Talk:Flagstaff, Arizona

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flagstaff, Arizona article.
Article policies
Good article Flagstaff, Arizona has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles 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 reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
To-do list for Flagstaff, Arizona: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:


    • copy-edit; remove any "flowery" language, weasel-words.
    • add a few more details to demographics section (more than just the standard bot-generated info from the census. most of this is done, still needs a little work.
    • add some description of various neighborhoods to the cityscape section; probably remove road descriptions from this section, as it's already generally under the transportation section.
    • fix this: "The opening paragraph in the lead states that the city's name comes from the flagpole made by the Boston Party in 1876, but then the first paragraph in the history section seems to imply that that event occurred earlier on the Beale Expedition. This could use some clarification." (from FAC review)
    • Need more details (with citations) on the early history of the town, particularly the lumber/timber industry and the Riordan family.
    • Add info about NAU lumberjack sports to the sports section; maybe some high school sports, though this is less important/notable.
    • Need citations for: first paragraph of climate section; "Flagstaff has garnered a reputation as a magnet for ...".
    • remove unnecessary parentheses.
    • remove unnecessary bolded words.
    • expand short (two-sentence or so) paragraphs.
    • add some general topography info to the geography section.
    • add info on crime to the demographics section.
    • add info on politics to the government section.
    • add info on the city's library system to the education section.
    • move transportation to infrastructure section.
    • Photos for: geography, sports, education sections.

    Contents

    [edit] City Photo

    hey, i live in flagstaff, and can take a much better picture of downtown flagstaff, the picture now is pretty a pretty odd shot. would that be a good reason? i would like to have my town represented by a better picture. Iamnobody2 11:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Housing Problems

    Does anyone have some sources to produce a section on the problem of affordable (below $500K) housing that is effecting the long and shorm-term residents of Flagstaff? That would be a very useful section, especially to those considering relocating to here. (jh032774) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.37.149 (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] webcam image

    July 28 2005, added link to official site and live city webcam.

    [edit] City Flag Image Needed

    This article is in need of an image of the city flag for the infobox (ironically ;-) ... Dr. Cash 06:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

    I asked the Mayor about this once in the mid to late 80's when it came up in conversation. I had noticed they didn't seem to have a city flag in City Hall at the time or on a flagpole. How could a town with a name like Flagstaff not have a city flag? He told me the official flag was the city seal on a white background. However he wasn't sure if the city currently owned any. It was not a high priority as special order flags would be to expensive to fly over city hall. SkyWayMan 08:08 21 March 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Most liberal city

    I've removed the following unsourced line from the article:

    "It is perhaps the most liberal city in Arizona."

    While Arizona is largely a "red state" (republican), there are still lots of more liberal communities; Flagstaff, as well as Tucson, are among them. Saying that Flagstaff is the MOST LIBERAL CITY seems to violate WP:NPOV, unless a definitive reference or citation can be found from a repudable source (media, not blog). Dr. Cash 01:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

    Agreed. I too was going to remove that line but I thought I would do a little research first as I seemed to vaguely recall hearing about some study that came to that conclusion. I didn't end up finding anything real reputable so it is best that the line is removed. --Nebular110 02:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    This is somewhat old now, since the sentence in question is long gone from the article. But this US News article has a listing of the 25 most liberal cities in the US (and the 25 most conservative ones, too). Flagstaff ain't one of 'em. Dr. Cash 21:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Largest ponderosa pine forest in the world?

    Does anyone know of a good reference for this statement? For years I've heard and read that Flagstaff is indeed located in the largest continuous stand of ponderosa pine in the world but I've also heard that the largest such stand in the world is located in Siberia. I've had difficulty finding a authoritative source for either one of these claims and I'm wondering if anyone else could offer some insight. --Nebular110 17:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

    NAU claims it as the largest in the Continental US. I've fixed the cite. Fredsagirl 18:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] GA Failed: Explanation

    I have unfortunately had to fail this article on Good Article Review. Per the criteria spelled out in WP:WIAGA The article is well written and broad, but the level of referencing is lacking. The following sections are entirely, or nearly entirel unreferenced:

    • History
    • Climate
    • Economy
    • Media
    • Museums and other points of interest
    • Infrastructure

    Each assertion of fact should be referenced to the source of that assertion. At minimum, there should be about one reference per paragraph. A few sections, such as "Sports" and "In Popular Culture" do this very well, and could be used as models for improving the rest of the article. Also, policy and guideline pages such as WP:ATT, WP:CITE, WP:CITET and WP:WIAGA can help as well. Please feel free to renominate the article once these fixes have been made. Good luck, and I look forward to seeing this article improved and reaching Good Article status in the near future. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

