entries in the notable persons list still tagged. --Jdlh | Talk 20:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It's now August, and there are several entries in the Notable Citizens list which are marked as "needs citation" from April or May 2007. If I don't hear any objections in the next few days, I'll delete those entries. --Jdlh | Talk 19:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up 12 entries tagged as "Needs Citation" dated May 2007 or earlier. 2 now have claims of Bellingham connection in the main article, so I summarised that connection and removed the tag (Kenneth Bianchi, Penelope Houston. 5 are blue links with no mention of Bellingham in their articles (George Dyson, Ben Gibbard, Drew Hayes, General George Pickett, Harry Everett Smith). 5 are red links (Steve Alvord, Joel Connelly, Micah Knapp, Ben Santarris, Kevin M. Thompson). We should do this every few months, I think. --Jdlh | Talk 18:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sort order of "Notable citizens"

Notmyhandle just reordered the list of notable citizens by first name. They were previously sorted by last name. I personally think last name is a better choice of ordering for lists in an encyclopedia. In a formal context like an encyclopedia, phone book, or list of Nobel Prize honorees, it's conventional to order by the last name. The last name is the more public or formal name. So I think we should go back to the previous ordering. But first, I have posted a question to Notmyhandle's talk page, asking for their reasons to sort by first name. --Jdlh | Talk 00:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol, the list was so ugly I couldn't even tell. My mistake. But I do propose changing the names to Last Name, First Name format. --Notmyhandle 00:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I guess I don't see having names spelled as "firstname lastname", but ordered as "lastname, firstname", as visually disorganised. Here's a school's notable former pupils list, sorted in order of birth date. I don't think changing to "lastname, firstname" spelling would be much of an improvement, so I'm not inclined to do that work. If someone else wants to do that, I don't object. I do think that sorting by first name is a step backwards, and would like to see that changed. --Jdlh | Talk 01:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Usually things are sorted by some easily identifiable thing, for instance the list you gave is ordered by birthdate. In this case, I feel that if we are to organize it by name, then the first thing you see in the column should be the thing that it's ordered by. As such, it is either good the way it is now, or must be Last Name, First Name and then re-alphabatized (I'd be glad to do it). Think of it like a date: MM/DD/YYYY (or reversed) works great for lists because most of the time the day is unimportant (even historical dates work well in this way, 12/07/1941). It's for browse-ability and such. We could turn it into a table and make it sortable (3 columns, First Name, Last Name, Info). --Notmyhandle 01:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I agree that "if we are to organize it by name, then the first thing you see in the column should be the thing that it's ordered by". It can be ordered by something later in the column. Doesn't your example of historical dates prove my point? If dates like "12/07/1941" are ordered by year, then they aren't ordered by the first thing you see in the column. --Jdlh | Talk 19:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I encourage you to take a look at "notable people" lists in other articles -- I see a number of different sort orders, a lot of poorly sorted lists, but so far no examples of "lastname, firstname" or "firstname lastname" sorted by firstname. Enough of my opinions; I'm interested to hear what other editors think. --Jdlh | Talk 19:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to reiterate, alphabatizing by first name was thought to be a cleanup project, not to "be better" than alphabatizing by last name. It was a mistake, but yeah I want some other people's opinions on this subject before reverting or whatever. --Notmyhandle 22:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I would expect in an encyclopedic environment such as this that the names should be formatted as first and last names but then alphabatized by last name. Notmyhandle, please don't take this personally. I don't want you to be discouraged from contributing to this article in the future because of this one dissagreement. Khaufle 04:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Khaufle: I totally understand, like I said it's fine haha. Unrelated: I just find it funny how people get so emotional on wikis. There's a guy in another discussion that has gotten fed up because he's not getting it his way. Anyways long story short, I find coaxing users into staying to be... well a teaching experience but just a waste of your time. If they don't understand, it's kind of a maturity/lack of experience on the internet thing. --Notmyhandle 05:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Notmyhandle, let's close this subject. I see consensus that the names be sorted in lastname, firstname order. Your proposal is to put names in that order, written as Lastname, Firstname. I propose putting names in that order, written as Firstname Lastname. I'm reordering the names back to lastname, firstname order. If you still feel strongly about rewriting the names as Lastname, Firstname, I don't object to your doing that. --Jdlh | Talk 19:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

Does it really seem necessary to have a whole paragraph about the airport and it's for profit services in the opening paragraph? to me it smacks of tourist pamphlet info, hardly encyclopedic. Murderbike 04:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest moving it to a section titled "Transportation." --Notmyhandle 18:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Khaufle 04:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Went ahead and moved the info to a "transportation" sub-section. Murderbike 07:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] inside links

someone should remove the inside weblinks. They don't comply with wikipedia standards... --77.179.80.145 09:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "inside links". I don't see any links in this article to the "Bellingham, Washington" article itself. And I don't know which "Wikipedia standards" you are referring to. I didn't find a reference to "inside weblinks" in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. But you are welcome to Wikipedia:Be bold and fix the problems you see. Other editors will either agree and continue the work, or disagree and do something different. Thus does Wikipedia improve. --Jdlh | Talk 19:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I would presume this is referring to all the links to sites OUTSIDE of wikipedia, like all the colleges, Village Books and whatnot. There's a ton of them, but I've never really paid much attention to what policies or guidelines say about them. Murderbike 22:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Links to sites outside of Wikipedia are called "External Links", and the policy on them is at Wikipedia:External Links. "Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." ("meritable"??) --Jdlh | Talk 19:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Music Section

I know the music section isn't the most encyclopedic, but that doesn't mean that it should be used as a springboard for irrelevant advertisement. "JED" is a band that has nothing to do with Bellingham and its representing agency that says it is based in Bellingham has nothing to document this on its linked source (it's homepage). That being the case, it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.86.89 (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schools in the lead.

The lead section seems to once again be getting cluttered up, this time with non-notable schools. How about we add a section on "Education" or something like that, and move them there? Murderbike (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Bellingham.jpg

Image:Bellingham.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Waterfront redevelopment section cleanup

I was recently chastised for removing the more highly partisan portions of the "waterfront redevelopment" section without posting on this page. As the section stands, it reads much like the Bellingham Bay Foundation's website. If there are no particular objections to me removing a vast swath of unsupported comments and POV language, I will do so again.216.254.15.134 (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've got no objection. Thanks for posting your reasoning. Large removals are usually evidence of vandalism, so it's always good to have at least an edit summary when editing. --clpo13(talk) 04:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, it's really easy to assume that an anonymous IP that removes material without using an edit summary is just doing partisan vandalizing. Murderbike (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

yahhhhhhhhhhh whattttttttttttt nowwwwwwwwww............lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.18.121 (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Local Attractions advertisement tag

Somebody added an advertisement tag to the Local Attractions section. In the current version of the section it appears that all items are either natural highlights, non-profit organizations, community institutions or historically notable. I think each of those criteria, independent or collective, should qualify them to this section. This section will always have a sense of advertisement because that's exactly what it is - it's explaining what's so special about Bellingham other than the hard facts. I would say however that just adding a list item without a description should be frowned upon. If you can't justify why something is notable as an attraction then don't add it. My two cents. Khaufle (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The advertisement tag was added on 20:17, January 4, 2008 by User:210.56.70.98. That is the only edit this IP address has made. Since then we have removed listings for Evergreen Team Concepts, Village Books, Henderson Books, Bellis Fair Mall, and "Whale watching tours". Maybe the work called for is done. --Jdlh | Talk 20:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I appreciate the vigilance, it was pretty spammy for awhile. Murderbike (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)