Talk:King Street Station (Seattle)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments) |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale within the Trains WikiProject. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Stations. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of listings on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. |
Contents |
[edit] SOLD for $1
I found out that mayor Greg Nickels bought this station for only $1. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003440899_kingstreet21m.html Bigtop 01:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Green Tiles
Why is it necessary to mention that the station never had a green tile roof? I didn't know that was in question. Alternately, we could add to the article that it never had an airport attached. ctishman 04:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Interesting, I was just going to add that salmon were never caught from it's roof. Maybe the green roof part should be removed? Noexit 02:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Answer is listed herein.
The reason why is because the man who is charge of the restoration is planning to put green tiles on the roof for no other reason than that he thinks it would look nice there. I want this mention kept in the article. Just because you don't like it there isn't reason enough to counter my right to add it into the article. It is a perfectly factual statement. Who made you the captain of this article anyway?
- I think that the argument made by the anonymous poster about the asphalt shingles is more appropriate for this discussion page. Using the article for an argument of historical fact isn't really encyclopedic in tone. Moreover the persuasive argument that King Street Station should have one roofing material or another should be addressed to the "man in charge of the restoration" not to the readers of Wikipedia. The appropriate tone for the fact that there were and contineu to be asphalt shingles would be to say simply, "The building has historically been roofed with asphalt shingles."
- And as with any Wikipedia article, no one "owns" or "captains" any article.Ltvine 01:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and guess what? I changed it back to include my statement. Tough beans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.245.120 (talk) 11:46, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
WSDOT's website (http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Rail/KingStreetStationRenovation/) states that the original roof is "green barrel tile." Shouldn't this referenced source be used rather than an unreferenced argument? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.149.253.227 (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I possess 26 different images of the station from the time it was built until now and many of the older photos came from the MOHAI library of images. Not one, not a single one, shows the roof to be anything other than asphalt tile! I'm afraid that the WSDOT is completely wrong about their claim. One wonders where they got their information. It wasn't from MOHAI, I assure you. If you can show me ONE picture where the roof has even ONE green tile on it, I will shut up forever. But, you can't, because there isn't one. The only Northern Pacific station that I know of that had a green tile roof was located in Butte, Montana, or I should say has, although it remains a derelict so far as I know. Just because a source can be referenced doesn't automatically mean that it is correct in its claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.245.120 (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Images
Is there any good reason that the images in the gallery here aren't on Commons, where we have a category for this building? Also, I have to wonder if any of those images are really striking or informative enough (or different enough from one another) to merit belonging in a gallery for the article.
Someone might want to look through the Commons category and see if there are some more appropriate images. I'll refrain from any further involvement in the decision, since quite a few of those images in the Commons category are my own recent photos. - Jmabel | Talk 17:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps I can respond to this a bit since I created the category on Commons with a self-authored image as well as a couple of additional images I found and stripped from Flickr that had Creative Commons (cc-by-sa-2.0) license.
- From the article history I can see that I moved all of the images that were hosted on Commons out of the gallery and added the {{commonscat}} template to the external links section to direct readers to the additional images in the Commons category. The only reason the remaining images are in a gallery on the article page is because they're hosted on Wikipedia--and I didn't want to spend the time verifying the openness of their intellectual property status and figuring out the right way to move them to Commons. If they were to find their way to Commons eventually, that would be fine with me. It might be nice to use a couple of these images to illustrate an expanded history or architecture section (something I had planned on doing sometime) in the future.
- So no, there's no compelling reason its set up that way now.--Ltvine | Talk 20:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:King Street Station-1.jpg was uploaded by its creator with GFDL granted, so it should be no problem. The other two were uploaded by User:Lukobe and described as PD images obtained from MOHAI. Lukobe, are you sure these 1913 images either were published pre-1923 or that the photographer died pre-1937? If so, then indeed they are clearly {{PD-US}}. Otherwise, it's not so clear. - Jmabel | Talk 18:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Not absolutely, would have to go back to MOHAI and check. Perhaps there are other images out there with more clear provenance. --Lukobe 18:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] In film
Might be worth mentioning, if someone can find citations: the station appears prominently in two films. Bruce Geller's Harry in Your Pocket centers around a pickpocket who works King Street Station. (In fact, here is a citation on that one). Also, in Alan Rudolph's Trouble in Mind (1985), which makes wonderfully weird use of Seattle (e.g. the art museum in Volunteer Park is a mobster's mansion), the tower of King Street station is Keith Carradine's lair. The latter only has a stub article at the moment; it certainly could use an article, if only to guide non-Seattleites through the warped geography. - Jmabel | Talk 18:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bachcell's Edits
Concerning edits by User:Bachcell, I appreciate the interior images you contributed. They are well lit and contrast the work that has been done to restore areas of the station with work yet to be done. No other images I have found on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons illustrate the interior restoration work better. Thanks for those.
What I found of less value in Bachcell's original posting to the article were the following two sentences:
"The station is close to downtown, but it is not near the intercity bus terminal. The upper entrance is not used, while the main entrance on the first floor is at a dead-end road."
Why include reference to what the station is 'not' located near? It also isn't in close proximity to Sea-Tac Airport, the Seattle Center Monorail, etc. One could name other transport infrastructures King Street Station is NOT near. My rationale for this argument is similar to the argument submitted concerning the roof tiles (See above). For this reason I removed the reference to the station not being located near the intercity bus terminal from Bachcell's original contribution.
On the other hand I preserved Bachcell's reference to the station being close to downtown. I just moved it to the lead paragraph where the location was described. I felt this to be an appropriate consolidation.
I dispute "the upper entrance is not used..." I believe, the entrance Bachcell refers to is the entrance that faces north on the level of the parking lot off South Jackson Street. Unless changed recently, this is the access point to the station for pedestrians coming from the Metro Transit Tunnel and other points north of the station. Therefore, I removed this statement. My opinion is that this entrance in its current configuration is an awful way to enter a grand train station--but I'm not willing to say that this entrance is not used until others confirm its inaccessibility.
I retained the reference to the main entrance on the first floor being at the end of a dead-end street. I just reworded that and put it in the 'Architecture' section saying, "The clock tower and main entry terminate the axis of King Street in Pioneer Square."
This is how I disposed of the paragraph as posted, originally. Since then (yesterday), Bachcell has inserted the following paragraph at the end of the 'History' section:
"From a practical standpoint, the station is close to downtown. However, unlike cities such as Boston, it is not near the intercity bus terminal. What appears to be an upper entrance is not used. The main entrance on the first floor is at a dead-end road, rather than providing a loop."
So as not to enter into an editorial scuffle, I will forgo revisions to this paragraph to allow other editors an opportunity to judge and apply any edits they feel appropriate for themselves. It will also allow Bachcell an opportunity to review my comments concerning her/his original edits and post a response if he/she should so choose. --Ltvine | Talk 21:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
