text:
Talk:Seattle

As a person who's lived in Seattle for 25 years: yes, the Pike Place Market is a cliche, after a fashion, but visiting Seattle and skipping the Market would be like visiting Washington, DC and skipping the government buildings. The market is touristy, but the locals still outnumber the tourists, and as a working public market it is almost unique in America at this point. - (WT-en) Jmabel 12:08, 27 Dec 2003 (PST)

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? -(WT-en) 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. - (WT-en) Jmabel 13:34, 5 Jan 2004 (EST)

- I'm moving the big list of areas/disticts to Talk:Seattle/Districts until it's cleaned up and more usefull. (WT-en) Majnoona
 * Judging by recent edit in the article, I'm not the only one frustrated by the removal of the neighborhood info. Maybe we can do a map, to keep both Majnoona and the rest of us happy? -- (WT-en) Jmabel 16:08, 8 Feb 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. -- (WT-en) 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://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Image:Seattle_overview.svg. - (WT-en) 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. 38.112.225.84 18:10, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Yes, any chance of a more detailed map? I think the current one is misleading as to neighborhood names and locations. --Lukobe (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been struggling with this district guide and finally got around to looking at the cities official version that this is meant to be be built off of, however it looks like the city only breaks it into three main districts with several sub neighborhood groups. The map that has been created for this article is a stretch of the imagination as some neighborhood have been broken into their own sub categories while others have been grouped into giant neighborhoods (i.e. West and South Seattle). I've been reading through the discussions here and still have no idea how this map evolved and why. Can someone please explain?!? Lumpytrout (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

 * As you've noted, the discussions on this talk page are the best source of info about why districts were created as they were. If there are specific improvements to be made please suggest them - anything on a wiki is subject to change given new arguments/information.  Unfortunately I know little or nothing of Seattle so I can't be of much help in discussing proposed changes, so hopefully those with more local knowledge can contribute. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

At the very least I would suggest breaking out Georgetown from SODO, they are distinctly different neighborhoods with vastly different reasons why tourists would want to visit (one sports oriented the other is up and coming arts district). South Park is also the Red Headed Stepchild of West Seattle with its own vibe and separated from WS geographically (many West Seattleites have not even been there). If I HAD TO group neighborhoods together I would say that Georgetown and South Park would make a much better match than where they are now. --Lumpytrout (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

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 Wikivoyagers had any input, ideas, or gripes about this idea.

-- (WT-en) Matiasp 21:53, 2 May 2004 (EDT)

 * Hi, Matias! Yes, Wikivoyage is more for travellers than for residents. Where a Wikivoyage article might have 20 restaurants for Seattle, a real city guide would have all the restaurants.

 * One good group that's doing city guides is http://openguides.org/. They've got good software and are probably more what you're looking for. See Cooperating with OpenGuides for Wikivoyage's relationship with OG. Good luck -- sounds like a good project! --(WT-en) Evan 01:01, 4 May 2004 (EDT)

 * Matias - Hi, Earle here, one of the OpenGuides team. Evan's right, that does sound exactly like what we're aiming for! Drop us a line at openguides-dev@openguides.org and we can talk. --(WT-en) Earle 09:54, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the replies Evan and Earle. Earle, I'll take a look at OpenGuides and email you guys about it soon. -- (WT-en) Matiasp 00:54, 8 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? -- (WT-en) DougEngland 03:07, 1 Jun 2004 (PDT)

 * Check out Talk:Seattle/Districts. That's where we've started laying out how to do the districts.

 * Yes, the district articles will be small at first. Hopefully we can fill them with a little more info. Bit by bit, that's the WikiWiki way. --(WT-en) Evan 10:19, 1 Jun 2004 (EDT)

 * I'm fine with adding content bit by bit, and with splitting out districts when there really is enough content, but let's keep it usable UNTIL it really is too big for one article. It's useless to split out fewer than three good sized district articles.  More in Talk:Seattle/Districts. -- (WT-en) DougEngland 00:17, 3 Jun 2004 (PST)

-

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? -- (WT-en) DougEngland 20:09 3 Jun 2004 (PST)

 * I think it should stay in "Get out" for two reasons: A ferry trip isn't really a "Do" activity like biking or the other boating items, and day trips outside of the region belong in the "Get out" section. -- (WT-en) Paul Richter 03:49, 4 Jun 2004 (EDT)

Even as a resident I still find the information presented to travelers still useful to residents such as restaurants, attractions and bars that locals may not necessarily know obout. Even with the "get in" and "get out" parts would be useful to locals who is used to driving and seeking an alternative mode of transportation for a weekend trip out of town. How will your separate Wiki be different then what's already there? Anyone150 (talk) 04:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

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.

 * Thank you for improving the article -- you are always welcome to Plunge forward like that. That's what the edit button is for, after all. -- (WT-en) Colin 17:19, 2 Jan 2006 (EST)

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. (WT-en) Tzepish 18:23, 3 March 2006 (EST)

 * OK, in 3 months, Seattleites have gone from being maniacal drivers to being overcautious ones .  Which is it? — (WT-en) Ravikiran 12:50, 13 May 2006 (EDT)

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.

Hotels
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)

Campus Size?
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"
''Wikivoyage 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. --(WT-en) Evan 01:05, 11 December 2006 (EST)

Express coaches
As Wikivoyage 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. (WT-en) Motterj 10:18 05 Feb 2007 (PST)

Cascade Loop
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. --(WT-en) Evan 15:43, 26 February 2007 (EST)

 * Probably the smart thing to do is to make a Cascade Loop itinerary. --(WT-en) Evan 15:44, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Green Lake
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 Wikivoyage.

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 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. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 20:27, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

 * I guess I was mistaken; I can edit the article after all. Starting the move. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 20:49, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

 * All done! (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 23:45, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Already in "See"
These already existed in the Seattle article itself, or in one of the district articles.
 * Chittenden Locks and Ship Canal
 * IMAX Dome
 * Museum of Flight
 * Paramount Theatre
 * Pike Place Market
 * Safeco Field
 * Seattle Art Museum
 * Seattle Center
 * Seattle Monorail
 * Underground Tour
 * University of Washington
 * Washington Park Arboretum
 * Washington State Ferries
 * Woodland Park Zoo

Added to "See"
These were added to various district articles, or to the main Seattle article if appropriate.
 * Bay Pavillion
 * Benaroya Hall
 * 5th Avenue Theatre
 * Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park
 * Museum of History and Industry
 * Nordic Heritage Museum
 * Northwest Seaport/Maritime Heritage Center
 * Odyssey Maritime Marine Center
 * Qwest Field
 * Seattle Aquarium
 * Seattle Pacific University
 * Seattle University
 * Washington Convention and Trade Center

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.) (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 01:08, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

 * I think it's about time to reopen that discussion... There are 16 areas on this map, why don't we go with those 16 areas rather than the 34+ districts mentioned (not all of which have pages, or are even linked for that matter). I shall scout around and try and point a few Wikivoyagers who have lived here to this discussion. -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 10:03, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

 * Definitely time. I've started a new proposal at Talk:Seattle/Districts, so if anyone is still reading this page, please join in!  - (WT-en) Dguillaime 15:41, 4 May 2009 (EDT)

 * I have corrected contact info., trimmed the descriptions, and "districtified" ALL listings for Eat, Drink and Sleep. I'm very happy to see Seattle looking much better now--the city is beautiful but the site was not so. I have deleted the 9 or so restaurants listed and then district links following because this may be one of the reasons so many site visitors just simply added their favorite restaurant (or place of work) to the site, rather than in the district. I know some people may not think this is a good idea, but again, the idea is to give a general idea about the food/drink/hotel offerings and then get people to the district pages. I have have left some seemingly dry comments about the Drink section, and only added a bit more creative lang. I'd really like to see someone with more area experience give some more insight into the coffee and microbrew culture popular to the city. Also, for the Eat section, I decided to delete the 9 restaurants listed (even though they were just the names, and all the specific info. in the districts where it should be) because it's pretty hard to choose 9 standout restaurants in a huge city article. I looked to other huge cities as my inspiration for this. Again, I know there might be some standouts, but I think it's fair to say this info. can be easily viewed on the district page (and this will also hopefully discourage listings on the main article instead of the district). Shine your emerald green, Seattle!(WT-en) Zepppep 21:58, 20 November 2009 (EST)

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...

