Talk:Meadowbrook, Seattle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Boundary does not appear to be correct. If you ask the Meadowbrook community council, they will say the boundaries are: North 110th, South 95th, East Sandpoint Way, West Lake City Way. The neighborhood of Lake City is north of Meadowbrook and Maple Leaf.

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

Existing writing retained as much as could. --GoDot 06:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is "sub-neighborhood" a correct word? Lake City was, for 5 years, a township in its own right.
Meadowbrook is increasingly centered around that integrated open space that also includes a restored bit of Thornton Creek and its Natural Area across 35th Avenue NE.

Bug: ref="multiple", etc. DNF (Does Not Function acronym).
See "Bug", below "Style" heading in Talk:Seattle, Citing sources.
"Retrieved [date]", since on-line reference links can break, (Embedded links).

--GoDot 04:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: ft "dairy", gr, + link; see Talk
Expansion: Fix phrasing (short full text {ft}), grammar re. dairy, add link; see Discuusion for expanasion.
Conventional order of compass directions is N-S-E-W, or N-E-S-W by the rose, unless to some particular purpose (though existing writing has been retained).
"[T]hough there are a of couple small" was pre-existing.
The draft about the dairy was not ready.
"Traces of the original Bothell-Everett highway" links one only because that link describes a little more of the old highway. --GoDot 06:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC),[reply]

Copy edited but had problem making sense of writing[edit]

It's not clear what has been restored besides the Thornton Creek. I got a description of that from its Wikipedia link and added some information from it. (Hope the Hornton Creek additions I made are correct.) I tried to guess what "daylighted" meant, so I took a chance and said "lighted during the day". But is it the outside fields that are lighted or some restored building (which buildings)? Very unclear. KarenAnn 23:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I added some links in the See also section. I'm happy to help you out with the copy editing part. But I live in Florida so I don't know Meadowbrook and can't see it in my mind. KarenAnn 23:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Daylighting means resurfaced, as in a previously buried creek. --Lukobe 00:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Daylighting" also implies restoration and stewardship because in populated areas, a stream only brought back to surface would not long survive before reburial. Initial restoration and its politics are prerequisite in a long daisy chain. (Maybe at least a brief descriptive article is needed : ) For KarenAnn, consider such as manatee and everglades in FL for NW salmon and streams. Come back in September. Homewatersproject.org, referenced at Thornton Creek, is preparing a cybertour that will appear at information about the entire Thornton Creek Watershed.

Summary: ft "confluence", sort Further links; see Talk.
Expansion: Add short full text re. confluence of forks. Remove (my inadvertent) text re. natural area. Modest natural areas are better left unmentioned 'cause they're so delicate, "other green space" instead. Sorry.
The transition from forest to rural to paved urban to tenuous restoration is signficant but how to make it concise?
Sort ==Further reading==. Maybe links under "Thornton Creek" link should be at Thornton Creek also. --GoDot 16:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been improved immensely![edit]

You all have done a great job of rewriting the material and referencing. I am going to remove the copyedit tag. (But I hope that doesn't mean you will stop working on it.) Seattle has terrific articles on its neighborhoods, it's parks etc. You want yours to be terrific too!

Do any of you know how to put pictures on your page? For example, the dairy cows picture could be on your page rather than linked to it.

Also, I created a page Daylighted to link to your use of the word. If you can go to that page and improve it, please do. My son-in-law is an engineer for King's County and works on restoration projects, so I know that there is a lot to it. But that use of the word is uncommon outside of Seattle. KarenAnn 16:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia style guide the order of headers at end is fixed[edit]

(WP:MoS, found 7 Standard appendices.) "Common appendix sections (in the preferred order; it is equally valid for "References" to precede "Notes")".
My concern is that Further reading may be of wider interest, since References and Bibliography are of interest largely only to readers who want to assess the verifiability and sources quality. ("When reporting facts, Wikipedia articles should cite sources." (WP:RS)) So how much deviation from preferred order would be okay? ---GoDot 07:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ending sections should be in the following order:

  • See also (or Related topics)
  • Notes
  • References
  • Further reading (or Bibliography)
  • External links

I don't know how you want to handle all that. Items should be in the right categories, so you might want to clarify that. KarenAnn 17:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order of headers: "External Links" -> "Further reading", per WP:MoS at 5 Further reading/external links.
So then how are "See also" and "Further reading" distinct? I understand WP:MoS is a work in progress, rather like WP (Wikipedia). So, the list KarenAnn quoted would be

  • See also (or Related topics, which is less commonly used)

"other articles in the Wikipedia that are related to this one. [...] Mostly, topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article as free links. The 'See also' section provides an additional list of internal links as a navigational aid." (7.2 See also)

Put internal link items for Further reading under this heading instead? (If Further reading may not be moved.)
I use this for listing particularly outstanding or useful internal links.
  • Notes (if any)
  • References (or Notes and References if not so many notes)
  • Bibliography
  • Further reading

Citations having authors may be more readable for editors by use of <ref>[Last name {etc. if more than one work}], [page numbers]</ref>, with a complete citation (less page numbers) in the Bibliography. This can be easier to read than even a citation template.
What is most preferred? I undestand that at this stage of WP development, references are being encouraged, and for consistency, editors of an article may seek consensus on which of the several styles they will use for footnotes in the article.

--GoDot 07:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"If you find it easier to type the reference in bibliographic style yourself, you are not obligated to use these templates, but they help to maintain a consistent bibliographic style across articles." (WP:FN#Style_recommendations)

"When writing a new article or adding references to an existing article that has none, follow the established practice for the appropriate profession or discipline that the article is concerning. [...] If the established practice is unavailable or disputed, contributors should decide on a style that they believe strikes an appropriate balance between preserving the readability of the text and making citations as precise and accessible as possible. [...] [T]he most important thing is to provide all the information one would need to identify and find the source." (WP:CITE#How and where to cite sources)

[Emphasis added.] Some editors prefer preserving the readability for casual users making edits. --GoDot 08:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations: Wikipedia guidelines[edit]

See:

KarenAnn 16:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Meadowbrook, Seattle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Meadowbrook, Seattle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meadowbrook, Seattle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meadowbrook,_Seattle&oldid=1203213396"