Talk:Colorado Springs, Colorado

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Additions/Changes to Notable Residents[edit]

Should the notble residents be updated to include Peter C. Lemon and Nikolai Tesla?

Mr. Lemon is is a Medal of Honor recipient, a local resident and businessmen, and a regular speaker at regional and national events. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_C._Lemon

Nikolai Tesla was an inventor and engineer best known for his work in the formative of commercial electricity. While the structure(s) he used in the city are long since gone, the city has placed a sign in Memorial Park recognizing his work was conducted in the general area. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Tesla#Colorado_Springs

I know adding every notable person to ever live in the city might be too lengthy and unappealing, but to be honest, I think these two would round out the types of notable persons listed. We currently list two writers/artists, two musicians/groups, and 5 professional/olympic athletes. Considering the importance of the US Military on Colorado Springs, isn't a Medal of Honor recipient worth listing? And Nikola Tesla is somewhat recognizable to many, if not as well known as Edison. I think he makes a good historical figure to reference besides the 'founders'.

Jeffp231 (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Update.. as Onel5969 correctly points out articles about cities with separate lists of people typically do not need those same people mentioned in the article. Would anyone mind, particularly, if we mentioned some of the original pioneers who created the town? Perhaps people whose histories are older than 100 years? I propose these significant persons should be included in the page:
William Jackson Palmer, for his founding the city
Zebulon Pike, for whom Pikes Peak is named
Spencer Penrose, for his significant contributions to the city
Nikola Tesla, for his important work at Knob Hill, CO

--Potguru (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

adults going back to school in colorado springs and there are no jobs to pay off their students loans[edit]

local economy question from 2011

Colorado Springs so call colleges offer education; but when you complete the course-THERE ARE NO JOBS to pay off you student loans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.240.11.58 (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Please talk about improving the article on Colorado Springs and not about Colorado Springs' duplicity. Besides I'm sure CS is not the only city in the US where there are "lots of jobs" while one is going to school and they evaporate right at graduation. That is not the City's fault, but the school's. BTW did you graduate with a high tech degree?Septagram (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

When did Evangelicals start flocking to Colorado Springs and why?[edit]

This would be useful information. 75.70.204.208 (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Citations needed[edit]

Several edits have no citations. Please cite any new material, and challenge unverified content. If you can find a reference, add it as a citation. Thanks! Mattjtutt (talk) 05:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Why was this moved against convention and without discussion?[edit]

Old conversation from 2013 resolved long ago

WP:USPLACE states very specifically that there are only 20 cities in the entire US that can and should have their articles named by just the city name. This is not one of them. It will be moving it back. I do not want to create a mess trying to do it myself, so I will be posting a request at WP:ANI. If you want to move it, start an RfM. John from Idegon (talk) 07:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess someone was bold as it seems like a reasonable move. It is a large city and the state name is in the city name. I don't see anyting at WP:USPLACE about only 20 cities are allowed. It says "Cities listed in the AP Stylebook", which doesn't appear to be publicly posted. --Pmsyyz (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
That is the twenty cities. If you follow the footnote #2 at WP:USPLACE, it will show you the list of the twenty cities. This has been a long term problem, sometimes contentious, on the names of other city articles and really shouldn't be the subject of a WP:BOLD move. IMHO, having too much info in the title is much better than not enough. Of course the editor that did it did it in good faith; he is somewhat new and didn't know the history of the issue. John from Idegon (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Structure[edit]

Hi. I'm going through all the US Cities (as per List of United States cities by population) in an effort to provide some uniformity in structure. Anyone have an issue with me restructuring this article as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. I won't be changing any content, merely the order. Occasionally, I will also move a picture just to clean up spacing issues. I've already gone through the top 20 or so on the above list, if you'd like to see how they turned out. Thoughts? Onel5969 (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I am all for that! I think uniformity within a particular category of articles makes the Encyclopedia much more user friendly. John from Idegon (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Still, two years later, Onel5969 continues to keep the article follow concensus guidelines, thank you so much for helping the community. --Potguru (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Complexities of the mindset of government and population[edit]

