TalkBoard Topics - Request for a Seattle Forum

Questions about Seattle account for approximately 1/4th of the current threads in the West forum.


Last week 2 out of 8 threads
Last month 6 out of 22 threads
Last 2 months 9 (10 if you count the PDX/SEA thread) out of 38

This count does not include the Seattle Visitors guide sticky at the top of the page, but does include one large consolidated SEA Parking thread.


The second most talked about destination would be Colorado ... mostly Denver, with 6 out of 38 over the last 2 months.

There's a decent amount of threads - but not a whole heck of a lot - and the threads that are there seem to be mostly (with the exception of a few larger ones), 4-5 post threads, so not a lot of involvement.

Does this mean that a Seattle forum will be mostly a Q/A forum without much discussion and without many people responding? Maybe.

I'm totally open to it - but need to be slightly more convinced.

I'll do a little more research myself over the next week or so.

Happy New Year, missy! :)

There would be an expansion of questions and discussions to a dedicated Seattle forum if it was recognized that Seattle serves as a Northwest transportation gateway to those in Washington, British Columbia and, of course, the residents of Alaska.

Questions and discussions surrounding air travel can generally be answered through the various airline forums (most notably Alaska Air), but other ground and sea travel questions are a little trickier.

A Seattle forum would benefit those with questions about driving from Vancouver to SEA (or BLI) to board flights & save over paying higher Canadian airfares, taxes & fees. Also Victoria Clipper questions (high-speed passenger only ferry between Seattle & Victoria) as well as cruise related travel info (Seattle, Victoria and Vancouver are all big players in the cruise industry).

One example: When Disney started doing Alaska cruises out of Vancouver, apparently those back east did not know that Alaska Air has several flights daily between SEA and YVR! TA's were booking their clients to SEA by air and then were advising their clients to take the train or rent a car between SEA and YVR! :eek: - a journey equal to the amount of time it took some of them to fly to Seattle! (Thank goodness Disney has since changed their Alaskan cruises to depart from Seattle).

I could give other examples, but yes, I give missydarlin's suggestion of a dedicated Seattle forum a big ^

A brilliant idea. ^

I dunno. If if it had not been for Sleepless in Seattle and Frasier, I never would have heard of the city.

Shouldn't we wait until a geographical location is the site of at least 10 successful movies or TV series before giving it its own forum?

Would that include movies and tv series shot in whole or in part in Vancouver?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_shot_in_Vancouver
or Victoria?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_shot_near_Victoria,_British_Columbia

Would that include movies and tv series shot in whole or in part in Vancouver?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_shot_in_Vancouver
or Victoria?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_shot_near_Victoria,_British_Columbia

The key to this issue is not where the films are shot but where the story takes place.

The King and I remains a Thai (or at least Siamese) film even if it was shot entirely in Hollywood.

This afternoon, in the Bellavista neighborhood of Santiago de Chile, I saw a guy wearing a "Seattle Central Business District" t-shirt. I'm pretty sure this guy had not much if any idea what his shirt meant. But that isn't the point. Should he ever want to explore the meaning of his attire, and should FT have a Seattle forum at the time (and should he have happened to learn English in the meantime, or at least use a good translation site), he might actually want to visit Seattle.

This, I fear, is the strongest argument I currently have for a Seattle forum, but it is timely, and really points to how someone doing a web search for Seattle travel might me a lot more likely to find it on FT with a Seattle forum than without.

The previous post caused a "learn English" school (based in Santiago) banner ad to pop up :D

I support the creation of a Seattle Forum.

Officer and a Gentleman was also shot in the area! Sooooo +1 for the forum!!!

I love Seattle dearly, I am very familiar with the city, and I may even live there someday, but I don't know. 10 threads in the last half year? That seems a recipe for a dead forum.

Seattle has a very good, very appropriate, very logical home in the West forum. Back when I had more time each day to devote to FlyerTalk, the West forum was one of my regular destinations. In all that time, I never once felt that discussion of Seattle was unreasonably heavy in that forum or that discussion of Seattle would fit better elsewhere. It's not like Texas, where there's doubt about which region it feats neatly in. Seattle is definitely a part of the West.

I'm open to arguments to the contrary, but this wouldn't have been a change I would have suggested, and I'm not sure I see the benefit this change would have.

What Seattle has (IMnshO) that many other places don´t is what I perceive to be a disproportionate (good thing) number of active FTers in relation to its population, etc. It also seems to have regular FT gatherings, perhaps more than many other places of its size. Destination forums sometimes are a good place for at least notices of community events. I know that airline forums also have been used from time to time for this.

While my perception may be currently clouded by some of the tasty beverage offerings here in the Salon VIP Neruda @SCL :o, I don´t think that it is :D

As far as a "recipe for a dead forum," you can´t have a recipe if you don´t have a cookbook. The recipes that aren´t in the cookbook get lost and often never used again. Seattle deserves its own cookbook.

