Talk:Denver, Colorado

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Denver, Colorado article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Denver, Colorado (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

Denver, Colorado has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	To-do list for Denver, Colorado:	edit - history - watch - refresh
	Get to FA I think you might look at the Chicago (and San Francisco) article as a way to make it better. Think about fewer lists of things and more paragraphs. The Hosting stuff under Sports may need to be cut down a bit. Try looking into the history for elements that are of broad interest. Climate seems a bit big--how about a graph that summarizes the climate instead of the 2 tables? Are there neighborhood articles for Denver? Hilltop? 5 Points? LoDo? Bonnie Brae? A paragraph about these might be good content. Linked to denvergov.org's pdf map of Denver's neighborhoods in external links. Moonburn 09:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC) I also do not see anything about all the houses in Denver being brick after the fires in the 1920s. This is something that stands out, to me at least Please punctuate your refs correctly.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FN#Where_to_place_ref_tags The lead is killing me: it's way too busy, and not enticing or compelling. Some of the sections are short and stubby. Is all of that See also necessary, or can some of it be incorporated into the article?

This article is part of WikiProject Colorado, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Colorado-related articles to a feature-quality standard.

This article is part of the WikiProject on Cities which aims to improve and standardize articles on cities, towns, and other municipalities of the world. Make suggestions for improving multiple articles on these subjects at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities.

Denver, Colorado has been a U.S. Collaboration of the Week on the two weeks starting from April 10, 2006. Please feel free to help contribute to the article in any way possible.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale.

Please add new sections at the bottom (or click "post a comment").

Contents 1 History of Denver 2 Skyline photo at night... 3 Population figures (again) 4 References 5 Famous Denverites: Part 2 6 culture, sub-articles, landmarks 7 Qwest Building v. Wells Fargo Center 8 Sports team logos 9 Cheeseburger and beat generation 10 Jewish Population 11 Is It What I Think It Is? 12 Passed as good article 13 Small City? 14 Qwest Lightning photo 15 Wikipedians for Denver 2008 16 Added various sections 17 Denver in Pop Culture section 18 Sports list looks too bulky 19 Red Rocks 20 Picture Placement/Property things 21 Geography addition... 22 Excel Grid for Climate 23 Survey on proposal to make U.S. city naming guidelines consistent with others countries 24 Names of neighborhood articles 25 are there 26 Archival 27 Two articles about the metro area? 28 Addition of CBD article? 29 Northfield Stapleton light show

[edit] History of Denver

I see that recently someone put "Main article: History of Denver." There is no main article for the history of Denver, but I would love to see one! Denver has a great old west history of crime and corruption. I know I would write a nice section on crime in the early days (1879-1896), where as friends of mine, and relatives of the Blonger name would surely be interested in writing about crime following my part, and well into the 1920's. Anyone who knows the general history wish to start? Soapy 00:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The main article, "History of Denver" is up! There is a lot of missing history there guys...dig in! Soapy 22:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skyline photo at night...

I took this picture last night, but couldn't find a good place to work it into article. There are already a lot of pics there, but I'm leaving a note here in case it is useful at some point. --MattWright (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That is literally one of the best pics of Denver's skyline I've seen in a long time. Excellent work, MattWright. Editor19841 23:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --MattWright (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

yeah, but should it go inside or outside of the infobox..cause I think its almost too small if its inside of it, but I can see why we might want it to be. What does everyone else think?

Too small in the infobox, although if it actually extended to the current infobox width (which seems inordinately wide in classic skin, hmmm) it might be about right. I'll try to figure out what's up with the disconnect between the picture width and infobox width. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The current infobox template specifies its width in "ems" which differ according to the font while the image is specified as an absolute 250px. Classic skin and monobook skin (monobook is the default) use different fonts which make the width of the infobox different. I use classic skin, and in this skin the infobox is about 350px (and the image is 250px). In monobook skin the infobox ends up about 280px which means there's far less whitespace to the sides of the image. Specifying the width of the infobox in ems or pixels is currently under discussion at template:Infobox City. I think the bottom line is that the image is too small inside the infobox. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't include it in infobox because I thought it didn't quite show the skyline as well as the daytime pic and looks way to small when resized to width of infobox. I wanted to embed it centered, with a width of 512 after the second paragraph of the article, but then that would look weird for people browsing at a small width (it might overflow infobox). In the end, I couldn't find a good place for it in the article layout, which is why I just posted it to Talk: in case someone had a better idea, or for future use. --MattWright (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been to Denver once in my life and thought it was a nice city, but this picture makes it look spectacular! If you're not a professional photographer, you should be! Great pic!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Westmt01 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Population figures (again)