40 years ago the mayor of Colorado Springs offered fundamentalist Christian organizations a tax break to set business up in Colorado Springs , for business he poses . . . MONEY. The military has had a presence for decades . This may not be final post . . . Yet thauthoritiew are closing in. This culture (in Colorado Sspoings) is against creativity , against liberalism, totally against any outside culture that might have at any time -- been an """"enemy""" of the United States. I am basically in Anne FCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). ranks attic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denisevosburgh (talkcontribs) 21:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


  • 40 years of preaching in CS and it still has yet to make a dent. Can you blame some religious people staying away from CS unless they are properly compensated for their troubles? As for the military and the money it brings, let's say you can't eat the mountains (i.e. view). I think the problem is some people are accusing CS residents of having a mind or no less even a mind set (I won't even conjecture on CS politics ;-)). Alas, you could go anywhere else and find the exact same. As for destroying culture, creativity, or anything intellectually positive, the people of CS are most likely as good or bad as the rest of the world in that time honored ability. May I suggest you leave your attic and check out several of the academic institutions and groups in CS that promote "free" thinking and boat rocking. Last time I checked there are still several dozen around. As for adding of this this to the CS article it would be a waste of space since as said before, nothing is different than most other places. Septagram (talk) 06:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Denisevosburgh, for providing some information towards answering the 2011 question #When did Evangelicals start flocking to Colorado Springs and why? earlier on this page. If anyone can find a reliable source for the public announcement of a tax incentive from the early 1970s for religion-themed organizations, that might be an interesting and informative addition to this article.  Unician   06:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Cheyenne Canyon[edit]

Related content discussed here was moved to new article in 2015

Steel1943 (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Cheyenne Mountain (related to Cheyenne Canon)[edit]

Steel1943 (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station / nuclear bunker[edit]

I've posted a question at Talk:Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station#Difference between this and Cheyenne Mountain nuclear bunker about the distinction between the Cheyenne Mountain nuclear bunker and the Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station. Any clarification or input there is much appreciated!--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of Colorado Springs, Colorado[edit]

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no mention of Mike Lee's dispensary, one of the first in the state nor any mention of the medical marijuana industry which is currently generating millions of tax dollars for Colorado Springs. No worries, though, I'm here to help!! --Potguru (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016 Marijuana Industry section content dispute[edit]

see current Marijuana POV conversation below

March 2016 Marijuana Industry section content dispute I just added some content to the Colorado Springs article. In this edit my changes and some other items were removed with the edit summary "...Rev - pov edits...". I encourage others, including the reverter to discuss things here. If there are no objections after a while, I will just restore it. Thanks. --Potguru (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


Marijuana Industry[edit]

On March 21, 2016 Colorado Springs Pot task force made recommendations to the city planners about how to manage the growing marijuana industry.[1] The previous year city records showed 91 licensed medical dispensaries in the city limits. In a controvesial statment the mayor said "that Colorado’s laws “have driven the adolescent perception of risk into the ground.”[2] The Colorado Springs Business Journal reports Colorado has raised more tax selling marijuana annually than it does taxing alcohol.[3]

Early in 2016 the FBI raided a marijuana smoke club (social club).[4] The social club and its peers are specific targets of the anti-marijuana government and have been the subject of much consternation over the previous year.[5] The IRS and FBI were 'called in' to investigate when the city was unable to shut the shops down in 2015.[6]

On March 22, 2016 in a move likely to generate a lawsuit against the city, the city council voted to ban the reimbursement policy offered by several smokers social clubs in the city. A councilman was quoted as suggesting that marijuana users have no right to associate and reimburse one another under the state constitution. Clubs have eight years to shut down under the current ban and at least one owner is stating he intends to sue. [7]