Fin

One thing I thought about when voting to approve the Texas forum was would there be a run of requests for an "XXX city/state forum" and not that it is a bad thing at all :) but in this case, would it phud for thought to perhaps make it a Seattle & Vancouver forum? Yes there is a Canada Forum (with a sub forum of Toronto) but with these 2 cities being close neighbors and all. Just a thought (and to muddy the waters even more, Portland, Oregon is not that far away either). I dunno, maybe a "Great Northwest" forum?

I dunno. If if it had not been for Sleepless in Seattle and Frasier, I never would have heard of the city.

Shouldn't we wait until a geographical location is the site of at least 10 successful movies or TV series before giving it its own forum?

Not sure that's a very helpful criterion. Or maybe that was an attempt at a joke? :confused:

What Seattle has (IMnshO) that many other places don´t is what I perceive to be a disproportionate (good thing) number of active FTers in relation to its population, etc.

Very good point. ^

I support the creation of a Seattle Forum.

Concur

Two threads per week doesn't seem a sustainable forum. If it has a disproportionate number of FTers and a large number of dos (which belong in a different forum anyway), why doesn't this translate into activity in the appropriate regional forum?

Two threads per week doesn't seem a sustainable forum. If it has a disproportionate number of FTers and a large number of dos (which belong in a different forum anyway), why doesn't this translate into activity in the appropriate regional forum?

Perhaps because there isn't a cookbook for the recipes.

I dunno. If if it had not been for Sleepless in Seattle and Frasier, I never would have heard of the city.

Shouldn't we wait until a geographical location is the site of at least 10 successful movies or TV series before giving it its own forum?

You know, I haven't watch Sleepless in Seattle movie before. I never watch it very often. I am not interested for me at all. Besides, I think you have find something else.

A brilliant idea. ^

I think it's sounds good idea!! They will consider it. Let's do it to creation new Seattle forum.

You know, I haven't watch Sleepless in Seattle movie before.

It will bring tears to your eyes. Then you can do down to Kell's in Post Alley and have a pint. :)

If we can have a San Francisco forum, I can't see why a Seattle forum can't have a test drive, just like when the Talk Board approved the Senior forum for a test drive. If it doesn't have the traffic after 6 months, shut it down.

It will bring tears to your eyes. Then you can do down to Kell's in Post Alley and have a pint. :)

If we can have a San Francisco forum, I can't see why a Seattle forum can't have a test drive, just like when the Talk Board approved the Senior forum for a test drive. If it doesn't have the traffic after 6 months, shut it down.

I believe that a SEA Forum will generate more interest than the short-lived Senior Forum. @:-)

I believe that a SEA Forum will generate more interest than the short-lived Senior Forum. @:-)

As a senior, I am somewhat uncomfortable with the adjective "short-lived". It does not provide me with an optimistic prognosis.

Sleepless in Seattle.. its a good movie..

So Seattle a standalone forum.. imo, the state should be its own forum to better navigate the info.. with Seattle in the state forum.. sort of like Orlando, in the Florida forum..

"The following are qualitative criteria that the TalkBoard believes are useful to consider when evaluating proposals to create, close, split, or move forums. Whenever a forum change is discussed on the TalkBoard Topics, the TalkBoard encourages posters to fully address these criteria in addition to any other reasons supporting or opposing the change.

1. Will the forum be (or is it now) beneficial to FlyerTalk?

2. Will the new forum benefit a relationship with FlyerTalk? E.g., does the forum provide value for FT members, such as a friendly ear highly placed in the company

3. Is FT the best place to discuss this subject?

4. Is there a passionate following? This is essential in order to provide dedicated expert helpers to get questions answered.

5. Is a critical mass of posts and readers anticipated or existing? We need adequate traffic to keep everyone visiting frequently. One living forum is more valuable than two mostly dead ones.

6. Is this the best place on FlyerTalk for this subject? This is the classification issue. The answer depends primarily on achieving and maintaining critical mass. It also depends on whether or where the discussion might (or does) occur in the absence of the forum.

7. For proposals to split a forum, is the split expected to improve the signal to noise ratio? Why?"

This forum has my vote. I used to live in Seattle, so it will always have a soft spot in my heart. :D

(And my personal threshold for forums opening (and closing) is much lower than others, I think.)

I've also started a thread in the private forum and will be making a formal proposal after the 48-hour waiting period.

There may be some TB members who may want you to make a case aligned to the guidelines posted above and since establishment of the forum requires 5 of the remaining 8 votes, it probably behooves those who want this forum to try to do so.

I wouldn't be opposed to a Washington State forum or a Pacific NW forum, but I really think that Seattle is more identifiable and could include the surrounding areas...

Now you get it. My vote for a separate NW including BC forum. There are enuf of us around to support something like that.

