Jump to content

Talk:Denver

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vitsuha (talk | contribs) at 07:55, 21 May 2024 (→Photograph of Colorado State Capitol: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleDenver was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 2, 2006Good article nomineeListed
September 17, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
October 19, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
July 30, 2021Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 22, 2012.
Current status: Delisted good article

Orphaned references in Denver

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Denver's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "NOAA":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Founded date

i'd like to put the question, what act should be considered the founding of Denver? it doesn't seem simple

the Founded date in the info box was recently changed from 22 to 17 Nov. 1858; in a sense both dates are valid — my research indicates the 17th is from indirect evidence the date of a committee forming in order to found the Denver City Town Company, while the 22nd is the date of the first entry in that entity's record book, which states on that day a constitution was adopted and the town site was laid out[1][2]

(this is ignoring the fact that two other towns were already in some sense established, and the Denver City Town Company seems to have usurped one, then later merged with the other)

i note the citation given by Wisconsinsurfer in making the change is not the actual Record Book, but a finding aid whose summary seems to go beyond the actual contents of the book

here are several references which put the date at 22 Nov., though none say "founded":

and here are some which put it at the 17th, two use "founded":

Garbanzito (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with the courts brochure, which seems to be the most official source you show. That says the 17th. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Semi-centiennial history of the state of Colorado. Chicago: The Lewis Publishing Company. 1913. pp. 234–235. Retrieved 10 March 2015.
  2. ^ Smiley, Jerome (1901). History of Denver. Denver: The Denver Times. p. 214. Retrieved 10 March 2015.

Timeline of Denver

What is missing from the city timeline? Please add relevant content. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Denver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked, and reworked, these references, finding that 1 and 5 were not that helpful. Dhtwiki (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User Johninjp is correct that a number of links to pages at http://www.denvergov.org are dead. He made substitutions using pages containing the content that appear to be hosted by Step 13, the self-help group. I did a limited search and found a page from year 2010 at the Internet Archive pointed at by one of the dead denvergov.org links. Presumably, all the missing pages are at the Archive. That might be a better place to aim the links than Step 13, but would require considerable tedious work. I also note that bots have been trying to fix various dead links in this article. Maybe a bot can rescue the denvergov.org links and obviate the manual work necessary to correct them. DonFB (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It will probably go faster if the dead links are marked as such ({{dead link|date=February 2016}}) within the reference tags (<ref></ref>), and I see only two references marked as such now. There is a bot that finds dead links, but it doesn't seem to run as often as Cyberbot II, which is the main bot finding archived copies, and which sometimes errs and must be checked. Dhtwiki (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I now see that there are a bunch of links, in the section above, that Cyberbot II has worked on and that await checking. Dhtwiki (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've now checked all of Cyberbot II's links, and made corrections where necessary. Dhtwiki (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
it's been taken care of, but as a note of explanation: i reverted the links johninjp replaced because it seemed like an attempt to drive traffic to denverdonate.com; it may have been innocent, but i wouldn't consider denverdonate.com authoritative nor would i expect the content it hosts to to stick around for long --Garbanzito (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Denver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only the first two check out. The third, archived 2016, leads to a 404 error when there is a 2006 copy available, at least. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Denver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Links #2-6, 8-9, 11-12 working; links #1, 7, 10 not working. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Denver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link works and seems useful. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Denver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Links work and all lead to the same page. Perhaps they should be combined. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Adding that first link seemed nonsensical, and original link worked (via alias); so I reworked reference. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Introductory Information

Re "...making it the highest major city in the United States.[9]" Possible but questionable statement. What is the definition of "major city"? Albuquerque, NM with 557K population (907K metro area) is higher at 5,312 ft.Venqax (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. The claim is too vague. Perhaps we should put it in the form: "Denver is the highest of the largest (X number) cities in the United States." By the way, is that Albuquerque elevation measured at city hall down by the Rio Grande, or somewhere up on the slope of Sandia Peak? Regards, Plazak (talk) 01:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Denver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Denver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Denver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

help with incipient edit war

IP user 68.114.34.9 has now three times added content which contains direct, multi-sentence quotations from the cited sources; the content is also in a subjective narrative style which i believe is inappropriate ("non-encyclopedic"); the third pass has done some paraphrasing but still quotes several complete sentences without in-text attribution; clearly the content is important to them, but i hesitate to try to open a dialog with an IP user; i'm at the limit of my wixpertise and would rather step back and observe how someone more experienced might handle it; TIA Garbanzito (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted the latest addition, because it seemed excessively detailed. The source, Gallagher's A Wild West History of Frontier Colorado, doesn't seem to be online. I'll leave a warning template I've left a message on the user talk page to encourage involvement here. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC) (edited 05:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]
to be clear, i used the partial contents available from Google Books of one of the references to confirm some direct quotes, did not go through all the text, because it was quickly obvious that there was much quoted material Garbanzito (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to add a few sentences to the early history of Denver, only to have it removed again and again. I think I have gotten it down to a concise bit now, but still it gets pulled. I think it adds something to things that have been said - Larimer's desire to "curry favor" is given more of the backstory - he and his group met with the Governor before coming out, then he and his men jumped another group's claims - we get a better picture of why he wanted to curry favor with Gov. Denver. Then there is the bit about the crossed cottonwood poles - right now in the story it's kind of "so what? He built a structure with some timber." If you add in the point that he created the first "Larimer Square", people can say, "Hey! I KNOW a Larimer Square in downtown Denver!" The added bit about the St. Charles group shows who was really in charge, and why Denver has a Larimer Square and a Larimer Street, and the only reference to St. Charles is a rec. center. Why do we want to stifle history? Stories like this are the main reason I got interested (and still am) in history, and I would bet that others would think the same.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.34.9 (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you though of adding to the article History of Denver, which, at this point has more summary language than here, when the reverse should be true? Compare:

The St. Charles townsite men had traveled down the South Platte River. One of their leaders, Charles Nichols, decided to turn around and guard their claim. Arriving back at Cherry Creek, he found his claim jumped by Larimer and his men. Nichols confronted them, arguing that the land was platted for the town of St. Charles. He stood his ground boldly but futilely until the Kansas businessmen dangled a noose in his face. Defeated, Nichols agreed to negotiate.

which is from your version just reverted, and any mention lacking in the current version, to:

The majority of the settlers in St. Charles had returned to Kansas for the winter and left only a small number of people behind to guard their claim. Larimer and his followers gave the representatives whiskey, promises, and threats and the St. Charles claim was surrendered.

which is from the history article. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
i was about to suggest taking it to the History article, but note the "The St. Charles townsite men" passage above should be properly summarized as it is nearly a direct quote from Gallagher's book
i'm also cautious that the Gallagher book may be over-dramatized, so i would suggest cross-referencing with other sources; for example i found an earlier source describing a _threat_ of a noose, but not "dangling a noose in his face" --Garbanzito (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Definitely agree, especially making sure that there are no copyright violations. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Public transit in infobox

I have added transit lines to the infobox as most large cities display the public transit lines in the infobox (see:Houston, Los Angeles, Philadelphia), it adds only one or two extra lines, and they are important information about the city to an out-of-towner. Dmartin969 (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a travel directory, so the last part should not be used to justify anything. The other articles you've linked have not gone through WP:GAN and WP:FAC, so these changes were made without scrutiny by reviewers. Generally, too many icons are discouraged, and there's no good cutoff for highways and transit. Should it extend all the way down to frequent bus routes and short state highways? That'll add dozens of entries for a major city. It's just not fit for an infobox. SounderBruce 07:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Information on the court case that delayed formation of the City and County of Denver

This paragraph appears in the article:

In 1901, the Colorado General Assembly voted to split Arapahoe County into three parts: a new consolidated City and County of Denver, a new Adams County, and the remainder of the Arapahoe County to be renamed South Arapahoe County. A ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court, subsequent legislation, and a referendum delayed the creation of the City and County of Denver until November 15, 1902.[36]

Link 36 goes to http://www.aera.net/Default.aspx?id=8970, a page which no longer exists (it just shows the home page of the AERA). But the earliest archive.org version, from February 18, 2010 (available here) itself cites Wikipedia for this information. We shouldn't cite a page that cites us. But I can't find any other source for this piece of information. Any help? --ΨΦorg (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. A really quick-n-dirty search for a source finds:
http://www.co.arapahoe.co.us/DocumentCenter/View/1969/FactSheet?bidId=
http://www.co.arapahoe.co.us/94/About
https://coloradoencyclopedia.org/article/arapahoe-county
but they don't have details of referendum/court case, etc. Just a statement about the split effective in 1902. DonFB (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I revised the text and replaced previous circular reference with legit historical source (King--also used in History of Denver article). DonFB (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After a lot of digging, I've found two court cases which establish the formation of the consolidated City and County of Denver as occurring on December 1, 1902, not on November 15. The first is Boston & Colorado Smelting Co. v. C.S. Elder, 20 Colo.App. 96, 77 P. 258 (June 13, 1904). This was a property tax dispute between the owner of property in Argo (one of the towns which got consolidated into Denver) and the Denver Treasurer. Argo had set the property tax mill levy on November 6, 1902, at 1.00 mills, whereas the City and County of Denver had set the mill levy at 16.25 mills.
In this case, the Colorado Court of Appeals wrote, "The town of Argo was one of the municipalities which by virtue of the amendment became merged in the city and county of Denver. But it did not become so merged, nor did the terms of its officers terminate, until the 1st day of December, 1902--the day the proclamation was issued." 77 P. 258, 259-60. Based on that, it overturned Denver's attempt to increase the mill levy.
The second was City Council of City and County of Denver v. Board of Commissioners of Adams County, 33 Colo. 1, 77 P. 858 (June 20, 1904). This was also a property tax dispute, between Denver and the newly-created Adams County. In this case, the state Supreme Court wrote, "the amendment [which authorized the creation of the city and county of Denver] itself became effective November 4, 1902, when it was ratified by the people, but the city and county of Denver for which it provided did not come into being until the day of the issuing of the Governor's proclamation, on December 1, 1902, for the amendment itself expressly so provides." 77 P. 858, 861-62.
Both decisions in full can be found at this link: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4428747
Type in "258" or "858" in the "Jump to" text box to be taken to the start of each case.
So I'm going to add citations to these two cases (if I can find the right template). --ΨΦorg (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Male/Female ratio

The following has been removed twice by anonymous editors over the past week:

but in 2015 for the category of never-married ages 25 to 34, there were 121.4 males for every 100 females. Due to a skewed sex ratio wherein single men outnumber single women, some protologists have nicknamed the city as Menver.