OK, what's the deal. The 2nd paragraph says "according to 2006 Census estimates" and gives a reference to the 2005 census estimates and an estimated population that doesn't match the reference and claims "22nd largest" with a link to List of United States cities by population which has a list (from 2005 estimates) in which Denver is 27th. The metro area figure is now the 2.8M figure that I can't find anywhere else. The infobox repeats the claimed 2006 esimate for the city and includes the 2.8M metro figure. I don't know where the alleged 2006 estimates are coming from. Anyone care to straighten this out? -- Rick Block (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit was done by an anonymous IP a few edits ago. He/She also removed a political table. Just revert that edit (although Editor19841 made a couple fixes since then) to consensus figures we have discussed until someone comes up with a reason/source on Talk: page. --MattWright (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice the edits were all done in the same edit. I've reverted these changes and added comments asking the figures be updated only to US Census bureau estimates. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice them either, at the time of my edits after the IP's. By the way, what ever happened to the 2006 estimates (out/not released/no info?). Also: The 2.8 figure was up in the past; it might be a DRCOG figure, I don't know. Editor19841 20:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The 2.8M figure is exactly 500,000 more than the Census Bureau's 2005 figure for the metro area. This seems very, very suspicious to me. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

List of United States cities by population says Denver is 27th. Is there a reason our page says 25th? --MattWright (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Denver is indeed the 25th largest according to the excel worksheet found [1], which our reference links to. I will fix the List of United States cities by population to reflect what should be the considered the latest and standard document in regards to U.S. city's population. Vertigo700 00:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

I've reformatted all the references using <ref> tags, see Wikipedia:Footnotes (although not using Wikipedia:Citation templates). When adding other references please use the same style. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Denverites: Part 2

Does anyone think that we should either add several key people to the "Famous Denverites" section or remove/move the picture of Peña? Editor19841 21:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, preference being add a few key people in paragraph form describing their ties to denver and how they have contributed locally, with the main article being the list and more detail. --MattWright (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Editor19841 21:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it will be far more trouble than it is worth. Who will decide who is to be on the list of the priviledged few? Sports? History? Actors? Entertainment? Politicians? etc. Who is going to constantly revert the list, as it will become a job? Who ever is in charge of deleting new names from the priviledged list, should also be responsible for placing that new name onto the Famous Denverites main page. Soapy 22:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What we need is just a quick intro paragraph. Something that says Denverites have contributed to society in a variety of ways including in the arts, political science, etc (as an example). Maybe put a little history (Denver's frontier status has attracted many notable residents even from the beginning on the city's history.) Then link to the list. Don't put any names, because Soapy is right, including names prejudices the page, and may cause arguments over who is and isn't on the list.Vertigo700 01:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point; bias need not apply. I second the motion for an intro. Editor19841 21:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Why Molly Brown? I think the list of "priviledged few should at least be "born Denverites." In reality, no one should be there, to keep the prejudices turned off. You will not make people happy this way. Soapy 23:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You can take it off it you want. I figured since Molly Brown is historical it would be a bit less prejudiced. Plus, she had a good picture. (unsigned comment by Vertigo700)

I didn't like the paragraph that was added... The second half of it was so generic it could be said about any decent sized city. I picked 5 people who are very well known nationally or internationnally with connections to Denver and used them for the paragraph. Yes, people will try to add others, and they may need to be reverted or discussed. It can all be resolved in time on the Talk: page. Disagreements can go to a vote if compromise can't be reached. This encyclopedia doesn't work by having "one person in charge of removing or adding names." Soapy, you don't explain why you think they need to be born in Denver. John Elway is famously associated with this city, but wasn't born here, along with many other people. Most humans make their mark on this world as adults, not as children. Vertigo700, arguments and votes over tough issues are good and are what makes this encyclopedia become the best that it can. That's my opinion on the issue, but I may be outnumbered, and if so, feel free to revert my paragraph. --MattWright (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

