Talk:Albuquerque, New Mexico

New Skyline Image Request

I think it is time to post a new skyline picture to the page, going threw this process is totally unnecessary however, What do the fellow users think?, this is what I wanna know. JWillems (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

So keep the existing image or replace with:

• Downtown at sunset.
  Downtown at sunset.

Keep current image. This is not an improvement. Oversaturated stamp. --Dschwen 13:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The proposed image, commons:File:View_of_the_Compass_and_Bank_of_the_West_Buildings.jpg, is tagged as a copyright violation (copy of an all-rights-reserved image at Flickr, ABQ at sunset. We should not post this image on the page until its copyright status is clarified. --Uncia (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The proposed image has been deleted as a copyright violation (log). This has been a recurring problem with the infobox image: someone (by "someone" I mean one of the numerous sock puppets of PoliticianTexas) posts a copyright-violation image and puts in the infobox. Then the copyright violation is discovered, the image is deleted, and we have to put the old image back in manually. That's why I ask everyone to discuss new images here before installing them. Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The proponent of this image, User:JWillems, has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of User:PoliticianTexas. --Uncia (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The existing (22 Feb, 2009) main photo for this article is quite ugly, to be honest. A "reasonable quality" photograph of Albuquerque's skyline would alone drastically improve the quality of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.194.183 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 22 February 2009

Do you recommend a particular photo? --Uncia (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree! the photo is freaking ugly as hell! we gotta change Albuquerque's picture to a more pleasant one!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyer070 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 26 February 2009

Do you recommend a particular photo? --Uncia (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, use the aerial photo already on the page...the first photo people see is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.188.218 (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Archived 2004–2008

I archived all the discussions from 2004 through 2008 here. All discussions appear to be closed, and the last edit to the archived portions of the page was on 27 December 2008.

Several fields in the infobox are subject to undesirable changes of various sorts, and we have developed a consensus on this page that proposed changes should be discussed here before being implemented (the affected fields are marked with comments stating this). I have summarized these discussions below and linked to the full discussion in the archive. If I have left out anything else that needs to be carried over, please also note that below. Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Article images: discuss here before changing

If you want to change, replace, or add any images on the article page, please discuss your proposed image here before making the change. There is an ongoing problem where copyright-violation images are placed on this page, especially for the infobox image. When the violation is discovered we then have to manually repair the page. The consensus is that all image changes must be discussed here first. See the archived discussion here. Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nickname or motto: discuss here before changing

If you want to change, replace, or add the city nickname or the city motto in the infobox at the top right of the page, please discuss your proposed change here before making it. These fields have been the subject of a lot of vandalism. It is unlikely that any new mottoes or nicknames have been invented that are not already listed here, so please give reliable sources for your proposed change. The consensus is that all nickname and motto changes must be discussed here first. See the archived discussion here. Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see *any* nicknames in the article except a reference to Mayor Chavez's attempts to call Albuquerque "the Q". Somebody added "Duke City" over the past weekend, which is the most commonly used nickname I've heard, and someone else deleted it. It may not be an official nickname (e.g. like Santa Fe calling itself "The City Different") but it's a very common and easily recognized nickname. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.64.74.44 (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It's colloquially known as "the Duke City", is it not? Does that really need a reference, not that it should be hard to find?Synchronism (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Are there any serious objections to adding Duke City as a nickname? Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly shouldn't be.Ohmiwik (talk) 05:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, in the case of a nickname, I'm not having a problem with using any otherwise-allowed source. These are described at WP:PSTS, not at WP:RS (as the hatnote there at WP:RS indicates). It's a pretty broad range, when you think about it. It's just the context of the addition that has to be considered: In this context I'm not finding a problem with using any of the listed-allowed sources. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 06:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of the Hispanic locals know it as it "Burquè", and hispanics make up a large chunk of the city's population. kehkou (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Albuquerque racial mix

IP editor 86.121.9.59 (talk) has been putting garbled data on Albuquerque's racial mix under Demographics. I have fixed this up (twice) and asked him to comment here before changing it again. --Uncia (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

