Talk:Denver, Colorado

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Denver, Colorado article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Good article Denver, Colorado 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.
To-do list for Denver, Colorado: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh

Get to FA

* Think about fewer lists of things and more paragraphs. I think we've done a good job of this.Trodaikid1983 18:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • 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. Sections have been cleaned up dramatically. Trodaikid1983 18:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Is all of that See also necessary, or can some of it be incorporated into the article?
Priority 1 (top)
Map of USA 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").

/2004
/January 2005 - June 2005
/July 2005 - December 2005
/January 2006 - June 2006
/July 2006 - December 2006

Contents

[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)

The inset photo of James W. Denver says that he never visited the city named after him. This would be remarkable, since he lived until 1892. I have a reference (Robert L. Brown, 1985, "The Great Pikes Peak Gold Rush") that says that James W. Denver visited Denver, Colorado at least twice: 1875 and 1882. Anyone have information to the contrary?Plazak 03:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Media

I think that an important thing to add to the media section is the 3 main satellite/cable TV companies are here. Dish network (Echostar), Direct TV, and Comcast (AT&T / TCI). The main reason they're here is because they can see the entire North Western hemisphere of the Earth with there HPA's (High powered antenna) because of the altiduted. Echostar isn't found directly in Denver but if I remember right it's in Fort Collins. When I talk about I don't mean their HQ but a uplink facilities. What do you guys think?Eiceman 01:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, as long as you have sources. I know Echostar has a large office in DTC, but I don't think it is an uplink facility. --BetaCentauri 06:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind that while it is interesting that the Denver area has a lot of cable companies, it might be more appropriate for that content to go in the Denver-Aurora Metropolitan Area page instead of Denver. If a lot of these companies are based in the suburbs or even further, then that is where the information should go instead of Denver. Besides, those pages can use a lot more information, whereas the Denver page is nearing too big if it's not there already. Vertigo700 08:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with all, and as a clarification of media as it pertains to this article, the general idea there is not necessarily adding media providers, such as Comcast (Denver), EchoStar (Englewood), etc ... but more like the media outlets. Basically the channels of media, not the mode of media. I agree it's important as a mention, but I think it would be better suited in the Denver-Aurora Metropolitan Area page as well. Trodaikid1983 17:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Vandalism

The page has been fairly obviously vandalised recently. I don't know anything about Denver, and I'd prefer to just leave it as it is rather then delete what's already there - someone that knows something might want to fix it.

Unless it actually is "gayer then west hollywood" -124.177.200.217 05:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Argh. Okay, that doesn't seem to be there anymore. I or my ISP might have some sort of weird caching problem I'll have to check out. 124.177.200.217 05:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Who keeps removing the information about "The Fray" in the music section? It's true, and its something to "give" the article. I think it needs it. In my opinion, the part about "The Fray" is NOT VANDALISIM! Binglebongle2000 02:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I removed your addition of The Fray, which you had written, "Also,a popular band, "The Frey", riginated in close-by Thornton." No one said your addition was vandalism. Nothing was mentioned in my removal about vandalism. My exact wording was, "I deleted info on band because Thornton is a nearby city, but is not Denver therefore info does not belong here." Being in "close-by Thornton" is not enough to warrant a listing in the Denver article. Either is playing in Denver. Can you imagine if we listed every band that ever played in Denver? Please note that the "Music" section of this article is general information not a listing of bands. Note that another article was created, Music in Denver. The link to that article is directly above the "music" section. The Fray is mentioned on the "Music in Denver" article, although if they are a Thornton band then they should not be listed there. I'll let editors interested in that music article decide how they want that page setup. Are you aware there is a Thornton, Colorado article? Perhaps it would be better suited there. Soapy 03:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I've lived in Denver for eight years, and there is definatly more info to give to this article.Binglebongle2000 02:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I never said that I wrote that! I do, however know the person who does, and yes, it was called vandalism. ALso, if you remove the article about The Fray, you should should also remove the part about Boulder. Binglebongle2000 03:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You see, seeing that The Fray is a very popular band and had 4 grammy nomitations, I think that it would add something to the article. And i have a strong feeling that many people (mostly Denver citizens, which you obviously are NOT) agree with me.