...and the can of worms is now open. Why do you get to choose the list? You do seem to forget that this is Wikipedia, where disscussion or vote will not stop future editors, five minutes after you, and whoever else, votes on who should be there. This is why I was/am in favor of just a paragraph, no names, no photos. Let's put it to the test. Keep it the way it is and let's see if people leave it alone. The latter statement does not mean I agree at all with the names that are there now. Soapy 22:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The point of Wikipedia is not for a section to be left alone -- I would hope people edit it. I'm also not trying to enforce who is listed there. Feel free to edit, remove, add. The people I listed have extensive Wikipedia pages, which all mention Denver as having some significant role in their life. If you don't want anyone listed, we shouldn't even have a section for it and instead just keep the link under "See also" section, as has been done at Chicago. I am fine with that option as well, but do not want some watered down generic paragraph that provides no information other than a link to list of famous denverites. Keep in mind that these decisions are going to have to be made in other areas in the future. Landmarks is getting to be a ridiculous list, which will probably be broken into its own article soon. Then are we not going to list a single landmark because someone might object or want a different one listed? There is already a History of Denver, Colorado article now -- how do we decide what gets listed in the Denver article and what only gets listed on the history one? These subjective decisions will have to be made if you want an article that provides readers a good overview without overwhelming them and making them click through to read a long list of items. Lists do not make a good encyclopedia article. --MattWright (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, adding names to the Denver page, was what created the separate main page for names in the first place. Soapy 22:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Originally, I thought a brief list would work OK for a good intro. But upon further review, I've found exaclty what Soapy is saying; a can of worms. Who's to say what about whom on this page? Who get's to decide? I say; no one. My take on the whole native v. non-native thing is that the debate isn't worth our time as contributors. A Denverite is in fact, whether anyone likes it or not, a person/living thing/etc, that has or currently resides or was born in the City and County of Denver. But that is not a debate to be held here. A non-biased, neutral introductory paragraph is what we need. So, I agree with Soapy, I think we should consider ditching all the names and leaving that affair to the main article. MattWright, it's a good paragraph, but it belongs at List of famous Denverites. Editor19841 23:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree with MattWright about this. It might be contentious in the short term, and may never stabilize completely, but including a short list seems like a reasonable idea. Keeping it to around five may help enforce some discipline about it. The question changes from "why shouldn't this person be added" to "who should be replaced". I don't think there's any way to make the criteria for inclusion objective, but something inherently subjective like "the five people most widely associated with Denver" seems like it could lead to a consensus list. Note that by this criteria among those currently discussed I'd include Elway, Molly Brown, and Peña (not Golda Meir or Condoleeza Rice). In my opinion it's not the level fame that's primarily important, but the degree of association with Denver. Of course, if we agree the criteria should be different, perhaps "the five most famous people with any connection to Denver" the list might be different. Including the criteria (and the limit) as comments in the article might help keep the number of changes down. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

See also seems really good to me. If you look at a lot of the other city pages: Boston, Atlanta, Chicago, they just keep a bunch of extraneous lists in a see also section, which is where the list of famous denverites should go (where it already is partly), as well as landmarks, and maybe a few other sections. This way, we don't have to worry about "who's listed" and we can keep the page size down, which is currenly getting close to 50 megabites. What do you all think? Vertigo700 06:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with Rick's or Vertigo's proposal, either works for me. I also agree that a couple of the people I listed aren't highly associated with Denver, and wouldn't mind if they are changed. I just chose five off the list that I felt had some interesting connection to Denver. --MattWright (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Checking cities in Wikipedia:Featured articles, most that mention natives or residents at all have them in a separate list. I'm fine with this approach. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good now. No agument here. Soapy 22:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] culture, sub-articles, landmarks