86.121.9.59 (talk) left this response on my talk page:

see this statistics (from the source provided in the article)

Race alone or in combination with one or more other races

Total population

White

70.6%

Black or African American

4.1%

American Indian and Alaska Native

5.9%

Asian

3.0%

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander

0.2%

Some other race

19.8%

The White people is a category which includes all persons who, at the American Community Survey Estimates, identified themselves with the White race (this includs non-Hispanic Whites,

White Hispanic and people who were White in combination with another race). Same with Black or African American people, Asians etc. Hispanics may be of any race (generally they chose "some other race" or "White"). After stating their race people, are asked if they are of Hispanic origin. [1]

86.121.9.59 (talk) 08:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

See

• Elizabeth M. Grieco (2001). "Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: Census 2000 Brief" (PDF). US Census Bureau. Retrieved 2009-02-17. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Beginning with the 2000 Census, "respondents were given the option of selecting one or more race categories to indicate their racial identities". Also, "The federal government considers race and Hispanic origin to be two separate and distinct concepts." The Census Bureau reports figures for:

• six one race only categories
• six race alone or in combination categories

The figures used by 86.121.9.59 (talk) are the "race alone or in combination" categories, but this is not clear from his description, which seems to be the "one race only" categories. Hence the confusion.

I suggest that the discussion here should cover be the "one race only" figures, along with the total for two or more races, and the total Hispanics. Comments? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

New editor Skydeepblue (talk · contribs) has reinstated (without explanation) the changes made by 86.121.9.59 (talk). I have reverted these and asked Skydeepblue (talk · contribs) to discuss here before changing again. --Uncia (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

moorish name: speculation about "father of Cork" and counterpoint

Al-Barquq (البرقوق) means "Plum" in Arabic. A common and widely appreciated fruit in Moorish Spain. That's pretty obviously the origin of the Duke's Moorish name, not Father of Cork. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackbrown (talk • contribs) 13:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Possibly... but your one fact - that the Moors in Spain ate plums - is trumped by: the spelling of the word Albuquerque itself (no "r" after the "q" in Al-Barquq), the cork industry in the Alburquerque region of Spain (vice plum orchards), the white oak on the seal of the Spanish city of Alburquerque (vice a plum tree), and the possible Latin root. Finally, and most importantly, the "cork" explanation is the widely accepted Spanish etymology, available in Spanish on the web, if you read same. CharleyHart (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

New Infobox Photo

I replaced the older image becuase the new image gives a better identity of The City of Albuquerque, 6 pictures to discribe our city. I even added the captions for the pictures. More cities are adding a "Montage" to their infoboxes, So I believe we too can have a nice infobox photo Montage. I believe the current image doesnt even show the whole downtown area or anything else besides our two largest buildings. ABQStyle (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The image in question, File:Albuquerque_Infobox_Montage_Design.png, is a copyright violation and in fact has already been uploaded once by LamyQ (talk · contribs), a known sock puppet of community-banned editor PoliticianTexas (talk · contribs). I have reverted to the previous infobox picture. --Uncia (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The proponent of the new image, ABQStyle, has been blocked indefinitedly as being a sockpuppet of community-banned editor PoliticianTexas. This editor has uploaded about a dozen copyright-violating images for this article's infobox over the past year, which is why we ask editors to propose their changes here for checking before implementing them: there's about a 99% chance that any new image is another attempt by PoliticianTexas. --Uncia (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

2008 Census Bureau Population

The Census Bureau estimated the City of Albuquerque's 2008 population at 521,999 persons, as indicated in reference #1 to the article. In the article this figure is being rounded to 522,000 repeatedly, regularly, and without external sourcing. That alteration is inconsistent with wikipedia policy. I've reset all references to the 2008 city population to the Census Bureau's estimate of 521,999, as that is the only external source referenced in the article. 164.64.74.44 (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

problem with the "richard berry" link

I just noticed that in the righthand info box, the link to the current mayor, richard berry, leads to a singer of the same name. This should probably be un-linked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.197.214 (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

25 references found...

