Talk:Phoenix, Arizona

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
To-do list for Phoenix, Arizona: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Insure that adequate citations are included in the article, particularly for information that could be challenged. See WP:CITE for assistance with inline citations.
  • Convert the museums & parks sections under 'arts and culture' to prose format.
  • reorganize geography section a bit better for clarity.
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Downtown Neighborhood

Looking at the given four reasons for the small size of the Phoenix downtown, I'm inclined to believe there is a fifth reason: the proximity of Sky Harbor International Airport. I'd have to do much research into how much of a factor the airport is in the size of downtown buildings, but it seems that from what reading I've done that it does play a sizable role in keeping the buildings downtown short. Panchitaville 03:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure. The FAA has had a lot to say about buildings in the flight path, but most of those seem to be in Tempe. I'd suspect that research into the flight patterns from the FAA might clarify. Wikibofh(talk) 03:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I did see an article in the paper last week indicating that Phoenix was capping building sizes to protect Sky Harbor, so it would seem you're right. :) Wikibofh(talk) 15:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The lack of a large amount of very tall skyscrapers might also have something to do with the heat. Because temperatures frequently top 110-120° F in the summertime, and heat rises, building glass skyscrapers downtown would make such buildings quite uncomfortable in the summer months, or at least raise the cost of cooling the structures. Dr. Cash 21:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

______________________ I was the person that created the section about Phoenix's downtown and why it is so small. Although superficially it seems obvious to consider the presence of the nearby airport for Phoenix's paltry skyline, upon closer inspection of the specific building height limitations, the airport is not the culprit at all. The FAA, because of the envelope necessary for emergency aircraft departures to the west, has a sliding height limit. Imagine, if you will, a sloping plane that rises as you move west, away from the runways. This height limitation is about 450 feet above ground level on the east side of downtown, about 550 feet along Central Avenue (which bisects the middle of downtown Phoenix), and rises to about 650 feet on the west side of downtown.

Then you must consider that Phoenix only has two buildings over 400 feet in the entire city, and both were built over thirty years ago. Clearly, if there was that much demand for skyscrapers in Phoenix, we'd have a plethora of tall buildings pushing the 500 to 550-foot barrier downtown along Central, with developers clamoring for more. See Vancouver and San Diego especially as good examples of what cities look like when they have a 500 foot height limit. We have not had that type of demand until very recently.

Could you make the argument that the height limit affects taller skyscrapers over 500 feet? Sure - the city will not even entertain any proposal that violates the FAA-protected airspace downtown. But, further north, the FAA's limitation falls away. Just recently, we had twin 685-foot towers proposed at Thomas and Central, which is a few miles north of downtown. So, even this argument is somewhat flawed.

The airport is a red herring. The real culprits are those I outlined in my article - the lack of local big headquarters operations, the late arrival of Phoenix to big city leagues when sprawl in America is king, the tiny nature of the city before World War II, and so on. As for the heat being a factor, look at all of the massive skyscrapers being built in Dubai, which is just as hot as Phoenix. No, that's not the problem either.

--Donald M. Burns,_______________________

Actually, the lack of tall buildings stems from a well-known local law limiting the height of buildings in most areas except under either special permit, or in areas where lobbying have been effective in removing the restriction. Buildings in the Downtown Core (inside the innerloop) are also limited directly by the FAA, as they are in and near the flight-paths of jetliners approaching and departing PHX. If I recall correctly, the law was put on the books years ago to prevent 'urbanization', during the anti-urbanization movements of mid-20th century. I would have to do additonal research to point the exact law, but it is well known, and was recently cited during the fight over the attempt to build a Trump Tower in the Camelback District. Cascadia 19:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats called ZONING. Building heights are restricted in the Camelback Corridor because the area is largely residential. For structures along Central Avenue North of Roosevelt, FAA restrictions fall away and building height is practically unlimited.

[edit] WikiProject

If anybody's interested, I've proposed a WikiProject for the state of Arizona. You can check it out at Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List of proposed projects#Arizona. ONEder Boy 04:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suburban cities as a part of City of Phoenix neighborhood information?