    Fixes look good, but the following changes seem to be needed:
    • Don't go overboard on the referencing. If an entire paragraph is referenced to a single source, there isn't a need to cite every sentance individually. Simply make one ref at the end of the paragraph. The first paragraph in History, for example, really only talks about one event, the founding and naming of the city. It is also clear that the information comes from one source. So only cite it once at the end. Generally, unless a paragraph contains multiple pieces of distinct information, it only needs to be cited at the end. However, this is an improvement. Looking better though!--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks! I've removed some of the extra referencing throughout the article. Dr. Cash 03:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    Yeah, this looks much better now. One more thing I caught from the History section. This sentance:"Today, Flagstaff is a community rich with cultural diversity, beauty and history, as well as educational, recreational and scientific opportunities." has got to go. Its flowery, non-neutral, non-encyclopedic, and really uneccessary. Other than that, it looks GA ready. I am not prepared to do another formal review (Its 1AM local time, and I am tired) but I may get to reviewing this a second time. Or I may let another editor do it. My sense is that it should easily pass GA now.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    Hmm. That sentence was there for a long time. I think it was probably copied from a tourist info website. I removed it and added some details on the downtown area's decline in the 70s & 80s, and revitalization in the 90s. Dr. Cash 17:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] GA status:Passed

    I have reviewed this article and passed it as GA status. I believe it meets all of the criteria established at WP:WIAGA. Good work to everyone who has contributed to improve it. It is quite possible that this article might make Wikipedia:Featured articles status. However before nominating I have found a few small things that might need addressing.

    Firstly in the climate section the following: "Flagstaff's mild climate during the summer months and its nearby ski resort makes the city a popular year-round weekend destination for residents of the Phoenix metropolitan area." Although not likely to be disputed (as reading on in the economy section I read that over 5,000,000 visitors per year visit the area) perhaps its best to put that reference for the 5,000,000 visitors with that assertion just to provide better attribution.

    Second, in popular culture it reads "Perhaps most recognizable, the town's name is mentioned in the lyrics to the song, "Route 66" by Bobby Troup". I suggest removing the phrase, perhaps most recognisable as it might be seen as pov.

    Thirdly in the lead section - the following is mentioned "Asteroid 2118 Flagstaff is named for the city and 6582 Flagsymphony is named for the Flagstaff Symphony Orchestra." Does this belong in the lead WP:Lead, perhaps it might work better in the main article?

    Fourth - perhaps expand the image caption for the city hall.

    Finally although I felt the article was broad enough for GA status I do feel that the history section lacks one important thing - population growth. Surely a city, especially one that has grown from nothing in 130 years must have some interesting, and fairly steep population growth. The census provides a great look at the city today but perhaps some statistics for the past would also be good.

    Anyway good luck if you decide to go to FA. LordHarris 11:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Outdoor attractions are not "cultural"

    From the definition at Dictionary.com:

    Cultural

    adjective
    1. of or relating to the arts and manners that a group favors; "cultural events"; "a person of broad cultural interests"
    2. denoting or deriving from or distinctive of the ways of living built up by a group of people; "influenced by ethnic and cultural ties"- J.F.Kennedy; "ethnic food"
    3. of or relating to the shared knowledge and values of a society; "cultural roots"

    So all these things (Grand Canyon, et al) belong in their own section, not under "Arts and culture". Hope this clears things up. (Refer to any dictionary of your choosing if you prefer.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 08:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