IMO the items should not be restored. They are WP:POV edits and also violate WP:NOTSOAPBOX. This is an article for general info about the city and its surroundings. It is not the place for an all too specific section like this. MarnetteD|Talk 04:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for contributing. Please tell me which of the aspects of soapbox you are referring to. I'm not seeing that this information falls under any of the five saopbox reasons which are:
  • Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind.
  • Opinion pieces.
  • Scandal mongering.
  • Self-promotion.
  • Advertising, marketing or public relations.
Thanks for clarifying! --Potguru (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
As the reverter, I stand by the revert, which was further explained (albeit briefly) on my talk page. This is a clear case of POV pushing. The original commentary included with one-sided sourcing is a rather blatant attempt to push an agenda. As per WP:SOAPBOX, not sure this belongs anywhere on Wikipedia, let alone in this city article. Onel5969 TT me 11:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I will point out that your revert took out more than just my (well cited) information that there exists a significant industry in Colorado Springs and it is the marijuana industry. You state "This is an article for general info about the city and its surroundings" yet you removed several edits about the height of the city... references to the pikes peak highway... cleanup of the leadership section... arbitrary removal of a well known nickname for the city, etc. So you don't mind if I put those back, do you? --Potguru (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)--Potguru (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually, it didn't. It took out other uncited information, as well as the POV pushing edits as well. It reverted some funky unnecessary reformatting of the infobox, which also included some other uncited information. Onel5969 TT me 17:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I remain confused that things like "((seealso|Pikes Peak Highway)) The city maintains the Pikes Peak Highway a fully paved road which rises 14,115 feet above sea level" is some kind of POV edit, please help me understand your thoughts. --Potguru (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Pot is a high-profile issue, and the city's decision not to allow retail pot shops certainly deserves some mention in the article. The article is full of detailed info on other aspects of the city. We can quibble about the size of the section, where it belongs (I think in a section under Culture), or the exact wording for NPOV, but there is no valid reason to ban the subject of pot from this article. Plazak (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't have an issue with mentioning it, simply that the edit was highly POV, and much too extensive for the city article. Onel5969 TT me 01:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
well how about something like just the first paragraph, then.
===Marijuana Industry===
On March 21, 2016 Colorado Springs Pot task force made recommendations to the city planners about how to manage the growing marijuana industry.[1] The previous year city records showed 91 licensed medical dispensaries in the city limits. In a controvesial statment the mayor said "that Colorado’s laws “have driven the adolescent perception of risk into the ground.”[2] The Colorado Springs Business Journal reports Colorado has raised more tax selling marijuana annually than it does taxing alcohol.[3]
Is this a good start? Can you help me improve upon it? Thanks! --Potguru (talk) 01:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Some readers may not know the background: that Colorado voters legalized recreational pot under state (but not federal) law, but CSprings used its local option under the law to ban recreational pot shops within the city (I have not been following it closely up here in Denver, so correct me where I am wrong). Labeling the mayor's statement "controversial" seems POV. The phrase "growing marijuana industry" as used here implies that it is growing within Colorado Springs. Is this so? If it is, it needs a citation. Regards. Plazak (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Per your suggestion I just added a paragraph under the culture section. The mayor's statements and actions are controversial, he does not side with the popular vote in his continued stand against recreational shops. The industry is in a moratorium state in Colorado Springs until May though the tax revenue from shops appears to continue to climb. (seeking citations). --Potguru (talk) 02:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016 people of Colorado Springs Historic People section dispute[edit]

see current Historic People conversation at top of this page

clipped --Potguru (talk)