One thing I thought about when voting to approve the Texas forum was would there be a run of requests for an "XXX city/state forum" and not that it is a bad thing at all :) but in this case, would it phud for thought to perhaps make it a Seattle & Vancouver forum? Yes there is a Canada Forum (with a sub forum of Toronto) but with these 2 cities being close neighbors and all. Just a thought (and to muddy the waters even more, Portland, Oregon is not that far away either). I dunno, maybe a "Great Northwest" forum?

In support of a NW forum, I can only point you to the current Capt Denny thread in community which is turning into one of the larger Do s.

In support, the local communities both in SEA and PDX are larger than one suspects. We are lost among the West however you define it. There is now a small group attempting MRs from PDX and SEA with others in the same area. Recently I met a new FTer in FRA at her 1st Do who had been in SEA for 3 years and had difficulty finding others.

I have a distribution list in excess of 100 identifiable FTers who live in the Portland Metro
Area. Long haul business traffic is high from both cities. The number in SEA is even larger. People ask questions in other forums because our corner of the earth is lumped in with a much larger area.

Capt Denny's remark last night during a phone call was that UA was amazed by the response when they tried the 1same thing in DTW the turn out was abysmal. Just go to community and look for Capt Denny January 21, 22 PDX

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/communitybuzz/1289799-pdx-dinner-ua-station-tower-tour-w-capt-denny-flanagan-jan-21-22-2012-a.html

The Pacific Northwest is a destination location, where many travel for leisure and a get away..

I certainly would use such a forum for my own personal travels.. the west coast is vast and there is alot to learn..

Seattle itself is just a bit too small of a destination IMHO to warrant its own forum. However, the Pacific Northwest (Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, and perhaps including BC and western MT) is large enough and distinct enough from the West/Mountain West that I would be inclined to support a dedicated forum for it.

I wouldn't be opposed to a Washington State forum or a Pacific NW forum, but I really think that Seattle is more identifiable and could include the surrounding areas...

I think I can do identifiable is Washington State Forum or Seattle Forum but, I actual will be called Seattle/Tacoma Forum. Whether who will have decide to choose the title. I think it's called Washington State is real proper name.

Sleepless in Seattle.. its a good movie..

Really? Why? I thought the movie was so terrible. How come? I didn't watch it.

Seattle itself is just a bit too small of a destination IMHO to warrant its own forum. However, the Pacific Northwest (Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, and perhaps including BC and western MT) is large enough and distinct enough from the West/Mountain West that I would be inclined to support a dedicated forum for it.

That sounds quite reasonable. I am all in favor of a Pacific Northwest Forum, as opposed to one dedicated only to Seattle.

Really? Why? I thought the movie was so terrible. How come? I didn't watch it.

Personally, I have never enjoyed a movie which I didn't watch.

Seattle itself is just a bit too small of a destination IMHO to warrant its own forum. However, the Pacific Northwest (Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, and perhaps including BC and western MT) is large enough and distinct enough from the West/Mountain West that I would be inclined to support a dedicated forum for it.
Does that not run the risk of confusion between the US destinations forums and the rest of the world destinations forums (which contain the Canada forums)? It would seem to make unclear where questions about BC should be posted - in the US destination forum or in the Canada destination forum. I'm not sure it would be intuitive to many non-Americans to ask about BC in the US forum.

I wouldn't be opposed to a Washington State forum or a Pacific NW forum, but I really think that Seattle is more identifiable and could include the surrounding areas...

IM(nsh)O, once you start having titles that have gray area, you have immediate confusion and mis-posting (even if there is some further description of what goes in the forum). i.e., Washington State = OK, Pacific NW = not OK (esp. if there remains a "West" forum).

Does that not run the risk of confusion between the US destinations forums and the rest of the world destinations forums (which contain the Canada forums)? It would seem to make unclear where questions about BC should be posted - in the US destination forum or in the Canada destination forum. I'm not sure it would be intuitive to many non-Americans to ask about BC in the US forum.

It wouldn't be intuitive to this American (who used to live in Seattle).

It wouldn't be intuitive to this American (who used to live in Seattle).

Seattle and Vancouver are very close to each other.. Anybody who does a trip into the area will likely disregard the borders and travel to of interest..

But the way FT is organized does present it to be a problem.. Is there a logical way to format?

Seattle itself is just a bit too small of a destination IMHO to warrant its own forum. However, the Pacific Northwest (Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, and perhaps including BC and western MT) is large enough and distinct enough from the West/Mountain West that I would be inclined to support a dedicated forum for it.

+1.

Cheers.

Seattle and Vancouver are very close to each other.. Anybody who does a trip into the area will likely disregard the borders and travel to of interest..

But the way FT is organized does present it to be a problem.. Is there a logical way to format?

I disagree with you. Vancouver is 130 miles from Seattle and the border crossing isn't a trivial activity, IMO.

I'd be happy including the city in the forum, but I wonder how the Canadians and other non-Americans would feel about that. Is there any BC activity other than Vancouver?

If so, maybe it does make sense to lump Seattle/Vancouver/Washington/maybe even Portland together. But we'd have to have a pointer from the Canada area (a Vancouver subforum that pointed to this forum would work, I think).