    • I am a little confused here? What do you mean, "I never said that that I wrote that"? You wrote it and signed it! (see above). You write "I do, however know the person who does, and yes, it was called vandalism." Yet I see nothing in the editing of the main article that mentions "vandalism" except from you? Was this perhaps a private conversation you had with another editor or something?

I was the one who deleted the information and said nothing about vandalism. The fact that The Fray is very popular is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with Denver and everything to do with the neighboring city of Thornton, as you originally stated in your article posting. If you look at the "neighborhood" discussions from a while back there was a problem with editors listing information about neighborhoods and cities near Denver but having really nothing to do with Denver, just like the blurb on Boulder that you mentioned does not belong. It all had to be trimmed back as it was getting out of control. What normally happens is that once too much information is added about a topic, like music in Denver another editor will create a new main article and transfer much of the information there so that the Denver article stays within boundaries and does not become overly large.

If there is some information that perhaps you did not include on The Frey that directly links to the city of Denver, besides having played there, then by all means add it. They are still listed in music in Denver.

You are very correct about the Boulder mention not belonging where it is. I agree it should be removed.

Finally, please refrain from personal attacks...yes, I have lived in Denver. My family has an interesting history in nineteenth century Denver and has been there since 1879. Soapy 16:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

    • P.S. I deleted the information on Boulder musicians playing in Denver as you had mentioned. I am sure musicians from all over Colorado come and play in Denver. No need to list all the cities. Can you imagine how out of control it can get? A good example is the Seattle article. There is way too much unneeded information on surrounding neighborhoods and local issues. Sarcastically, the only thing they are missing is the day and hour of trash pick-up for each street, :) Soapy 16:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


Sorry about the personal attacks i am kinda new here. Not exactly sure what personal attacks are but will read up on it. If anyone has anything against me putting the info about The Fray in the Thornton article please let me know. But also, I think that one of the members of The Fray is a DEnver native, but the band was started in Thornton. If anyone is scepticle or has any more information to give me, let me know, I'm all ears (or should I say eyes) Thanks! Binglebongle2000 18:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who added the Infobox template

Just curious, who added the Infobox template? I don't know what's wrong with the current one? Trodaikid1983 19:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It suggests that we need a county template, which I think is irrelevant since Denver is a consolidated city county. I will remove shortly. If there are objections than we can comment further on this talk page. Vertigo700 20:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Archives

Added the tail end of 2006 to the archives. Figured we might as well since it's already a good quarter into 2007. If anyone takes issue then please comment here and perhaps we can change all or part of it back. Vertigo700 20:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sports?

DOn't you think that we should show the CURRENT sports team's names instead of the old ones. It would cut down the sports article and make it more up-to-date.Tell me what you think. Binglebongle2000 21:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Og, nevermind. just read about that. SHould we mention The Outlaws, Denver, OTHER lacrosse team?Binglebongle2000 21:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I just gave the sports section a much needed overhaul, moving the old teams and event hosting information into its own article. --MattWright (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks good Matt. I agree that it was long overdue. Vertigo700 01:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Climate

