Talk:Bellingham, Washington

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

Brennens[edit]

This term was listed as one of the Demonyms. I can find no support for this anecdotally or otherwise. I have removed it. 74.93.100.212 (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Local Culture additions[edit]

I've added a Local Culture section with events and landmarks. Feel free to add as you please.

Wndrby, 23 Oct. 2006 (UTC): Really, really- the pavillion is finished. No need to change it back :P --

Frey at last 05:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to this article. They are good. Bellingham Wikipedians unite. -- Dwiki 06:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You know, I am dismayed at the route the Bellingham page has been going, with politically charged or biased entries that are better served in some other way (i.e. most of the Future Development section). A healthy dialog on growth issues is one thing, but I think this is a bit much for a general community page. Maybe a linked page from the Bellingham community page just on development issues would be better. Am I alone in this idea? I would rather the community page emulate cities that provide more content and substance like San Francisco, Portland, Oregon or Eugene, Oregon. I would gladly make the edits and changes to head in this direction, but want to open this up for a general discussion first...

I'm not interested in logging in at the moment to make any edits (I was indirectly threatened by a Wikipedian and I need to make a new User name and profile), but I thought it would be good to mention under "Theater" that as well as the Whatcom Theatre Guild we have the UpFront Theater established by Ryan Stiles, and perhaps make note of the Summer Stock productions put on up at Western each year. All in all, I think the B'ham page is great! 63.231.50.47 21:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most Northwesterly[edit]

Whatcom County is not the most northwesterly in the lower 48. That honour should go to Clallam County, Washington.

?
depends on how you define "northwesterly." Clallam is more west than Whatcom but less north.
Most northernly in the "Lower 48" could include the Northwest Angle. Is this the only part of the "lower 48" that's north of the 49th parallell? 24.81.98.42 (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pipeline Explosion[edit]

Added some detail about the pipeline explosion from the NTSB report and from having seen that smoke cloud personally. Scary. The photo shows old Fairhaven, and a favorite coffeeshop of mine. Downtown Bellingham is a mile north of where the photo was taken.

Wac 04:26, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

re: Vandalism edit on 04:31, 9 Mar 2005[edit]

Article was edited on that date to remove "vandalism". Portions were removed that noted the cause of the pipeline explosion to be youths playing with fireworks. I'd agree that the phrasing in that version was crude and somewhat insensitive, however that is, to the best of my knowledge, as a bellingham resident, the suspected cause of the fire.

Hi. You're confusing two edits. My edit of March 8/9 (depending on time zone) was the anti-vandalism change, modifying income numbers in the demographics section. The edit of March 30/31 by 66.165.10.26 (odin.restek.wwu.edu) changed the text about ignition of the vapors. See [1]. This IP seems to have had a couple problems adding "nonsense" to articles. See User talk:66.165.10.26. Feel free to edit the text to change it back. References to newspaper articles or other such confirmable source would be a good addition though. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"City of Subdued Excitement"[edit]

Hadn't heard this before but I suspect it's related to nearby Vancouver, BC's tag of "No Fun City". And it's true - I've had more fun in B-ham than in Vancouver; small but fun, vs. big but repressive . . . Skookum1 22:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "City of Subdued Excitement" label is not widely used nor an official slogan (the weekly alternative paper that used it the most is now out of business) We are a laid back kind of town...and you can have lots of fun here!

I absolutely disagree. I am a 25 year Bellingham resident and can state emphatically that the slogan of Bellingham, official or no has been "The City of Subdued Excitement" since way before the Weekly dropped the "Every Other". I may think it's sort of dumb, even, but it's the slogan. Googling "city of subdued excitement" finds 917 hits, and I doubt any of those don't directly refer to Bellingham. If you can find any other slogan even tangentially attributed to Bellingham, feel free to post it here. Bellingham has a motto - it's ad hoc, there was no subcommittee devoted to finding it, but it's real. I'm reverting this, although I'm open to reasons why the slogan should be removed. -Dwiki 10:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Edit: just realized that I forgot to contest the fact that this slogan is not widely used. It is. I'm sorry if my edits here are erratic, I feel very embarrassed defending this dumb slogan, which I never really even understood or endorsed. But seriously, tons of people use it, to the point of it being annoying. -Dwiki 11:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
oh, and full disclosure: I was the one who put "City of subdued excitement" in the first place. Okay, now discuss: -Dwiki 10:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't been in Bellingham in a couple monthes, but I swear "City of Subdued Excitement" is incorporated into a wall mural. Maybe the one on the side of the Fairhaven Pharmacy? Or somewhere near the history museum sounds more like it. Whitejay251 11:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, it's on the wall of the old Lone Wolf building next to the Museum. Check it out - Dwiki 23:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I personally like the slogan the tourism office is using "A Refreshing Change". More progressive and shows that our town is different in a positive way.