I disagree with you. Vancouver is 130 miles from Seattle and the border crossing isn't a trivial activity, IMO.

I'd be happy including the city in the forum, but I wonder how the Canadians and other non-Americans would feel about that. Is there any BC activity other than Vancouver?

If so, maybe it does make sense to lump Seattle/Vancouver/Washington/maybe even Portland together. But we'd have to have a pointer from the Canada area (a Vancouver subforum that pointed to this forum would work, I think).

Sounds like Seattle may not get the support needed for a seperate forum.. a solution with much support seems to be a Pacific Northwest Forum that may or may not include Coastal BC..

So yes, I would say it looks like consensus needs to be reached what regions would be included in the Pacific Northwest Forum..

That sounds quite reasonable. I am all in favor of a Pacific Northwest Forum, as opposed to one dedicated only to Seattle.

Do you agree? Unlikely, I don't think ever called Pacific Northwest Forum and instead, I think it's called Seattle/Tacoma Forum.

Do you agree? Unlikely, I don't think ever called Pacific Northwest Forum and instead, I think it's called Seattle/Tacoma Forum.

It's unlikely it will be called a Seattle/Tacoma forum.

Personally, I'd be OK with just Seattle, but it may be nice to pull out Vancouver in some way. Portland, too.

(To me, if we're including Vancouver, we have to include Portland. It's a bit farther, but it's not across an international border.)

Speaking not as a Seattle resident but as a visitor to this fair city, if the proposal addressed a unique culture or language then I believe the global FT community would be served well by having a dedicated Seattle forum.

Personally, the city is a single point of interest amongst many others that exist in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States. So separating Seattle out from US West may introduce issues of forum fragmentation.

If I may draw a parallel and use the UK and Ireland forum as an example. It represents my home and whilst I saw value in the former London forum, there were very sound reasons voiced by visitors to the UK which led to it being folded into UK and Ireland. The logic was sound then and still is to this day. Furthermore, I think it applies equally to Seattle and the Western United States.

It's unlikely it will be called a Seattle/Tacoma forum.

Personally, I'd be OK with just Seattle, but it may be nice to pull out Vancouver in some way. Portland, too.

(To me, if we're including Vancouver, we have to include Portland. It's a bit farther, but it's not across an international border.)

I agree, Portland would be synonous for the region based on my previous visits..

Regions surrounding the cities access to, i.e. parks, ports, environmental reserves, golf courses, islands.. and all places of interest in between the major cities outlined..

Speaking not as a Seattle resident but as a visitor to this fair city, if the proposal addressed a unique culture or language then I believe the global FT community would be served well by having a dedicated Seattle forum.

Personally, the city is a single point of interest amongst many others that exist in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States. So separating Seattle out from US West may introduce issues of forum fragmentation.

If I may draw a parallel and use the UK and Ireland forum as an example. It represents my home and whilst I saw value in the former London forum, there were very sound reasons voiced by visitors to the UK which led to it being folded into UK and Ireland. The logic was sound then and still is to this day. Furthermore, I think it applies equally to Seattle and the Western United States.

I'm not sure it does. The sheer size of the United States makes it much more difficult to avoid lumping too much together into a single forum. The fact that the Pacific NW (in some shape or form) isn't already a forum separate from the West surprised me, to be honest.

How about something like

US Pacific Northwest (Seattle, Portland and other Washington / Oregon)

How about something like

US Pacific Northwest (Seattle, Portland and other Washington / Oregon)As I posted upthread, I think you would have to include Vancouver not only because it's "around the corner" from Seattle but imho, I think folks from Vancouver would feel slighted if "left out" which is why I would go with something like "The Great Northwest (SEA,PDX,YVR)"

Does that not run the risk of confusion between the US destinations forums and the rest of the world destinations forums (which contain the Canada forums)? It would seem to make unclear where questions about BC should be posted - in the US destination forum or in the Canada destination forum. I'm not sure it would be intuitive to many non-Americans to ask about BC in the US forum.

The confusion is understandable; I was hesitant to suggest including BC, but many people do consider YVR to be part of the same region. Due to the FlyerTalk forum organizational structure, though, perhaps it's best to leave BC out of it.

Of course, discussion about YVR may come up within the context of a SEA trip (i.e. "I'll be picking up a car in SEA, sightseeing the area, and driving to YVR"), but that is really no different than someone posting that they're picking up a car in SFO (San Francisco forum), driving to LAX (Los Angeles forum), heading to Vegas (Las Vegas forum), and returning in PHX (West forum). That stuff happens already, and somehow we deal with it. I think. ;)

How about something like

US Pacific Northwest (Seattle, Portland and other Washington / Oregon)

I think it's great idea to called Seattle, Portland & Other Washington State / Oregoin.

I can agree with you.

Why not just Washington State and Oregon?

The U.K. & Ireland Forum isn't named "London and the rest of U.K., plus Ireland"

It isn't "Boston and the rest of New England"

There's no "Honolulu and the rest of Hawaii"

Why not just Washington State and Oregon?