...and 25 references fixed. Not a problem, Synchronism. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 07:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Etymological Note

Ranchos de Alburquerque, the historical source of the city's name, includes a false cognate - 'rancho'. Although often translated today as "ranch", the Spanish word 'rancho' historically meant either "farm huts" (Spanish), or "camp" (Mexican-Spanish).CarlitosCorazon 18:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Move proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Albuquerque, New Mexico → Albuquerque — Relisting as this was not listed on WP:RM until today. Note that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States is relevant to this proposal. Ucucha 15:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Lots of major cities don't have the state or country after their name in the article title. Other than Alburquerque, Spain, there is no other city called Albuquerque. "Albuquerque" even redirects here. -NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits) 16:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I support this move, per above.Synchronism (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC) I do think the name is ubiquitous enough to merit a [[City]] name, but as that is mostly a cosmetic change, I'm content to wait for the AP Stylebook to be updated ;) I oppose for now.Synchronism (talk) 07:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States, Cities section. Albuquerque apparently isn't listed as a city that can use the [[city]] convention. Postoak (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States. — AjaxSmack 02:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Huh. Wasn't aware of this discussion. Well, it's not clear why Wikipedia needs to slavishly follow the AP Stylebook in this instance; I don't think we give the AP Stylebook primacy in other areas. It's fairly clear that the city in New Mexico is the primary topic for "Albuquerque", and that's what people will most often want to read about when they type in "Albuquerque". This should be about what's best for the reader. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Then why not drop the states names from all city articles? It is also disruptive to move this after consensus was met. Perhaps you should investigate the reasoning behind the guideline a little further. New discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). Postoak (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Albuquerque is on par with Chicago and Los Angeles, articles which similarly make little sense to have the state modifier be included in the article name.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Brewcrewer, Albuquerque does not need to have the state modifier. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Postoak, it is not "disruptive" to "ignore" a "consensus" of which one is unaware; I made it clear to you in my previous comment that I was unaware of the discussion, so it is unclear why you would made your rather incongruous response. In addition, we wouldn't "drop the states names from all city articles", since not all city names are predominantly used by those cities. Disambiguate where necessary; but only where necessary. Furthermore, that "consensus" consisted of 3 people opposing the move to Albuquerque, one person supporting. As of now, the "consensus" is four people supporting the move to Albuquerque, and three people opposing. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, my apologies for the stricken statement above. Postoak (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I supported the proposed move initially because I thought it was unproblematic and rational. No one had commented on NerdyScienceDude's proposal, so I was providing that which I thought would help bring consensus to a non-controversial move. More than a week later, the possible move was listed at requested moves, although none had been requested per se. Several dissenting voices appeared. I changed my vote merely to work towards consensus on a minor issue thinking that I was in a small minority, but that appears to have changed (but it's still a minor issue). That section of the AP styebook is unlikely to change anytime soon hence my wink (;). I didn't vote above, I expressed an opinion and I still do support such a move. The others who have opposed have not responded to the arguments for the move, nor have they provided reason beyond a guideline (read: not a rule, but advice) except to hint that a consensus to move here would be the top of a slippery slope even though the discussion here would not nullify the guideline or apply to any other article. Guidelines should be used to support editorial positions, not supplant them.Synchronism (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess that would make the consensus then five people supporting the move, two opposing. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Per my comments above, it appears that the consensus is now to move the article. Unless there are further objections, I will move it. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Strongly oppose disruptive move. Jayjg's reading of WP:AT is contrary to its explicit language: the article titles adopted [by a subject-area convention] should follow a neutral and common convention specific to that subject domain, which {{WP:NCGN]] is. This convention was adopted long since, by overwhelming consensus, and without it, the United States would become a patchwork quilt in which three-quarters of the municipalities included the state, because they are ambiguous, and one-quarter wouldn't, to the permanent confusion of all readers.