Thanks!

Anna —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 64.122.106.154 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 2008 March 18
 * Anna, welcome to WikiTravel! I'm glad to have your contributions.  I don't have strong feelings about where to draw the boundaries of Seattle districts, so I'll leave that debate to you and others who know the city well.  To answer the question of your section heading, "To have districts or not": Yes, we should have districts.  Anna, be aware that it's not just a question of what this page says; there should be an article for each district, so you need to think about those articles too.  When you renamed the link "Seattle/Greenlake" to "Seattle/Green Lake", that broke the link to the district article.  If the group decides to rename a district, rename the district article too.  If the group decides to move the boundaries of a district, move the listings in the district article to other articles as appropriate. Finally, Anna, I recommend that you create a user account, because it will give your contributions more credibility. Also, read "Project:Tips for new contributors" if you haven't already.  Again, welcome to Wikivoyage! (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 18:05, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Stay safe
Are the U district and Seattle Center really best avoided at night? That sounds untrue and overkill to me. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 75.50.116.180 (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.
 * The Central District does not extend to the Lake.
 * Neither does Capitol Hill.
 * Northgate, Maple Leaf, and Lake City are all east of I-5; your map makes it look like they extend from Sound to Lake.
 * Fremont, Phinney, Wallingford, Green Lake -- yes, but it's confusing to someone who knows nothing about Seattle which label relates to which part of the block.
 * Cascade doesn't extend that far north. You're missing out Eastlake.
 * I'd change Rainier-Seward Park to two separate entries, Rainier Valley and Seward Park.

Good start though.

Thanks, --71.197.235.42 01:55, 23 June 2008 (EDT) (Lukobe on Wikipedia)

 * All too true. Rearranging the districts is a difficult issue (there are just so many tiny little neighborhoods), but the spelling was bugging me every time I saw "Capital Hill", so I've uploaded a slightly revised map with those fixes only.  - (WT-en) Dguillaime 23:14, 6 January 2009 (EST)

Shared Route bus taken out of article and saved here
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. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 03:26, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Shared Route, . Biodiesel bus runs between Seattle and Portland, with a stop in Olympia. One way fare between Seattle and Portland is $30, round-trip is $50. One-way from Olympia just $10. Currently not operating.

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 comment was added by (WT-en) 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. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 18:24, 8 December 2008 (EST).

confusing
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. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 18:53, 8 December 2008 (EST).

Districts II
(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 traps destinations around the Space Needle). For a visitor without preexisting knowledge of Seattle's numerous neighborhoods, I suspect it's well on its way to being totally unusable outside of downtown. It's also presenting an obstacle to moving hotels and restaurants out of the top-level Seattle article.

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.

Proposal:
 * North. Everything north of the Ship Canal, merging some or all of the existing articles Ballard, Crown Hill, Fremont, Greenlake, Greenwood, Lake City, Laurelhurst, Northgate, Phinney Ridge, Ravenna, University District, Wallingford, and Wedgwood.  Though a large area, it's mostly residential or uninteresting commercial - aside from some restaurants and maybe Carkeek Park, I can't think of anything touristy north of 85th St.  There are some articles that could be worth splitting off as subdistricts - the U-District is highlighted on the map as one possibility, Ballard is another, and maybe a merged Fremont-Wallingford as a third.  None of the others are there yet, nor are they likely to.  Obviously, this would be the biggest task, but it's also the area most in need of cleanup.

 * Magnolia - Queen Anne - South Lake Union. Bounded by the Ship Canal, I-5, and Denny Way.  Could definitely use a snappier name!  (I wasn't sure about "Northwest", because the northwest portion of the street grid is elsewhere.)  Merges existing articles Eastlake, Queen Anne Hill and South Lake Union, and incorporates some areas not currently covered - Magnolia, Seattle Center, Lower Queen Anne.

 * East, or Capitol Hill-Central District after its most important neighborhoods. Bounded by I-5 to the west, I-90 to the south.  Incorporates Capitol Hill, Central District, First Hill, Madrona, Madison Valley and Montlake.

 * Downtown - Belltown. Bounded by Denny Way, I-5, Yesler Way, and the waterfront.  Takes the existing Downtown article and expands it to include Belltown.  The article already has various Belltown bars under Drink, so this requires little more than formalizing the area covered.
 * Pioneer Square - International District - SoDo. Bounded by Yesler to the north, the stadiums to the south (say, to Holgate St.).  Merges International District and Pioneer Square.  Looks like enough material to keep it separate from Downtown.

 * South. Everything south of I-90, east of the Duwamish River.  Expands the existing Rainier Valley article.  Not much material for this area yet.  (Not sure whether to put Georgetown here, or merge it into the previous article instead.)

 * West. West Seattle, no changes.

— (WT-en) Dguillaime 15:41, 4 May 2009 (EDT) / updates 26 July 2009

 * I don't know anything about Seattle, but it seems reasonable, and something definitively has to be done about the current mess. Along with London (54 districts), Tokyo (38 Districts) and New York (24 districts). As much as I adore our Chicago guide, I think having it as a star, has created a dangerous precedent for other large cities to follow. The number of contributions to the above cities, are frighteningly few, and I suspect that it can only be attributed to the complexity of figuring out where to put stuff, since few other cities takes in as many visitors as those 3! --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 17:47, 26 July 2009 (EDT)

I would probably break it down similar to this;

 * Ballard/Greenlake. (incorporating Magnolia, Phinney Ridge, Crown Hill & Greenwood)

 * U-District.(incorporating Ravenna, Fremont, Wallingford & Montlake)

 * Queen Anne.(incorporating Lower Queen Anne, Seattle Center & South Lake Union)

 * Capitol Hill.(incorporating Madison Valley, Madrona & Leschi)

 * Downtown.(incorporating Belltown)

 * Rainier Valley/Central District.

 * International District/Pioneer Square,

 * West Seattle.

 * Sodo/Georgetown.

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.(WT-en) Calibanxx27 23:53, 26 July 2009 (EDT)

 * Hmm. I'm not sure about extending single articles across the Ship Canal.  It's one of the few absolute geographic boundaries the city has for neighborhoods.   - (WT-en) Dguillaime 00:27, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

 * ...and would you please not make major changes, like throwing all of Montlake into the U-District (?!), while discussion is underway? I'm also not sure merging Rainier Valley and the CD is a sensible choice, since they're almost entirely separated by I-90 (as well as several additional neighborhoods), while the CD's border with Capitol Hill is much more fluid. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 02:00, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

 * I-90 poses no barrier to the CD and Rainier Valley and they are more akin to each other than is Capitol Hill and the CD, despite proximity to each other. I would put Montlake with the U District because of its relationship to Husky Stadium.  The inhabitants of this neighborhood identify more with the University than they do with Capitol Hill.  (WT-en) Calibanxx27 19:38, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

 * An article called Belltown and the Seattle Center has now appeared — I don't see discussion for it above, nor is that a good article name. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 19:15, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

 * Okay, the Heading for Belltown and the Seattle Center was here before I was. I just thought that nobody got around to writing the page; there are several Districts that have nothing written for them, I just thought it was one of them.  I totally agree that Belltown and Seattle Center should not be linked together.(WT-en) Calibanxx27

 * For districting, clear geographic relationships and associated transportation are more interesting than most other considerations. No small number of Montlake residents may work at the UW, but for out-of-town visitors that are not familiar with Seattle's layout, that's of minimal relevance.  - (WT-en) Dguillaime 20:14, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

 * Where are you guys going to put Seattle Center? I have a lot of ideas for an article, but apparently the listing I made a link to is inaccurate, so I have no place to write it. It seems a shame that such a big destination for tourists isn't represented. I don't really care if Montlake were in the U-district or in Capitol Hill, but putting the CD there would be a mistake.  Even a tourist would know that they were in a different neighborhood. (WT-en) Calibanxx27 17:47, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

 * Well, deciding where to put it is part of the discussion. :)  (I'm in favor of attaching it to Queen Anne).  As for the CD, the fact that it's a different neighborhood is entirely fine -- splitting up articles by distinct neighborhood is what got the article into its current mess to begin with, because there are just far too many of them.  Larger districts necessarily include multiple neighborhoods, if they're to be kept to a workable and maintainable size.  That's why I suggest drawing one line in the vicinity of I-90 -- the whole Capitol Hill/CD/First Hill/Madison Park/etc. area is nicely contiguous and reasonably sized, and shares similar transportation options, despite each subset of it having internal differences; similarly, though Mt. Baker/Rainier Valley/Columbia City/Holly Park/etc. have their own distinctions, they also cover a reasonable total area, but one that has some commonalities we can take advantage of (light rail and Rainier Ave. in Get In/Get Around, only a few useful I-5 exits, that sort of thing).