    NO! You are totally WRONG! These tourist-type attractions are part of the arts & culture of the area. A separate section is TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE. Besides, most of these things you're adding to a separate section aren't even within the borders of the city of Flagstaff anyways (e.g. grand canyon, oak creek canyon, etc). They're nearby, and probably warrant a brief mention in the article. But certainly NOT their own section. Dr. Cash 08:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    Why are you so god-damned stubborn and bullheaded about this? The definition is clear; pick any dictionary, and I guarantee the same results. Things like the Grand Canyon, Oak Creek, etc., are not man-made and are therefore not "cultural". Why do you insist on lumping these things together? They're clearly apples and oranges. It's just a lousy section division; sheesh. The burden of proof, I'm afraid, is on you in this case.
    On a calmer note, I find your logic here puzzling. If, as it sounds like you're claiming, these "attractions" (a tourism-centric idea) aren't worthy of inclusion in the article, then simply take them out. (I don't believe this, but that's a separate issue.) "Burying" them in the wrong section isn't the answer. Besides, the section title ("Nearby scenic attractions") makes it clear that these things are around, but not in, the city proper. If you want to make an argument for the removal of this entire section, be my guest. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    I still don't like a section entitled, 'nearby scenic attractions.' It sounds more like it belongs in a tourist guide and not an encyclopedia. I've created a new section called 'parks and outdoor recreation', which I think better embodies what is being discussed. I moved the info on nearby national parks & monuments to this section, and added some sourced information on local city parks and the Flagstaff Urban Trail System. I moved the museum of northern arizona, arboretum, and route 66 back to the 'arts & culture' section, because these are primarily cultural in nature (museums are definitely cultural, the arboretum could go either way, but it is essentially an 'outdoor museum', and route 66 has undoubtedly had a huge cultural impact on the city). Dr. Cash 18:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    OK, so now we're getting somewhere. Basically, you didn't like the section title. Fine; I think "Parks and outdoor recreation" is actually a better title. So we seem to have achieved Wiki-nirvana here, no? +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    Except you totally deleted my image!!!! WTF?!?!?! That image was very appropriate for that section! Your article summary indicates that you 'moved it to a more appropriate section', but in fact, you deleted it. Dr. Cash 19:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    I have no idea how that happened; all I can say is that it wasn't intentional. (The image I moved was the one of Oak Creek.) There were some pretty screwy things going on with revisions here lately ... +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Edit war over commas on references

    From Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Embedded_links:

    "Plunkett, John. [http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying"], ''The Guardian'', [[October 27]] [[2005]]. Accessed [[October 27]] [[2005]].
    this appears as: "Plunkett, John. "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying", The Guardian, October 27, 2005. Accessed October 27, 2005."

    Aside from the fact that this particular passage is showing us how to embed links in references, this also shows that commas are not neccessary after the month and day when entering inline references. A comma will appear in the reference section anyway. This certainly should not be a pressing matter for this article, and it is nothing to fight over. Though the most proper way is to leave the comma out when editing the reference within the text. Please do not continue this edit war, it helps no one, especially during a FAR. Thanks. Okiefromokla•talk 06:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

    • This edit war is pretty much over. It was pretty lame. Dr. Cash 20:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] FAC Nomination

    Details of this article's Featured Article Nomination are here. The article failed FAC, but we got quite a few rather good comments for improving the article. There's a bit of information that should be added, some reorganized a little. Plus, a good copyedit and I think we probably would stand a good chance at FA status in a few weeks to a month. I've added many of these comments into the to-do list, which appears at the top of this talk page for easy reference. Dr. Cash 20:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Third largest city?

    Flagstaff is NOT the third largest city in Arizona. Not even close. Please see List of cities in Arizona (by population). Phoenix is #1, Tucson is #2, Mesa is #3, Flagstaff is #13, coming in way behind several other cities in the Phoenix metro area. I'd probably say it's probably one of the top three major areas in Arizona, the other two being Phoenix and Tucson. It's probably also one of the more widely recognizable cities in the state, but "recognizability" is probably too POV. But even the metro area isn't even close to the size of the Tucson metro area, much less Phoenix. Dr. Cash 19:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

    My bad; should have thought a second about Mesa, Glendale, etc. But wouldn't it be accurate to say that Flagstaff is the third-largest conurbation in Arizona, behind Phoenix and Tucson? I believe that might be true. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    If a reference can be found for that, I suppose it could be added. But I'm not even convinced that Flagstaff is the 3rd largest conurbation in the state, either. Maybe a few years ago, but I think the Yuma and possibly the Lake Havasu City areas might be larger (the city of Yuma is larger than Flagstaff, and it's MSA is almost twice as large, too). Lake Havasu City is still smaller (individually), but the Lake Havasu City-Kingman MSA is larger than Flagstaff's MSA. Though MSA & conurbation are two separate terms, nevertheless, I would be surprised if Flagstaff was the 3rd largest conurbation, based on these numbers (maybe 5th or 6th) -- but if a reliable source can be found, I won't dispute it. Dr. Cash 20:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Largest Employers

    The comment in Economy section about the largest employers has no verification. The city website cited has no clear list of the size of individual employers and number of employees, so I altered the language to say. "Some of the larger employers...". Currently I believe W.L.Gore is the largest private sector employer which makes me think it ought to be included in those three, but I am looking for verfication. Geistbear 21:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

