Talk:Albuquerque, New Mexico

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Cities (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States / American Old West / New Mexico (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject American Old West (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject New Mexico (marked as Top-importance).

Precipitation vs Rainfall[edit]

The climate box has two separate lines, Precipitation and Snowfall, as if the two are completely distinct. They are not. Precipitation includes both rainfall and snowfall; a Precipitation" line should have totals that are at least as much as the snowfall line. The text makes the same false distinction. I submit that "Precipitation" should be changed to "Rainfall" in these cases. --Tim Sabin (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

No, keep the line as "precipitation". Not all the precipitation falls as snow and that is why the totals are not as much as the snowfall amounts. If you put rainfall, the values would be misleading. Also, there is no data for rainfall and it is best to go with what the source indicates. There is rainfall because precipitation is not the same value as snowfall value but there is no offical data on rainfall. All major cities in the wikipedia article in the USA that record snow every winter uses precipitation and snowfall values.Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

ABQ Elections are non-partisan[edit]

There is an IP user,, who insists on labeling city council members & the mayor with political party labels. A reference from the official ABQ city site states, and I quote, "City elections are non-partisan and have no primaries. By law, General Municipal Elections are held in odd-numbered years on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in October."[1] This matter has been discussed on this page before with the consensus that, indeed, the elections are non-partisan and hence, as far as ABQ is concerned, the individuals have no party affiliation. --Tim Sabin (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


In the first sentence under the Hydrology section, the parenthetical aside in the Rio Grande reference - "(river water diverted from the Colorado River basin through the San Juan-Chama Project[28])" - should be struck. While the Rio is certainly supplemented by the San Juan diversion due to water rights wrangling, that diversion is a very small part of the Rio's hydrology itself and adds little or nothing to the ABQ hydrology discussion. It certainly belongs in a discussion of the Rio Grande, but not here. In fact it is a misleading digression. Someone spent time on the reference, so I wanted to make my case before striking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlamastra (talkcontribs) 13:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

How is it misleading? Albuquerque is specifically named in the Upper Colorado Compact, and it has the largest share of NM's entitlement. In fact, the city of Albuquerque has no right to surface water from the Rio Grande. The hydrology section is about water in a growing city in a desert. The sources of the drinking water that the city receives should remain in the article.Synchronism (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Rio Rancho and Intel[edit]

Sorry if this has been brought up before, but because Rio Rancho is a separate city, although it might be alright to mention Intel's employment in text, I do not think that it should be listed as one of the top ten employers in Albuquerque...because it isn't. Intel is a large employer in Rio Rancho. I suppose one could write that the list includes the top 10 employers in the Albuquerque Metropolitan Statitical Area, but then one needs to look at all the businesses in Rio Rancho as well. Rio Rancho Public Schools may bump some other group out of the category of largest employers in the Albuquerque MSA. Taram (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be most meaningful to keep the table as is, but make it clear that it is a list of the largest employers in the metro area. After all many people from Albuquerque work at Intel, and if you want to be truly pedantic Intel is not in Rio Rancho either since that land is unincorporated. Similarly KAFB and Sandia are also not located inside the city limits, but it would be absurd to suggest they not be listed. Camerafiend (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I like your idea of making it clear that the list refers to the ABQ metro area. (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll just do that then and hopefully everybody will be satisfied. As a sidenote the table doesn't seem to have a source but I'm sure that can be rectified. Camerafiend (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Example restaurants[edit]

While I personally agree that The Frontier is a culturally important part of ABQ's history, I'm reluctant to list it in the article without a WP:SECONDARY source saying so. Saying that a place is culturally important, without explaining why it's important (with a source), is just WP:PEACOCK. Additionally, without solid sources these sections always seem to degrade into bland lists of every restaurant in a city with no indication of which ones are significant, and which ones paid a publicist for some WP:COVERT advertising. That may be an extreme example, but Blake's Lotaburger had some suspicious activity in that direction in the past, so I don't think this is a minor issue that should be taken lightly. Grayfell (talk) 03:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