 * The boundaries we choose are arbitrary. I'd rather use ones that are clear to people who have never been to Seattle, but can read a map.   - (WT-en) Dguillaime 14:47, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

 * I should add that I like your idea to separate SoDo/Georgetown as an article (and thanks for adding that content); also, the more I look at it, I wonder if it's not a bad plan to condense all of North Seattle into one article with no subdistricts. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 18:05, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

 * I think that your plan makes sense. I, too, feel that Queen Anne/Seattle Center is the way to go. In the long run, it probably doesn't matter where The CD is placed, since there aren't a whole lot of tourist destinations there anyways and of course, Mt. Baker/Rainier Valley/Columbia City/Holly Park makes prefect sense. too.(WT-en) Calibanxx27 18:42, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

 * Let's proceed on that, then. Regarding Seattle Center, I've renamed the Queen Anne Hill article to the somewhat more inclusive Seattle/Queen Anne-South Lake Union, which covers the major neighborhood names.  (Sorry, Interbay, you're not interesting enough to get into the title.)  I personally won't have time to work on the text much today, but we can start moving listings into there bit by bit.   - (WT-en) Dguillaime 14:48, 3 August 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 - later we can make sure they match the map, once there is a new map. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 14:11, 7 August 2009 (EDT)
 * Nice new district map courtesy of (WT-en) PerryPlanet, thanks much! -- (WT-en) D. Guillaime 15:24, 14 March 2010 (EDT)
 * No sweat! :) (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 19:09, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

 * Thanks for cleaning up the Queen Anne and Seattle Center sections. Much nicer now!
 * (WT-en) Calibanxx27 13:16, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

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. -- (WT-en) D. Guillaime 00:21, 2 March 2010 (EST)

 * I'm wondering if this layout could use just a little more merging. North and South Seattle both feel rather woefully lacking of content, probably due to the general lack of attractions in either of these areas. I'm thinking maybe North could be merged with Ballard (it seems the only major attraction there is the locks) and South could be merged with SoDo-Georgetown, as in D. Guillaime's original proposal. But it'd be nice if someone who actually knows this town offers their advice. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 15:33, 4 July 2010 (EDT)

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 76.104.160.27 (talk • contribs)

 * I don't like those subsection headers much at all -- you can drive to Rainier, but the point of that isn't the drive itself! Maybe break it down into more geographically-oriented units — Puget Sound (which would pick up everywhere with a shoreline and a ferry), Mountains and Parks (Mt. Rainier, Mt. St. Helens, skiing), Other Towns and Cities (Vancouver, Portland, North Bend, etc.)?   -- (WT-en) D. Guillaime 23:56, 7 February 2010 (EST)

District status
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. (WT-en) Eco84 11:31, 28 August 2010 (EDT)

 * Some of those will be easy to promote (Fremont can go straight to Guide in about ten minutes), but South is going to be the tricky one. — (WT-en) D. Guillaime 16:41, 28 August 2010 (EDT)

crime/ stay safe
The crime section seems pretty glossy and certainly not based on facts or statistics. I'm thinking of editing to something more like this

According to the most recently FBI crime statistics in 2011 Seattle had 592.7 violent crimes per population of 100,000 ranking it near NY City (623.6) and Los Angeles (522.4) with the vast majority of violent crimes happening within 2 miles of the populous downtown core making neighborhoods such as Capitol Hill, Belltown, Lower Queen Anne and First Hill statistically more dangerous than other neighborhoods. There is some concern in the residential North Seattle districts with a few notable hotspots around Aurora Avenue and Lake City Way at night and areas around the University District which has some of the highest property crime rates in the city. Some South Seattle and Central District neighborhoods have had a history of gang and drug related violence; while violence related to the two still occur, it's not as frequent as portrayed and many of these neighborhoods are statistically safer than neighborhoods north of the ship canal. Common sense and smart thinking should be used in any neighborhood you are unfamiliar with, especially if traveling by foot or alone.

I'm basing this on the wikipedia article, which just quotes FBI data http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

and SPD crime statistics map http://web6.seattle.gov/mnm/statistics.aspx?tabId=3

Lumpytrout (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 * I note that your first link mentions that "The FBI web site recommends against using its data for ranking", and the second "Many factors influence crime density. These maps should not be used to determine the general level of safety in a neighborhood", both of which make your first proposed sentence very dubious. I'd also dispute the "vast majority" - certainly there's a concentration where there's an equivalent concentration of people, but (as an example) the full west and east precincts combined, from Magnolia to Leschi, are well under half the city's total for violent crime in every reported month of 2013 .  The last line is obvious enough that it has no specific applicability.  -- D. Guillaume (talk) 04:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If we don't base crime decisions on facts then what do we base them on? The current statement seems to be based random anecdotal accounts tinged with classist and racist assumptions, surely we can do better than that? I read through a few other cities crime data after writing the above statement and realized that pretty much every city has high crime rates around their cores generally based on density, so let me think about how to rephrase that. I agree that the last line is obvious and should be deleted, I just copied that over from the current article.  How about this?

According to the most recently FBI crime statistics in 2011 Seattle had 592.7 violent crimes per population of 100,000 ranking it near NY City (623.6) and Los Angeles (522.4) with the majority of crimes unsurprisingly happening in the more densely populated areas. There are a few notable hotspots in north Seattle around Aurora Avenue and Lake City Way at night and areas around the University District which has some of the highest property crime rates in the city. Some South Seattle and Central District neighborhoods have had a history of gang and drug related violence; while violence related to the two still occur, it's not as frequent as portrayed and many of these neighborhoods are statistically safer than neighborhoods north of the ship canal. Lumpytrout (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

 * I don't think the numeric statistics make for very interesting reading, and the comparisons to LA and NYC are probably a little misleading - they may have comparable crime rates relative to their overall populations, but those populations are ten or more times larger than Seattle, and they've got the same concentration effect going on except much more so. I can't think of anywhere in Seattle that comes close to the really bad neighborhoods of those other two.  Maybe some comparisons, without numbers, to cities of similar size?  Comparison to Portland and Vancouver (BC) might make sense, but I don't know where you'd find the corresponding info for Vancouver.  Portland is comparable on violent crime (somewhat better) but has about a third fewer robberies.

 * The hotspots seem sensible enough, though I'd emphasize muggings over burglary, rather than property crime in general (I know that the U-District is bad for both, and I guess it's correlated throughout, but visitors aren't going to need to worry as much about house burglaries). South's crime rate overall has dropped an awful lot, maybe we don't even need to mention it as a whole any more?  I would still add Rainier Beach into the hotspot list, it still shows up distinctly on the map for assaults and robberies.

 * I'm surprised to see that the auto theft rate is down so much from where it used to be! At least that doesn't need a specific mention.  I would like to keep in the section about specifically sketchy areas downtown, as that's probably where many tourists will spend most of their time, although the bit about Second between Pike/Pine may no longer be relevant.  I can think of far less welcoming blocks in the area.  I'd also like to add that the U-District is especially notorious for smartphone thefts on the street - the UWPD blotter is just full of them.