This should nonetheless be noted as unofficial, and footnoted citing a few prominent uses. - Jmabel | Talk 07:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The slogan is also on a wall mural on State St., though as another fact, the slogan is copyrighted by a guy, whose name i don't know, but has prevented others from using it. Murderbike 19:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vandalism (November 2006)[edit]

Somebody (71.231.38.152) is vanalizing this nickname and instead calling it "City of Generic Logos". While "City of Subdued Excitement" is not official it is commonly accepted as such. This malicious visitor is clearly protesting the new city logo (which admittedly I dislike as well) and has also made the change "He is also the one who hired a Seattle company to design a generic Bellingham logo." in reference to former mayor Mark Asmundson. Does anybody know how to bar this user from making changes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaufle (talkcontribs) 2006-11-12 11:47

See Wikipedia:Vandalism for tips on how to deal with vandalism, as well as Wikipedia's policy on various kinds of vandalism. As you see in this case, other editors noted the changes and reverted them promptly. The vandal eventually gave up. This user's contributions are listed at Special:Contributions/71.231.38.152, so you can check to see what other mischief they may have made. It looks to me like their other changes were helpful, not vandalism. Hope this helps. --Jdlh | Talk 19:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hermosa - Bellingham's pirate republic?[edit]

Any of you Bellinghamians (ites?) ever heard of a pirate colony called Hermosa, possibly/supposedly connected with the mysterious Spanish party at Kelowna which got wiped out on its way "home" via the Similkameen? Supposedly Hermosa was Fairhaven, or the author theorizing/demonstraing this dubbed it that in lack of any other, and it was supposedly a pirate haven of sailors who had fled north from the limits of the Spanish/Mexican navy, which then was no farther north than San Blas; according to the gist of the legend, part of the reason for the voyages sent north from that garrison-port were to secure the interests of the Spanish king; but curiously the Spanish did not seek to penetrate the Strait of Juan de Fuca, as if held off. References are scattered but have been summarized in at least two accounts that I can think of, two which I think I have around the house. Just wondering if this is known about down there....Haven't been able to dig up any native stories that back this up, other than the massacre at Keremeos, but there were indications of "un-Indian" activities in some of the early reports from the Strait of Juan de Fuca; most strikingly, crucifixions of victims, then unknown in native culture in this region. The Spanish may have only feared the Euclataws or the then-powerful Cowichans and Suguamish, but at least one account I read analyzes some of the accounts which hint at something known to the chronicler and his captain, but recorded deftly, as if not to admit to the existence of something; that particular account I don't have but if I gave it some thought I could come upwith the author; one of the local journalist-historians.Skookum1 06:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, think I know the book - Indian Wars in the Pacific Northwest, a paper-bound with a wide range of stuff in it, including the Hermosa/Bellingham-Spanish/Pirate-Similkameen War which ended what these theories say was a pirate colony located at what is now Fairhaven; I think Hermosa's just a made up name as a Spanish variant of Fairhaven (beautiful place/harbour). There's other accounts I've read, one that had some detailed comments to do with why the Catalunyan Volunteers were brought in, and that they didn't dare go too far up the Strait of Juan de Fuca; not from fear of the Tongass or Klallam or Euclataws, but of the pirate-haven which apparently might have been defectors from Fort San Miguel in Nootka Sound. There's another book, also paperbound but somewhat more rustic in tone, Fur and Gold; both it and the other one are cited on avarious history articles, I'll come back with the publication details; anyway I was hoping one of you Bellinghamonians and Washington history buffs might know something, or make the effort to find out about this; "City of Subdued Piracy" perhaps; also came up with some interesting background on B-ham in Bancroft's History of Washington and his early BC one as well....Skookum1 (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should explain that all my books are in storage in BC, I'm in Nova Scotia and won't have access to them again any time soon; but these are books you may find in used bookstores or trouckstop-type history/guidebook racks, in both BC and WA.Skookum1 (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop[edit]

To the anonymous blowhard (ISP 207.69.137.34 and/or 172.185.90.63) who keeps using this talk page as a place to blather about how much you hate the Pacific Northwest: please stop. Your opinions are extremely subjective and POV, and contribute nothing to this discussion. Stop trying to pass off your prejudices as fact; just because you didn't enjoy yourself in Bellingham, it doesn't mean you can use Wikipedia as a forum to air your prejudice (and yes, prejudice is the correct word: your posts suggest you value shallow, superficial judgments above empirical data). So please: stop! Stlom 01:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

However, the inane comments removed by stlom may be useful as a textbook example of Tin-foil_hat.  :) Thewalrus 09:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bellingham Weekly[edit]

What happened to the Bellingham Weekly? When I last lived in Bellingham, there were several competing weekly papers. Somebody told me that they merged, or one went out of business. I remember the every other weekly, the echo (classified ads) and a couple of others. Thewalrus 01:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Echo's still around. The Every Other Weekly became the Bellingham Weekly. There was a falling out amongst the BW's editor and the owner, from what I understand. I heard that the staff & editor were fired, re-hired and then fired again, although this is all hearsay. The staff and editor started a new paper which is called the Cascadia Weekly. It is now funded by Bob Hall and David Syre, but it's basically the same paper. --Dwiki 22:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

conservative?[edit]

any info on whether this town is more conservative or liberal by american standards?