This is also a very bad example in which to try this silly notion; Albuquerque, New Mexico is in practice ambiguous with Alburquerque in Spain; why should we assume that our readers spell better than the gringos who messed up the Spanish spelling in the first place.

Take it back to WP:RM if you think you have the arguments; but this sort of out-of-process meddling does not add to one's confidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't care about the move. But for readers, the city in New Mexico is the primary meaning of Albuquerque. Maurreen (talk) 04:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Depends on the reader, doesn't it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and in this case the reader is a user of English Wikipedia, who is vastly more likely to be looking for the large and well-known American city, rather than than the obscure villages in Spain or the Philippines with similar names. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson, keeping in mind that you were responding to a 10-day-old comment, and no move had taken place, what on earth do you mean by "disruptive move"? Also, keeping in mind that WP:CIVIL is policy, please explain what you mean by "out-of-process meddling"". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The move, proposed for immediate action when I posted, would have been disruptive if made; one reason for this is that we have a centralized system for controverted move requests - this one, having two opposes when made, is clearly controverted. Making such moves would be out of process; if you're going to demonstrate consensus to overrule a closed discussion, decency requires at least as much notification as the original discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comment was made 10 days after mine, and no move had been made. Also, there is no requirement that one bring all moves to WP:RM; indeed, most articles are moved without getting approval there. In fact, that is the usual "process" for moving a page. And, as you note below, (There is, by the way, long-standing policy against treating Wikipedia as a legal system; we are here to write an encyclopedia, not to play Nomic.) And, speaking of "long-standing policy", WP:CIVIL is one too. In order to comply with it, I recommend that you strike out the phrases "disruptive move" "out of process" and "meddling". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think wider community scrutiny and input is necessary then please list it there yourself. No one, Jayjg included, is obligated to list it there, though he may, ya never know. I still think this is minor, and though controversial it may now be this is not a legal process or vote; the result here does not impact the wider community, indeed, no one has yet explained how a move here would set a precedent elsewhere, which seems to be the main argument for keeping the current title. If Albuquerque NM were not the primary topic, then we would reconsider where Albuquerque redirects. But redirecting to the dab page would inconvenience a greater number of Wikipedia readers as a look at page view statistics for the various titles shows. If more voices are sought I hope that they can respond to some of the points for the move or at least bring new perspectives forward.

In any case Pmanderson, the initial listing at WP:RM was premature and framed in a manner that was biased towards keeping the page. Rather than being a request for greater input it was a leading anti-move request for people to vote for strict adherence to a guideline. Synchronism (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines exist to summarize discussions people have had before, so we don't have to repeat ourselves infinitely. As an exercise for the reader, what is the quality and purpose of an editor who objects to the bare citation of a relevant guideline as bias? (There is, by the way, long-standing policy against treating Wikipedia as a legal system; we are here to write an encyclopedia, not to play Nomic.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

What sort of results would the reader gain from such an exercise? By all means, I encourage you to investigate my "purpose and quality as an editor" in general, not just in light of the fact that I have pointed out that guidelines do not exist so that editors do not have to think too much. I'm glad we all are aware that this is not a legal process, but in light of that is it necessary to refer to others' actions as "out-of-process meddling", like you have above, and their interpretations of policies and guidelines as "abuse"[2]? Perhaps you'd now like to discuss the substance of the issue or will invite greater input.Synchronism (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image

It looks like there have been some issues with the infobox image. Because of that, I decided to come here first. Here are some things to clarify:

1. I am not a sock puppet.
2. The image contains images that already exist on Commons.

With that out of the way, I would like to propose File:Albuquerque Montage.jpg as our infobox image. It contains seven images that describe Albuquerque. One of the images in the montage is the currently-existing infobox image. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 16:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. The montage seems like a lot of stuff to fit in an infobox. Maurreen (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The image that community-banned editor PoliticianTexas suggested above had six images in it. The montage I created has many key points about Albuquerque. I don't think seven is too much. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 03:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a fan of montages in infoboxes. That said, I think this one has too much going on, and I also think it looks nicer if the images are framed in a solid black border. ÷seresin 06:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Arts and culture section

I think it's time we clean up this section and figure out what should be removed. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 01:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That section could also be made into its own article.