First, my suggestion is that you learn how to format discussions. These silly yellow boxes don't help your cause. Second, posting here and on my talk page is redundant. My more detailed response is there. Adding a list to the city page, while there exists a list of notable folks is redundant. A combative attitude doesn't help, either. Your zeal is appreciated, and you've made some good edits, but you've also made some inappropriate ones. It's a learning process. Onel5969 TT me 14:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

clipped --Potguru (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk page sections are not erased except in extraordinary situations and this is not one of those. MarnetteD|Talk 20:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I invited the editor and you too, to take this conversation where it belongs... up top. You seem to be combative and hostile, please stop... I am not your enemy. --Potguru (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016 Marijuana tourism section dispute[edit]

see current Marijuana POV conversation below

March 2016 Marijuana tourism section content dispute I just added some content to the Colorado Springs article in [this edit]. While I was mid edit another editor came in [reverted my edit] My change, while minor, deserves a mention in the article as the idea that Colorado Springs in the largest city in the state to disallow recreational marijuana is a major issue and this particular edit deals with tourism. The town next to Colorado Springs allows dispensaries and that city has increased it's tax revenue by more than 30% [4] in the last year due solely to marijuana tourism, a subset of tourism[5]. My changes were removed with the edit summary "(a) this has nothing to do with this section and b) it is WP:UNDUE as it does not relate to anything else in the article ." from a user who is also contesting my addition of marijuana industry information to the same page. I encourage others, including the reverter to discuss things here. If there are no objections after a while, I will just restore it. Thanks. --Potguru (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The item as written had nothing to do with tourism. Once again you are using WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in your editing. Please read and learn WP:NOT in particular WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. As presented the item is entirely WP:UNDUE. Thus, there are objections and the item should not be restored based on these policies and guidelines. As pointed out to you previously there are other places on the net where you can present your thoughts about the situation. MarnetteD|Talk 20:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
With all due respect "The item as written had nothing to do with tourism." As I said above I was mid-edit. I also suggested you not assume my edits are soapbox unless you can point to a specific reason that, perhaps, I am missing. --Potguru (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
First please stop putting your replies in small - it is unnecessary. Next once you hit the "save page" command you are no longer in "mid-edit" and, in fact a full seven minutes had passed from the time that you made the entry until I removed it which is more than enough time to make any further changes. MarnetteD|Talk 03:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm trying to be quiet and learn. I was in the middle of a submission and I stopped because someone had edited the page and there was a conflict with my proposed new edit. I'm sorry I took so long. --Potguru (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

"Marijuana centers" POV[edit]

I’m afraid that the recent addition under “Marijuana centers” is highly POV. For instance, the phrase:

“Despite being the second-most populous city in the state, Colorado Springs has yet to embrace recreational marijuana”

The statement strongly implies that there should be a correlation between the size of a city, and whether or not the city chooses to “embrace” marijuana. Please explain why this should be so.

“stand in the way of the people”

Besides the overdramatic posturing, the truth behind the statement is dubious. The initiative itself recognizes that localities can set a maximum number of pot stores, and the enabling legislation recognizes that that maximum number can be zero. And before we get too teary-eyed about the will of “the people,”, remember that “the people” also elected the CSprings mayor and city council; so the will of the people can be asserted on both sides.

Also, to say that the AG “capitulated” is more overdramatic license. It is his job to enforce the law, and he did. Regards. Plazak (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree completely. The same WP:OR and WP:SYNTH problems keep occurring. MarnetteD|Talk 03:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, highly problematic POV edits. Onel5969 TT me 03:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Please then, with all due respect, make me a better editor by improving what I wrote so it is NPOV. notes: "And then there are still other counties and cities — most notably, Colorado Springs — that allow medical sales but prohibit recreational businesses". [1] --Potguru (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, here's my own suggestion. Citations are put (in parentheses):