Overall it's pretty liberal, like most of western Washington. Stlom 10:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...there are lots of military people around that area, and also there is a homeland security office there, which may attract some conservative types.

it's a northwest college town, but traditionally a lot of employment came from extraction industries (timber, fishing). hence there's a tendency toward extremism, at least on environmental/land use issues. whatcom county is probably skewed conservative, but I believe the city itself skews slightly liberal.

- I am absolutely sure the city skews left, but maybe high school and college students create an even more disproportionate impression. But overall, especially if compared to other parts of America as a whole, definitely liberal. Frey 07:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just look at how washington votes: every county with the exeption of whatcom, and king vote conservitive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.125.230 (talk)

If I had to give the town a label, it would be contrarian. I visited family in Bellingham in August, and the ONLY political signs I saw were for Ron Paul. If it weren't a 2-party system, I'd bet that the Greens and Libertarians would garner as many votes as either the Democrats or Republicans.24.84.233.33 (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cleaning up "Notable citizens"[edit]

The "Notable citizens" list is getting extensive. I think it needs to be cleaned up. Before I be bold and do that work, I'd like to gather consensus about what to do. I'm adding a series of proposals below. Please put your response as a bulleted item below the proposal. If I'm missing points, please add them. I'll give this a week, and if I see a consensus, I'll proceed. Your thoughts? --Jdlh | Talk 19:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal 1: follow WP policy on Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Lists of people. This says that "the list should be limited to notable people: those that already have a Wikipedia article or could plausibly have one, per this guideline." This may call for deleting some people on the list that aren't notable (4 entries on the list don't have articles, so may not be notable). --Jdlh | Talk 19:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

♦ Generally in agreement, however Joel Connelly (misspelled in the article, I'll fix that in a minute) does not have his own page but is referenced in a lot of Wikipedia articles so therefore I propose (even though I rarely agree with him) that he is notable enough to stay on the list. Khaufle 03:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal 2: Bands are worth covering, but aren't people, so don't belong in the "Notable citizens" section. Move any bands in "Notable Citizens" list to "Local Music Scene" section. If that gets unwieldy, someone else may want to create a "Notable bands of Bellingham" section, or even a "List of Bellingham bands" article. --Jdlh | Talk 19:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

♦ I definitely agree that bands should be removed from the list and added to the "local Music Scene" section. They are not individuals but a group of individuals. While that particular section isn't very extensive right now it seems that a quarter of the updates for this article have to do with that section so it seems to me that there is enough interest and enough potential content to warant having a new article developed for this section. Khaufle 03:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal 3: (revised, see 3a, 3b, 3c below) follow WP policy on attribution to reliable sources by calling for citation of evidence for each person's Bellingham connection. For any red-link article, that means calling for a "ref" tag with a citation by the red link in "Notable citizens" list. For any blue-link article where the article doesn't mention a Bellingham connection, calling for a "ref" tag by the blue link in the "Notable citizens" list here. For any blue-link article which mentions a Bellingham connection but doesn't cite a reliable source, call for a "ref" tag by claim in the person's article. Any place where this proposal calls for attribution but it's not there, add a "fact" tag to say a citation is needed. In practice, I expect I'd add "fact" tags to many of the entries in the list right now, or in the corresponding articles. --Jdlh | Talk 19:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