    If you're concerned about the validity of such a statement, you can either do as you did, which sometimes leads to "weasel" statements (not saying that was the case here, but it happens), or you can put on a {{fact}} tag to indicate that it needs verification and a citation. You can also use the {{disputable}} tag if you feel the statement is outright false.
    When I was in Flagstaff, the biggest employer was ... government at all levels (including tribal). I'm not sure that has changed since. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Copy-editing

    I have begun a copy-edit of this fairly long article. I don't know how soon I will be able to complete the editing, and welcome help from anyone else. I believe that less is more, and have chopped quite a bit out of the intro and the beginning of the history section. I look forward to helping this article become FA worthy. Jdfoote 19:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Replacing link

    To the anonymous poster at 24.23.181.61, I am replacing the link to the Flagstaff citycam. Did you have a particular reason for deleting it? I note that you're going around to a lot of city webpages and deleting links, but giving no reasons or edit summaries. Cactus Wren 17:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

    That webcam site seems a bit on the lightweight and trivial side to me, and I'd vote for deletion. Any reason in particular you think it should be here? +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Copyedit

    This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in September 2007. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

    I have replaced one "early years" with a best-guess date, marked with a {{dubious}} tag. This date should be checked and (if incorrect) corrected as soon as possible. A nearby date has also been tagged as it seems to be temporally out of place with the rest of the history. Good luck with the FAC. Happy‑melon 20:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] GA Pass

    This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Although, there is a [dubious] tag that needs to be dealt with. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Epbr123 09:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Humphreys Peak

    This article contains the statement, "Humphreys Peak, also known as Mount Humphreys, is the highest mountain in Arizona...." However, the article on Humphreys Peak says, "Humphreys Peak should not be confused with Mount Humphreys, a higher peak in the Sierra Nevada." Someone who knows needs to reconcile these statements. Tbarron 04:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

    The Sierra Nevada mountain range is not in Arizona. It is in California and Nevada. Dr. Cash 04:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    But more to the point, Humphreys is not also known as Mt. Humphreys, so far as I know, so there should be no confusion with the other peak in the Sierra. +ILike2BeAnonymous 07:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    Plus, now that I think of it, "Humphrey's Peak" isn't really the name of the actual mountain, as the mountain itself (San Francisco mountain) has several peaks, collectively referred to as the "San Francisco Peaks", or simply, "The Peaks" (by locals). More accurately, Humphrey's Peak is the highest point in Arizona. Dr. Cash 05:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    True that. I was going to confidently say that there are 4 peaks, but it looks as if there are actually 6, according to this. (Humphreys, Agassiz, Fremont, Aubineau, Rees, Doyle.) I'd never heard of Rees before; I remember people referring to Doyle as "baby-face" for its rounded appearance.
    Plus, it looks as if that previously-referred-to site got at least one of the names wrong (typo, most likely): it's Reese, not Rees (see this map). Can't trust many sources, can you? +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] FA?

    We've just had a couple of editors from the LoCE come through and give the article a little copyedit, taking care of a lot of little WP:MOS issues and the like. And the article seems to be progressing. Do we have any interest among other editors in possibly taking this to WP:FAC again? I'm a little hesitant to be the sole person putting it out, and it would help if other editors might be willing to help guide it through the process. What else do you think needs to be done for this to meet the featured article criteria? Dr. Cash 06:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Lowell Observatory

    I recommend deleting the sentence on Lowell Observatory that begins "It has a distributed network of small telescopes..." This may be referring to the Navy Prototype Optical Interferometer, which is owned and operated by the US Naval Observatory with assistance from Lowell; and in any case, it doesn't accurately represent Lowell's facilities or primary research. Otherwise, the paragraph describes the Observatory accurately and well. My compliments to the editors on what is clearly a lot of work creating an excellent article about Flagstaff! JCHall (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Navajo translation of name

    A user recently added the following translation of the name Flagstaff into Navajo (Navajo Kinłání). Not being a speaker of the language, I would like to inquire whether this is actual a direct, literal translation of the name 'Flagstaff' itself, or whether this is the Navajo word describing the overall area or region where the city is? As written, it implies that it is the direct, literal translation, which may not be 100% correct. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

    It was gleaned from the Navajo Wikipedia's article on Flagstaff, Az (the place)--Alfredie (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)