I've been in Albuquerque less than a year. Off the top of my head, I would say that two things to keep would be the main pow-wow and the baloon fiesta (and maybe museum).

It would be good if the section were re-written to be more expository, instead of essentially an explanatory list. But I don't think I'm up for it, and I shouldn't try to push it on to anyone else. Maurreen (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Mesa Del Sol

Is this still correct?

"A planned 100,000 residents district south of Albuquerque limits called Mesa del Sol is currently being developed."

Maurreen (talk) 07:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This has been added: "New large scale city developments such as Mesa del Sol and the future Westside development are expected to double Albuquerque population by 2050."

There is a footnote at the end of the paragraph. But I don't see that the reference supports that specific statement. Maurreen (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"Q"

I'm wondering if this should be deleted:

On March 23, 2007, the city's then-mayor, Martin Chavez, announced his plan to brand the city "the Q". Despite various opinions as to what the city's nickname should be, Mayor Chavez continued to push his initiative.

Soy de Burque, "I am from Burque", is one response to the mayor's vision of a "hip" reincarnation".[12] This group of Albuquerque residents feels it is unnecessary to spend taxpayer money to hire marketing companies to brand their city with a more palatable nickname, recognizing the city already has a brand and nickname. This selling of a city’s cultural identity to marketing and advertising firms to brand and sell has been dubbed by Soy de Burque as culture branding. One central issue to their response is the branding campaign was never voted on, but rather declared by Mayor Chavez,[13] and outsourced to marketing and advertising firms.

That happened about three years ago, and I'm not sure it has had any lasting impact. I've been in the city since July, and the only time I've ever heard about this is in the article.

If it is going to stay, can someone update it? Maurreen (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Just delete it. I deleted some other old junk too, old vandalism that has probably been there for years. Various advocacy groups like to make mountains out of molehills, too. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"Most residents"

I deleted this, because it was tagged for almost two years as needing a citation.

Many citizens fear Albuquerque may be growing beyond its means. Most residents want to avoid increasing crime and traffic, worsening air quality, stressing water supplies, and encroaching on the natural environment. Many believe these are the negative consequences of persistent sprawl development patterns.

Maurreen (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

"Gold Street"

I removed the following paragraph:

The so-called "Golden Heart of Albuquerque," Gold Street (in actuality Gold Avenue SE), is a neighborhood resting nearly center of the city in the Southeast quadrant, noted for its proud, unique, and colorful inhabitants of urban Albuquerque. With a university (UNM), community college (CNM), three sport venues (Isotopes Park, University Stadium, and The Pit), two major hospitals (University of New Mexico Hospital and Presbyterian Hospital), mixed commercial district ("Brick Light District"), and the famed "Frontier Restaurant" nearby, so-called Gold Street and surrounding environs are a hub of activity, distinctly urban and distinctly New Mexican.

The paragraph is promotional in tone and consists almost entirely of unverifiable OR. I can find no reliable reference to the neighborhood described being called "Gold Street." There is no Gold Street Neighborhood Association [3]. The area in question, as described in the Gold Street article (likely created by the same user), is almost entirely within the boundaries claimed by the Silver Hill Neighborhood Association. This area is certainly not referred to as the "golden heart of Albuquerque" in any reliable sources. Camerafiend (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

So if there's no neighborhood association, the neighborhood doesn't exist?

Everyone who lives on that section of gold avenue calls it "gold street". People have been calling it "Gold Street" for years. Do nicknames for locations and their descriptions as bieng distinct from the areas around them have to be written up in a newspaper before we can post it on wikipedia? The Silver Hill Historic people don't do any community activities at all on Gold Street, Gold Street is effectively forgotten by them. Everything in that paragraph is accurate.

Please don't edit things you have no business editing. Thank you. Burqueno (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Population update.