Although Colorado voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2013 legalizing retail sales of marijuana for recreational purposes, the amendment and enabling legislation also provided that localities could limit or ban retail outlets within the city. A majority of Colorado Springs voters approved the statewide Amendment 64, by almost 5,000 votes out of more than 200,000 ballots cast. The city council then voted 5-4 not to permit retail shops in the city. Some council members expressed concern over the effect pot shops would have on existing businesses, as well as on local military bases.(“Pot may be legal in Colorado, but it can’t be purchased in most large cities,” Tacoma News Tribune, 16 March 2016.) Current mayor John Suthers, elected in May 2015, supports the ban on pot shops; his opponent in the mayoral election supported recreational pot shops as a way to increase city tax collections. Suthers, a former Colorado Attorney General, has long been an outspoken opponent of legalized marijuana.(Thomas E. Cronin and Robert D. Loevy, “John Suthers moves from pot law to potholes,” Colorado Springs Gazette, 30 May 2015.)
Retail marijuana outlets are also banned in unincorporated areas of El Paso County. As of 2016, the only area in El Paso County to permit retail recreational marijuana outlets is the city of Manitou Springs, which adjoins Colorado Springs to the west, and has two retail recreational pot shops, the maximum number allowed by city ordinance.(Colorado Springs Convention and Visitors Bureau, Recreational marijuana, accessed 31 Mar. 2016.)
Medical marijuana outlets continue to operate in Colorado Springs. As of 2015, there were 91 medical marijuana clinics in the city, which reported sales of $59.6 million in 2014, up 11 percent from the previous year.(“Medical marijuana industry still growing in Colorado,” Colorado Springs Gazette, 25 March 2015.) The provisions of Amendment 64 concerning personal use are not affected by the local ban on retail sales, so that growing and possession of small quantities of pot in Colorado Springs are legal under state (but not federal) law.

Note that one of the citations is to a page on the CS Visitors Bureau website. Thoughts? Plazak (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Hi Plazak - Way too detailed in my opinion. Something along the lines of:
Although Colorado voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2013 legalizing retail sales of marijuana for recreational purposes, the Colorado Springs city council voted not to permit retail shops in the city, as was allowed in the amendment. Medical marijuana outlets continue to operate in Colorado Springs.“Pot may be legal in Colorado, but it can’t be purchased in most large cities,” Tacoma News Tribune, 16 March 2016.) As of 2015, there were 91 medical marijuana clinics in the city, which reported sales of $59.6 million in 2014, up 11 percent from the previous year.(“Medical marijuana industry still growing in Colorado,”
That covers the issue, without giving undue weight to it. Onel5969 TT me 20:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Plazak thanks for your efforts - and you as well Onel5969. I am thinking along the same lines as O that your version is too detailed for this article. I am wondering if there is another article along the lines of Cannabis policy of Colorado (though that one doesn't seem quite right) that could use your version of the info? I am in favor of placing the shorter version in the article whenever either of you are ready to do so. MarnetteD|Talk 22:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I like the weight balancing. (ADOPTED (sub heading at bottom of culture section)) --Potguru (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Yea, I've been working on several articles on the topic. As Plazak points out, it is an important topic; particularly the issue of Colorado Springs lack of adoption of amendment 64 retail stores, the legendary first dispensary created by Mike Lee and of course the interesting issue we face with pot social clubs in the city limits. For those "not in the know" there was a social club operator who just two weeks back offered free joints to adults who helped clean up an area in SW Co Springs. Thanks for all your insightful input I knew you editors could help get me through this incredibly steep learning curve (read: wikipedia editing). --Potguru (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
My blurbs scarcely scratch the surface, but if it is judged too long, as MarnetteD has suggested, I can start a section on local cannabis policies in the Cannabis policy of Colorado article, and link to it here. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply Plazak. I know what you are getting at about scratching the surface. You might consider a stand alone article that looks at the way that each individual city has dealt with the situation. That would allow for links to each cities article. Now I am just throwing out another idea. I suspect it would be a lot of work and might not be what you are trying to accomplish. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 00:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, MarnetteD, but this is not really my forte. If some editors more knowledgeable on the subject, such as Potguru, want to expand it to the point where it is log enough to be spun off as a stand-alone article, they are welcome to it. Regards. Plazak (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Back again. Regarding the latest addition, I don't know if allowing just 2 pot shops means that Manitou Springs "encourages marijuana tourism." That seems a stretch. If a town really wanted to encourage pot tourism, it would not cap the shops at 2. Plazak (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You are correct Plazak. In fact the ref is about Cannabis clubs and makes no reference to M tourism. While the sales tax numbers are mentioned briefly they are not used to illustrate the point made in the sentence as added to the article. Thus, once again, WP:SYNTH has been used. The section has now been restored to the version agreed upon above. MarnetteD|Talk 03:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Precisely, MarnetteD - That's why I worded my version that way. Onel5969 TT me 04:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
It's ok, I've come to save the day with citable evidence!!! "Also, the small, non-urban town of Manitou Springs recently approved such usage as a potential tourism strategy." It's on page 6. After a few, cited, hopefully NPOV edits I left the following:

Marijuana[edit]

Although Colorado voters approved Colorado Amendment 64, a constitutional amendment in 2013 legalizing retail sales of marijuana for recreational purposes, the Colorado Springs city council voted not to permit retail shops in the city, as was allowed in the amendment[1]. Medical marijuana outlets continue to operate in Colorado Springs.[2] As of 2015, there were 91 medical marijuana clinics in the city, which reported sales of $59.6 million in 2014, up 11 percent from the previous year but without recreational marijuana shops.[3] The local newspaper reported, in July 2015 that Colorado Springs crimes are down and medical marijuana tax revenue is soaring.[4] In January 2016 Colorado Springs collected one hundred fifty thousand dollars in sales tax from the 91 medical marijuana dispensaries, while neighboring Manitou Springs, which encourages marijuana tourism[5], collected nearly as much by taxing only two recreational marijuana dispensaries.[6] If allowed to open, city officials estimate Colorado Springs would collect between $500,000 and $900,000 annually in tax revenue only by applying a sales 1% tax levy.[7] --Potguru (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

References

First the WP:CONSENSUS is for the info as presented by Onel5969. It is brief, concise and does not stray into WP:ADVOCACY. The info you keep trying to force in is critical of C Springs and its restrictions on the marijuana industry and that will always be WP:POV. It needs to be mentioned that this is not the only Colorado city/town/community to have restrictions. Again this info is fine for your Facebook page but it is not fit for this article. MarnetteD|Talk 15:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand. How is this critical of Colorado Springs "If allowed to open, city officials estimate Colorado Springs would collect between $500,000 and $900,000 annually in tax revenue only by applying a sales 1% tax levy." or "The local newspaper reported, in July 2015 that Colorado Springs crimes are down and medical marijuana tax revenue is soaring." And if they are, please try to teach me to be a better editor by fixing the text, not continuing to remove it. Same question for "In January 2016 Colorado Springs collected one hundred fifty thousand dollars in sales tax from the 91 medical marijuana dispensaries, while neighboring Manitou Springs, which encourages marijuana tourism[5], collected nearly as much by taxing only two recreational marijuana dispensaries." Manitou Springs and Colorado Springs are neighbors and manitou springs is between the city of Colorado Springs and the Pikes Peak highway, owned by Colorado Springs. I can't learn if you just remove and say "POV", that doesn't teach me anything. Thanks!--19:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
First, you've been politely requested not to use the small print. Let it suffice to say that any further comments or questions you have, which you insist on continuing to use that font will be ignored by this editor. Other folks might not have an issue with it. Some do. I'm one of them. Second, you are an advocate. The fact that you can't see how your edits are POV pushing, when its been explained to you several times, means perhaps that you should stay away from editing on that subject. Every time you edit something with a POV issue, that particular edit doesn't need to be explained to you. Onel5969 TT me 00:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Fire Fire Fire[edit]

see current discussion on concensus request immediately below

When I came to this page there was not a single mention of fire on this page. I am flummoxed.