The U.K. & Ireland Forum isn't named "London and the rest of U.K., plus Ireland"

It isn't "Boston and the rest of New England"

There's no "Honolulu and the rest of Hawaii"Bolding mine: Actually, if you grew up in Boston, it is ;) <ducking> but I still think because of its proximity, Vancouver needs to be included

The confusion is understandable; I was hesitant to suggest including BC, but many people do consider YVR to be part of the same region. Due to the FlyerTalk forum organizational structure, though, perhaps it's best to leave BC out of it.

Of course, discussion about YVR may come up within the context of a SEA trip (i.e. "I'll be picking up a car in SEA, sightseeing the area, and driving to YVR"), but that is really no different than someone posting that they're picking up a car in SFO (San Francisco forum), driving to LAX (Los Angeles forum), heading to Vegas (Las Vegas forum), and returning in PHX (West forum). That stuff happens already, and somehow we deal with it. I think. ;)

+1.

BTW - Wikipedia considers the Pacific Northwest to be WA, OR, & ID.

Cheers.

+1.

BTW - Wikipedia considers the Pacific Northwest to be WA, OR, & ID.

Cheers.

I'm not sure how you get that from this article. Especially look at the bolded part.

The Pacific Northwest, also known as Cascadia [1] [2] is a region in northwestern North America, bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and, loosely, by the Rocky Mountains on the east.

Definitions of the region vary and there is no commonly agreed upon boundary, even among Pacific Northwesterners.[3]

A common concept of the Pacific Northwest includes the U.S. states of Oregon, Washington and Idaho, as well as the Canadian province of British Columbia and territory of the Yukon.[4] This definition is often restricted further to include only the coastal areas west of the crest of the Cascade Mountains and Canadian Coast Mountains. Broader definitions of the region may even include the state of Alaska. [5] and may reach east to the Rocky Mountains.[4]

Definitions based on the historic Oregon Country reach east to the Continental Divide, thus including nearly all of Idaho and parts of western Montana and western Wyoming. Sometimes the Pacific Northwest is defined as being the Northwestern United States, wholly in the United States. Often these definitions are made by government agencies whose scope is limited to the United States.[6]

Some definitions include, in addition to Washington, Oregon, and British Columbia, Southeast Alaska, western Montana, the coast of northern California and a small part of northwestern Wyoming.[7] The term "Pacific Northwest" should not be confused with the Northwest Territory (also known as the Great Northwest, a historic term in the United States) or the Northwest Territories of Canada.

Besides, give me a minute and I'll go make the article say it's ONLY WA and OR and then you can quote it again. :D

Seattle itself is just a bit too small of a destination IMHO to warrant its own forum. However, the Pacific Northwest (Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, and perhaps including BC and western MT) is large enough and distinct enough from the West/Mountain West that I would be inclined to support a dedicated forum for it.

Agreed. ^

Does that not run the risk of confusion between the US destinations forums and the rest of the world destinations forums (which contain the Canada forums)? It would seem to make unclear where questions about BC should be posted - in the US destination forum or in the Canada destination forum. I'm not sure it would be intuitive to many non-Americans to ask about BC in the US forum.

The Canada description can be adjusted to allow for BC posts in a PacNW forum...

So if that case, shoudn't the PacNW forum sit within The World, rather than the US destination forum? It would be counter intuitive and potentially insulting to include questions about Canada in the US - but it would be hard to argue that the US does not form part of the World.

So if that case, shoudn't the PacNW forum sit within The World, rather than the US destination forum? It would be counter intuitive and potentially insulting to include questions about Canada in the US - but it would be hard to argue that the US does not form part of the World.


It's only insulting to those who are easily insulted. @:-)

I think Pacific Northwest would go in the US section, and I don't see a need for a pointing from Canada to it. I'm guessing the Canadians would prefer not to be annexed ;)

I also think that "Pacific Northwest" is fine for a title, and doesn't need to have a description regarding which states or cities it encompasses. The other US regions don't have one. People have a general sense of the regions in the US.

Sure, there might be a bit of overlap or one thinks something is included in one that might be in another, but overall it works. I don't think this forum needs a detailed description anymore than the others do.

Cheers.

I think Pacific Northwest would go in the US section, and I don't see a need for a pointing from Canada to it. I'm guessing the Canadians would prefer not to be annexed ;)

I also think that "Pacific Northwest" is fine for a title, and doesn't need to have a description regarding which states or cities it encompasses. The other US regions don't have one. People have a general sense of the regions in the US.

Sure, there might be a bit of overlap or one thinks something is included in one that might be in another, but overall it works. I don't think this forum needs a detailed description anymore than the others do.

Cheers.

Sharon, you are incorrect. If you go to the Travel and Destination forums, every single one of the United States regions has a line beneath it describing which states are included.

I'm starting to think that the cleanest option would be to annex Pacific Northwest from West and simply include Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.