♦ Considering I can hardly follow what this is saying - being completely awake and sober - I say forget option 3. If Wikipedia makes their policies so convoluted and a pain in the a$$ then they shouldn't be upset if the policy isn't followed. Khaufle 03:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Khaufle, don't blame WP for the convolution of Proposal 3. That was my effort to apply the attribution policy to the case of notable citizens. Let me cross out break Proposal 3 into parts, and see if that's easier to understand. --Jdlh | Talk 08:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal 3a: where a person on the Notable Citizens list does not have an article already (i.e. has a red link), check to see if the person used to have an article, which was deleted because they weren't notable. In that case, delete the person from the notable citizens list. Otherwise, they may stay on the list but, in the spirit of the WP policy on attribution to reliable sources, there should be a footnote attached to their name with a citation showing their local connection. If there's no footnote, it's appropriate to put on a "fact" tag saying a citation is needed. --Jdlh | Talk 08:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal 3b: where a person on the Notable Citizens list does have an article, but the article does not mention the local connection, then the editor adding the notable citizen to the list should add a statement to the person's article, documenting their local connection, with attribution to a reliable source. If there's no such statement in the person's article, it's appropriate to put a "fact" tag on the person's entry in the list to show the article is missing evidence for a local connection, and perhaps the person doesn't belong on the list. If it seems likely that there is no local connection, delete the name from the list. --Jdlh | Talk 08:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal 3c: where a person on the Notable Citizens list has an article, and the article mentions a local connection, but there's no attribution to a reliable source, then it's appropriate to put a "fact" tag against that unsupported mention of a local connection. In this case there's no tag on the name in the list.--Jdlh | Talk 08:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I take Khaufle's comments as generally in agreement, and don't hear any objections, so I'm going ahead with the proposals as outlined above. --Jdlh | Talk 03:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations to Khaufle for adding the first reference to attribute a notable citizen's Bellingham connection! As a further step, I encourage editors to move descriptions and references like these from the Bellingham Notable Citizens list to the person's main article. Step by step, we all move Wikipedia forward. --Jdlh | Talk 19:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's been a month, and 14 of the entries are still tagged as needing citation. Six of them are red-links. If I don't hear objections, in a few days I'll delete the entries in the notable persons list still tagged. --Jdlh | Talk 20:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's now August, and there are several entries in the Notable Citizens list which are marked as "needs citation" from April or May 2007. If I don't hear any objections in the next few days, I'll delete those entries. --Jdlh | Talk 19:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cleaned up 12 entries tagged as "Needs Citation" dated May 2007 or earlier. 2 now have claims of Bellingham connection in the main article, so I summarised that connection and removed the tag (Kenneth Bianchi, Penelope Houston. 5 are blue links with no mention of Bellingham in their articles (George Dyson, Ben Gibbard, Drew Hayes, General George Pickett, Harry Everett Smith). 5 are red links (Steve Alvord, Joel Connelly, Micah Knapp, Ben Santarris, Kevin M. Thompson). We should do this every few months, I think. --Jdlh | Talk 18:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sort order of "Notable citizens"[edit]

Notmyhandle just reordered the list of notable citizens by first name. They were previously sorted by last name. I personally think last name is a better choice of ordering for lists in an encyclopedia. In a formal context like an encyclopedia, phone book, or list of Nobel Prize honorees, it's conventional to order by the last name. The last name is the more public or formal name. So I think we should go back to the previous ordering. But first, I have posted a question to Notmyhandle's talk page, asking for their reasons to sort by first name. --Jdlh | Talk 00:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lol, the list was so ugly I couldn't even tell. My mistake. But I do propose changing the names to Last Name, First Name format. --Notmyhandle 00:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess I don't see having names spelled as "firstname lastname", but ordered as "lastname, firstname", as visually disorganised. Here's a school's notable former pupils list, sorted in order of birth date. I don't think changing to "lastname, firstname" spelling would be much of an improvement, so I'm not inclined to do that work. If someone else wants to do that, I don't object. I do think that sorting by first name is a step backwards, and would like to see that changed. --Jdlh | Talk 01:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Usually things are sorted by some easily identifiable thing, for instance the list you gave is ordered by birthdate. In this case, I feel that if we are to organize it by name, then the first thing you see in the column should be the thing that it's ordered by. As such, it is either good the way it is now, or must be Last Name, First Name and then re-alphabatized (I'd be glad to do it). Think of it like a date: MM/DD/YYYY (or reversed) works great for lists because most of the time the day is unimportant (even historical dates work well in this way, 12/07/1941). It's for browse-ability and such. We could turn it into a table and make it sortable (3 columns, First Name, Last Name, Info). --Notmyhandle 01:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think I agree that "if we are to organize it by name, then the first thing you see in the column should be the thing that it's ordered by". It can be ordered by something later in the column. Doesn't your example of historical dates prove my point? If dates like "12/07/1941" are ordered by year, then they aren't ordered by the first thing you see in the column. --Jdlh | Talk 19:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I encourage you to take a look at "notable people" lists in other articles -- I see a number of different sort orders, a lot of poorly sorted lists, but so far no examples of "lastname, firstname" or "firstname lastname" sorted by firstname. Enough of my opinions; I'm interested to hear what other editors think. --Jdlh | Talk 19:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to reiterate, alphabatizing by first name was thought to be a cleanup project, not to "be better" than alphabatizing by last name. It was a mistake, but yeah I want some other people's opinions on this subject before reverting or whatever. --Notmyhandle 22:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would expect in an encyclopedic environment such as this that the names should be formatted as first and last names but then alphabatized by last name. Notmyhandle, please don't take this personally. I don't want you to be discouraged from contributing to this article in the future because of this one dissagreement. Khaufle 04:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Khaufle: I totally understand, like I said it's fine haha. Unrelated: I just find it funny how people get so emotional on wikis. There's a guy in another discussion that has gotten fed up because he's not getting it his way. Anyways long story short, I find coaxing users into staying to be... well a teaching experience but just a waste of your time. If they don't understand, it's kind of a maturity/lack of experience on the internet thing. --Notmyhandle 05:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notmyhandle, let's close this subject. I see consensus that the names be sorted in lastname, firstname order. Your proposal is to put names in that order, written as Lastname, Firstname. I propose putting names in that order, written as Firstname Lastname. I'm reordering the names back to lastname, firstname order. If you still feel strongly about rewriting the names as Lastname, Firstname, I don't object to your doing that. --Jdlh | Talk 19:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Intro[edit]

