You said "WRONG" to someone's earlier comment. The only way someone can figure out who said that is to search the history. Can you reword it so that it's not in first person? -phma 17:09, 30 Dec 2003 (PST)
Whatever you are referring to, someone must have deleted it by now, because I can't find it in the article. If you can be more specific, I'm sure I can address it. - Jmabel 13:34, 5 Jan 2004 (EST)
I think I'm the one who resurrected the neighborhoods, and probably went overboard in explaining why they're important. The map is a lot clearer than the old prose -- thanks! I also consolidated the neighborhood discussion into one place in the article. I think a bunch of the trouble might stem from the fact that the neighborhoods in Seattle are fuzzy and more for navigation than for somehow dividing up the City ala Philadelphia. This area seems to be a troublesome aspect of the style guide for lots of cities. -- DougEngland 03:03, 27 Feb 2004 (PST)
Added district map
I have added a district map to help make sense out of it all. I have matched it to the guide as best as I could. Where I couldn't make sense of the guide I used the districts layed out here: http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~public/nmaps/fullcity.htm
I am not a local, so if something is wrong, or could be better feel free to change the map, or let me know and I will do it myself. SVG source is at: http://wikitravel.org/en/Image:Seattle_overview.svg. - bulliver 16:51, 14 March 2006 (EST)
The district map could be a little less vague, particularly for the Fremont/Greenlake/Wallingford/Phinney Ridge area. These are all distinct neighborhoods. Lake City, Northgate and Maple Leaf also could be more clear, but there's nothing for a tourist to see their anyway. 188.8.131.52 18:10, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
Separate wiki for Seattle, WA; request for comments
I've been wanting for a while to start a wiki site about Seattle, WA -- a kind of "guide" aimed mostly for Seattle locals. I recently found WikiTravel and at first thought this would do it, but it seems WikiTravel is aimed more to travelers planning trips. Whereas here there is one page only on Seattle, the seattle wiki would be a whole site devoted to it, so I think it's worth pursuing.
That said, I was hoping to be able to "steal" a lot of ideas from WikiTravel, including pages on how the site works, user help, etc. I don't want to replicate effort, but there's a lot of good stuff here that I could use. And the Seattle page could be useful for stub articles to get things started.
I know I can probably do all this because of the CC license, but I wanted to see if Wikitravellers had any input, ideas, or gripes about this idea.
-- Matiasp 21:53, 2 May 2004 (EDT)
I don't think it's an improvement to move a bunch of stuff into a separate Capitol Hill district article if that's really the only one there is (the single sentence for the Fremont article doesn't count -- that too would be less complicated if it were in the main article). I think separate district articles would be a reasonable idea if there were, say, at least three of them, but can't we leave the article integrated until we get enough content to separate at one time? -- DougEngland 03:07, 1 Jun 2004 (PDT)
I'm tempted to move the ferry riding back to "boating" from its current location under Get Out, since you basically just go down to the ferry dock and back, and since there is other boating already in the article. Any objections? -- DougEngland 20:09 3 Jun 2004 (PST)
I thought it sounded better
I made a minor edit to the openning paragraph. I just thought it sounded better. It is an opinion thing, but I felt justified, I am a Seattle native.
Added Georgetown and South Park
I'm not sure, but maybe someone can set it up so South Park isn't confused with the TV show. (Does WikiTravel use the disambiguation stuff that wikipedia does?)
Insult to Seattle Drivers
"On the plus side, this means the rain rarely presents a safety hazard other than the fact that local drivers seem to lose half their IQ points when so much as a drizzle hits." I have changed this sentence to... "On the plus side, this means the rain rarely presents a safety hazard, though local drivers are unlikely to reduce their speed or make any adjustments for wet driving conditions." I hope no one has any objections. Tzepish 18:23, 3 March 2006 (EST)
Actually, Seattle drivers are fine in our misty excuse for rain and there's rarely enough rain to create a hydroplanning hazard. Just keep in mind that the city falls apart after any snowfall greater than two inches due to too few snowplows and drivers who (wrongly) think 4WD means they can steer stop on snow and ice. (The local media has a lot of fun taking pictures of them sliding down hills, bouncing off other cars.) Where Seattle drivers loose their good sense is on the first sunny days in spring where, like moles coming out into the light, they're blinded by that strange yellow object in the sky.
Is there a standard for what a Budget, Mid-Range, etc. Hotel is? The W at $284/night doesn't seem all that Mid-Range, maybe an Up-Scale category is appropriate here? (Anonymous Visitor)
In the discussion of UW, there is a comment saying it is the largest single campus on the west coast. It seems impossible to me that it is larger than Stanford. The UW web site says 643 acres . Stanford isn't as clear, the original grant is 8000+ acres of which 2/3 are in use but not certain whether it is continguous, considered all one campus and so on. Anyone have better info? If so please edit.