I'd like to get some feedback from those who first came to us, though, although I think there'll be some unhappiness that we may not consider Seattle enough of a draw to have its own sub-forum.

Sharon, you are incorrect. If you go to the Travel and Destination forums, every single one of the United States regions has a line beneath it describing which states are included.

I'm starting to think that the cleanest option would be to annex Pacific Northwest from West and simply include Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.

I'd like to get some feedback from those who first came to us, though, although I think there'll be some unhappiness that we may not consider Seattle enough of a draw to have its own sub-forum.

Rich, you're right. The reason I didn't catch the descriptions is I clicked on the individual forums (which had no line item descriptions) before I posted & not the general header Travel-Destination: US, which brings up all of the forums in the U.S & then the individual line item descriptions.

Cheers.

I think Pacific Northwest would go in the US section, and I don't see a need for a pointing from Canada to it. I'm guessing the Canadians would prefer not to be annexed ;)

I also think that "Pacific Northwest" is fine for a title, and doesn't need to have a description regarding which states or cities it encompasses. The other US regions don't have one. People have a general sense of the regions in the US.

Sure, there might be a bit of overlap or one thinks something is included in one that might be in another, but overall it works. I don't think this forum needs a detailed description anymore than the others do.

Cheers.We could always go to war with Canada again and this time just take it ;)

But seriously, I agree with the "Pacific Northwest" but I still think that Vancouver should be included and if going along the lines that WA,OR and ID are by default part of the Pacific Northwest, I could see calling the forum "Pacific Northwest (including YVR)"

Currently the West forum encompasses areas from New Mexico to Washington state to the Dakotas. That's quite a vast area! I try to take a look in the West forum periodically to see what's going on, but the forum as a whole seems pretty light. As someone else indicated, some posts are put in the airline forums. But as someone who never flies them, I wouldn't even think to look in the AS forum. And I know there are some AZ/Phoenix-related posts in the US forum. Some users may look at how light it is and go elsewhere (I do know that the Arizona forum on TripAdvisor is pretty good and toward the top of their state forums).

I'd certainly be in favor of simply splitting the forum in 2. Perhaps, "Pacific Northwest," and, "Southwest," or something like that. California should remain separate. Perhaps Nevada topics and the Vegas subforum could be placed there?

I wasn't even sure what is currently in the West forum, but here's what's listed in the forum description:

Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada (See the sub-forums within for Las Vegas), New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wyoming


So my suggestions--

1. Southwest forum: Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado
2. Pacific Northwest forum: Idaho, Oregon, Washington
3. Rename California to: California + Nevada forum, and move the Vegas subforum

I would suspect the ND/SD posts could go in the same forum as MN, but I struggle with putting them in something called Midwest.

So that leaves Montana and Wyoming, not sure where I'd put those.

So that leaves Montana and Wyoming, not sure where I'd put those.

"The Old West" ;)

"Rectangular and Sort-of-Rectangular States"

"Rectangular and Sort-of-Rectangular States"

Isn't Wyoming square, or mostly? ;)

On a more serious note, I guess you could put MT and WY with AZ/NM/UT/CO and call it, "Mountain West," or something like that. Posts for those areas seem to be seasonal, mostly about Yellowstone or Glacier National Parks for travel in summer months.

What do you think of my other suggestions?

Isn't Wyoming square, or mostly? ;)

Well....

http://images.statemaster.com/images/motw/us_2001/wyoming_ref_2001.jpg

And I believe square is a subset of rectangle. ;)

On a more serious note, I guess you could put MT and WY with AZ/NM/UT/CO and call it, "Mountain West," or something like that. Posts for those areas seem to be seasonal, mostly about Yellowstone or Glacier National Parks for travel in summer months.

That makes a certain amount of sense to me. ^

What do you think of my other suggestions?

I tend to think that a far better way for this sort of thing to be decided is to let the Community Director review the discussion and then simply make a decision.

But that's a whole different kettle of feathers....

I really don't have strong feelings on the subject (I reserve that for the heart-wrenching, agonizing, epochally important discussion of post counts ;) :D)

I agree with a combination of the last couple of posts - If forums need further division (which I'm not convinced they do), they should be divided into Mountain West, Pacific Northwest, and California. BC and Vancouver discussion should remain in the Canadian forum to avoid confusion.

I tend to think that a far better way for this sort of thing to be decided is to let the Community Director review the discussion and then simply make a decision.)

I wish ALL forums were created that way so Talk Board could focus their efforts on other areas to make FT a better place. Over the years they have spent an inordinate amount of time going back and forth with the membership about forum creation. The Community Director could easily make such a decision.

Very well said, Tom.

All of the above sounds good from a logical/organizational perspective. The left side of my brain likes nice, compartmentalized, logical forum structure--something along the lines of Pacific Northwest, Southwest, Mountain West, and Midwest.