Does it really seem necessary to have a whole paragraph about the airport and it's for profit services in the opening paragraph? to me it smacks of tourist pamphlet info, hardly encyclopedic. Murderbike 04:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would suggest moving it to a section titled "Transportation." --Notmyhandle 18:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. Khaufle 04:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Went ahead and moved the info to a "transportation" sub-section. Murderbike 07:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

inside links[edit]

someone should remove the inside weblinks. They don't comply with wikipedia standards... --77.179.80.145 09:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "inside links". I don't see any links in this article to the "Bellingham, Washington" article itself. And I don't know which "Wikipedia standards" you are referring to. I didn't find a reference to "inside weblinks" in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. But you are welcome to Wikipedia:Be bold and fix the problems you see. Other editors will either agree and continue the work, or disagree and do something different. Thus does Wikipedia improve. --Jdlh | Talk 19:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would presume this is referring to all the links to sites OUTSIDE of wikipedia, like all the colleges, Village Books and whatnot. There's a ton of them, but I've never really paid much attention to what policies or guidelines say about them. Murderbike 22:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Links to sites outside of Wikipedia are called "External Links", and the policy on them is at Wikipedia:External Links. "Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." ("meritable"??) --Jdlh | Talk 19:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Schools in the lead.[edit]

The lead section seems to once again be getting cluttered up, this time with non-notable schools. How about we add a section on "Education" or something like that, and move them there? Murderbike (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Bellingham.jpg[edit]

Image:Bellingham.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Waterfront redevelopment section cleanup[edit]

I was recently chastised for removing the more highly partisan portions of the "waterfront redevelopment" section without posting on this page. As the section stands, it reads much like the Bellingham Bay Foundation's website. If there are no particular objections to me removing a vast swath of unsupported comments and POV language, I will do so again.216.254.15.134 (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've got no objection. Thanks for posting your reasoning. Large removals are usually evidence of vandalism, so it's always good to have at least an edit summary when editing. --clpo13(talk) 04:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, it's really easy to assume that an anonymous IP that removes material without using an edit summary is just doing partisan vandalizing. Murderbike (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yahhhhhhhhhhh whattttttttttttt nowwwwwwwwww............lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.18.121 (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Local Attractions advertisement tag[edit]

Somebody added an advertisement tag to the Local Attractions section. In the current version of the section it appears that all items are either natural highlights, non-profit organizations, community institutions or historically notable. I think each of those criteria, independent or collective, should qualify them to this section. This section will always have a sense of advertisement because that's exactly what it is - it's explaining what's so special about Bellingham other than the hard facts. I would say however that just adding a list item without a description should be frowned upon. If you can't justify why something is notable as an attraction then don't add it. My two cents. Khaufle (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The advertisement tag was added on 20:17, January 4, 2008 by User:210.56.70.98. That is the only edit this IP address has made. Since then we have removed listings for Evergreen Team Concepts, Village Books, Henderson Books, Bellis Fair Mall, and "Whale watching tours". Maybe the work called for is done. --Jdlh | Talk 20:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. I appreciate the vigilance, it was pretty spammy for awhile. Murderbike (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Olympic Pipeline Explosion[edit]

Isn't there an article about the Olympic Pipeline Explosion? If so, a link. If not, an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.9.95 (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Be bold! Find the article! Make the link! If the article isn't there, write it! --Jdlh | Talk 06:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links[edit]

I just want to discuss about few links that I want to add to this page and think that they can be helpful. Please let me know your thoughts. I really donot want to be aggressive and insert it and get it removed by somebody.Rather I would like to discuss and insert them so that they are added as enhancements to the page. Here are the links:-

www.portofbellingham.com

www.wwu.edu/

Let me know your thoughts. --PhoneBookHistorianGeek (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, PhoneBookHistorianGeek, thank you for your interest in the Bellingham article. It's great to have people working on making it better. My thoughts? That external links have their place, but in general are pretty low-grade ways to improve a Wikipedia article. The effort is usually better spent in other ways. Have you read the Wikipedia:External links guidelines? With regard to wwu.edu: there's already a Western Washington University article, and it links to wwu.edu. The Bellingham article mentions WWU in its text. How would adding the wwu.edu link in the external links section improve Wikipedia beyond that? With regard to portofbellingham.com, the same argument applies, but there are two related articles: Port of Bellingham (a stub) and Bellingham Waterfront. Again, how would adding this extlink here in the Bellingham article improve Wikipedia? Maybe there's a good reason, but that's the case you should make, in my humble opinion. --Jdlh | Talk 04:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