 * Please don't think I'm being negative; I fully agree with you that the section as written is misleading. The existing claim that "Seattle is generally safer than other large cities" is definitely unsupported and needs to go.  -- D. Guillaume (talk) 06:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

 * yea, those are all good points. Let me dig at the data a little and see if I can come up with some better comparisons. Lumpytrout (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Okay, how about this?

According to the most recently FBI crime statistics in 2011 Seattle had 592.7 violent crimes per population of 100,000 ranking it near Denver Colorado (607.3) and San Francisco California (659.6) with the majority of crimes unsurprisingly happening in the more densely populated areas. There are a few notable hotspots in north Seattle around Aurora Avenue and Lake City Way at night and areas around the University District which has some of the highest property crime rates in the city. Some South Seattle and Central District neighborhoods have had a history of gang and drug related violence; while violence related to the two still occur, it's not as frequent as portrayed and many of these neighborhoods are statistically safer than neighborhoods north of the ship canal however the south east Rainier Valley still has a higher rate than most of the city. Don't leave valuables in parked cars or at least keep them well hidden if necessary and be wary of the rising trend of smart phone theft.

The wording on this is awkward, but I think it gets the point across? Tourists are probably most likely to get their car broken into than any other crime so I think we need to need to keep in data about property crimes. Lumpytrout (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

 * I'm a bit unsure about this edit comment "Revision as of 10:35, 11 August 2014 - Othello95 (→Places to Watch Your Back: User K7L, i have fixed your grammar for your contribution)". The user appears to be making good contributions to the article, but a change to factual claims really shouldn't be labelled as "fixed grammar" as it's nothing of the sort. K7L (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the previous wording was much clearer. Powers (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've reworded a bit. The entire last paragraph of Motel seems to be about this one area but might be more than we need. K7L (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Streets vs. avenues
These two statements in the article are contradictory:
 * "On the map, vertical roads (roughly North-South) are Streets, horizontal roads (roughly East-West) are Avenues"
 * "One way to remember avenues: University Way NE, the main street through the city's University District (neighborhood) is called "The Ave" by the locals, and all avenues run north-south."

Which is it? K7L (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Hi, user. Good catch. Thank you. It is my fault. The second one is correct Othello95 (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC).

DotM?
Seattle is a nice city. I'm a little surprised it's districted, as it's not that big a city (but then I'm a New Yorker), and that the districts are in good enough shape for it to be a Guide - good work, everyone! So maybe it's time to nominate it for a front-page feature. Do you think so? If not, what more work is needed beforehand? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Ikan: I'll take a more in-depth look at this article later, but one thing that strikes me from skimming it briefly is that the article will need a good deal of copyediting. Perhaps the principal author speaks English as a second language or perhaps it's some other issue, but either way there are some really weird and off-putting turns of phrase in the prose (i.e. in Seattle: "If you want it cheap without the cost of taste, look for small, hole-in-the-wall establishments, especially the one that has people lining up"). Also, text bolding is employed in some pretty unorthodox and, again, off-putting ways (i.e. Seattle). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Radio and TV stations
Discussion moved to Wikivoyage_talk:Listings. Ground Zero (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Entertainment
I added some information about the 5th Avenue Theater, Benaroya Hall, and McCaw Hall to the Entertainment subsection of the Do section, but then I realized it probably belongs in the Downtown and Queen Anne district articles instead. Would it be appropriate to put links from Seattle/Do/Entertainment section to the District articles? It seems like travellers could be interested in these forms of entertainment, but not know exactly which district to look in. I expect to add some more information about a few venues in Pioneer Square and Capitol Hill (which are not even yet listed at all in Wikivoyage), as well.

Yumenotsuyoshi (talk) 01:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

 * Sure, you can summarize here with links to the "Do" sections of the relevant district articles. Welcome to Wikivoyage, and thanks for jumping right in and improving things! I'll post an official welcome message to your user talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Seattle


text:
Talk:Seattle/Ballard

I'm in the process of adding content to this page. I'm a new Wikipedia/Wikivoyage contributor, so please bear with me. -motterj

"the freshwater Lake Union and the salt-water Lake Washington" -- I don't know about Lake Union, but I'm pretty sure Lake Washington is freshwater. 24.22.150.5John

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Seattle/Ballard


text: Talk:Seattle/Capitol Hill-Central District


text:
Talk:Seattle/Districts

Districts
Seattle has little formal breakdown into districts, but it is very much a city of neighborhoods. Most Seattlites will refer to locations in the city by neighborhood. Here are some that are likely to crop up:

 * Downtown neighborhoods, roughly from south to north along Elliott Bay
 * Sodo
 * Pioneer Square and, to the east:
 * the International District (a.k.a. the I.D., Chinatown)
 * Little Saigon
 * Downtown proper, including Financial District and Pike Place Market
 * Belltown and, to the east:
 * the Denny Regrade
 * Seattle Center (fairground, etc.) and Lower Queen Anne and, to the east:
 * South Lake Union/Cascade
 * The next circle, again roughly south to north
 * Beacon Hill
 * First Hill
 * Capitol Hill
 * Eastlake
 * Queen Anne Hill
 * Other well-known neighborhoods south of the Ship Canal
 * West Seattle, almost a town in its own right, across the Bay
 * Columbia City, southeast in the Rainier Valley
 * Leschi, Madrona, and the Central District (east of First Hill and Capitol Hill)
 * Well-known neighborhoods north of the Ship Canal, west to east
 * Ballard
 * Fremont
 * Wallingford
 * Green Lake (north of Fremont and Wallingford)
 * University District (a.k.a the U. District)

So which of these areas/hoods should be actual articles? IMHO it seems to work best when everything starts on one page until it outgrows the size of one article. Now what's the max size of an article should be is another bucket of worms... As second idea, stick to the second level only, so:

 * Seattle/Downtown
 * Seattle/ -- what would you call the "The next circle, again roughly south to north" ?
 * Seattle/South
 * Seattle/North

 * Just a thought, I like how Philadelphia deals with the city areas, even though there isn't any content in them... (WT-en) Majnoona

 * Gah! You're killing me. Philadelphia needs a total reworking -- completely not MoS. --(WT-en) Evan 01:36, 3 Jan 2004 (EST)

 * Well I like it more than New York (city)/Brooklyn. Anyway, plenty to discuss I guess... that's kinda why I moved the list here. I'll try and pick up the more general issue under Project:Manual of style.(WT-en) Majnoona

Now that the article is bursting at the seams with listings, it's time to break it out into districts. I think the scheme above is pretty good, other than the "next circle" grouping. Although Seattle is merely a big city, not a huge one, it definitely needs to have district articles, and each of those listed above should be. -- (WT-en) Paul Richter 18:31, 29 May 2004 (EDT)

I agree. I think a "huge city article" is more a huge article about a city than an article about a huge city. If we have lots of info on a city, and there's enough info for districts to carry their own articles, then it's a good idea. --(WT-en) Evan 18:40, 29 May 2004 (EDT)

OK, I disagree (and I posted in Talk:Seattle). So far, there's just Capitol Hill broken out and it's really the only district that has enough listings to break out. The main article is around 5,000 words even with Capitol Hill included. Maybe if someone wrote a real Fremont and real U District article I would agree. If I want to go out to a restaurant, yes, I might like to know what's local to me, but I'd really rather be able to quickly scan all the listings for the city than have to navigate into and out of a bunch of nonexistent/stub articles. --(WT-en) DougEngland 3:17, 1 Jun 2004 (PDT)