I see that much of the information on the neighborhoods are actually about suburbs and not the city of Phoenix itself...perhaps this area needs to be radically revised.--Msr69er 09:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. The article can link to Mesa, Scottsdale, Tempe, etc. but all of the information about them should be relocated into their respective articles. This article is about "Phoenix, Arizona", not the "Phoenix Metropolitan Area". Denvoran 14:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
However, when someone says Boston, do they mean Boston proper, or Cambridge and all the rest? If you were looking for information on "Phoenix Arizona", you'd mean the contiguous city called "Phoenix", if you were looking for information specifically about the "City of Phoenix" you'd look there... When you're talking about moving to the large city in the center of the state, you may end up in any of the suburbs. When someone from who-knows-where-on-the-internet asks me where I'm from, do I say Newton or Boston? You say the name of the largest city, if you're in one of the large MSAs. Otherwise you say a city near large-MSA.
~ender 2007-04-04 19:04:PM MST

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.167.217.162 (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

I added a merge tag at the beginning of the section to alert other users. I may make the edits myself if I find the time within the next 2-3 weeks.--Msr69er 19:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KXXT Bought out in Fundie Campaign to Shut down Air America

KXXT as an Air America station was just starting to be profitable when republicans decided to buy out the station to put another Christian Radio station on the air in a market that already had 7 such stations.

"Recently, conservatives have purchased several stations broadcasting Air America broadcasts and changed the programming. In Phoenix and West Virginia, right-wing Christian groups bought out Air America affiliate stations and converted to Christian formats. In Missoula, Montana, a station switched from Air America to music programming “because advertisers were being intimidated by the right wing,” [1]

The former staff of KXXT, led mainly by morning host Dr. Mike Newcomb, led an Internet pledge drive to get AAR back on the air; national AAR founder Sheldon Drobny also made a substantial investment; a lease was signed on 1480 KPHX (formerly All-Comedy Radio and "Music of Your Life" formats). Their first day on the air was April 3.--Msr69er 19:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some of the language in this article sounds like a brochure from the city of commerce

Not everthing on a .gov is true, or a great source. A city engages in advertising too. "Tempe boasts a vibrant economy, liveable neighborhoods, and the Valley's most dynamic downtown." As a resident of Tempe I agree with that statement, but I also recognize that it is an opinion - none of it a verifiable fact. This article could use a cleanup.

Agreed. But information about Tempe belongs in the Tempe, Arizona article. A short reference and links to the articles about surrounding cities suffices for this article. Phoenix is eager to present itself as the 5th largest city in the United States - at that size there should be plenty to write about in an article about the city without having to "pad" it with extraneous information about other cities that have their own articles.
See: peacock words.--Loodog 00:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The two killers?

I've noticed that the two killers here in Phoenix, both the Baseline Killer and the Serial Shooter, have been getting some coverage on some of the major news networks. Shouldn't there be some sort of mention in the article about them? ONEder Boy 03:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No, not appropriate here. Check the articles on other cities to see if they have news of the latest crimewave. Perhaps you would like to add something to Wikinews. --Blainster 14:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The Tradition

The PGA Champions Tour golf tournament is no longer held in the Phoenix area.

[edit] Phoenix Largest capital city in America

Speaking between strictly city limits that is correct. I believe some kind of personal note could be added there. The largest Metropolitan Capital Area would be Atlanta Boston at roughly 5.5 million 7.4 million.--Loodog 04:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Since when does Boston even come close to 7.4 million? Sources are good.

Like many older east-coast cities, Boston is significantly unrepresented by its city proper population (559,000) since its artificially small boundaries were set by the presense of surrounding communities. Interestingly enough, by metro area, Atlanta wins 4.9 mil vs. 4.4 mil, but CSA, Boston is 35% larger. You can also rank by urban areas, in which case Boston is larger 4 million to 3.5. It's all a matter of granularity and inclusiveness. As I understand it, CSA is more the economic pull of an area, urban area is people within contiguously urbanized land, and metro area is more like including commuter belt.--Loodog 22:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I've added a cleanup notice to the media section of this article. I found the listing of radio stations to be very ineffective and difficult to read. I cleaned it up somewhat (removing most of the stations, since they're listed on List of radio stations in Arizona) but it still isn't great. I think it's a fair bit easier to read now, but hopefully a more experienced wikipedian will come along and make it better. 70.162.15.97 23:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits to the media section. Changing these to list format is unacceptable, as wiki articles should be written preferably in prose format, not as a collection of lists. It is acceptable to have a list in a separate article and link to that list, though. Maybe the list of radio stations is too long, which is the reason for the list. But the television stations should be written out as the prose format instead, since there are not that many of them. Dr. Cash 00:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Length

