Talk:Denver/Archive 2008

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)

PROBLEM WITH CLIMATE BOX

AVERAGE TEMPERATURE AND AVERAGE SNOWFALL HEADINGS AREN'T DISPLAYING WITH APPROPRIATE INFORMATION AND ARE OUTSIDE THE CLIMATE WINDOW. HEADINGS ARE SHOWING IN THE ARTICLE INCORRECTLY AND ARE CONFUSING TO LOOK AT. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO FIX SO I PLACED AT END OF INFOBOX SO THAT SOMEONE WHO HAS A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS HAPPENING CAN POSSIBLY FIX (Dddike (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Except for it's misplacement, I see nothing wrong with the window. I fixed that so it should be fine now. Vertigo700 (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't; the Average Temperature heading and the Extreme Temperature headings "float" further down in the article and the information can not be read. The Extreme Temperature heading actually blocks part of the Denver neighborhood graphic.(Dddike (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

I do not see anything wrong with it on my Mac with Safari. Perhaps it is an issue of the browser you are using. I loaded it with the latest Firefox and it looked fine there. Since Firefox is free, perhaps you could download the latest version and see if it works with that. Vertigo700 (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Discovered that when clicking inside the Climate window and sliding the window down to read the information, the Average Precip and Average Snowfall headings also are fixed and don't scrol down with appropriate information. It is most definitely not my browser.(Dddike (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

So the rest of the world needs to upgrade to Firefox so that they can read your little project? I just viewed this website with the lowly Firefox and the problem was still happening. Not fixing the window invites others to try to fix the problem, make it worse, or delete it altogether. (Dddike (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

Well I can't fix something if I don't see anything wrong with it. Perhaps someone else who sees this problem can. It did have problems before, but I am simply not seeing anything wrong with it and am simply not skilled enough (or intuitive) enough to fix this issue. Sorry. Vertigo700 (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted reference to over 250 days of sunny weather in Denver. Statistic was based on Denver receiving sunshine on 69 percent of possible daylight hours. Apparently, over 250 days of sunshine was derived from .69 * 365.24 = 252 sunny days. But 69 percent of available sunshine, as defined by NOAA, does not mean that 69 percent of the days in the year are, on average, sunny. There are days which receive 40 percent of available sunshine (which contributes 40 percent to the annual average statistics), but this day would not be considered sunny. The NOAA statistic should be repeated and state that Denver receives 69 percent of annual average sunshine. You could also use this link to give a breakdown by month and use it in the temperature and precipitation table. See this reference http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/online/ccd/pctpos.txt You could also say Denver has 115 clear days, 120 cloudy days, while the rest are partly cloudy (130 days). So instead of there being over 250 sunny days, there are 245 days that are clear or partly cloudy in an average year. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/CLIMATEDATA.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.69.133 (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The figure of 54F/12C as the average daily high for the year is wrong; the true temperature is much warmer. Looking at the average daily highs for each month proves that the real figure must be in the low seventies F/low twenties C. I can't work out the figure to the nearest degree, as I would need the precise (not to the nearest degree as shown) average highs for each month to do that accurately. The figure in question, at the top right of the chart, needs to be corrected to its true figure by someone who knows the precise details. Werdnawerdna (talk) 05:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

CBSA vs CSA

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

• The Denver-Aurora Metropolitan Statistical Area with a 2006 population of 2,408,750, and
• The Denver-Aurora-Boulder Combined Statistical Area with a 2006 population of 2,927,911.

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)

Does anyone think it would be relevant to add a second population density that didn't include the airport land? It's a whole lot of undeveloped land that lies well outside the habitated part of the city. If you subtract it from the equation, the poputlation density is signifcantly higher. As a resident, I would say it gives a more accurate depiction of day to day Denver.coulderbolorado 21:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtj82 (talk • contribs)

Too many "downtown" pictures?

I mean it's great and all, and I *love* the Denver skyline ... but I think we've got way too many pictures of the skyline. Maybe 2-3 is good, or specific areas (like 17th Street, LoDo, etc...). Denver is more than the CBD. How about some pictures of Cap Hill, Uptown, more of City Park? Maybe I'm just over-analyzing it, comments? Trodaikid1983 08:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In some ways, I definitely agree with you. I think the most extraneous picture is the one in the highways section, which is basically just a daytime shot of the main panorama shot at the start of the page. I personally think a shot of either I-25 or I-70 would be better than that of the logos but since I couldn't find a fair use image, I think they are a good alternative. If anyone else would like to comment and feel its better to change it back or to something better, feel free. I just don't think two fairly similar skyline pics are necessary in the same article. Vertigo700 05:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

get a pic of the "mousetrap" if there isnt one already. ~`~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binglebongle2000 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move from Denver, Colorado to Denver