Can someone please change the population figures for Albuquerque city proper to 528,497 based on the 2009 census? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.102.45 (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Albuquerque Plaza merger proposal

I'm looking for more comments on a proposed a merger of Hyatt Regency Albuquerque into Albuquerque Plaza. If you have an opinion on this, please drop by the discussion. Camerafiend (talk) 04:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Microsoft

This is the city where one of the world's largest companies was founded and nobody who wrote the article even saw fit to mention this? Fail! Gmackematix (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

New Mexico municipal elections are non-partisan

New Mexico municipal elections are non-partisan, so the party affiliations, if any, of the Mayor and City Councilors is irrelevant. I have removed these from the infobox. Community-banned user PoliticianTexas (talk · contribs) often uses his sockpuppets to put these in. --75.211.44.137 (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Value of Material Deleted and Restored on 3/24

I've reverted two edits by 98.23.200.16 that deleted multiple paragraphs of the article. Based on a review of other recent edits by the same user I do not suspect him/her of vandalism in making these deletions.

The amount of material deleted was extensive, and may have been "unbalanced and unorganized" as was noted in the explanatory comment. If so, there are several more appropriate remedies than deletion, including: (1) modifying the text to provide better balance and organization; (2) creating a new wikipedia entry if it is deemed more appropriate for the material to be in one or more subarticles; or (3) targeting specific elements of the text as candidates for deletion and justifying those deletions.

I don't have any specific opinions on the value to the article of the items deleted by 98.23.200.16 but wanted to provide a forum for discussing the merits of that content before proceeding with wholesale deletions. 164.64.74.12 (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Something needs to be done. Arts and culture section.

The Arts and Culture section in the article is a wreck! The style of the section is tacky and gives most of the listed space just advertising. How can we fix this section so we look like other city pages, and not as a article that lists every cultural and arts event? JHarrelson (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Political identification of elected city officials

The point has been made here before: New Mexico municipal elections are non-partisan. The Mayor and Council members do not run on a party ticket. Albuquerque city elections have no primaries. Thus, Democrats may end up competing against other Democrats and Republicans may end up competing against Republicans. The political parties have no legal role in city elections in Albuquerque. Thus, it is no more relevant to cite a party affiliation for an elected city official than it is to do so for anyone else mentioned in the article. The article might as well note the religious preferences of the officials--that would be just as improper. The reasoning that the political information must stay "because this an encyclopedia" is not persuasive. Indeed, that statement cuts the other way. Citing the political affiliations of legally nonpartisan officeholders may mislead readers into believing that the elections are in fact partisan. HCManson (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You might as well declare politicians to be a-political. - Denimadept (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me as though that policy is being challenged. Explain, please. - Denimadept (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're referring to PoliticianTexas and his various socks, his opinion doesn't count as he is community-banned. That said, I don't think either position in this dispute is entirely without merit. Perhaps more discussion is needed. Camerafiend (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

This dispute about identifying the alleged political affiliation of Albuquerque elected officials is, I must say, an odd thing. I do not understand the motivations behind those who are insistent that the political affiliation information appear there. I do not agree that it should be listed for the following reasons: (1) it is not relevant since the officials do not serve as "Democrats" or "Republicans" in Albuquerque city government; (2) it is contrary to convention with respect to scholarly and encyclopedic renditions of non-partisan offices; (3) it is mis-leading, as some would believe that the political parties have formal roles in Albuquerque elections, when in fact they do not. (4) The information as presented is un-sourced. Now it may be that "everybody knows," for example, that Mayor Berry is a Republican, because he served as a Republican member of the state legislature. But that ceases to have relevance once he is elected to a nonpartisan office. Now the argument could be made that his political background is politically relevant because it may influence his approach to his duties as Mayor. But that is not for encyclopedic speculation in an infobox which is supposedly factual and neutral. It may also be, for example, that "everybody knows" that Councilor X is a Catholic; Councilor Y is a Jew; and Councilor Z is a Buddhist. It would be improper in an article factbox to note these religious affiliations. Again, the same arguments can be made: the religious affiliations are "fact"; they may influence a councilor's point of view. Nonetheless, by convention and consensus, we don't put (RC), (J), or (Bud) behind the names of holders of secular offices in articles about the secular government. It well may be that mention of these affiliations has a place in individual biographies of elected officials--that would be perfectly reasonable.

