Talk:Denver/Archive 2012

Broncho Buster

The sculptor of the "Bronco Buster" (approximately 1920) in Denver Civic Center Park is Alexander Phimister Proctor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.99.225.210 (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Change title?

I was wondering why the title of this article just says Denver and not Denver, Colorado? There is no move button to change it either. Just wondering — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogs555 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

See http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28geographic_names%29#United_States . Denver is in the AP Stylebook list of cities that stand alone (with no state). Denver, Colorado redirects to this article. The "move" action is in the drop down at the top, next to the star. Is there some particular issue with having it at "Denver" (with a redirect from "Denver, Colorado") rather than the other way around? -- Rick Block (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I was just wondering. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogs555 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Climate Section

This section is continually edited with content that can only be described as unencyclopedic and inaccurate. Denver does not have a "mild climate" by U.S. standards, the winter averages are below the national average and the annual snowfall is far above the national average. In spite of this, it is not appropriate to the tone of the article to be making unsourced commentary like "with no accumulation" when referring to average snowfall or "despite assumptions, Denver's climate is very mild." It's best to just stick to the facts and base any subjective statements from a comparison to the country as a whole (an average climate being somewhere halfway between Honolulu's and Minneapolis's, for example). Wikipedia is no place to be forwarding personal opinions, editing articles to include unsourced anecdotal claims, or making personal commentary.

Strongbad1982 (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Response to Strongbad1982

I’m confused why you (or whoever it is) keep changing the climate data. The way you worded everything is just your personal interpretation of the climate. Wikipedia if full of opinions, and I’m confused why you don’t realize this. For an example go the page on Flagstaff Arizona, where the climate is very similar to Denver. The way it is worded is simply a more positive outlook on the same climate data. Why is it not okay to have the climate section in Denver worded the same way? I think you may be biased because you do not like Denver because you are from Baltimore. This is NOT a personal attack but just a statement that applies to anyone. The way you have worded the Denver climate data is a very negative outlook on the subject. You focuses way too much on snow and cold and not on the climate as a whole. You seem to be dis-obeying your own rules. People need to look alot closer at the opinionative and contradicting content on wikipedia, it's everywhere! Could you please explain to me why articles such as the Flagstaff page are allowed to be less biased, and Denver is not? I know all articles are maintained by different people, but that shouldn't matter in this case. It appears that the only answer to my question is exactly what I have percieved it to be.

--Hogs555 (talk) 06:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Climate Data fairness

Please can everyone read the climate section, and then my previous post and understand my point.

Thanks --Hogs555 (talk) 06:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has standards for encyclopedic content, which all articles strive to adhere. Among these standards is the goal of minimizing content that could be seen as unsourced opinion. To be perfectly honest, ANY statement declaring Denver's climate to be "mild," "cold," or "hot" is technically not encyclopedic, however many other city climate articles use those adjectives if the use is limited and appropriate. You state above that the way the article is worded is simply a "more positive outlook" on the same climate data. This is what they are talking about when they use the word unencyclopedic. An encyclopedia must strive to be neither positive nor negative in the outlook of its reference material, instead remaining neutral and sticking to "just the facts, ma'am." Positive spin is perfectly appropriate for a tourism website, a brochure, or a PR campaign, but really doesn't have a place in a primary reference source. That is precisely why it is not okay to have the climate section this way. We went through the same battle about 5 years ago with the Baltimore article and I stuck to my guns, trying to keep the content neutral between two Wikipedia users who were attempting to spin the climate section to make Baltimore seem colder or warmer than it really is. As you can see by my contributions, I made an additional edit TONIGHT to the Flagstaff article, which contained the same opinionated anecdotal statements that are not sourced and have no bearing on the information needed in an encyclopedia.