Agree with idea to move:

Disagree with idea to move:

• I disagree with the idea. This same idea was brought up in various other city articles, like Seattle, Washington and rejected. It is a city within a state and should be noted as such. Soapy 00:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Soapy, just to let you (and others) know, you actually have to go to Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions to comment on the proposed move. So if anyone has anything to share, feel free to do so at that location. Cheers! Vertigo700 00:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Vertigo700...please note that the banner at the top of this page says to leave comments here. I noted the same exact banner at Seattle, Washington so I am guessing there is one person placing these banners for a number of city articles. Soapy 00:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I do see that as well. The banner almost says both things, that we should discuss the move here but also discussion of the move in general should be on Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions. I guess we can do both as a general Denver page consensus and as our individual opinions, however, I am pretty sure the only vote that will count is the one on the actual Naming Conventions page and not here. Vertigo700 00:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• prefer current situation where Denver redirects to Denver, Colorado. What benefit would a rename have, besides make the title less informative? --MattWright (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

there is more than 1 denver in the us. keep it as is. Binglebongle2000 (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Panoramas?

Seems like we might want to talk about the panoramas. user:Buaidh has added two (the airport and night skyline). Excellent images though they are, these are full width images that IMO overwhelm the article. I don't know how they print (don't have a printer handy). Neither Image use policy: Displayed image size or Manual of Style: Images mention panoramas. My preference would be to leave these as the smaller images they used to be (making them wide thumbnails). Pending some definitive statement someplace that I'm not aware of prohibiting them, I think we're free to do whatever we agree to. Any other opinions? -- Rick Block (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think they kind of overwhelm the text. These images were in the article already, just in different locations and sizes I guess. --MattWright (talk) 03:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, they are distracting. I also liked the night skyline in the infobox, even though it was slightly harder to see than the one it replaced. For some reason, the daytime image feels very cramped to me and makes the entire infobox feel the same (is it because the image is physically squatter?) The airport picture is also not quite as high resolution as the night skyline photo either, as becomes evident when you blow it up to full size (notice the little pixel blotches in the sky?) In both cases, they are distracting and since the main Denver page is already fairly big memory-wise, I don't think we need to add to the loading time of the page anymore. (It really does take a while on dial-up). Vertigo700 05:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, at present, there is a panorama covering a line of text.Fdssdf (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The Panoramas need to be updated. Every other picture is of a building that is still there, but the panoramas are taken before the building boom in downtown. They should be updated. There are many pictures available and if we can't find any license free, I'll take some myself and donate them. I think that the point of this site versus a book is because this information is readily updated. Denver has an updated population and we can't find a newer picture of CBD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.112.122 (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"Wall Street of the West"? Really?

I am a resident of Denver, and I have yet to hear anybody refer to it as the "Wall Street of the West". The first time I've heard it was here. I suppose it makes sense considering that many banks were once based in Denver, but now that name seems erroneous and irrelevant to Denver because no major banks are still based here, to my knowledge. What do you think? --Char645 08:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It's referenced (perhaps not very well), and does seem to show up elsewhere. Note it refers specifically to 17th Street, not the city as a whole. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It's also important to note that "Wall Street" on a very basic level, refers to the fact that the buildings that adorn it form a "wall" - so 17th Street at it's basic level is "Wall Street of the West" - and references of course banks, and national corporations who have a presence from Union Station east to Broadway. Trodaikid1983 (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

10th Largest Downtown

While I give credit to Denver for a bit of civic boosterism, merely claiming that you have the "10th largest downtown" does not make it so.

First, I have done quite a bit of research online and through my contacts in the real estate industry about this claim. While I have seen the claim repeated on various websites, I have found absolutely no BASIS for this claim--it simply seems the city said it has the 10th largest downtown and other websites (such as Wikipedia) merely repeat the claim. Second, what criteria (if any) are being used to make this determination? If it is supposedly based on the 23 million of square feet of office space in downtown Denver (according to the 2007 Annual Information Report of Brookfield Properties and also according to the U.S. Conference of Mayors), then this does NOT establish Denver as the 10th largest downtown--more than 10 cities have more office space in each of their respective downtowns. Also, the claim doesn't appear to be based on downtown population. So, what is the basis of the claim? Land area? As in Denver literally as the 10th largest downtown by land area?