...along with two references [3] [4].

Reasons given in the change log for removal are "non-standard" statistic, "irrelevant", and "included to demean the city". The last two contradict each other, and the last one indicates POV-driven content selection.

Reason to keep is that it is important enough for mainstream reliable sources to write entire articles about it.

I have reverted the deletion a second time just now. Should the text and references remain? Michaelmalak (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i think the statistic is worth including, but i don't agree that just because "mainstream reliable sources" write about a statistic, or because one TV news site makes the unsupported statement "some call the city 'Menver'", that is reason enough to insert information into a wiki article; i would want better sources for the "Menver" reference — can you show that the name has stuck? i don't find much, and think it raises the question of what other nicknames should be included … e.g. "Cow Town" is missing
of your two references, one refers to the 2015 American Community Survey; the second reference is simply a summary of the first (and links to it); i suggest you instead link directly to the 2017 survey [1] (i think that's a static link) and use the most recent numbers; you express the ratio of men to women as the number 121.4:100, however your source didn't mention the significant margin of error; the 2017 survey values work out to 121.7, but the stated margins give a range of 115 to 129, so i think "approximately 120" is as accurate as this figure should be
and then finally, what is it about this statistic that is special? in the never-married category, Denver's ratio of men to women is higher than this in all the age categories from 35 to 60, and men are still overabundant until the 75-80 range; your choice of age range would be most interesting if shows Denver is notably different from similar cities Garbanzito (talk) 04:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After following your suggestion to look at Census Factfinder for other cities, I've deleted the 121:100 verbiage as it's typical across the U.S. Michaelmalak (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/17_5YR/B12002/0500000US08031

Climate data

This is perhaps the most elaborate writeup for a city that does not have its own dedicated page such as Climate of Denver (currently a redirect). I have been meaning to create this page for quite some time but have never gotten around to it. My plan would be to copy the existing climate section verbatim to the new page, and then trim down our existing section somewhat. Then, over time, the new page could grow freely and come to be like existing pages such as Climate of Anchorage. —Soap— 00:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

South Metro fire

South Metro fire 24.229.234.12 (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Salt Lake City?

BasilLeaf, I don't understand placement of a box about Salt Lake City in the "History" section of the Denver article. It looks like a mistake. DonFB (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lakota name (undue weight)

Hi @Moxy why did you tag this name as undue weight? Cheers. Poketama (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

why this one over the others? "The greater Denver area was inhabited by several Indigenous peoples such as Apaches, Utes, Cheyennes, Comanches, and Arapahoes.[1] Native American names for Denver include Arapaho: Niineniiniicie,[2] Template:Lang-nv, and Tüapü (Ute). "Moxy- 13:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point I just don't know how to find references for those. Poketama (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Early Auraria: Native Peoples". Historical Dialogues. May 24, 2016.
  2. ^ "The Rockies: An Arapaho Perspective – The Decolonial Atlas". April 30, 2015.

Photograph of Colorado State Capitol

FoamingInDenver regarding the photo change by Vitsuha in the infobox. I thought that the photo of the Colorado State Capitol Building taken from the 16th Street mall was in many way an improvement over the current straight on photo from the front lawn. It puts the building more in context of the cityscape. Is there a caption change that you think would make that photograph work for the article? MatthewFromColfaxLibrary (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the main focus of the photo is on the 16th street mall, not the capitol building, it would make more sense to me to make the caption "16th street mall" or something along those lines. "16th street mall with the Colorado state capitol in the background" could work, but that seems a bit wordy. FoamingInDenver (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with @MatthewFromColfaxLibrary that the modification is better than the original one, as the original picture of Colorado State Capitol Building is gloomy, and it did put the building more in context of the cityscape. Also, for the picture of the Denver Union Station, the original one does not face directly to the station, so I changed a better one, I think it should be kept. Vitsuha (talk) 07:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support changing the capitol building to the 16th street mall, we just need to make sure to change the caption along with it. However, we should keep the original photo of Denver Union Station, as it is a more clear view from Wynkoop Street, and the alternative is obsrtructed by things in the foreground and the tilt up camera angle. FoamingInDenver (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the change, is that ok? Vitsuha (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! FoamingInDenver (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
😊 Vitsuha (talk) 07:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Denver&oldid=1224916787"