I'm responding here to the posting in Talk:Seattle which doesn't really address my point. If we had enough listings in separate districts to come up with, say, three separate district articles with content, then maybe it would be worthwhile to follow this loose plan for splitting the article into district articles. However, I think the current split does not improve things; it merely makes the article harder to use to find a good place to eat or drink by hiding the Capitol Hill establishments. I propose that we leave it integrated UNTIL we have plenty of listings in different districts (added bit by bit is fine) to break out worthwhile district articles. It's not like you're stuck in one district when you're looking for food, and it's easier to scan through listings in one page (or printout) than to click through a bunch of pages (or miss printing them out). --(WT-en) DougEngland 00:12am, 3 Jun 2004 (PDT)

 * I broke out the districts because I thought the article was getting too big and cluttered with all those listings, which were almost all Capitol Hill. Incidentally, I am planning to fill out the Fremont and I.D. articles and move those listings there. But, I don't see any problem with copying the listings back to the main article for a while if that makes things easier. -- (WT-en) Paul Richter 04:30, 3 Jun 2004 (EDT)

Also, I should mention that I have rarely heard anyone use "SoDo," especially since the Dome was demolished. It's also not on the Seattle City Clerk's list of neighborhoods. Maybe I'll just go put links to that list, plus better neighborhood maps, in the main article. --(WT-en) DougEngland 00:24am, 3 Jun 2004 (PDT)

Districts II
Moved back over to the main talk page. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 01:27, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Seattle/Districts


text:
Talk:Seattle/Downtown

Safeco Field
content from Safeco field moved to here, for consideration for merger with existing content

Best seats - The best seats are in the Diamond Club. The Diamond club includes the first few rows directly behind home plate as well as a large club area under the seats. A Diamond Club ticket includes an all you can eat buffet and any concessions you desier, delivered to your seat. While Diamond Club seats are sold only on a season ticket basis individual game tickets can often be purchased from the owners of those seats as well as directly from the Mariners ticket office. The Mariners have a liberal season ticket exchange policy which often results in great individual seats being made available.

Charter seats - Charter seats are likewise only available on a season ticket basis and after paying a "licensing fee." The first few rows of the lower bowl are all charter seats.

Terrace Club - Terrace Club seats are contreversial among Mariners regulars. The seats include access to a pair of lounge areas, private concession areas and restrooms. However, the club fee makes Terrace Club seats more expensive than all but the Charter and Diamond Club seats. You can sit much closer to the action for less money. Terrace Club fans consider the extra ammenities, larger, padded seats and wait service worth the price. They would also argue the elevated location on the press box level gives a better view of the game than the box seat location.

Bargain Seats - If you're looking for a bargain, the lower outfield seats offer an excellent vantage point. Right field seats offer the best opportunity to enjoy watching a game while sitting in the sun. Sunglasses and a cap will be required to see the action on a bright day. The View Box seats, in the upper deck also offer great value. Seats in the upper and outer parts of the 300 level are not worth their inexpensive price unless you can't get better for a sellout. The same can be said for the center field seats below the scoreboard. If you really want to go cheap buy a center field seat and walk around he ballpark as the game progresses enjoying the many excellent vantage points offered in standing room areas.

Program and Scorecard - If you want a program and/or scorecard you have two choices, the Mariners magazine and the Grand Salamie.

Mariners Magazineis a publication available throughout the ballpark. As it's produced by the Mariners it is simply a high prices, glossy propaganda tool. If you want a souvenier go ahead and get one but don't expect to be informed by anything you can read. They sell a scorecard also. The nice feature is up to date rosters for both teams. Unfortunately the scorecard itself is just a bunch of rectangles.

Grand Salamie is an independent publication where you'll get honest analysis of the Mariners and all teams playing at Safeco during the month. The Grand Salamie also comes with the best scorecard you can buy at a Major League game. Be aware you'll have to purchase the program from a vendor outside of the stadium. Thankfully Safeco has a liberal re-entry policy. Just make sure you have your ticket when you walk out.

Food - Food and drink in the park is among the best, in terms of quality and choice, in Major League baseball. Prices are typically high. Outside the park you'll find many better options.

F. X. McRory'sLocated just north of Qwest Field, McRory's was the place to hang before and after games when the Mariners played at the Kingdome. It has a large bar and excellent food, sort of Irish steakhouse style. With the move south to Safeco Field McRory's has taken second place to the Pyramid Ale House.

Pyramid Ale HouseThe Ale House is located right across 1st Ave from Safeco Field. It's essentially a very large northwest style brew pub. However, if you want to have dinner arrive a couple of hours before game time. If you're not there early expect to have a long wait and likely miss the first pitch. Alternatively you can enjoy beer, sausages and live music in their beer garden.

Jimmi's on FirstJimmi's opened in 2007. It features an upscale dining ambiance. However,unlike the Ale House you can get a seat in the bar without arriving hours early. Stick to the beer, drinks are mediocre and prices are steep.

VendorsIf you want to eat on the cheap bring your food. Safeco will allow food into the park but not drinks, of any kind. There are numberous vendors on the steats that sell dogs, candy, even pizza, all of which you can take into Safeco.

Scalpers - Those guys you see with the "I need tickets" signs are not usually buying, except at a steep discount from face value. They're selling. Good seats are available when the Mariners are not playing well. If you're a good negotiator you can get them below face value. Make the scalper make the first offer, don't settle for anything more than 75% of that first offer. If he won't drop his price you can easily find someone who will.

title: Talk:Seattle/Downtown


text:
Talk:Seattle/Fremont

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fremontský troll.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item is missing permission
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item is missing permission information and may be deleted: You can see the details at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Fremont lenin.jpg

 * I don't understand the basis for the accusation, but if we want it here, we have to upload it. It's on the page and much used elsewhere, too. What do you all want to do? I challenged the speedy deletion nomination, thereby possibly buying us some time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

 * It's just an FoP issue. I will upload it shortly. I complained strenuously about the effort at speedy deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

 * I'm confused; the file that's on the article seems to be another file. Which one do we want to use? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Fremont lenin.jpg

title: Talk:Seattle/Fremont


text:
Talk:Seattle/Georgetown

Seattle/Georgetown (including Boeing Field and King County Airport)
Uhh... am I missing something, or why is the title so ridiculous? (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:44, 24 July 2009 (EDT)

 * I was going to say something too, but I noticed that the latest districts proposal would eliminate it anyway. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 05:52, 24 July 2009 (EDT)

 * Moved to a more practical title for the interim regardless. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 15:54, 26 July 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Seattle/Georgetown


text:
Talk:Seattle/Pioneer Square

Hello SCott you should come to this place. I live here.

title: Talk:Seattle/Pioneer Square


text:
Talk:Seattle/Pioneer Square-International District

Replace Banner
I noticed Pioneer Square doesn't have a good banner. May I suggest the one below? Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

 * I went ahead and updated. I think we can still do better than the one I created, so please propose if you have candidates. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Seattle/Queen Anne-South Lake Union

Why bother putting Macrina Bakery in the drinks section of this guide, when A) it is a bakery and more properly belongs in food or shopping, and B) when the description explicitly notes that its espresso (a non-primary product, an afterthought, of no significants to the bakery) is inconsistent and goes on to recommend not buying the coffee! Clearly, a bakery that focuses 99.9% on baked goods and offers bad coffee shouldn't be listed under Drinks as a recommended place for coffee. Makes no sense.

—The preceding comment was added by 24.17.101.243 (talk • contribs)

 * If it's mostly a place to eat in, move it to "Eat", and if it's mostly a place to buy baked goods to take home, move it to "Buy". And thanks a lot in advance. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, feel free to plunge forward and move it to the "Eat" section. --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Seattle/Wedgwood

Dance Lessons
I removed the text "Dance lessons for children and adults at All That Dance in the heart of Wedgwood at 35th Avenue Northeast and Northeast 85th Street." because I don't think dance lessons are typically of interest to the traveler. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 21:01, 3 January 2007 (EST)

title: Talk:Seattle/Wedgwood


text:
Talk:Seberang Takir

I do not think this is an article. Does anyone know Terengganu well enough to make a can you sleep there judgement? I have been to Kuala Terengganu once years ago and vaguely remember Seberang Takir as a small village near the airport. A redirect to to Kuala Terengganu amd moving the information there would seem in order. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 12:15, 6 November 2009 (EST)
 * You may be right, but I'd really like to see this article edited for clearer information, in any case, even if it become just a section of the Kuala Terengganu guide. I certainly doubt that there's enough in Seberang Takir for this to ever become a guide article, featurable on the front page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Seberang Takir


text:
Talk:Sedona

Political climate edits
An anonymous editor has been adding (and re-adding) the following text:

 * "Although the political climate is noticeably leftist, Sedona lacks the haughty elitism of many other ultra-liberal areas such as San Francisco or Berkeley. It's a very friendly place that welcomes all visitors and a great place to experience "new age," left-wing counterculture Americana alongside the spectacular scenery."