I simply don't think it is good precedent for Wikipedia to post unsubstantiated claims--at least not without noting that such claims are unsubstantiated or otherwise questionable. Simply posting that the city claims it has the 10th largest downtown gives the air of authority to the claim. It would be better to state that the city claims to have the 10th largest downtown but the basis for the claim is unclear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.120.40.2 (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

isnt denver the least obese city in america? and jackson missisippi is the most? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.228.12 (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "MuniIncCO" :
  • {{cite web | url = http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/doit/archives/muninc.html | title = Colorado Municipal Incorporations | format = [[HTML]] | publisher = [[Colorado|State of Colorado]], Department of Personnel & Administration, Colorado State Archives | date = [[2004-12-01]] | accessdate = 2007-12-05}} {{WikiProject United States|class=|importance=low|U.S. counties=yes}}
  • {{cite web | date = [[December 1]] [[2004]] | url = http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/doit/archives/muninc.html | title = Colorado Municipal Incorporations | format = [[HTML]] | publisher = State of Colorado, Department of Personnel & Administration, Colorado State Archives | accessmonthday = November 28 | accessyear = 2006}}
• "PopEstCSA" :
  • {{cite web|url=http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metro_general/2007/CSA-EST2007-alldata.csv|title=Annual Estimates of the Population of Combined Statistical Areas: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2007|format=[[comma-separated values|CSV]]|work=2007 Population Estimates|publisher=[[United States Census Bureau]], Population Division|date=[[2008-03-27]]|accessdate=2008-03-27}}
  • {{cite web | url = http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metro_general/2006/CBSA-EST2006-02.csv | title = Annual Estimates of the Population of Combined Statistical Areas: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006 (CBSA-EST2006-02) | format = [[comma-separated values|CSV]] | work = 2006 Population Estimates | publisher = [[United States Census Bureau]], Population Division | date = [[2007-04-05]] | accessdate = 2007-04-05}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit revert

Nissanaltima reverted my edit, and I asked him/her why he/she reverted it. He/she didn't answer and deleted my question from his/her talk page. My edit was providing exact elevation information, because in reality, it's not quite a mile in elevation (5,280 feet). It's 5,278 feet (2 feet below a mile). -- IRP (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

There is currently a proposal on the table to amend the Wikipedia naming conventions for US cities to follow the AP Stylebook's suggested names. This would effectively move a number of US city articles currently on the list, so Denver, Colorado would be moved to Denver. To comment on this discussion, please go here. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Climate - Average High

The average high over the entire year is clearly wrong. I would change it if I knew how. --162.18.172.11 (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Demographics

In this series of edits the demographic data was changed to reflect an article in the Rocky Mountain News, which in turn claims to be sourced to US Census Bureau data. This numbers are in the same ballpark as this QuickFacts US Census Bureau data (from 2006). The old numbers are more consistent with this American Community Survey Census Bureau data (also from 2006). The major difference in the "white" number (50% vs. 68%) seems to be whether it includes Hispanics. The Census Bureau apparently does not treat Hispanic as a race. Anyone know if there's a consistent Wikipedia policy about this? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe the preference has been to stick with the U.S. Census numbers, and updates from that agency, and to avoid using numbers from groups like chambers of commerce, etc. I couldn't point you to any policy about that though. There is a cities project where they probably discuss this stuff. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Per this thread at WikiProject Cities I'll revert this change on the grounds that we directly use Census Bureau data (and the Census Bureau does not treat Hispanic as a race). -- Rick Block (talk) 07:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the numbers that you are using. The source you cite claims 50% white, not hispanic, or 82% white. You then change it to read 68%? Also, this source claims 10.6% black, but you changed it to 9.1%. If you don't match the facts with the source, why are you changing it? If you cannot provide a reasonable explanation for these changes, I am going to change back to the 50, 10, numbers that are represented both in the RockyMountain News source and the Denver Quick Facts. Thanks. --gtj82 —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC).

Rick, I changed the numbers to at least match the source that you cited. If you change the numbers back to 68% White, 9.91% Black, at least try to find a source that backs up that information. Please note that I edited to say White, Non-Hispanic to clarify.--gtj82 (gtj82) 11:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I had simply reverted to the old numbers (which didn't match the source). How about if we make the numbers match the source (82.8% White, 10.6% Black, 1.3% Native American, 3.3% Asian) and clarify that Hispanic is independent of race? -- Rick Block (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine. Thanks. -- gtj82 (gtj82) 5:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Downtown Denver

I added an article and pictures for the Downtown Denver page. It used to just redirect to LoDo. I also changed the CBD link in the opening of the Denver page so it redirects to the downtown Denver page instead of the page that explains what a central business district is. I cited a number of sources, but the article could probably use more info and facts as opposed to generalizations. -- gtj82 (gtj82) 5:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.149.159.35 (talk)