As "Nick" as brought up, this article is simply far too long. It's 67kb, which is more than twice the recommended length. This length is recommended for reasons of usefulness; people simply won't read when that much information is thrown at them. A few suggestions on things to trim:

  • Prehistory removed altogether. The Hohokam people did not live in the city of Phoenix, nor did they shape it. They dissappeared 4 centuries before Phoenix was even founded. Their story belongs in an article about the region.
  • The "Phoenix Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)" has no place in a section regarding physical setting in the geography section.
  • The various neighborhoods should be split off into their own separate articles with links provided to here. That chops off a third the length on this page.--Loodog 00:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neighborhoods

Phoenix has six neighborhoods:


I, hereby, recommend that another category would be created:

Northeast - Paradise_Valley - Shea Boulevard

Thank You.


Well, PV is part of the MSA, and not Phoenix proper. Just like EV (East Valley) designation includes many other cities, but maybe not Phoenix (although many people in the East Side will say they're EV).
So, there should be a link to the MSA near the top (does this article exist?), because if you're looking to learn something about the 'city' before moving here, you'll often end up in the MSA, and not Phx proper. Somewhere like PV/Scottsdale, Mesa/Gilbert/Chandler, Sun City West, Tempe/'Tukee, etc, depending on what you're looking for.
~ender 2007-02-05 21:34:MST —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.110.171.226 (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Also-6 neighborhoods??? By what official count is this measured??? I can think of 10 neighborhood names right off of the bat just in Central phoenix alone, and yes, paradise valley should have been included immediately. But you have Encanto, the Biltmore, North Central Corridor, Camelback Corridor, Arcadia, Sunny Slope, Moon Valley, Midtown-Business district (north of 202/i-10, south of Indian School on central, Downtown doesn't start until the presidential streets...)Maryvale, and Alhambra.

-Thanks hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 04:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The city has 15 official Urban Villages. Any references or sub-pages should be limited to these official villages. Within those pages, we can then go into detail about any neighborhoods (Sunnyslope, Arcadia, etc). Cascadia 18:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cascadia's assessment. I don't know if you're going to find an authoritative list, however, given that Phoenix's officially designated neighborhoods (Roosevelt, Garfield, Evans-Churchill, Willo etc) are both numerous and discontiguous. The neighborhood association, for example, has different ideas of where Arcadia is compared with all the commercial property owners who tacked Arcadia onto their establishment or the folks in the vicinity of 44th and Camelback who would think they live in Arcadia as well.

To this end, last year, I made a map showing 126 distinct neighborhoods in Phoenix, but it's not authoritative other than the fact that I as a Phoenician made it. It may help the average user identify some sites within the city however: http://emvis.net/~sean/ssp/126_neighborhoods_of_phoenix.png Should any of you be curious in seeing this thing merged into Wikipedia after a cleanup or so, please let me know. Combuchan 12:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] City History Update

I rewrote and reorganized the most of the History section and placed it at User:LtGen/PhoenixHistory. Please review it and make suggestions before it is placed on the main page (I will wait a few weeks before going forward). LtGen 08:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks a heck of a lot better than what was there! Good work! I replaced the existing history section with the new text, with a minor change to your reference format ('retrieved on' instead of 'accessed on'). Eventually, we should start a History of Phoenix article, and add more details. Dr. Cash 06:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes to demographic percentages

An annon. user changed the demographic percentages as of today. User did not leave any notes or references. This article may need to be reverted.

  • forgot to sign. Cascadia 19:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archived Talk Page

It was getting really cluttered here, so I archived the talk page. Cascadia 02:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Phoenician

There were some edits recently that took out "Phoenix natives and residents are referred to as Phoenicians." from the top of the article. Their reasons are that they've never been called that, so it must be wrong. I disagree. I, too, lived in Phoenix most of my life, and I have been called a Phoenician and I call others Phoenicians. Regardless if someone has or has not experienced being called a Phoenician, I believe it should be in the article. Any thoughts? LtGen 12:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I too am a Phonecian. Local news outlets consistantly use this term as well (TV, Newspapers, etc.). Just as folk from Seattle are called Seattleites, folks from Phoenix are called Phonecians. Cascadia 20:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, how does one pronounce this? Is it just like the "Phoenician" from Phoenicia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DerRichter (talk • contribs) 03:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about not signing that--DerRichter (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Condensing the article

Since this article is longer than necessary (see Wikipedia:Article length), I've starting looking for redundant or unneeded things that can be deleted or moved.