New Mexican cuisine is extremely important throughout New Mexico, and the same holds true for Albuquerque. Since this is the largest city in the state, this food plays an important part of the city's culture. In much the same way that Tokyo's cuisine is internationally acclaimed. Several restaurants have become iconic staples in the city, since Albuquerque was a city on several historic trade routes; Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway, U.S. Route 66, Interstate 40, and Interstate 25. In fact one of the oldest buildings in the state, is a restaurant. There are several universally accepted restaurants in Albuquerque, according the articles I'll supply; Casa de Ruiz, Los Poblanos, Cecilia's Cafe, Sadie's, El Pinto, El Modelo, Frontier Restaurant, Garduño's, Little Anita's, Mac's La Sierra, The Candy Lady, Blake's Lotaburger, and so many more. My prior list was accurate, but here's the sourcing. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. I can find more sources, but Albuquerque's cuisine is important to the history of the city, and not in a small way. Smile Lee (talk) 06:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Those links show me that I'm doing a really bad job at getting my point across. What do this city's trade-routes have to do with iconic restaurants? That's something that should be explained in the article, not here. Nobody is denying that good restaurants exist in Albuquerque. Saying that food is important to the city's culture is subjective. Which cities value food less? Which value it more? It's not really helpful to be setting it up that way. Ask some anthropologists, and I'm sure most will tell you that food is important to ALL cultures. Saying that it's important, without explaining why it's important, or how its different from other cultures, is kinda WP:PEACOCKy to me.
Singling out a restaurant because it has gotten good reviews is understandable, but it's not always neutral. If we list every restaurant that has gotten attention from the press, the list becomes very long, and functionally useless, so we need to be selective in who we're mentioning, and why. I'm not questioning your motives, but the end result is that some restaurants are getting additional promotion, while others are not. We need to have a good reason to provide that advertising. If you want to make a point about food-culture in Albuquerque, you should find sources that talk specifically about food culture. Reviews and travel-guide listings are selective samples of what's trendy and positive, and are only a very superficial, commercially motivated examination of the city's culture. I think it is better to avoid listing any specific restaurants without a solid, in-depth source that specifically links it to the city's food culture, or that describes it as being exemplary. If that means no specific restaurants are mentioned, I think the article is better off for it. I know it's a high standard, but I don't think it's an unreasonable one. NYC gets away without mentioning The Four Seasons or Ray's Pizza, after all. I know, I know, OTHERSTUFF. Grayfell (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree completely with Grayfell. Actually, I would prefer to not see any restaurants at all. You are begging for crufting up the article. If we do list restaurants, a baseline requirement should be WP:N. But I do not know what purpose even listing notable eating places would serve. Certainly you could make a point about cuisine without listing any extant establishments? By listing any open eating places, we are begging for that crufty list thing and are rapidly in the territory of WP:NOTGUIDE. John from Idegon (talk) 09:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Of course food is important to every single group of people, I've studied anthropology. But in anthropologic studies there is a huge difference between personal identity impact and cultural impact. The aspect of food in New Mexican culture is significant in an extreme way. Its comparable to Southern American cuisine, but it has a slightly broader scope than that. Here's an article that covers a tiny piece of it from Fast Company (magazine) [7]. The cultural connection between New Mexicans and their cuisine caused it to become an identity for them. WP:N doesn't have anything to do with the content of articles, though I agree that a list of restaurants could make it lean towards WP:NOTGUIDE. I have opted to just explain it without listing anything, and further fleshing out the articles on Wikipedia related to New Mexico's culture. I'll return to editing here, after I've added a bit more specifics on Albuquerque's part in the cultural identity of the state and its people. Smile Lee (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Etymology image[edit]

The MOS recommends against sandwiching text between an image and an infobox (MOS:IMAGELOCATION). Where doing so is necessary to keep the image with the appropriate text, as here, reducing the image may be needed to avoid choking the text. The image in the Etymology section was enlarged to regular size and moved to the top of the article recently. Between the bottom of the Index, two section headings, an image, and an infobox, the beginning of the article looked very cluttered, and the text was squeezed down to where only three and four words fit on some lines, even on a large monitor. I reduced the image to decrease the choking and moved it down a paragraph so the article starts with text. This keeps the image with the appropriate text while appearing less cluttered. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)