But note aztimm's words here (emphasis mine):

Currently the West forum encompasses areas from New Mexico to Washington state to the Dakotas. That's quite a vast area! I try to take a look in the West forum periodically to see what's going on, but the forum as a whole seems pretty light.

I do occasionally drop in on the West forum (I used to almost daily before Real Life™ got in the way). Having been to all 50 states and crisscrossed much of the West on various road trips, I would read most, if not all, of the threads in that forum and would respond to a wide variety of posts on topics.

However, if a separate forum for the Midwest were created that incorporated something in the neighborhood of OK/MO/KS/NE/ND/SD/MN/WI/IL/IN/whatever), I would probably never go in, despite having been to all of those places and spent some fairly extensive time in some of them, since I do not personally have a high level of interest in that particular region.

Yet if I saw a post about MCI or STL or the Black Hills of South Dakota in the wider West forum, I'd probably read it and would respond if I could provide some valuable input.

And therein lies the argument against fragmenting forums more than necessary. The fact that the West forum is already not a high-volume forum means that there's not really a need to fragment it. And keeping it as is (including keeping OR/WA/ID) means that topics could still get air-time in front of and feedback from those who may have something to add but who may not go out of their way to seek them out.

To sum it up, after mulling on this issue a bit more, I am not actually convinced that this entire process is a positive move and think that the status quo may actually represent the most productive way to keep discussion stirred up in the forum.

To sum it up, after mulling on this issue a bit more, I am not actually convinced that this entire process is a positive move and think that the status quo may actually represent the most productive way to keep discussion stirred up in the forum.

+1.

Cheers.

Well.. time to settle the issue and vote on whether a Pacific Northwest Forum should be created.. and move on..

Well.. time to settle the issue and vote on whether a Pacific Northwest Forum should be created.. and move on..

We need to figure out the details of any motion first. If there's going to be one, that is...

We need to figure out the details of any motion first. If there's going to be one, that is...

Yes.. its assumed that the details need to be worked out first.. the ageless technique of consensus building (a positive btw).. A myriad of opinions presented here. The major issue I think is what parts of NW US do you include, and whether to include parts of Canada in it or not?

How do the AAA Tourbooks divide the west?

I think we should wait to see if the Chilean government approves the merger between Seattle and TAM, I would certainly like to see a SEATAM forum if that happens.

Otheriwse Seattle doesn't have much going for it, doesn't have a coherent frequent visitor programme, isn't a member of any major alliance and so far as I know it doesn't have any affinity credit card with any major US bank.

:)

.
And therein lies the argument against fragmenting forums more than necessary. The fact that the West forum is already not a high-volume forum means that there's not really a need to fragment it. And keeping it as is (including keeping OR/WA/ID) means that topics could still get air-time in front of and feedback from those who may have something to add but who may not go out of their way to seek them out.

To sum it up, after mulling on this issue a bit more, I am not actually convinced that this entire process is a positive move and think that the status quo may actually represent the most productive way to keep discussion stirred up in the forum.

I'm in agreement with what jackal has said above, so at the moment I'd be inclined to vote against it.

Cheers.

On the topic of west.. I wouldn't know what would be in the forum.. certainly I wouldn't think Seattle would be part of the West Forum.. Now Pacific Northwest rings a bell.. even Disneyland forum would work wonders.. not suggesting that we start creating a ton of forums, but I grew up knowing that the Pacific Northwest was a specific region of the US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Northwest

Pacific Northwest
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the region that includes parts of Canada and the United States. For the U.S.-only region, see Northwestern United States.

The Pacific Northwest from space
The Pacific Northwest, also known as Cascadia [1] [2] is a region in northwestern North America, bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and, loosely, by the Rocky Mountains on the east. Definitions of the region vary and there is no commonly agreed upon boundary, even among Pacific Northwesterners.[3] A common concept of the Pacific Northwest includes the U.S. states of Oregon, Washington and Idaho, as well as the Canadian province of British Columbia and territory of the Yukon.[4] This definition is often restricted further to include only the coastal areas west of the crest of the Cascade Mountains and Canadian Coast Mountains. Broader definitions of the region may even include the state of Alaska. [5] and may reach east to the Rocky Mountains.[4] Definitions based on the historic Oregon Country reach east to the Continental Divide, thus including nearly all of Idaho and parts of western Montana and western Wyoming. Sometimes the Pacific Northwest is defined as being the Northwestern United States, wholly in the United States. Often these definitions are made by government agencies whose scope is limited to the United States.[6] Some definitions include, in addition to Washington, Oregon, and British Columbia, Southeast Alaska, western Montana, the coast of northern California and a small part of northwestern Wyoming.[7] The term "Pacific Northwest" should not be confused with the Northwest Territory (also known as the Great Northwest, a historic term in the United States) or the Northwest Territories of Canada.

The term Northwest Coast is often used when referring only to the coastal regions. The term Northwest Plateau has been used to describe the inland regions, although they are commonly referred to as "the Interior" in British Columbia[8] and the Inland Empire in the United States.