What does everyone think about removing most of the text in the sports section, and letting the "table of sports teams" serve its purpose? Most of the text is redundant with the specific sports team articles, anyway. Perhaps a brief summary of the phoenix sports scene would be better. -Nicktalk 00:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


The last change that moved the points of intrest to the points of pride article was not appropriate as not all the points of interest were points of pride. ONEder Boy 02:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the sections of the article, such as sports teams for example, should be brief summaries of the information. It could probably use some trimming. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 03:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

ONEderboy, I didn't catch that. I will move the list back. (Although we still need to be deleting/moving things from the page.) Also, the page I moved it to (Phoenix Points of Pride) does, as stated by the page warnings, seem to be advertisement-like and unneeded. -Nicktalk 03:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I also feel we're getting too many navigation panels at the bottom. At this point we have (in this order): Metro PHX, Phoenix Points of Pride, State of Arizona, US State Capitals, 50 Largest Cities by Population, and the All America City Award Hall of Fame. I think we should limit the nav panels to the fewest possible. Although Phoenix Points of Pride are part of Phoenix, the nav panel is better suited for the individual Points of Pride, not the Phoenix article. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 16:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Is a nav panel for Phoenix Points of Pride even needed at all? Seems like that would be best done by removing the nav panel entirely and integrating the information in it into a culture: points of interest section. The nav panel seems to be too much of an advertisement. Dr. Cash 17:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
A few remarks
  1. Points of Pride is an advertisement. Remove it and incorporate into article or, if this makes your "Points of Interest" list too long (which I think it already is) create a new article Points of Interest in Phoenix, Arizona.
  2. If you're looking to condense the article into a better more concise article, I see the obvious candidates for trimming: History and Sports. The History section should be stripped to a barebones 5 paragraphs (from current 16) with no subheadings between parts of it. Keep full history in its own page History of Phoenix, Arizona and link to it at the top of the new shortened History section. Sports: trim it down, remove notes about where teams used to play and other things bogging the section down, and I'd hardly call a winning Little League team noteworthy sports.--Loodog 01:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] intro

Some has changed the intro recently and I reverted it. My reasons:

  1. Tenth largest in area is an obscure piece of trivia for an introductory paragraph. I could see this being relevant to the top 3, but not down here at the 10th.
  2. "Population within city limits" is a far more obfuscated way to say "city proper population", which is what is assumed when just writing "population" anyway. In general, "metro area" or "MSA" is written when referring to the population extending beyond city limits, as it is in this article.
  3. "Only 5 larger" is a more roundabout way of saying "sixth-largest".--Loodog 20:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phoenix v Philadelphia population, FYI

For the many of us waiting for the exact moment that an official census count shows Phoenix surpassing Philadelphia, it will happen soon. This week, the census released figures that will be reflected in the official 2006 population counts that will be released in June. Phoenix is the fifth-largest city (Phoenix news article) and Philadelphia is sixth (Philadelphia's acknowledgment of the results). But, for those itching to change the article, let's wait until the official figures are announced. -Nicktalk 07:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've looked up in census info the 2005 estimates. Even in 2005, census estimates Philly at 2000 more than Phoenix. The simple facts are:
  • Phoenix will overtake Philly soon, if not already
  • This will not be official until 2010 when actual census info comes out
Therefore, I think the existing footnote of "Phoenix may already have overtaken Philly, but this can't be confirmed until 2010" is good.--Loodog 01:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Please read the edits carefully. The text says that Phoenix is the SIXTH largest city in the country. I didn't change that. The official US census estimates are used in every US city article on Wikipedia, and the 2006 numbers (which have been pre-released to city governments) show Phoenix has surpassed Philly to be 5th, a point acknowledged by the Philly government [2](see recent news articles in both Philly and Phoenix). I am NOT advocating saying phoenix is fifth right now. I am advocating leaving the 2005 count and a statement saying that Phoenix is 6th. Then, when the 2006 numbers are released in a few months, changing the population and the ranking accordingly. All of the cities update the annual population counts from the census. -Nicktalk 02:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh ok. Agreed. Since List of United States cities by population uses latest estimates and not actual decade census's, we work from that convention.--Loodog 02:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why "films made in Phoenix" doesn't belong in section on business/economy