On Seeing (and living in) Seattle on a Budget
As an FYI, I have started a blog that shares tips, info, resources for enjoying Seattle on a budget: 
Quote from "Seattle Song"
Wikitravel has a very useful and user-friendly overview article on Seattle with lots and lots of info for visiting the city. ... I highly recommend this as a primer to the city. Full blog post here. --Evan 01:05, 11 December 2006 (EST)
As Wikitravel is mainly meant for tourists, and as I've seen so many of them board a Metro express route by mistake and get inadvertently carried off into the Seattle hinterlands, I've added a brief entry to the Get around/By bus section advising against boarding express coaches. Motterj 10:18 05 Feb 2007 (PST)
I left http://www.cascadeloop.com/ as the link for "Cascade Loop". It's almost an official organization, but I'm not sure. Please feel free to remove it if it doesn't feel right to you. --Evan 15:43, 26 February 2007 (EST)
Someone who can edit this entry needs to fix the Green Lake information to make it more accurate. It seems to have written by someone whose mind was untroubled by any actual visit to the lake. Almost everything that's said is wrong or outdated and that reflects poorly on Wikitravel.
1. The name is Green Lake not Greenlake, as you can out find at the city park website: http://www.seattle.gov/parks/parkspaces/greenlak.htm
2. The asphalt and gravel travels aren't "side by side." The asphalt trail circles the lake. The gravel one circles the park, making the two several hundred yards apart in places. If you visit, remember that on the asphalt trail all wheeled traffic except strollers is restricted to the outer half and to CCW travel only. That's to make rollerblading and biking relatively safe on the same trail with walkers. On foot, walking or jogging, you can travel in either direction, although it's best to stay out of the wheeled lane as much as possible. And the asphalt trail can get quite crowded on a sunny weekend. Also, both trails are poorly lite in most places, so a walk late at night can be a bit scary for those easily spooked.
3. Green Lake isn't "algae-infested." It was treated with alum several years ago and the algae blooms are gone. Swimming is fine and there are lifeguards on duty in the summer. You can also rent boats in the NE corner or participate in boating classes in the SW corner. Several crew boat teams practice on the lake.
4. Green Lake isn't "north of the University District." It's north of Wallingford and almost two miles west of the university. Any city map shows that.
5. This is semantics, but Green Lake is a small lake that's 2.8 miles around rather than a pond. It's big enough for a wide variety of boating competitions from water skiing to crew-boat racing.
Whoever did the posting did get the sports opportunities right, but most people go to Green Lake for a walk or jog around the lake. Dogs must be on leashes. Some people fish. If it can be carried or pulled along the grass to the water, you can bring your own small boat. I've also seen people with RC boats and seaplanes there.
If you need a free WiFi connection, there's one at the public library in the NE corner. There's a wide variety of places to eat and shop in a wide arc in the NE corner.
"See" content moved from King County
I'd like to merge the following content, moved out of the King County article, into the Seattle#See section. Unfortunately, the article says it's "locked so that only registered users can edit it" (I am a registered user!). I'm posting it here temporarily until I can figure out what's going on. JimDeLaHunt 20:27, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
Already in "See"
These already existed in the Seattle article itself, or in one of the district articles.
Added to "See"
These were added to various district articles, or to the main Seattle article if appropriate.
Moving content into districts
This article is blessed with so much good content that it needs district articles to hold it all. However, I notice that there are many listings in See, Do, Drink, Eat, and Sleep which would be better off in district articles. My experience with other huge cities, like Vancouver, is that these sections in the top-level article should just explain how eating or sleeping works in this city, and maybe point out only the 5-10 most notable examples. If the listings were moved out, the Seattle article would be more manageable, it would be smaller than its present 60kB size, and all the listings for a given area would be in one place (the appropriate district article). I've tagged all these sections with the "districtify" template to encourage this movement. (By the way, I also think there are a few too many districts here, but I won't re-open that three year old discussion.) JimDeLaHunt 01:08, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
To have districts or not...
I like what's been done so far, and I have a few ideas regarding the "districts" issue.
As a life-long Seattle resident, I agree that there are distinct neighborhoods and it can help a tourist to know what neighborhood they are in. At the same time, there are at least 34 neighborhoods, a distinction which is good to know if you're looking for a house to buy, but useless for most tourists since they are most of those neighborhoods are primarily residential areas.
So, I propose creating a list of the various neighborhoods, but then grouping them for the purposes of explaining what activities/restaurants/etc are available in that area.
Here's my suggestion: I would give these areas their own page:
1. Downtown, including Belltown, the Waterfront, Seattle Center, Westlake, Eastlake, and South Lake Union -- this is where the majority of tourist activities happen.
2. International District & Pioneer Square -- for the international flavor and nightlife.
3. Capitol Hill, including Montlake -- because it's close to Downtown, but has a distinctly different vibe.
4. West Seattle, Delridge, & Georgetown -- because West Seattle is only 10 minutes from Downtown, has several historic sites, and Alki Beach (where the beautiful people sunbathe in the summer).