The region's largest metropolitan areas are Seattle/Tacoma, Washington, with 3.3 million people;[9] Vancouver, British Columbia, with 2.3 million people;[10] and the Portland metropolitan area, with 2.2 million people.[11]

A key aspect of the Pacific Northwest is the US–Canada international border, which was established when the region was largely unsettled by non-indigenous peoples. The border along the 49th parallel and the Alaska Panhandle has had a powerful effect on the region. According to Canadian historian Ken Coates, the border has not merely influenced the Pacific Northwest—rather, "the region's history and character have been determined by the boundary".[4]

Otheriwse Seattle doesn't have much going for it, doesn't have a coherent frequent visitor programme, isn't a member of any major alliance and so far as I know it doesn't have any affinity credit card with any major US bank.

:)

Now now, Seattle will sleep with anyone that isn't *A, and it has an affinity card that gets you a $99 companion fare each year. Of course, if the Chilean government approves a merger, Seattle will probably have to divest itself of Cordova (Alaska). :p

On the topic of west.. I wouldn't know what would be in the forum..

Ask & you shall receive. The West forum (which currently exists) incorporates the following:

"Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada (See the sub-forums within for Las Vegas), New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wyoming"

Cheers.

BC really is part of the Northwest no matter what people think. Besides having lived in the NW for 41 years including one year in Bellingham, I suddenly came to the realization the Point Roberts, WA actually can only be reached by land by transiting British Columbia.

This includes two immigration and custom checks. If you are doubters, please check out Point Roberts.

Additionally, often companies in Southern British Columbia actually use the U.S. Postal service because it is faster than Canada Post in cross border shipments. Recently I dealt with a company in Burnaby who ship from Blaine for this reason. Not only is it cheaper to take stuff across the border but also much faster.

Perhaps someone should talk with Fredd who actually lives on the border if there are doubters that the Pacific Northwest includes southern British Columbia.

I note that some of the strongest doubters do not live in either country. Local knowledge should trump guessing. I happen to know that Great Britain includes Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. If there was enough support for such a division, I'd support that decision.

I appeal for you to listen to those of us who have local knowledge. I support a Pacific Northwest Forum preferably including BC.

Cascadia is the proposed name for a bioregional political entity and/or an independent nation located within the Cascadian bioregion of the Pacific Northwest of North America. Proposed boundaries differ, with some drawn along existing political state and provincial lines, and others drawn along larger ecological, cultural and economic boundaries.
The nation would be created by secession of British Columbia from Canada, along with Oregon, Washington and portions of other states from the United States. At its maximum extent Cascadia would extend from the coastal Alaskan Panhandle to the north, extending into Northern California in the south, and inland to include parts of the Yukon, Idaho, Wyoming and Western Montana.
As measured only by the combination of present B.C., Washington and Oregon statistics, Cascadia would be home to 15 million people, and an economy generating more than $750 billion worth of goods and services annually, which would place Cascadia in the top 20 economies of the world.[2] Its largest city, Seattle, itself has an economy slightly smaller than Thailand, but larger than Colombia and Venezuela.[3] By land area Cascadia would be the 20th largest nation in the world, with a land area of 1,384,588 km² (534,572 sq mi), placing it right behind Mongolia. By population, Cascadia would rank as the 65th largest, just above Malawi and just below Niger in population, or about the size of Sweden and Finland's population combined.

This native's opinion: ^ Cascadia ^

It's descriptive without being exclusive, which is especially helpful when talking about land connections among and daytrips out of the three cities. PDX is a daytrip from Seattlite, but so is YVR. Mount St. Helens is a day trip from either SEA and PDX. FWIW, the Amtrak line from Eugene to Vancouver is called ... wait for it ... The Cascades. It's not a leap to name an FT travel region 'Cascadia'.

Cascadia is appropriate. I think YVR is closer culturally and economically to SEA and PDX than YYZ.

How about the State of Jefferson for those of us in southern Cascadia ;)?

I would suspect the ND/SD posts could go in the same forum as MN, but I struggle with putting them in something called Midwest.
Most of my family are natives of the Dakotas. They seem to refer to themselves as being from the Midwest though maybe they think of themselves as from the Plains.

How about the State of Jefferson for those of us in southern Cascadia ;)?
A subforum for the rebels. I like it.

Cascadia of the Pacific Northwest.. has a nice ring to it..

I have no clue if its politically correct.;)

How do the AAA Tourbooks divide the west?

Well, my AAA membership is with the Mountain West region (http://www.aaamtw.com/)--Alaska, Montana, and Wyoming.

Scary to think I live in the biggest city served by that division. :p

Well, my AAA membership is with the Mountain West region (http://www.aaamtw.com/)--Alaska, Montana, and Wyoming.

Scary to think I live in the biggest city served by that division. :p

And I think the AAA book for my area is AZ + NM.

And I think the AAA book for my area is AZ + NM.

Jackal is confusing membership regions with tourbooks.