So, I added a prose section for culture. Please feel free to add/change, as always. I moved the landmarks to its own page, because it really was getting unwieldy, and was a big reason why our page got over 50 kilobytes. For those with dial-up (like myself), that large of page really takes a long time to load, and it looked pretty clunky visually. I also got rid of the extended description of seasonal climate from the climate page, because I felt the sub-article needed some new information that the main-page could not provide, and just to make the page cleaner and shorter in general. Please feel free to let me know what you think, and if you all disagree with the changes, they can always be reverted. Vertigo700 20:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The changes I made were reverted. Does this mean people disagree with the changes, or what? I would prefer if people would comment here first before making revisions. The reasons I made the changes were as follows 1)It makes no sense to have sub-articles that contain the exact same information as the main page. Every page that has sub-articles has an introduction, or an outline of the information, not every single thing. 2)This page is getting too big. It is once again over 50 kilobytes. It often takes me (and probably others still on dial-up, which is still the majority of internet users) close to a minute (sometimes more) for the page to load. I find it silly that Colorado, with only 32 kilobytes is smaller than a city's page. It would be different if we had lots of good prose information, but a lot of space is simply taken up by unnecessary lists and pictures (especially landmarks). Most city pages (the good ones at least), do not have such sections of lists. 3) I don't think a city wikipedia page needs to contain every scrap of information and photo that exists for it. If we have sub pages, and see also sections, we can provide the reader with the information without being cluttered. All good city pages have that. If we want to be a featured page, than we need to as well. I feel strongly about this, but if others feel strongly about keeping every piece of information on the main page, please let me know and we can keep it. It didn't seem like that from some of the comments earlier, however. Vertigo700 16:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Prose should definitely be favored and I don't like having the lists incorporated in main article. I agree very much with your assessment of what is needed for Denver. Less lists and images, more quality prose. --MattWright (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qwest Building v. Wells Fargo Center

Anybody have a good, and mean good, shot of the Qwest Building? The current pic of the Wells Fargo Center in the Economy section is fair, but a good, current-day shot of the Qwest, that'd be better. For a couple reasons; 1. The Qwest Building is Denver's tallest, 2. It's got a bigger rep. for corporate power. MattWright, your a great photographer... Anyhow, what does anyone think? Editor19841 22:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Republic Plaza is the tallest building in Denver, two meters taller than 1801 California ("the Qwest Building") - 218 vs. 216 meters, 56 vs. 52 floors.

I can try to take a pic of it sometime, don't know the best location to do that from, but will keep my eyes out. I also think the article already has more pictures in it than it should. --MattWright (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sports team logos

user:Ed g2s recently removed the sports team logos and user:Editor19841 reverted the change. The issue is whether this use of copyrighted logos is permissible as "fair use", see Wikipedia:Fair use. IANAL, but I agree with Ed g2s about this. IMO, the fair use policy basically says copyrighted sports team logos can only be used in articles about the sports teams themselves, not any other article. Wikipedia is getting to be a target for image use violations. We need to be careful about this. Comments? -- Rick Block (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Other major cities like Seattle, Chicago, New York, etc. do not use the logos either. I think the consensus has been that they are only permitted to be used on the article describing the team and that is the only real way to claim fair use. I'm fine ridding the page of them and also would prefer to see that section in prose at some point. --MattWright (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cheeseburger and beat generation

Can anyone explain why the references to the invention of the cheeseburger and the "beat generation" appear in the "History" section of this article? Things more worthy of mention than these two strange inclusions happened in the 20th century in Denver. Globe Trotter 02:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Other editors felt they were appropriate. We could certainly use other items in this section, so please add them. --MattWright (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Being that the Beat Movement was the main influence and precursor for the entire Hippie subculture, its inclusion in the article (along with the burgers) seems very worthy of mention, as both had long echoing effects on 20th century culture. 24.9.145.124 05:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish Population

Is the statement correct that there are 100,000 Jews in Denver? That would make 1 out of 5 residents Jewish. If it is meant to say 100,000 in the metropolitan area then this should be clarified. --70.179.119.138 03:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's clearly incorrect and also uncited. Might be true for the metro area, but it is very confusing as written. Deleted until someone can provide a source. --67.190.75.72 05:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is It What I Think It Is?

Denver's 79 neighborhoods offer a variety of living experiences:

—Is what it shows under the "Denver neighborhoods" picture.

Eh? That sounds like someone's trying to advertise the city. Someone should change it. ←T•h•e R.S.J.→ 17:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Passed as good article

I have passed this article as a good article. The article is well referenced, nicely written, has a good lay-out with a fair amount of pictures to illustrate it. I'd perhaps remove the cheeseburger reference, not only because it's rather trivial, but also because the cheeseburger article has a somewhat different version of the story. It's also placed strangely on the timeline. Other than that, I say it is a very good article! BabyNuke 20:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Small City?

The article says: "The large number of sports teams in Denver in spite of its relatively small size is a result of its status as the nexus of the Rocky Mountains region."