So I will figure out how to add this. Thoughts? --Potguru (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

This is kind of the same philosophy which led you to delete the AFA from the article. None of these fires were actually in CS. Onel5969 TT me 00:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I cannot disagree with your logic. These items are all, perhaps, "greater Colorado Springs metro area" issues. Now I'm confused how to proceed. Do the bases belong here or the fires belong somewhere else?
--Potguru (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
That's something that should be derived at by consensus at the talk page of the article. It varies city by city. Some cities, like Las Vegas, limit the article very specifically, most likely due to the fact that local residents are sensitive to the fact that the strip isn't actually in Las Vegas. Others, like Los Angeles, are broader in their approach. When you removed those bases, I didn't revert, since that is a judgement call. My point above is that the article needs to be consistent. If the consensus is to a very strict limit on inclusion in the article, than every portion of the article should abide by that. If there is a slightly broader scope, including its environs, than the entire article should reflect that. Hope that helps. Onel5969 TT me 23:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Helps quite a bit, added new section below. Thanks! --Potguru (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for consensus on geographic area covered by article[edit]

The military bases are not in the city limits nor were any of the major fires, until Waldo Canyon. The Waldo canyon fire destroyed houses in the "Mountain Shadows subdivision in Colorado Springs" and also destroyed thousands of acres outside the city limits.[1]

With significant military bases just outside the city limits and given the city's geographic location, unbuildable mountains to the west, unpopulated plains to the south and east, I believe it would it be appropriate to expand this article to cover a greater metropolitan area. Expanding in that way would allow us to include the military bases and all the important regional events and locations in the article instead of limiting it to the city borders. That said, do you agree or disagree that this article should be expanded to include the areas immediately surrounding the city limits?

References

Agree. I believe, as I stated above, noteable things in the neighboring areas should be covered in this city-centric article such as the fires and military bases along with the areas between the city and the Pikes Peak Highway such as Manitous Springs floods, the Cave of the Winds, Santa's North Pole, "Bust, Colorado" etc. --Potguru (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Military Installation Section Removal[edit]

Hi all, in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colorado_Springs,_Colorado&oldid=712500875 the entire military section was removed. Subsequently a section "Nearby Military Sites" was added but it provides none of the context that was in the original section on why Colorado Springs is geographically and economically tied to the military. The editor justified it by saying "none of these are in the city" -- even though Peterson Air Force Base is actually within the city limits and USAFA and Carson box in the city. I agree the section warranted trimming but the wholesale removal seemed overboard and indiscriminate.

Peterson, USAFA and Carson are the number 1, 2 and 3 employers in the region. The city is intimately involved with the military and scrubbing that seemed to reflect an uninformed or biased perspective. -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Colorado Springs, Colorado. 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}}).

☑Y 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) 05:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Colorado Springs, Colorado. 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.

☑Y 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) 13:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Colorado Springs, Colorado. 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.

☑Y 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) 22:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

"Colorado Springs, Colorado" is arbitrary. Simply "Colorado Springs" is a cleaner choice for the article's name. Yes, I am aware that only major cities in America should have a page name without a state name, but note that Colorado Springs is more populous than Minneapolis, whose page is titled "Minneapolis" and not "Minneapolis, Minnesota". PerhapsXarb (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 18 August 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 19:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


Colorado Springs, ColoradoColorado Springs – Move over redirect. There are no other Colorado Springs articles, so it seems the state name in the article title is unnecessary Amsgearing (talk) :This is a contested technical request 16:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC) (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