Whomever is re-editing this section is deleting factual and sourced data as well (such as the earliest and latest historical records of snowfall for Denver) which could be very informative to the average Wikipedia reader. This is also a problem and hints at an agenda to spin Denver's climate as being warmer than it really is. And that's not necessarily a "better" thing anyway, who's to say that warmer climate equals better climate? I never made that claim. Different people like different kinds of climates. But what is important in an encyclopedic article about a city is that the numbers be accurate and the wording be informative and not editorialized. Statements like "with little accumulation," "with no accumulation," or "despite the beliefs of many Americans Denver has a mild climate" are not sourced, not based on anything other than opinion, and asserted without any sourced information to bolster their validity.

Wikipedia may be full of opinions, but there are moderators, editors, and owners out there trying to purge as much of that as possible so that Wikipedia can maintain a reputation as an OBJECTIVE source of information, free of spin, opinion, and editorializing. It's almost impossible to completely eliminate opinion, but I hope everyone can agree that it needs to be kept to the bare minimum. I will continue to try and keep the Denver climate section as neutral as possible.

Strongbad1982 (talk) 06:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

-How is this way of explaining the climate....

Denver lies within the semi-arid, continental climate zone (Köppen climate classification BSk)[38] with four distinct seasons and modest annual precipitation spread through the year. Denver’s climate is very sunny averaging 3,106 hours or 300 days of sunshine a year.[39] Temperatures often fall precipitously after sunset throughout the year, and winter nights can be very cold. July is the warmest month of the year, with an average temperature of 67.75 °F (20 °C). Summers range from mild to hot with frequent afternoon thunderstorms. January is the coldest month of the year with an average temperature just below freezing at 31.8 °F (−0 °C). Winters range from mild to cold, with periods of snow alternating with periods of mild weather, the result of chinook winds. Snowfall in Denver is common in the winter, but the seasonal average total of between 50-60 inches of snow is spread out over a very long proportion of the year. The average first snowfall occurs on October 8th, and the average last snowfall occurs on April 15th, however snowfall has been recorded as early as September 1 and as late as June 3 .[40]. Due to its inland location on the High Plains, at the foot of the Rocky Mountains, weather patterns in Denver, like all cities along the eastern edge of the rocky mountains can be subject to rapid, volatile yet brief changes.[41] Annual snowfall itself is 53.3 inches a year.[42] The average first snowfall of the season occurs around October 8th with very little accumulation, and the average last snowfall is around April 15 with no accumulation. The lowest temperature ever recorded in Denver was recorded on January 9, 1875 at −29 °F (−34 °C). The highest temperature ever recorded in Denver is 105 °F (41 °C) (National Weather Service) on August 8, 1878 and again on July 20, 2005.

any less biased, and more properly sourced than this way?.......

Denver lies within the semi-arid, continental climate zone (Köppen climate classification BSk)[38] with four distinct seasons and modest annual precipitation spread through the year. The combination of high elevation and low humidity provide mild weather conditions throughout most of the year. Denver’s climate is very sunny averaging 3,106 hours or 300 days of sunshine a year.[39] Temperatures often fall precipitously after sunset throughout the year, and winter nights can be very cold. Summers range from warm to hot with average high temperatures ranging from the mid 80’s to mid 90’s. Winters range from mild to cold, with periods of snow alternating with extended periods of mild weather, the result of chinook winds. Winter high temperatures usually fall in the range of 35 to 55 degrees fahrenheit. Snowfall in Denver is common in the winter, but due to the dry and sunny climate of the city snowfall melts very quickly. Due to its inland location on the High Plains, at the foot of the Rocky Mountains, weather patterns in Denver, like all cities along the eastern edge of the rocky mountains can be subject to rapid, volatile yet brief changes.[40] Annual snowfall itself is 53.3 inches a year.[41] The average first snowfall of the season occurs around October 8th, and the average last snowfall is around April 15. The lowest temperature ever recorded in Denver was recorded on January 9, 1875 at −29 °F (−34 °C). The highest temperature ever recorded in Denver is 105 °F (41 °C) (National Weather Service) on August 8, 1878 and again on July 20, 2005.