Denver is small? Its metro area is over 2 million, ranked 22nd largerst in the country by the Census Bureau. The city proper is 554,636, ranked 24th by the Census. There are hundreds, if not thousands of cities in the country. To be 23rd or 24th largest is not to be a small city, seems to me. ..just sounded weird reading it in the article. I understand the idea -- that Denver stands out in its region since there are few if any cities of note for hundreds of miles around. But still... small city? Pfly 06:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Denver is hardly a small city. No debate, no question. I agree with Pfly 100%, and I'll fix this problem. Editor19841 (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I added this because, if you look at the statistics, Denver is the smallest city in the US that has teams from all 4 major leagues, and it is #6 in number of sports teams with 8. I was only trying to explain why. BetaCentauri 23:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qwest Lightning photo

The new Qwest photo looks intriguing, but I'm not sure it's a very good example. I think only locals would recognize which building is the Qwest building, since the sign isn't facing the photographer, nor is it dead center or at least more center than any other building in the photo. The lightning, while cool looking, doesn't contribute to this article, in my opinion. BetaCentauri 16:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and again its gets to the problem of having too many photos on the page, which make the page longer to load and look cluttered. Vertigo700 18:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedians for Denver 2008

Anyone and everyone supporting Denver's bid for the 2008 Democratic National Convention should join Wikipedians for Denver 2008! Visit User:Editor19841/Denver 2008 for more information, and post either:

• [[Category:Wikipedians for Denver 2008|{{PAGENAME}}]] or
• {{User:1ne/Userboxes/Denver2008}}

on your user page(s) (the userbox is shown below). Every bit of support counts, no matter if it comes from a Democrat, a Republican, and Independent (etc.), a Denverite or otherwise. Thanks. Editor19841 (talk) 23:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added various sections

Hey everyone,

I added a few sections on here in the recent past, and it hasn't gone anywhere so I assume it's useful information. I added the media section (which could use expansion), and the telecom/tech section of the economy. I've also tweaked some links and names (i.e., adding the DIA codes).

I want opinion on this next edit: the picture of the Rockies below "culture" doesn't seem to have anything to do with the culture of the city. Delete or move?Trodaikid1983 20:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

probably move. Judgesurreal777 22:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit: I deleted the picture and replaced it with a picture of the DPAC. Trodaikid1983 17:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Denver in Pop Culture section

Is this section really necessary in the article? It's just going to get to be a long, unwieldy list of pop culture references to Denver, which doesn't really provide any new or useful facts about the city of Denver. --MattWright (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with removing it. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 17:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I can go either way. Some other city pages have it, and I suppose it does provide a small bit of useful information. Certainly, "The city and surrounding area has been the setting of countless movies, films and documentaries," should be cut as that provides nothing new. I also don't understand having the books in there, since they are books about Denver and I don't think would qualify as "pop culture." I think if we do keep it, each entry needs to be specific, accurate, and noteworthy. One thing I want to avoid is for the page to become some kind of Sally Field collection of "They really like me," moments of every little thing that makes Denver in any way noteworthy. Vertigo700 17:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition, I don't think it's really useful. It makes us seem like we're reaching for something. I personally don't think it needs to be here at all. I don't think something like that really has a place in an encyclopedia. Just MHO. Trodaikid1983 22:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Denver is a large city -- it's going to appear in a lot of pop culture. --MattWright (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sports list looks too bulky

In fact, it doesn't look good at all. We've generally got a lot of prose on here (exceptions where lists are more informative). Do we really need to list all that stuff? Prose it or cut it back. Trodaikid1983 22:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with putting those items into prose or removing them. Same with list of TV stations in Denver. Lists aren't good in general and should be minimized. Encyclopedia not a place for channel listing of news stations. --MattWright (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should cut back the list in the sports section. It really looks too bulky with all those things about past, present and future events being held in Denver. Trodaikid1983 23:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red Rocks

Two things about Red Rocks Park and Amphitheatre. First of all, the picture under the Music section calls it Denver's most famous music venue. While I believe the Amphitheatre is part of Denver's Mountain Parks System, the amphitheatre is actually located in Morrison, one of Denver's suburbs located on the outskirts of the metropolitan area and is not actually in Denver itself; this should probably be mentioned in the article. Furthermore, Red Rocks isn't even mentioned in the Music section other than as a picture. If the picture stays the caption should reflect its actual location and Red Rocks should get mentioned in the article itself, otherwise the picture should be deleted. I do think it should be mentioned, rather than deleted, even if its outside of Denver proper it is a major tourist attraction and concert venue associated with the city. --The Way 06:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The important thing to remember is that the City and County of Denver maintains Red Rocks. Although I do agree that some mention of it's phyisical location should be provided.Trodaikid1983 16:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed the caption to mention where Red Rocks is physically, but made sure the caption remained true in saying the CIty of Denver maintains the park.Trodaikid1983 17:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture Placement/Property things