I don't think this adds much of value to the article, and the digs at San Francisco and Berkeley are unnecessary. Project:Be fair states that in cases of disagreement over editorial content that politics should be left out of articles unless it is absolutely necessary, and in this case the above does not seem like it is absolutely necessary to include in this article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 18:00, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

 * I concur. I was hoping my edit would be more acceptable to both sides, but even that was reverted.  I support reverting the text entirely until some more discussion can occur.  (WT-en) LtPowers 21:11, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

Banner image
The current banner image has a nice composition, but the rocks are shrouded in fog and clouds. Not exactly the prototypical Sedona scene. I've found a couple of alternatives; please weigh in.

-- Powers (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the two you made have the best colors. Not sure which of the two I like better though. Maybe #4. Texugo (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Personally I prefer the first banner – I find the last three to be not sharp enough and poorly exposed. And actually it does snow every winter in Sedona, just as it does in the Grand Canyon. I know many photographers who would jump at the chance to photograph Sedona in the snow. :) –StellarD (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Well, one, it's not at all clear that that's snow (I didn't realize until you pointed it out). Two, snow or not, the low clouds still get in the way of the rock formations.  And three, when we have a destination where the iconic red rocks are the main attraction and the most recognizable symbol of the destination, I think we have a responsibility to display them in the best light possible -- not just for aesthetic purposes, but for recognizability.  I think the ideal is a banner image that causes the reader to immediately say "Oh, that place!"  Powers (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

 * When it comes to well-known destinations, I think the ideal banner is one which causes the reader to say "oh, I thought I knew that place but this is another side which is less familiar to me, I would like to go back". Ideally the best banners of such places will avoid cliché, yet still portray the essence of a place.

 * Regarding the current banner, it is perfectly recognizable to me as Sedona. The rock formations are still visible, and the snow highlights the dramatic color of the rocks. I do understand that some people prefer bright sunny skies; however I think the three alternative proposed banners are still poor candidates, because they are poorly-exposed, unsharp photographs. Do you want to replace a high-quality banner with a low-quality substitute, simply because it has sunny skies?
 * –StellarD (talk) 04:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, but the current banner does not look particularly sharp or well-exposed to me, no more or less so than the other three options. The fourth option is a little unsharp, but only at its full resolution; desample it down to 2100px or so and you'd never notice.  Powers (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

 * The foreground of the fourth option is underexposed on the left, and the sky and background are overexposed. I guess then we simply do not agree on what defines a good photograph, or a good banner. –StellarD (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Just looking at each of these banners as photographs, without considering anything else, with the first two scaled 60%, the third, 16%, and the fourth, 29%, I think I slightly prefer the 4th to the 1st, and I don't like the other two nearly as much as compositions. I do agree that the first provides a very interesting view, so I don't really understand the urge to replace it. My aesthetic is very much formed by how I look at paintings, and the dark and light areas in the 4th photograph look fine to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

 * FWIW, this is an example of a photo that is properly exposed. The highlights are not washed out, and the shadows are not plugged in.

 * I honestly don't understand why we are splitting hairs discussing some of the finer aspects of photography when there are so many pages that have banners that are truly bad, or have no custom banners at all. I'm now inclined to think that perhaps the banners I've contributed have been a waste of time. Anyway, I'm clearly outnumbered here, and I don't care enough to spend any more time discussing this.

 * –StellarD (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Yeah, that's a very good photo.

 * I agree with you on this: "I honestly don't understand why we are splitting hairs discussing some of the finer aspects of photography when there are so many pages that have banners that are truly bad, or have no custom banners at all." This article has a fine banner that should be left well enough alone. The 4th banner surely can be put into some larger regional article, no? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

 * OK, here's the obvious solution: Sedona is in Northern Arizona, which has no custom pagebanner. Move either the current banner here or banner #4 to that article and call it a day. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

 * But that doesn't address the basic problem, that being that the height of the clouds and grayness of the light quality in the current banner make Sedona look markedly less attractive and interesting than it actually is. If the snow is necessary to keep for interest purposes, #3 has snow cover in it.  StellarD, please don't take this as a personal attack in any way; I'm sure your eye for photography techniques is better than mine.  I had no idea who created the current banner, but I do know that the cloudiness of that picture does not make for an appealing depiction of Sedona.  Powers (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

 * I don't agree with you. It's a good and interesting photograph. You think no pagebanner in Northern Arizona is better than this one? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Northern Arizona should probably have a banner featuring the Grand Canyon and/or the San Francisco Peaks. Sedona is a bit of an outlier in that region due to being the only part of it south of I-40.  Thus, it's not really representative of the region.  Powers (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Do you realize that you've temporarily chased User:StellarD off the site? Is your determination to delete this pagebanner more important to you than that? I think I'll try to drum up more interest in this discussion so that you don't effectively function as a "consensus" of one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

 * I don't have an opinion on changing the current banner, but Ikan is right that replacing the default banner on the Northern Arizona article is the right thing to do and I've plunged forward to do so. As with anything on a wiki, debate over whether that banner should be replaced by a Grand Canyon image should continue, but there is no reason to stick with a default banner when a viable alternative exists. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

 * That sounds reasonable. I can't see something being at the edge of a region as a reason to disqualify it as representative of the region...otherwise we'd have to avoid using Niagara or NYC to represent New York State, Ottawa to represent eastern Ontario, the Avalon Peninsula to represent Newfoundland and Labrador. K7L (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree and also think the old banner fits nicely on Nothern Arisona, if it's removed from Sedona. Especially for regions with super famous landmarks, it's kind of nice to not take the one best known attraction, but showcase that there are other excellent sights too. It's not only about the details of photography, it's also about taste, so we can argue until the end of days. I actually like the first banner a lot, at least equally much as the others, - because indeed it gives me an image of this region I hadn't expected. If you had asked me, I'd have said these US regions are vast, super dry, smoking hot deserts which, quite honestly, I don't like too much :-). Yes the rocks may be less recognizable but they look quite interesting to me in the old banner, a bit mystical, or something. Let's use it somewhere. JuliasTravels (talk) 08:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Frankly, I think the existing banner photo is perfect and see no need to replacing it. It is not a sunny picture, but is dynamic and has a nice composition and quality and simply interesting to look at, even more than the sunny alternatives. I understand when low quality banners should be replaces, but StelarD did great job finding this picture and the alternatives are just personal preferences, not a real improvement, therefore no reason to change, I find. Danapit (talk) 08:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

 * I can't really see anything acutely wrong with StellarD's banner. And if I'd have to pick a favorite out of the four (each of them quite good looking) banners above, that'd be #3. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

 * I agree with what Danapit said. Jjtkk (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

 * It's not as simple as Sedona merely being at the edge of the region; an otherwise geographically compact region was extended, amoeba-like, south along I-17 explicitly to grab Sedona, apparently for its affinity with Flagstaff. But Sedona's geography and scenery is fairly unique and very far from most of what a traveler would see in Northern Arizona.  But that aside, those clouds are ugly.  Clouds are not why people visit Sedona.  Come on.
 * Ikan, I have been very clear that I am not criticizing StellarD personally. I am not sure how it is my fault if StellarD has been driven off the site.  I have not made any personal attacks, and I don't think I've been rude or offensive in any way.  All I have done is criticized this particular image as being not an appealing view of Sedona.  Is that enough to drive someone away from Wikivoyage? Should I have left the site when no one thought my banner for United States of America was any good?  Powers (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

 * She's not gone permanently, but I agree with her that you've been way too focused on this, instead of so many things that are obvious and uncontroversial problems on this site. The time you've spent on this could have been spent on finding pagebanners for articles that lack them, for example. In any case, I don't agree with your appraisal of this photo. Before I had any idea who made the pagebanner, I rated the current one only slightly under the 4th one.