-The latter simply explains the climate with much less detail about snow (which the former goes way to in-depth about) and more temperature and basic data. Also the former is not in any way better sourced than the latter, I'm confused why you keep saying this. Many descriptions throughout the years of Denver's climate have used numbers with no sources other than common sense. The climate box confirms everything stated in the latter description of the climate. I never said a warm climate is better but this seemed to be your opinion, and most other people's opinions as well. No one ever said it never snows in Denver or that it is "very warm". But the former climate description really emphasises the snow over anything else. Also did you read the Flagstaff article? If you live in Denver you should realize what I'm saying about the climate. It's obviously not like Baltimore's climate, but Baltimore is not the climate by which all other climates are measured. Anyway it's not worth arguing anymore so whatever.

Thank You --Hogs555 (talk) 06:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The bottom version only has a few major differences. The first being "The combination of high elevation and low humidity provide mild weather conditions throughout most of the year." This seems relative and opinion-based. If one considers any temperature above 0°F to be "mild," then one could claim that Duluth, MN experiences "mild weather" for most of the year. Conversely, if someone considers only temperatures above 80°F to be "mild," then a city like Denver only receives "mild weather" for a short period of time annually. Mild is just a very relative term and saying that a city receives mild weather for most of the year sounds promotional rather than encyclopedic. The second is "usually melts very quickly." This seems anecdotal and not sourced with any hard data, so I'd say let's take that part out as well.

The only other thing that seems to be missing the interesting factoid about the earliest recorded snow and the latest recorded snow. Not sure why anyone would be hung up about preventing that information from being in the article, as it is both encyclopedic and sourced with a reference, but I suppose it's nothing to warrant a high-stakes edit war over if someone is so afraid of people knowing that snow has fallen extremely early and extremely late in Denver a few times throughout history. However, everything else in the lower article seems to fit the Wikipedia standards for neutral content. I would probably add a small blurb about the amount of rainfall that Denver receives annually, since snow is referenced and rain is not, which seems not unbalanced but just short on information. Also, 31.8°F translates to -0.1°C. Small detail, but the "convert" function takes care of that math and looks cleaner in the article as far as the average temperatures of both the warmest and coldest month (which is the more specific and encyclopedic way of presenting annual temperature extremes).

Again, if you're willing to concede on the editorialized mild weather and snow melting anecdotes, we can also leave out the data about the earliest and latest historical snowfall as a fair compromise. Here's what I think the article would look like after those changes (and the additions I suggested above):

Denver lies within the semi-arid, continental climate zone (Köppen climate classification BSk)[38] with four distinct seasons and modest annual precipitation spread through the year. Denver’s climate is very sunny averaging 3,106 hours or 300 days of sunshine a year.[39] Temperatures often fall precipitously after sunset throughout the year, and winter nights can be very cold. Summers range from warm to hot with the warmest month of July averaging a temperature of {{convert|67.75|°F|0}. Winters range from mild to cold, with periods of snow alternating with extended periods of mild weather, the result of chinook winds. January is the coldest month, averaging 31.8 °F (0 °C). Due to its inland location on the High Plains, at the foot of the Rocky Mountains, weather patterns in Denver, like all cities along the eastern edge of the rocky mountains can be subject to rapid, volatile yet brief changes.[40] Annual rainfall averages 15.52 inches (394 mm), spread evenly throughout the year. Annual snowfall averages 53 inches (1,300 mm) a year.[41] The average first snowfall of the season occurs around October 8th, and the average last snowfall is around April 15. The lowest temperature ever recorded in Denver was recorded on January 9, 1875 at −29 °F (−34 °C). The highest temperature ever recorded in Denver is 105 °F (41 °C) (National Weather Service) on August 8, 1878 and again on July 20, 2005.

Does this look good?

Strongbad1982 (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

5278 feet?