Not to nitpick, but: 1.) Red Rocks is discussed in "parks and rec" and again mentioned in "Culture" with a picture. Perhaps merge? 2.) The "Dancing Ballerinas" are not actual city property ... it's owned by the Adams Mark Hotel. A better "city property" display would be the Dancing Men in front of the Plex. Suggestions? Trodaikid1983 23:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geography addition...

Can the anonymous editor who re-added: Given a 250 mile radius around the city, Denver is equidistant between Los Angeles and Chicago, while simultaneously being equidistant between Seattle and New Orleans please explain what that means? What does the 250 mile radius have to do with it? Do you mean if you move Denver by up to 250 miles in one direction or another, you can have it be equidistant from these other cities? I really don't see how this is useful information for the article. --MattWright (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, while the link you provided does have some information about Denver's distance as related to other cities, it isn't exactly a reference to the added section in Geography. If you could explain that better with the proper reference information and format, it would be greatly appreciated. Vertigo700 23:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Get some citations. Editor19841 (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excel Grid for Climate

I created an Excel grid that is very easy to read to show climate changes in relation to the table. Should I post that, or do we want to keep the table? Trodaikid1983 20:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm..I don't know. I'd probably want to see it first, especially since I have no real problems with the current grid. Can you post it to talk? Thanks, Vertigo700 20:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey on proposal to make U.S. city naming guidelines consistent with others countries

There is a survey in progress at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) to determine if there is consensus on a proposed change to the U.S. city naming conventions to be consistent with other countries, in particular Canada.

This proposal would allow for this article to be located at Denver instead of Denver, Colorado, bringing articles for American cities into line with articles for cities such as Paris and Toronto.--DaveOinSF 16:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd support this. There isn't another Denver nearly as notable as Denver, Colorada and its highly likely that when someone searches for 'Denver' they are looking for this city plus it would help create uniformity across city articles. One question, however... what does this mean for smaller, less notable cities. For example, my hometown is Decatur, Illinois. Would this stay the same or would it have to add United States to the title? This could get problematic for US cities because there are often several cities and towns with the same name, but in different states (There are 9 Decaturs, for example). I'm guessing this isn't a problem for other countries. --The Way 19:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why Denver can't stay at "Denver, Colorado"? That is more informative and appropriate and a redirect from "Denver" already exists... --MattWright (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If the editors of Denver feel it is better to title it Denver, Colorado, they may. This survey gives editors the option to title articles about cities in the United States that require no disambiguation with titles that omit the disambiguation, much like articles about cities in the rest of the world do.--DaveOinSF 02:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

However the proposal would allow U.S. cities to be inconsistent with the vast majority of other U.S. cities and towns, which (with a few exceptions) all use the "city, state" convention. -Will Beback 23:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Even Seattle and Los Angeles are "City/State" convention. Denver, Colorado is more accurate, and if the re-direct already exists, I think it's best to leave things as they stand. Trodaikid1983 22:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Names of neighborhood articles