Unless someone can show that revenue from films made there is a significant part of the area's business, which I highly doubt, this information belongs somewhere in the entertainment/culture area. For a place like Hollywood, and maybe a few others that have significant film industries, this would belong under the "economy" heading, but not here. (Unless, of course, someone proves me wrong on this point. Been known to happen ...) +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm confused here. You've edit-warred me over wanting to remove 'in popular culture' from the 'culture' section, and I'm finally agreeing with you there. But now you want to partially put that back in? The problem with that is, if you put films in there, the next logical thing you have going in there are songs, music, and other 'popular culture' items. Which is fine, but you're getting back to having an 'in popular culture' section again. So maybe films doesn't really fit too well under economy. I can live with that. But maybe putting it under 'media' might be more appropriate. The 'arts and culture' section, to me, says it should cover some of the cultural points of interest and things pertinent to the population. Just a listing of films that some movie company decided to film in the city isn't too connected with that (maybe a little). But perhaps it's should be under 'media'.
Of course, I'm still at a loss of exactly where to put pop culture items in city articles anyway. I do agree that a simple listing of movies and films probably isn't exactly the best way to go, as more discussion can go in there regarding the significance of those films and why the city was chosen as the filming location. So I'm open to suggestions of where to put it exactly. But the title you've chosen for that section 'films made in Phoenix' goes directly against the manual of style, as you should not use the name of the article in subsection titles. Dr. Cash 21:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Just with respect to that last thing, there's no prohibition on using the name of the subject of the article in headings when appropriate. It's done all over the place here; just look around. (I'm sure there are cases where it's inappropriate, but this isn't one of them).
Basically agree about problem of where to put pop-culture stuff ... +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding using the name of the article in section headings, please review Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Sections and headings, specifically, the fifth bullet point under the section on wording: "Avoid redundancy and unnecessary words in headings, such as articles (a, an, and the), pronouns, and repetition of the title of the whole article."
True, while other editors do this elsewhere in wikipedia, this is some of the criteria that reviewers use when judging articles for good and featured status, and articles will very likely fail when nominated for such status due to things like this. Dr. Cash 21:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Climate Data - help/comments?

I seem to be in an edit war over the monthly temperature data presented in the article. Not that it's all that big of a deal, but I want to make sure these data are accurate and up-to-date. An anonymous editor has changed the temps based on info found on USA Today, the Weather Channel and AZ Central. That is fine, as those are verifiable sources; however, they are not the official keepers of climate data. Each of those sources claim to get the data from the National Climatic Data Center, but the NCIC wants payment to access their data (so the accuracy of the websites' info cannot be verified).

I checked with the National Weather Service's website here where you can request the monthly climate summaries for each month (you must click on each month individually). Within the report, each month's official average high/low temps are listed. These temps correspond to the temps originally listed on the page (before the anonymous edits). In addition, I came across the Western Regional Climate Center (a division of NCDC), which reports the official NCDC normal temperatures here; once again, these data correspond to the original numbers listed on the page.

And so I need to avoid the 3RR and not change the temperature data again, but I ask that we use the official first-hand data listed in my references above as the source of the temperature data for Phoenix. I suspect that the numbers used by the sites mentioned by the anonymous editor are using outdated data. (Eight of the ten hottest years on record were in the past two decades; older data sets might miss this period.) -Nicktalk 06:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in this, I just heard back from the Arizona State Climatologist, who explained why the temperatures seem off. The data that are currently listed on the chart of monthly high/low temperatures on the NCDC website is incorrect. The National Climactic Data Center made an error when they released the 1971-2000 data set. They issued an updated set of numbers a few months later, but the .pdf on their website never changed. The correct monthly data is here, and the climatologist will contact NCDC and alert them that the old data is still on the website. Apparently, there is a corrected data set on their site that explains this, but I can only access it from my campus (NCDC data is free to .edu IP addresses). I will try to find it in the next few days, then change the article accordingly, citing the updated numbers. -Nicktalk 02:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] unexplained changing of intro material

I changed this and was reverted. Currently says:

“ As of 2006, the Phoenix Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) was the 13th-largest in the United States, with an estimated population of 4,039,182.

The city of Phoenix covers a large area at 515 square miles, the 10th highest area for a city in the United States. The U.S. Census estimate put the city's population at 1,475,834 people. Although not densley populated, only five other cities in the United States have a higher population.