I doubt that very many Wikipedia articles about U.S. cities with nonpartisan municipal elections identify the presumed parties of the elected officials. Indeed, the articles on some of the biggest cities in the country with nonpartisan elections do not identify the presumed affiliations of elected office holders. See the articles on Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Jose.

Although I do not comprehend the motives of those who want to keep driving against convention and consensus, I would like to see this editing firefight come to a end. To that purpose I would propose that, in lieu of the listing of presumed party affiliations of the mayor and council, there be added to the Government section language to the following effect: "Albuquerque's city elections are nonpartisan under its charter and state law. However, the current mayor is a former Republican state legislator and the Council is nearly evenly divided between members who have in the past identified with or supported one or the other major political party." If the list of individual affiliations can be sourced, so can this proposed statement.HCManson (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This sounds completely reasonable to me. I think your proposed text satisfactorily conveys the desired information; putting (D) or (R) in the infobox definitely could be misleading. Hopefully others agree? Camerafiend (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Instructional and presumptuous text format

City of Albuquerque
Founded	1706 as: Alburquerque
Incorporated	1891 as: Albuquerque

The infobox currently includes the following:

Although I understand editors' desire to emphasize the fact that the first r was dropped during the 185 years between Alburquerque's founding and Albuquerque's incorporation, highlighting that letter presumes that the reader will not be able to see the difference otherwise. That violates the very wise recommendation to avoid instructing the reader, making presumptions about the reader's cognitive ability, and pointing out facts that the editor fears the reader will not notice without that assistance. MOS:NOTED is very good advice, and it is being violated here.

Although using special text formatting to call attention to that letter is not exactly the same as writing "note the extra r in the original spelling" (which is the kind of edit MOS:NOTED specifically advises against), the intention is exactly the same: we are calling the reader's attention to something we think he or she should notice instead of simply presenting information and allowing the reader to evaluate the information without instructions from us on how to do it.

Originally that extra r was in bold and italics, and then about a year ago an editor changed it to an underscore. The underscore is slightly less intrusive, but its purpose is still instructional and presumptuous and therefore should be removed. Also, the underscore adds potential confusion as to what it means. When I first saw it I thought it had some kind of linguistic significance, like a diacritic, possibly indicating that that r was pronounced differently from the subsequent r, like the tilde over the Spanish ñ.

So not only does the special text format make inappropriate presumptions about the reader's cognitive abilities, but it also can introduce confusion that would not be there if the word were simply spelled without trying misguidedly to instruct the reader in its significance. The infobox should be brought in line with the article's text, which adequately addresses the spelling change without insulting or confusing the reader.

For these two very good reasons, I am going to edit the infobox so that it appears as indicated here, removing the underscore from the first r in Alburquerque.

City of Albuquerque
Founded	1706 (as Alburquerque)
Incorporated	1891 (as Albuquerque)

I am also going to remove the unnecessary italics from the "as: ..." phrases and the unnecessary colon after "as". Placing both "as ..." phrases in parentheses seems appropriate and will show the two different spellings without trying to manipulate the reader into noticing something we think he or she should notice.--Jim10701 (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Demographics seem off

Is there an error? I'm wondering why it says 70% white, then it lists percentages of other races, then it says 48% or so hispanics/latinos. 67.41.103.130 (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Shari M.

This question comes up a lot. "Hispanic" refers to people with a Spanish-speaking cultural heritage (who may be of any race), so "white" and "Hispanic" are not mutually exclusive. The census has separate questions for race and Hispanic/Latino origin. For more information, see Race and ethnicity in the United States Census. Camerafiend (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)