The articles on Denver neighborhoods were not created in any systematic way, and as a result there is no consistency to their titles. For example, you have some with just the neighborhood name (e.g. LoDo and Cherry Creek Neighborhood), some which give the city with or without parentheses (e.g. City Park, Denver and Five Points (Denver)), and some which give the city and state (e.g. Golden Triangle (Denver, Colorado) and Capitol Hill, Denver, Colorado). I propose we decide on a consistent naming convention and apply it across all these articles. Thoughts? --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 21:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at other city's neighborhood naming conventions, I prefer the one used by Chicago, which is basically Neighborhood, Chicago. I think that simplicity will work for Denver. San Francisco and Los Angeles both have Neighborhood, City, California, which is dislike as being too wordy. I think its pretty safe to assume that while there are other Denvers, none of them are big enough to have neighborhoods at all, much less with the same names as ours. BTW, a lot of cities also have haphazard name organization. Atlanta and New York are examples. This is probably because some neighborhood names are unique or extremely well-known as being a part of that city, so they can just be left with their names. Anyway, any other comments? Vertigo700 02:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Any process to get the article looking more professional and organized should be executed. I think simple listing of the neighborhood is sufficient, because as Vertigo mentioned, there aren't many Denver's the size and stature of this one, and it's rudenant to label a neighborhood, city convention. Cherry Creek, Denver ... that should be assumed, since the neighborhood is in the Denver article. It's also important to realize the differences between neighborhoods and suburbs. Suburbs should be listed as though they were their own place (i.e., Lakewood, Colorado). My .02 is take the "Denver" out and list the neighborhoods alphabetically, giving them their own article if necessary. Trodaikid1983 23:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I like Vertigo's suggestion, although it could cause problems in some cases, such as Cherry Creek. There is already a Cherry Creek (Denver) page, how would this be handled? Move Cherry Creek Neighborhood to "Cherry Creek, Denver" and move Cherry Creek (Denver) to "Cherry Creek, Denver (disambiguation)"? Overall, sounds like a good idea. And to answer Trodaikid1983, the neighborhoods can appear without "Denver" in the article text, but it is probably best to put Denver in the article name. You can get around it using [[Neighborhood, Denver|Neighborhood]]. What will happen if something like City Park or Washington Park branches into a park article and a neighborhood article? --MattWright (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure we even need a disambiguation page for Cherry Creek, Denver. There already is a disambiguation page for just Cherry Creek and there are only 11 entries, four of which are Colorado related (It also includes Cherry Creek H.S.). I think we could just delete that disam. page and have everything go to the general one. As for the parks issue, I think we can face that hurdle when we come to it. I honestly don't think its necessary to separate them, especially since the neighborhoods are so associated with the parks they are named for. When I worked on the Civic Center page, I recognized that it needed to be separate from the Golden Triangle page, because the two are simply not related to each other enough in my mind. We can make similar judgment calls in like situations (and its not like there will really be that many). Vertigo700 04:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and organized the general Cherry Creek disamb. page to separate the Colorado related articles from the other ones. I think with that organization the Denver-related disamb. becomes obsolete (especially considering that not all Colorado Cherry Creek articles are exclusively the domain of the city of Denver). Vertigo700 04:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe the usefulness of a Cherry Creek, Denver disambig page is because you may want to link to it from Cherry Creek, Denver article, rather than the generic disambiguation page. This is because people typing in Cherry Creek, Denver have already specified they want something Denver-related, but possibly they want the shopping mall or creek instead of the neighborhood. Either way, it's not a huge issue. Still think your naming idea for neighborhoods is fine. --MattWright (talk) 04:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like consensus is to rename the articles to (Neighborhood Name), Denver (except in certain cases such as the Cherry Creek Neighborhood). And of course I agree that the word "Denver" should be left out in lists of neighborhoods, using piped links. If nobody objects I'm going to go ahead with those changes this weekend. But do we want to leave it as [[Cherry Creek Neighborhood]] or change it to [[Cherry Creek Neighborhood, Denver]]? I vote for the latter but I'm a stickler for consistency; really either will work. See below. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 19:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess the latter is fine, but like I said before, I don't necessarily think we need the disambiguation page for Cherry Creek, Denver, but maybe that's just me. :) Vertigo700 20:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You can move 'Cherry Creek Neighborhood' to 'Cherry Creek, Denver' and move 'Cherry Creek (Denver)' to 'Cherry Creek, Denver (disambiguation)'. No other item is better suited for an article titled Cherry Creek, Denver than the neighborhood. The creek extends out of Denver and the shopping mall can be titled differently. --MattWright (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I agree with this. The creek itself flows through more than just Denver, so the current title Cherry Creek (Colorado) is the most appropriate. That leaves Cherry Creek, Denver to refer to the neighborhood. I don't think an additional db page is necessary beyond Cherry Creek, but a db template at the top of the appropriate pages will be needed. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 21:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the appropriate moves to the neighborhood pages to standardize their names. The only problems I encountered were with Auraria, because of double redirects of a previous move, and in Golden Triangle, which Wikipedia will not allow to be moved because Golden Triangle, Denver exists as a redirect page from a previous move of the article, (I believe because of plagiarizing issues with it). I sent a request to the admins at Wikipedia:Requested_moves. If there is a better way to go about that please feel free to do so. Also, I did not move Stapleton International Airport because I didn't know if it would be considered a Denver neighborhood page or not. We can always move it later once we come to a consensus on that. I also checked for double redirects, and it seems to be fine, but feel free to recheck just in case I missed any. I also changed the disamb. page on Cherry, Creek, Denver and put up the former disamb. page up for speedy deletion. Cheers, Vertigo700 06:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] are there

any cool things to do here, when you'r alive? kzz* 23:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You bet your Wikipedia there is. Check out some of the following links:

• http://www.denverchamber.org/
  
• http://www.denvergov.org/
  
• http://www.colorado.gov/
  
• http://www.colorado.com/
  

We're not famous for a Rocky Mountain High for nothin'. Editor19841 (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the article footer from this reply. It was screwing up the text orientation. You can find it at the bottom of the article you posted to the talk page for, kzzl. --BetaCentauri 00:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archival

Lets archive the discussion page. Thoughts?Trodaikid1983 03:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. I would archive anything older than three months into six month archives. Should be pretty simple and straight-forward that way. Vertigo700 05:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

+1, I think talk pages should be archived when they reach ~100kB, the approximate maximum suggested size for articles. --BetaCentauri 00:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

So, I archived the talk page based on when each topic was started and dividing them chronologically into six month periods. I hope that it looks okay to everyone. If you think another way is best, feel free to do it. Thanks, Vertigo700 02:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks great, although I'm a bit surprised there was that much discussion in the last six months. --BetaCentauri 07:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine, much better than it was. I think we should set a maximum of how many discussion points are visable (or, maybe a date range or something along those lines?) The size suggestion is good too, though. Perhaps that is more inclusive. Trodaikid1983 19:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two articles about the metro area?

user:Buaidh has created Denver-Aurora Metropolitan Statistical Area and has proposed the similar existing article, Denver-Aurora Metropolitan Area, be revised to cover the informal "metro area" (as distinct from the MSA as defined by the US Census Bureau). Please comment at Talk:Denver-Aurora Metropolitan Statistical Area. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of CBD article?

I was just looking at the Central Business District entry on here, and added a picture of Denver. However, we don't have an article that directly relates to our CBD, claimed to be the 10th largest in the US? I would be more than willing to write one, which would consist of notable buildings (and stats), attractions, etc... that is only specific to the area commonly called "Diagonal Denver". Thoughts? Trodaikid1983 02:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say go for it. It's been something I've been thinking about for a while, but I need to focus on grad school right now before I can plunge forward with writing pages. I would say you should probably just call it Central Business District, Denver, since that is what the official Denver neighborhood is called (I believe the borders are Speer Blvd/Cherry Creek, Lawrence Street, Broadway and 20th Street), but you can go ahead and note that many people consider areas outside of that neighborhood as being part of Downtown. I would definitely be willing to help edit, and add some content once you have it started. Go for it! Vertigo700 03:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I will start the article next week, basing it off Dallas and a few other cities that contain "downtown" entries. I'm going to get some good pictures of the buildings downtown (notable ones anyway, like 1801 California (Qwest Tower) and Republic Plaza). All the CBD articles also include information on transportation, etc... so I'll get some good stuff in there, then we can put a link somewhere to "Downtown Denver". The article will be called "Downtown Denver" but I will try and make it so that "Denver Central Business District" works too. Any help on this = appreciated! Trodaikid1983 17:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Northfield Stapleton light show

I deleted the following paragraph:

In 2006, Carson Williams was commissioned by Northfield Stapleton shopping area to create Symphony in Lights], a new light show in Denver for the holiday season based on the famous house lights, but on a commercial scale. Created with the help of Parker 3D, the show features over 250,000 LED lights.

In context, this reads to me nearly like a commercial advertisement. It is already mentioned, IMO more appropriately, in the Northfield Stapleton article. If sometime in the future this has become a fixture of Denver culture (like the city and county building lights), then it would be appropriate to mention it here. For now, IMO it amounts to promotion, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree it reads like an ad, and at any rate is "too new" to have a place in this article. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 22:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's notable to the article (i.e., important in Denver, like that Rendez-vous Houston light show in Houston), then thore ought to be some references. If author can find some third-party, notable publications talking about it.... David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 01:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)