 ”

I had it saying

“ Phoenix had an estimated 2005 population of 1,475,834[1], making it the sixth largest city in the United States. As of 2006, the Phoenix Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) was the 13th-largest in the United States, with an estimated population of 4,039,182. ”

My reasons:

  1. Footnote is absolutely necessary because of this whole issue where people are waiting with ready fingers to change everything as soon as they find an estimate that makes Phoenix bigger than Philadelphia.
  2. "Only five other cities have a higher population" means the same thing as "Phoenix is the sixth largest city" in a more convoluted way.
  3. The density of the cities has nothing to do with their total populations. It feels thrown in as a sort of undermining of the statistics, a way to say that Phoenix's status as sixth largest is somehow "cheating" as city. We can leave such judgements to the reader.--Loodog 06:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Please stop reverting the intro, either way, it won't stay until we have concensus.
“ "The city of Phoenix covers a large area at 515 square miles, the 10th highest area for a city in the United States. The 2005 U.S. Census estimate put the city's population at 1,475,834 people.[footnote] Although Phoenix is not densely populated, only five other cities in the United States have a higher population than Phoenix, partly due to the fact that Phoenix's city-limits area is so much larger than the city-limits areas of most other major cities in the United States. ”
The prose is now profusely apologetic for Phoenix's status. If Phoenix really deserves its title is for the reader to decide, not for us to pick at.--Loodog 20:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, folks. This is really getting somewhat ridiculous here,... All the article needs is a simple statement of PHX being the 5th or 6th largest, depending on what the census data says (currently, it's 6th). But we definitely don't need 2-3 sentences, or a small paragraph, explaining the whole significance of this, justifying this to the world to compensate for the small penis sizes of certain residents of the valley,... Dr. Cash 06:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Elevation

Listed as 1086 ft (33m) this is clearly an error, perhaps 331m? however further down the article "It lies at a mean elevation of 1,117 feet (340 m)" perhaps a consensus needs to be reached here, maybe some research into official figures. 81.76.85.240 10:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Corrected the infobox to match the Geography section, which is correct according to the US Geological Survey. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 14:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction, perhaps a link to your USGS source might be useful, as this link at the foot of the article does not agree: http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=179:3:::NO::P3_FID:44784 perhaps this is still a point of contention... 91.105.177.32 21:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Census estimates

I know it sounds odd to "estimate" a population of about four million to specific numbers. However, the USCensus Bureau gives this specific number with its estimate, as can be seen here. Remember that Wikipedia reports information, not deciding it: if our reliable source reports something, we must go with it. Nyttend 20:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section on popular public places

I am considering adding information on many popular public places and the most common areas to visit in Phoenix. I know all of them and know a lot about all of them. However, does anyone have any problem with this before I start? Lormos 04:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As always, please be careful to source them. Nyttend 12:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Gegraphical comparisons

So, the section on geographic size is ludicrous. Phoenix is 515 sq. miles. New York City is 469 sq. miles, Philadelphia is 143 sq. miles, and Miami is 57 sq. miles. These three combine to 669 sq. miles. Very incorrect. Also, why these three cities? Seems pretty random. If you used Philadelphia, Miami and Boston, it would be a true statement, however, how that that help anymore? It would suffice to say that it is extremely large. I changed it, but feel free to make further changes.


combined are only 45 miles sq.? Philadelphia and Miami together are less than 10% the size of NYC?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.1.118 (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There is an error (perhaps rounding) under "Area" in that the sum of "Land" (515.126 sq mi) + "Water" (0.2 sq mi) is less than "City" (515.1 sq mi).

[edit] Post-9-11 white trash shootings at middle-easterners

Watching Independent Lens right now on PBS. Why is there no mention of the rash of hate crimes Phoenix experienced after 9-11, i.e. the Frank Roque shootings? Come on, people. Come on. Really. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 06:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Because this was a nationwide phenomenon and not particularly notable in the history of the city.--Loodog (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article Request: Media in Maricopa County

Would like to request a new article from you Phoenixians:

Media in Maricopa County is a designated market area (DMA; MSA-Metropolitan Service or Statistical Area) or media market that includes print media (newspapers and magazines) and broadcast media (radio and television) in Maricopa County, Arizona.

Can you do it? ~ WikiDon (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

PS: Media in the Phoenix DMA might be another title?

"Media in the Phoenix DMA" sounds good. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)