Just a quick note about this - I sometimes hear "BELLingham" rather than "BELL-ing-HAM", I suppose because the original English town is pronounced the former way; I don't know how to IPA that up but if someone can it should be in the intro. And just a question - why is the supposed Lummi name shown in the infobox? The Lummi word is not the same in meaning, i.e. I doubt the Lummim language uses it to refer to the city, and it's not an official name of the city, nor is Lummi an official language for any of the city, county or state.Skookum1 (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The traditional English pronunciation is actually more along the lines of BELL-ing-uhm. Considering the history of the town, it would seem this is the proper way of saying the name. However, I've never heard anyone local say anything other than BELL-ing-HAM.
Siggimoo (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And what's "proper" anyway? Pronunciations change. we don't pronounce Florida Flow-REE-dah. Murderbike (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was named by an Englishman (or rather Bellingham Bay was, but when it got settled, it was settled by Americans who had no knowledge of the traditional English-in-England pronunciation. The American pronunciation, once it developed, seems to have quickly and ever since been adopted as the standard in British Columbia also. (even by those with English accents...once they've been in BC a while and been "clued in"Skookum1 (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems like the indigenous pronunciation is something which could be restored to the page if it had some citations in reliable sources regarding its commonality. Alternately, if more appropriate, we could see if there are Reliable Sources who cite more Local Culture topics including mention of the indigenous people, and if they include mention of the pronunciation of the name, we could simply show that Reference and get two-birds-with-one-stone. Just a suggestion, thanks. Teledildonix314 talk 19:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only citations I can think of would be to link to local radio/TV stations such as KVOSTV-12 and hwatever "feeds" they might have...Vancouver stations likewise, but not one specific citation, unless it's in an American encyclopedia. "BELL-ingum", the British pronunciation, defeinitely isn't used at all. AS for the indigenous-indigenous pronunciation, this is as much Nooksack territory as it is Lummi and it's probably also Kwantlen or another now-Fraser Valley tribe such as the Sumas (who are interlinked with the neighbouring Nooksack anyway). "Whatcom" was the name of a chief, not of a place; what the Lummi or Nooksack word for the place is I don't know, but it wouldnt' be "Whatcom"; it happens to be the name of the original white settlement, i.e. teh settlement around Chief Whatcom's place, but the Lummi or Nooksack or Semiahmoo name for the place just wouldn't be the same thing....when I see Whatcom's name, btw, I'm always curious if it might not be the same guy as Whattlekainum, chief of the Kwantlens during the first half of the 19th Century, who "ruled" at Fort Langley and also at a large village opposite New Westminster; maybe I'll find something on that one day, the names are too similar, and given white transcription/rendering practices, quite conceivable to have been the same guy....Skookum1 (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
about him see this.Skookum1 (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now that you put it that way, i totally see your point. We don't need a box with a list of every single local language's name for the place, unless there is an important reason to include something with lots of good citations. If we include a Lummi word then we'd probably also need to include the locality's name in Spanish, Nooksack, Russian, and any other long-established regional language. It's the sort of thing which belongs in a separate article if necessary. Anyway, thanks for explaining that. Teledildonix314 talk 21:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Creation[edit]

I have created the Lake Padden page and put a link on here to it. good? CallMeAndrew (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

im gonna upgrade the section of education. im going to add high schools and colleges. it will be a list. then maybe i will also add the newspapers. Sound good? CallMeAndrew (talk) 06:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
added the school list. CallMeAndrew (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does anybody want to create the Bellingham High School page? i can always do it if nobody is going to. or i can create it and people can help me add stuff. Sound Good? CallMeAndrew (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ok, i just created it, plz add stuff to it and help me get some reference. Bellingham High School —Preceding unsigned comment added by CallMeAndrew (talkcontribs) 20:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for adding the public High Schools to the article. I have also noticed the section of Education could be divided into colleges, public high schools, and for-profit schools, so i went ahead and made that edit. I compared the Bellingham article to various other articles such as Everett and Burlington and Seattle, because i wanted to make the Education subsection appear somewhat consistent in style to the Education subsections in those other cities' articles. Teledildonix314 Talk ~ 4-1-1 00:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
nice, its a good improvement CallMeAndrew (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the local attractions section has a thing in there that says the section sounds like advertisment. im not sure how it does, but we gotta fix it, somehow. it will look alot better after. but im not sure how to do this. CallMeAndrew (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Chuckanut Bay RFC Logo.jpg[edit]

The image File:Chuckanut Bay RFC Logo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Idea[edit]

I know that bellingham is made up of 4 old towns joined together about 100 years ago. we should have a section that shows the old towns and the boundaries of them with names. i could make a map or somthing. its just an idea. do u think i should do it? i think it would improve the page. CallMeAndrew (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i added it, improve it or correct if u need.CallMeAndrew (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This was an excellent addition to the History section of the article. I made very minor adjustments to grammar and style, but in general your information and references are quite fine. Thank you for improving the story of our city. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk ~ 4-1-1 ~ 00:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i apreciate the apreciation, u made it sound way more professional. im now thinking of the next project to add to bellingham. CallMeAndrew (talk) 04:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i added the 8 way Surrounding Municipalities. edit if u need. =) CallMeAndrew (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Highest point[edit]

I'm struggling to find a source, but I know the highest point in Bellingham is NOT Alabama Hill. I think it's an unpopulated location either on Yew Street Hill or the shoulder of Galbraith Mountain. Either way, the elevation is around 800, much higher than the 500 elevation in the Tweed Twenty area. Perhaps we could retain the Alabama Hill reference as the highest populated point in the city.