5. U District & Ravenna -- because they bleed into each other and there's a lot of fun to have there.
6. Wallingford & Freemont -- for the nightlife and restaurants.
7. Green Lake, including Phinny Ridge & Greenwood -- for the recreation, food and night life.
8. Ballard & Crown Hill -- for the locks, the Scandinavian heritage, and Golden Gardens & the marina.
These areas may or may not need their own page:
1. First Hill, the Central District, Maddison Park, Madrona, Leschi, Colombia City, Seward Park & Beacon Hill -- Whereas there are some cute shops and restaurants, none are probably big enough for their own page.
2. Laurelhurst, Sand Point, Wedgewood -- there's a beach and a few good restaurants, but not much else... unless you want to buy a condo
3. Northgate, Maple Leaf, and Lake City -- again, a few cute areas (I love Maple Leaf!), but mostly residential stuff. Also, if tourists want a mall, they will likely be closer to Westlake than Northgate.
I would be happy to start some sorting as well, but I was having a difficult time trying to do that...
Are the U district and Seattle Center really best avoided at night? That sounds untrue and overkill to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 2008 April 30
districts and neighborhoods
Hi there, Whatever the final decision is regarding breaking down the article into subsections, I should point out a few things about the map you're using. 1) It's Capitol Hill, not Capital Hill. 2) It's Queen Anne, not Queen Anne Hill. 3) The City Clerk's map is notoriously INaccurate in that it was designed to be used as a legislative index. Problems in their map that yours has inherited include:
4) Other issues that may or may not derive from their map:
5) It's Wedgwood, not Wedgewood.
Good start though.
Thanks, --220.127.116.11 01:55, 23 June 2008 (EDT) (Lukobe on Wikipedia)
The Shared Route bus service has stopped running as of July 2008. It may start again in November 2008, but with a different route. I've deleted the text of the listing from the Seattle article and I'm storing it here for future reference. Feel free to take this and reinsert it, with appropriate modifications, if and when the service starts up again. JimDeLaHunt 03:26, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
Additional Taxi information for Seattle - TaxiFareFinder
I was not sure if this violated the rules on External Links, but I found this site useful the last time I went to Seattle. It allows the visitors to estimate taxi fare and it also has the latest fare information. I will leave it up to you guys to link to the site. http://www.taxifarefinder.com/main.php?city=Seattle I found the fares to be accurate in multiple places I have been. Seattle, Portland, Chicago, NYC, and Boston. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IppTak (talk • contribs) 08:27, 2008 October 16
districts with no article
Can we merge them with already articles that are districts? I mean it is pointless. Someone could direct me to which to merge that would be fine. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 18:24, 8 December 2008 (EST).
Okay, the map and the information for districts is very confusing. I think we need a new map. I think we need a big facelift for the set up. The number of districts is overwhelming and the map is confusing a little for the regular person. I think it is waaaay too much, I mean Hong Kong doesn't have that much. I think we should fix it to the names of the headers before listing the districts. Seems easy and that way we won't have short articles. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 18:53, 8 December 2008 (EST).
(A followup to the original discussion.)
Five years later, it's time to re-evaluate Seattle's districting.
As it stands, we're up to some 28 district articles in varying states of completion, and still significant portions of the city are not covered (perhaps most notably the popular tourist
My suggestion is to set a small number of top-level districts (6-7) covering the entire area of Seattle with clearly defined boundaries, merge the existing articles as necessary, and only split off neighborhoods as subdistricts if they can truly support a good-sized article under all headings by themself. The merging process would also present an opportunity to prune out any and all incomplete listings.
— Dguillaime 15:41, 4 May 2009 (EDT) / updates 26 July 2009
I would probably break it down similar to this;
I don't know about the specific geographic borders, but I feel this breaks down the city pretty well. I agree about North of 85th and the Lake City sections seems pretty snotty, not of much use to a tourist and probably should be deleted.Calibanxx27 23:53, 26 July 2009 (EDT)
Eventually I'll have time to work on this. It'll be fun.
Meanwhile, I sorted the articles into what I think is the plan on the main page. From there, it should be easier to track articles as they're merged. The colors aren't permanent, I yanked them out of Europe for the time being -
I've been letting this languish too long, haven't I? Now it's trimmed down to 11 district articles from the starting 28 -- still a few more than I'd had in mind originally, but we've got a reasonable amount of content for all of them except South and West, and those qualify under the provision that it's geographically silly to assign them any other way. However, with the entire city now covered under clearly-defined districts, it should be MUCH easier to sort new listings going forward. Proceeding with some general formatting and style (and some maps!) should start nudging Seattle in the general direction of guide status... maybe we can swing a collaboration-of-the-month sometime. -- D. Guillaime 00:21, 2 March 2010 (EST)
Get out-San Juan Islands
The San Juan Islands are very important travel destinations near Seattle and they should be listed in the get out section. However, I'm not sure if it should be put in the "Driving" section or the "Boating" section because you do need to drive to Anacortes and then take a ferry to the islands. Similar issue applies with Victoria, BC. Any opinions? —The preceding comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs)
Just for the hell of it and because a similar list appears on other talk pages:
The front page looks close to a guide (the buy, eat, and sleep sections could use more description), but those outline districts are holding it back. Eco84 11:31, 28 August 2010 (EDT)