 * I'll admit that I don't personally know Sedona, nor Arizona as a whole (I've only overflown it and changed planes once or twice in Phoenix), but StellarD certainly does, and her opinion deviates from yours, so it's a simple difference of opinion. Meanwhile, your approach is to have Northern Arizona remain pagebannerless until a banner of a sight like the Grand Canyon that's so well-known it's almost a cliche (though an incredibly gorgeous one) can be installed there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Considering Northern Arizona currently has a banner, I'm not sure what the problem is. Given that this is a wiki, and will never be finished, should I simply stop discussing issues once it's clear someone disagrees with me, lest I drive them away from my continued discussion of the topic?  Powers (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

 * It has a banner because the 4th pagebanner here was moved there, but if it had been up to you, that article would still have no pagebanner. You know that, of course. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Where did I say I was against any pagebanner appearing on Northern Arizona? All I said was that I didn't think a view of Sedona was the best option.  Powers (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

After taking a closer look, I'm not buying the claims of superior technical quality for #1. The bottom of the image has been triplicated: the bottom 20 pixels or so repeat twice. The patch of grass in the foreground is out of focus, and the rest of the image isn't particularly sharp at full resolution (the original source image is even worse). I even think there may be some blown highlights in the clouds. In no way am I claiming these are major issues, but they are at least as bad as the criticisms StellarD had of the other images I suggested. Given, then, that the technical issues are a wash, shouldn't we be choosing the image that best represents what people go to Sedona to see? Powers (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Powers, you are right with the problem with the problem at the bottom of the image - easy fix. Danapit (talk) 08:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Come on now. You didn't offer an alternative banner: you were just nixing the idea of moving the current banner here to Northern Arizona. As for the rest, I appraise photos by how they look to me and how my eye can or can't move around them, and we simply appraise them differently. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ikan, you're making it really hard on me. I did not nix the idea.  I did not stand in the way of anyone who wanted to put a banner on Northern Arizona.  I expressed a farking opinion that the banner was not ideal.  Nowhere did I say "having no banner is better than having this one".  Nowhere did I say "Don't put up the banner on Northern Arizona".  All of that you read into my statements, completely unwarranted.  Please read what I wrote again.  You first suggested that putting one banner on this article and the other on Northern AZ would be a good compromise, but I (correctly, I think) pointed out that that doesn't actually address my concern with the quality of the current banner; it just moves the discussion to a different page.  (Note that I did not say "No, don't do it.")  You then asked if I thought having no banner would be better than having this banner; while I didn't expressly say "no, I don't think that", I also didn't say "Yes, I do."  I suggested alternative subjects that would be better suited for the Northern AZ article in my opinion.  How you go from all that to "If it had been up to you, that article would still have no pagebanner" is completely beyond me.  Powers (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I also read this comment as an objection to implementing one of these banners on the Northern Arizona article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Powers, are you now saying we shouldn't take your opinions too seriously, and should just act in contradiction to them because you're just sounding off? My reaction was that as long as you were standing in the way of my suggested solution and there was no consensus of a sufficient number of other people agreeing with me, your opposition was effectively standing in the way of action. But if you'd rather that people do things you seem to be objecting to than complain that your opposition has the actual or intended effect of blocking action, I guess that would be useful to know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I was not standing in your way. I was suggesting that your proposal wasn't ideal and didn't address my objections, and I explained why I would prefer a different banner image.  What words would you preferred me to say?  What could I have said differently that would have headed off these ridiculous accusations of obstruction?  (And Ryan, I don't know that I objected so much as expressed a preference for an alternative.  Somehow Ikan read that as "I'd rather have no banner on that article.")  Powers (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Insofar as consensus requires that outstanding objections be addressed, if Ikan says "let's do A" and you then say "I would prefer B", action is effectively blocked until there is either an agreement to go with either A or B, or until you say that you're fine with A. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds perilously close to saying "differing opinions prohibit consensus", and I don't think that's accurate. "I would prefer B" is an opening to discuss the differences and try to find a middle ground, not an immovable object blocking any path to consensus.  Powers (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no strong opinions about this (and think we should relax a bit in this discussion), but I have to say I prefer sunny pictures. While Wikipedia is neutral, on the contrary Wikivoyage shows every destination in a favorable light, as much as possible. Example: for an objectively boring town, we strive to show its attractive aspects and not show the rest. Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Do we? I mean, in this case, if you really think clouds are ugly, I am not going to argue that Sedona is boring and shouldn't look good. But if we're really trying to present boring places in a deceptively attractive light, that might really ill serve the prospective traveller, who might be better advised to steer clear of such places as much as possible. I think that kind of larger issue is best discussed elsewhere than this page, though, perhaps at Tone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

 * In real life, I'd say this discussion should be moved to the pub and discussed over a beer :-) It's just a picture, we've clearly taken some comments more negatively than they were intended.. so... let's settle on a compromise and move on to more important issues. This is a nice example of a luxury problem: we have several banners and of course opinions are going to differ about which one is best. Powers raised some concerns, his new proposed banners are nice and sunny too so let's keep one for Sedona, but as several people have also indicated they like StellarD's banner despite the concerns.. can we just go with the option to have the old banner on the region article? Powers, I know you don't find it ideal also - but can you live with it for now? JuliasTravels (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a lot I can live with, and it's certainly better than the status quo. But are you also asking me not to raise the same concern again on Talk:Northern Arizona?  Powers (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose I am, but only to keep things fun. I don't mean to keep you from raising concerns if you find it very important - I'm just saying it might not be worth the discussion. Opinions on what looks nice clearly differ so quite some more discussion would be needed, and then it's only the one image. If it's acceptable to others and you can live with that banner on the Northern Arizona article, it seems like a functional compromise. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's fine for now; as noted above, it's better than nothing. Powers (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Sedona/Northern Arizona
Hi, everyone. Please have a look at Talk:Sedona. It seems that there's a rough consensus of 3-1 so far in favor of replacing the current pagebanner for Sedona with what's Pagebanner #4 on the talk page. However, Northern Arizona has no pagebanner, and my proposal to move the current Sedona pagebanner to Northern Arizona is currently being blocked by a single user who does not like that banner, which was put into the Sedona article by User:StellarD. A 50-50 deadlock between two people does not constitute any kind of consensus. So if any of you would like to have a look and express your opinion, please do. But my main feeling is that even if the image in StellarD's pagebanner is determined not to be suitable for a pagebanner, it should at least be inserted in non-pagebanner photo form somewhere because it's a good picture. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It may be technically high-quality, but it is not an inviting travel photograph. Powers (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sedona


text:
Talk:Segamat

Segamat is not a city but is a town.