69.7.41.230 (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You might be correct. The Alabama Hill altitude was found on Google Maps and other free online map sources. However, i will take a closer look at the Yew Street Hill and Galbraith Mountain elevations. If they are within the actual city limits of Bellingham, i will update with new data. However, i'm not sure exactly where the lines are drawn for the true official perimeter of the city, so it will take me a while to compare maps. I'll be back with an update later today. Thanks for your help! Happy Bellinghamster weekend! ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk ~ 4-1-1 ~ 20:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, indeed, it looks like the edge of the city limits extends part of the way up the west-facing slopes of Yew Street Hill and the perimeter of Lake Padden. I altered that paragraph, and added mention of other geographic features. If anybody has some reference materials, gazateers, etc, we could probably find some more famous natural features to mention encylopedically. Thanks ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk ~ 4-1-1 ~ 21:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Music Section[edit]

I know the music section isn't the most encyclopedic, but that doesn't mean that it should be used as a springboard for irrelevant advertisement. "JED" is a band that has nothing to do with Bellingham and its representing agency that says it is based in Bellingham has nothing to document this on its linked source (it's homepage). That being the case, it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.86.89 (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm moving this "Music Section" Discussion down to the bottom here, in the hopes that it will receive some attention from local experts. Although most of the Bellingham article has been cleaned up, the "Music Section" still has a ton of redlinks to bands which are of questionable notability at this time. If there are any editors who have Reliable Sources which can support stronger notability and Verifiability of any of the musicians mentioned in those redlinks, i think it would be wonderful if we could add some citations and good references. But until that Music Section is brought up to the general standards of Notability guidelines i think i should be bold and do some pruning. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk ~ 4-1-1 ~ 00:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've done more pruning of all bands which were listed without any notable secondary sources. This article about Bellingham is not a fanzine, and would be better if we avoid items # 123, 295, 679, and 745 on this list of 1000 things not to write here. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 04:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good Article[edit]

im starting to think this article is almost ready for good article quality. there doesnt seem to be much problems, plus if there are, im sure they could be easily fixed. im gonna work to get more pictures. history seems good, geography seems good, what else do we need? CallMeAndrew (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Definantly not. Its still a B quality as there are plenty of places that are not sourced and the wordning in places is not right. --76.121.4.143 (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Food not Bombs[edit]

Does the Food Not Bombs chapter in Bellingham merit inclusion in the activism section? Seems like a lot of people attend, and a lot of young people in the community are affiliated with it.

Also, on another topic: Is this "Bellingham is home to the longest-running Peace vigil in the US. Started by Howard and Rosemary Harris more than 46 years ago, it has seen more than 4 generations. On the corner of Magnolia Street and Cornwall, in front of the Federal Building, every Friday starting at 4pm and lasting until usually about 5 pm.[51][52]" a little too 'promotional' for WP standards? I know it's all factual and doesn't use glorifying adjectives (am I damning my own case here??) but it seems a little too specific, the kind of thing you'd see on a poster advertising it. NeutronTaste (talk) 07:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Crime free?[edit]

Good day. Is there no crime in Bellingham? I could see nothing in the article. I am not versed on the subject but would welcome the addition of this information, which is common on place pages elsewhere in W. Also, the page has a boosterism feel to it. Is that just my take or does anyone else concur (see the weather/climate preamble as an example)? Thanks (forgot my account password so I'll be anon., 96.49.38.248 (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed Edit?[edit]

The other day, on March 19, I made a legitimate edit, discussing one of the events that occurs in Bellingham, and it was removed the following day. Although there is no source of more information on the subject, I don't think it should have been deleted.

~Tobi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.254.208 (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC) its really green there cause i lived there before its a city/town to me i grew up there since i was bornReply[reply]

Bellingham Blitz?[edit]

I see no mention of the Bellingham Blitz football team. I'm not sure that I could safely add them, but their website is at http://www.bellinghamblitz.net/. (They aren't real good at keeping the website current, but I'm pretty sure the team is still current. If you're really worried about it, there is contact information on the website, so I'm sure you could verify. They are a member of the Western Washington Football Alliance and took the championship in that league in 2011.