Hello everyone. I have noticed that here, the elevation is in fact indicated to be 5278 feet. Should the article be updated to reflect this? The NWS point forecast's topographical data also indicates that it is 5278 feet instead of 5280, which would be exactly one mile. I believe that the figure "5280" is a result of rounding, while, in reality, it appears, according to at least two reliable sources that the actual figure of 5278 was rounded. Before I make a major edit to the page, I figure discussion is warranted, therefore, I am taking it here for approval first. Thank you. 75.53.218.81 (talk) 03:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: Since there are apparently no immediate objections, I will go ahead and make the change. I will note this discussion in the edit summary in case somebody objects then. 75.53.218.81 (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Denver isn't a point, it's a fairly large city. The city of Denver has declared that it's official elevation is defined by a benchmark on the steps of the State Capital building that is indeed 5280 ft. above sea level. Topozone's elevation for Denver is almost certainly derived from GNIS data and the National Elevation Dataset. It's the elevation of a spot in Denver, but not the same spot the city decided to use for it's official elevation. --Footwarrior (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the insight that you have provided. In that case, should we perhaps state that some sources claim that it is 5278 feet, or make a similar note in the article? Thanks again. 75.53.218.81 (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

In this case, Denver is rather picky about keeping the Mile High City designation. I would just leave it at 5280. Also, the elevation of any city varies by more than a few feet. It's just a question of where you measure. --Footwarrior (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Given that, could we state that its elevation ranges from 5,130–5,680 ft as it says in the infobox? We could state that right after the statement which I last modified, and, I believe that an infobox is supposed to summarize some information in the article, therefore, I feel that it should also be stated in the article, such as (red indicates new text)...

Denver is nicknamed the Mile-High City because its official elevation is exactly one mile (1.6 km) or 5,280 feet (1,609.344 m) above sea level, which is defined by the elevation of the spot of a benchmark on the steps of the State Capital building. The elevation of the entire city ranges from 5,130 to 5,680 feet, and, some sources, such as the GNIS data and the National Elevation Dataset mark the elevation at 5,278 feet.

I feel that this is good information to add given that there may be people like myself who will wonder why some sources will make the claim that it is 5,278 feet, or who may wonder where the designation of exactly one mile comes from given the variances in elevation throughout the city. I see no harm, if not, help, by adding this information, however, since it would be a significant change to the article, I figure it warrants at least a peer review by one other user before implementing it. Thanks. 75.53.218.81 (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: Due to no objections, I made my edit, but my reference was blocked by the spam filter. I started a discussion here. If you object to this edit, please feel welcome to revert it, but I do ask for a note to be left here. I also kindly request that somebody look into my request at the spam whitelist talk page. Thanks. 75.53.218.81 (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Fire station info

... seems overdone, NN. Not that I don't have a lot of love for our firefighters, but I mean, if I were reading an encyclopedia article on Denver, I wouldn't expect to see a list of addresses for where the fire stations are and what engines and trucks. Point to the Denver website or something for that kind of information. 184.99.245.8 (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Completely agree. This is the only city page that I know of with firefighter information, let alone an enormous section dedicated to it. This belongs on its own page. Subterranean (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Moved fire station information to Law_and_government_of_Denver page. Vertigo700 (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Elevation 5,278 and not 5,280ft? Does it matter?

Is posting 5,278ft rather than 5,280 ft as the elevation of the city really relevant? I mean the USGS has made deviations in its elevation measurements for years and years. So what if this time they measured it to be 5,278, this may change to 5,284 or 5,274 in 3 years or so. Denver is the Mile High City and is 5,280 ft above sea level on the south side of downtown, I think simply saying it's 5,280 ft high instead of saying 5,278ft for no real reason is good enough. Does anyone really care if it's 5,278 now it's only 2 ft of difference. Anyone else agree they should just delete the 5,278 and keep 5,280, it really doesn't matter and 5,280 is what Denver has been marked at for years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogs555 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Climate

The sentence "Due to its inland location on the High Plains, at the foot of the Rocky Mountains, weather patterns in Denver, like all cities along the eastern edge of the rocky mountains can be subject to rapid, volatile yet brief changes" occurs twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.119.178.242 (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)