 * Thank you for correcting that. However, due to incompatible licenses, please don't copy content directly from Wikipedia. (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:07, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Segamat is a town (governed under Segamat Municipal Council). The only cities in Johor state are Johor Bahru and Iskandar Puteri (governed under their respective City Council). Chongkian (talk) 06:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Segamat


text:
Talk:Seinäjoki

There's some very dubious use of copyright content here. Cafe Julia uses a review directly taken from Lonely Planet Finland, 5th edition, which reads: "Utterly unpretentious, this likeable little lunch spot has cane chairs, and the mustard and ketchup already in place. They do four or five daily specials which are filling and tasty." (p.264) Similarly from the intro: "For most travellers, it is little more than a train junction. However, it hosts two of Finland's major summer festivals - the Tango Fair and Provinssirock, perhaps as far apart in the music spectrum as you can get." (p262) Also "Provinssirock (%421 2700; www.provinssirock.fi; 1-/3-day passes e\uro40/77) is a classic, open-air international rock concert held mainly 4km south of town, near To\"rna\"va\", over three days in mid-June. The acts are of the highest international profile, and include many of the top Finnish groups, many from the darker end of the rock/metal spectrum. The 2005 program included Marilyn Manson, Nine Inch Nails, Nightwish, Slipknot and the 69 Eyes; a heavyweight line-up indeed. There are five stages and connecting buses both from Seina\"joki itself and also from Helsinki." (p.263) There's international copyright protecting this and other text in these books. I won't be contacting the copyright holders myself, but it's only a matter of time before they catch it. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 203.217.82.140 (talk • contribs)

 * Thanks for catching that! I removed all contributions from the user who violated those copyright laws; in the future please feel free to do it yourself ;) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:59, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

 * No problem. I had a look around and the users other contributions for Helsinki could be problematic as well.

title: Talk:Seinäjoki


text:
Talk:Seishun 18 Ticket

Latest Timetable for Seishun 18 ticket
http://2chwiki.com/18kippu/

Is this an article?
Is Seishun 18 Ticket worth a whole article on its own or should it be part of a larger Travel topics article about Rail travel in Japan. I know we have articles about Eurail and Inter Rail, so I have not discounted the need for something to be written about the subject but Project:What is an article? doesn't quite cover it. -- (WT-en) Huttite 09:23, 4 Jul 2005 (EDT)

 * Personally, I think that this does merit its own article, mainly because (a) there's a lot to traveling with these tickets; it's not as simple as the Shinkansen where you can just buy a ticket, hop on, and be anywhere in three hours, and (b) this stuff isn't explained very well anywhere online... you have to go to several sites to figure out what's up. I foresee this becoming at least as large as the hitchhiking in Japan article. - (WT-en) Sekicho 11:30, 4 Jul 2005 (EDT)

 * First, the content is great and we definitely need this info somewhere. That said, I'm tempted to agree with Huttite that this should be a part of a "Rail travel in Japan" article that would also cover the Japan Rail Pass and the gazillion local JR passes. Wikivoyage's scale of granularity is higher, the idea is that all pages should be easily printable for taking along... (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:11, 4 Jul 2005 (EDT)

 * If that's the goal, then Rail Travel in Japan is probably even more unwieldy; it might be more effective to put information for accessing each region on local trains under the article for that region, no? - (WT-en) Sekicho 03:58, 5 Jul 2005 (EDT)

 * OK, allow me to qualify my own words: I don't mean really local things like the Hakone Rail Pass, but eg. the JR West and JR East passes currently covered in the main Japan article, which cover a larger area than "Kansai" or "Tohoku". (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:10, 5 Jul 2005 (EDT)

 * I see what you mean. In that case, should we merge the general info about obtaining/using the ticket into this rail travel article, and then put the specific itineraries into the relevant region page, e.g. "If you have a Seishun 18 Ticket or JR East/Hokkaido Pass, you can use this route..."? - (WT-en) Sekicho 06:26, 5 Jul 2005 (EDT)]

Seishun 18 should definitely have its own section. It doesn't really make sense to divide it into section because the nature of getting value from the pass means people travel long distances.

Seishun 18, in my mind can be complementary to a Japan Rail pass and need not be used only by the super super cost conscious. It can take people to places far from the shinkanen lines, enabling people to see places that are seriously off the beaten track.

Valid on kyuko trains?!
Can you give a source for Seishun 18 being valid on kyuko trains? Eg. says quite explicitly that "乗れない列車は、新幹線、特急、急行", and  states "特急（新幹線を含む）・急行列車、グリーン車、寝台車、ＪＲバスはご利用できません. " (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:39, 27 July 2006 (EDT)

Seat Reservations now possible
Just FYI, I updated the article, sourcing JR East's page on the Seishin 18 Ticket:

"Reserved seat on ordinary cars of local and rapid trains can be used if necessary. In this case, the ticket holder needs to make a reservation and pay required surcharges."

Contradiction?
The first paragraph says it costs 11,500 yen and the third paragraph says this is for people who're willing to travel for under 5,000, aren't they contradicting? (WT-en) Jing.t86 18:44, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

(WT-en) JRHorse 08:38, 16 December 2006 (EST)

Not really a contradiction - each days travel works out at 2,300 Y (based on a 11,500 ticket).

Map?
It would be really great to get a clear map of the lines that it can be used on and their interchange stations. Japan guide has one but it doesnt give the names of the line or the interchange station names. Something more comprehensive would be a big help for planning a trip.

Seishun 18 Ticket now only available twice a year?
I know that it's three times a year in spring, summer, and winter. But in the english page of jreast it seems to be only twice now? Is there any other information about that? I couldn't find any, and wasn't able to find any in the japanese version of the site. http://www.jreast.co.jp/e/pass/seishun18.html 110.54.119.202

 * AFAIK it's still 3x/year. That site just shows the next available period, not all available periods. Jpatokal (talk) 04:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Organization
Do you think this would be better organized by region? The islands of Hokkaido and Shikoku are organized that way, but Honshu is separated by major train lines. While I think the information about major lines is useful, I wonder if placing these as the titles is really useful to the traveler or if it would be better to organize sections by region? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Seishun 18 Ticket


text:
Talk:Sekigahara

Other
Mishima-ike is not in Sekigahara. http://photoguide.jp/pix/thumbnails.php?album=122

 * So where is it? (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:42, 20 August 2006 (EDT)

 * Shiga, to the west. Could be good for a "go next" entry. -Douglaspperkins (talk) 09:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Editing to Make this a Guide-status Page
I've been working on filling this article out since I was there on 15 March 2023. I think it is a really cool place that anyone interested in military history or Japanese history should visit, but when I started this article was pretty empty. I would love to see this article filled out to a Usable or better (ideally Guide) status article, since I think it is a hidden gem that's an easy day-trip from Kyoto or Nagoya, but since it's not in LonelyPlanet or Moon, it's overlooked. I've added as much information as I can (I was only there for a day trip so I don't have any experience on lodging or drinking - I did a quick Google search for bars and hotels in the town when I filled out the Sleep and Drink sections just so they'd have some information). I also don't have the technical skills to make it look nice and neat with numbered maps and coordinates. Can other people contribute as well? This town could easily be a contender for an Off the Beaten Path feature if it were of Guide or Star status, given its importance in Japanese history and the large tourism market in Japan. Tuyuhun (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have been to Sekigahara a few times, so I can try to help. For editing purposes and adding coordinates, it helps if you add places as listings. I will try to convert the current information into proper listings. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I went and turned them into listings, but I don't have the skills to add coordinates or make an interactive map (I'm not a tech-y person). Tuyuhun (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sekigahara


text:
Talk:Selangor

Contributor link: to research this article try: - (WT-en) Huttite 06:55, 15 Apr 2005 (EDT)
 * http://www.cuti.com.my/guide_selangor.htm

title: Talk:Selangor


text:
Talk:Selçuk

infobox
The story in the infobox is taken from Seven Sleepers. (WT-en) Texugo 10:28, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Selçuk


text:
Talk:Selinsgrove

do we need all this info?
Garden centers; photographers? Do they really belong in Wikivoyage? (WT-en) Shep 06:36, 3 January 2010 (EST)

I'd say take out the part about video rental places too...

 * We should only have listings for places, which would usually be of interest for travellers, please go ahead and remove, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 17:43, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Selinsgrove


text:
Talk:Selly Oak

merge to birmingham, england? also very messy article or not considered a article. --(WT-en) Varajou89 06:23, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Any thoughts on merging with Birmingham? --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:19, 9 June 2010 (EDT)
 * 100% agree. Looking at the Birmingham article, the content is already there, so we just need to amend this page to a redirect. (WT-en) Tarr3n 03:41, 10 June 2010 (EDT)
 * Given the merge propsal has been up for a year I'm just going to go ahead and redirect this. (WT-en) Tarr3n 03:43, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Selly Oak