Seems worth a mention in the sports section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.94.72 (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dubious Climate and "Average Sunshine Amount" Data[edit]

In the climate section it is stated: Bellingham was reported to have the lowest average sunshine amount of any city in the US.[23]. There are two problems with this data. 1) The source, City Data, does not indicate where it gets its "average sunshine amount" data 2) Actual data from the Office of the Washington State Climatologist which uses actual observations from weather stations from 1973-2000 indicates Bellingham is far from being the cloudiest location in Washington. In fact, the average cloud cover is less than both Seattle (Sea Tac) and Paine Field (Everett) and Olympia http://www.climate.washington.edu/cloudcover/#top. It also features more clear or partly cloudy days (164) than the above mentioned cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabbi the tabby (talkcontribs) 04:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That looks like a questionable source to me too. I've lived in Grays Harbor and Olympia and know for a fact that Bellingham is far less cloudy/rainy than those parts of the state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.7.45.135 (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bellingham, Washington. 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 02:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Literary references going once...[edit]

I don't think we should keep the literary references section at all, even if citations can be provided from the source works, the Bridges of Madison County or Footfall. The problem is not just that we need to cite the pop culture source, we also need to cite a third party source that says that this reference is in some way important. It doesn't need to be notable like an article topic, but there has to be a reason beyond mere existence to care that Bellingham showed up. It has to have had some influence, or have changed the work in a meaningful way. If it's all the same if the book said Bellingham or some other random town, then what is the point? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds good to me. It comes across as a way for someone to say "Look, Bellingham's relevant! Larry Niven mentioned it!". Maybe if the setting was an integral part of a work, but a mere mention doesn't mean anything. I mean, how often is, say, New York City mentioned in literature? clpo13(talk) 00:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bellingham Flag[edit]

I reverted the removal of the Bellingham flag. Yes, it's unofficial, but it was the winner of an open community competition. (I don't know how to add a footnote to http://bellinghamwins.com/bellingham-city-flag/ or '(unofficial)' to the description in the Infobox.)

'Subdued Excitement' isn't official either (though it has a longer history). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balsamic Fan (talkcontribs) 19:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see a problem with the nickname. In the documentation for Template:Infobox settlement, the "nickname" field is intended for "well-known nickname(s)" - so if a third-party reliable source documents the common usage of a nickname, I don't see an issue.
However, the "image_flag" field in the template guidance doesn't clarify official v. unofficial, so I started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox settlement#Flag image - official v. unofficial to address that question. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 04:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Juggalos.[edit]

Why is there no section on the Juggalos downtown? They seem pretty relevant to the city's character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.102.156.190 (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bellingham is not only in the state of Washington[edit]

There are other place named Bellingham in the world, but there is a redirect on Bellingham so that the only place that can be found is Bellingham, Washington. I guess I shall have to look outside of Wikipedia for Bellingham, Northumberland, England. --Oldontarian (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, which is why the top of the page links to Bellingham (disambiguation). clpo13(talk) 18:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does Bellingham have any 'social season'[edit]

The article on San Francisco Opera notes that opening night for San Francisco Opera starts the 'San Francisco Social Season'. I am a newcomer here in Bellingham (Escaped Mental Patient From Intel Corporation of Oregon) and I wonder if we have something that starts the social season here in Bellingham?

Truly, Allyn (talk) 05:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Bellingham, Washington. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 10:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bellingham, Washington. 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) 15:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

212,284[edit]

I find the repetitive invocation of the number 212,284 in the introductory paragraphs both annoying and disingenuous. Wikipedia should not be a place for silly municipal boosterism. The population of the city is less than 90,000, and to keep citing the metro area population and calling it the "city"'s population is not serious encyclopedic writing. The sidebar has it right, but the article text keeps getting it wrong. I'm not going to fix it, at least not today, but I needed to vent. --Haruo (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I decided to scrap that whole paragraph and fix some facts that were different from their cited source. The lead in general is a bit of a mess, with no summary of history or industry and too much emphasis on modern redevelopment. SounderBruce 14:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Bellingham, Washington. 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) 13:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bellingham, Washington. 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) 00:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bellingham (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

/neutral pov/[edit]

There is a news company that I really want to add on here under *media* but as I have learned before, I am unable to edit in or create articles of stuff I run. I was wondering if someone here can post 'Bellingham Metro News' from a neutral standpoint since I am unable to. Reason being is Whatcom Watch is listed via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellingham,_Washington /Media and has its own Wikipedia article yet not as widely known. I hope its okay for me to post this in the talk page :/ I figured it would be better to have a consensus conversation regarding this matter since the (BMN) is turning 3-years-old this January.

I would rather have someone create this from a neutral viewpoint rather than a promotionally-written article

--Fernando Gonzalez 09:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Fernando Gonzafer001 (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whatcom Watch has several mentions in the Bellingham Herald, which means it meets notability guidelines. There needs to be significant, focused coverage of Bellingham Metro News from a reputable and established source before it can be added, period. SounderBruce 06:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]