I also updated the climate section to include some collapsible tables, because those other tables we had were ugly (but informative). I put the code into a transcluded file (Denver, Colorado/Climate Statistics) because I thought it would make editing the normal page easier. The problem now is that apparently <ref> tags do not work from transcluded pages, but I will try and come up with a workaround for that soon. --MattWright (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I am not sure if this effect's your version of the page or not, but the addition of the climate stats seems to have messed with the formating a bit, putting the page's margins to the left for a while after it appears. Is there anyway to fix this as well? Anyway, it looks good in general, but maybe just needs some tweaking. Vertigo700 14:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't replicate that issue -- what browser + operating system are you using? Also, I didn't think it was necessary to move all images that could potentially be in its path to the left, as it just naturally expanded them further down the page for me if all of the boxes were open. But in most cases, the boxes won't be open (especially all at one time) since they collapse on load, so I thought leaving some of the images right was ok. Let me know your thoughts on that. --MattWright (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I am using Macintosh with Safari, thoygh my Firefox broser does the same thing. Basically, the box just leaves a blank right margin throughout the space it would occupy as if it were open. Moving the images to the left did help, because their space of the left extended the margin further down. The one picture on the right does not seem to have too much of an effect, but when they all were it was pretty bad looking. Vertigo700 15:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I take it back, the margin does not occur using Firefox, but it still does on Safari. Vertigo700 15:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks like a Safari reflow bug, as the page flow does not get updated once the content is hidden. You'll notice that if you expand or contract the browser window, it will suddenly flow back into that empty space. I have modified the template to hide the content by default before the Javascript gets to it, so that it will now flow naturally around the climate stats box. Safari still experiences an issue if you click 'show' then 'hide' (whitespace is left), but I think that is ok. Your thoughts? --MattWright (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey Vertigo, I removed the display:none; that was hiding the content portion, as I realized this would then make the charts completely unreadable for users without JavaScript (not good). What I did instead was wrap the inside of the box in a max-height div, which will do a couple things: the white space problem on Safari won't take up too much room, and the climate stats will never extend very far out of their section. Instead, if multiple stat boxes are shown at once, it will create a scrollbar effect in most modern browsers... IE 6 does not support max-height, but also does not have the reflow bug that Safari does, so while opening all of the climate stat boxes may cause it to extend outside of the section, closing them will reflow the page and not cause the margin issue you are seeing in Safari. I think it makes a good compromise between all of the browsers, let me know what you think. --MattWright (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this is more than acceptable, it's pretty dang cool. I just wish I had your computer school to make cool charts like that. Good job. Vertigo700 00:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Storms

Starting in Dec. 2006(maybe 2005) and ending in Jan. 2007(maybe 2006), there has been 4 severe snowstorms in Denver

[edit] CBSA vs CSA

The Denver metropolitan area has two census statistical areas defined by the United States Census Bureau:

The Denver-Aurora-Boulder Combined Statistical Area is considered to be the primary census statistical area. --Buaidh 17:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Having all of those population statistics at the front really distracts from the article, in my opinion. I think population for the city + metro area looks nicer, so that's why I had moved your CSA stat to the demographics section. It may be the "primary census statistical area", but it is not the "metropolitan" area that people refer to, which is better served by the denver-aurora numbers being used in the infobox as they have in the past. While the CSA stat is useful, I feel it crowds the intro with statistics that are better served in the demographics area. --MattWright (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you calculate the population density or are there references for this number? The updated value in the infobox (3,642 /mi²) doesn't seem correct. It should either be (566,974 / 153.3) = 3,698 or (566,974 / 154.9) = 3,660. I think the proper way to do it is calculate for the land area since people do not generally live on water. I wanted to make sure there isn't a reference for the current number before I update it. --MattWright (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The State of Colorado states that the area of the City and County of Denver is 99,620 acres or 403.15 square kilometers. See Colorado County Land Area --Buaidh 18:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
This is not the place for a discussion of the extent metro Denver, but the Denver-Aurora Metropolitan Statistical Area includes towns like Alma (91 miles from Denver), but excludes the portions of Northglenn, Thornton and Brighton north of 168th Avenue. I think most Coloradans think of the northern suburbs as part of the metro area. --Buaidh 18:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
If you think the CSA is the more proper number, are you ok with leaving that in the intro and removing the MSA value, which can remain in the demographics area? Also, do you have any reference similar to the above for how much of that 403.15 km² is water? Thanks. --MattWright (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a precise water extent, but I think 4 square kilometers is about right. --Buaidh 19:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/n/Talk%7EDenver%2C_Colorado_f2d0.html"