  • The state name is typically included per WP:USPLACE. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Please read WP:USPLACE. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. Though it certainly appears that "Colorado Springs, Colorado" is redundant, current policy makes it clear that the state name should remain. ONR (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support for multiple reasons. This doesn't past the common sense test - Atlanta is not titled "Atlanta, Georgia", and there are 21 other places in the US named Atlanta. Meanwhile, Colorado Springs has a larger population than Atlanta and there are zero other places in the world named Colorado Springs. WP:USPLACE is a guideline, not hard policy, and it does say "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I think this is a clear exception, for these reasons:
  1. There are no other places in the world named Colorado Springs.
  2. "Colorado Springs, Colorado" is redundant on its face, and WP:CONCISE recommends brevity in this case.
  3. It's now a larger city than several cities we don't include state names for. Amsgearing (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Exceptions are per AP style: "Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier in newspaper articles have their articles named City unless they are not the primary topic for that name. In other cases, this guideline recommends following the "comma convention" as described above." ╠╣uw [talk] 09:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
And Phoenix, New York and Washington aren't at the base name even though they are on the AP list. I don't see why we can't extend this to Colorado Springs and Virginia Beach per the fact that WP:UKPLACE uses the country, not the "state" for places that have a variation of the "state" such as Lincoln, England and Perth, Scotland. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
The cities of Phoenix, New York, and Washington aren't the primary topics for those base terms; see the guideline above. It's also good to remember that even if we did away with the guideline entirely, the majority of articles on US places would still have to be disambiguated anyway (due in part to the American phenomenon of place names often being repeated across multiple states), so for that reason and others, consistent application makes sense.

As for the specific places you mentioned — Colorado Springs and Virginia Beach — what about them in particular do you think makes the state unnecessary or redundant? ╠╣uw [talk] 13:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

My point was that the AP style doesn't work for those due to ambiguity, thus we aren't following that entirely anyway.
Both unnecessary and redundant because CS is completely unique and VB is primary (as the only topics we currently cover a sub topics) and is primary over the other small places that don't yet have articles. Yes there is Nebraska City, Nebraska but that's smaller. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
If Nebraska City, Nebraska would persist because it's smaller, then you're suggesting using a fluctuating metric like population to determine title form? That seems... unwieldly, and far more complicated than just using a single, consistent, name+state form (which, again, is what the majority of US place articles would have to do anyway).
Also, I forgot to ask: could you elaborate on what you mean by describing the current title as "tautological"? ╠╣uw [talk] 14:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I was using that to indicate that this is a more extreme case, as it is 1 unambiguous 2 tautological and 3 large. Nebraska City is only the first 2. This is somewhat a compromise between users who think all US cities should include the state and those that think it should only be done when needed. And more descriptive titles are more complicated, why not move this to Coloardo Springs (city), Colorado, United States, World, Universe etc?
Tautological in that the name of the city-Coloardo Springs contains the state already. Though not as tautological as Durham, Durham or New York, New York. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
That it contains the name of the state does not make it a tautology; Colorado Springs could be anywhere. In this case it happens to be in Colorado, but so is Idaho Springs, Colorado. (Would that have been clear without the state?) We absolutely cannot assume that the presence of a state in a US place's name indicates the state that it's actually in.

On that subject, note too that Minnesota Junction is in Wisconsin, Wisconsin Township is in Minnesota, Virginia City is in Nevada, Nevada City is in California, Arizona Township is in Nebraska, Missouri City is in Texas, Texas is in New York, New York is in Texas, etc. There are enough such examples to fill a page; US placenames are quite the geographical grab-bag. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

York is in Lancashire see this as is Cambridge in Gloucestershire, along with Oxford, Lincoln, Warwick, Derby and Perth. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is no reason to create weird individual exceptions to WP:USPLACE because then there'd be no reason not to move every single other page. I don't even support WP:USPLACE really, but it needs an overhaul instead of picking and choosing to drop state names. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Amsgearing. WP:USPLACE is a guideline, not a policy as thought by Old Naval Rooftops, and guideline language specifically says that they are "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Not maybe treated, or treated once-in-a-blue-moon, but "best treated" with common sense. Colorado Springs, Colorado does seem unnecessarily redundant. And it's more populated than Atlanta and Minneapolis? I didn't know that and it seems counter-intuitive - probably because it doesn't have a major league baseball or football team which ups the mind-map visibility of city names - but if true then that's even more reason for the "occasional exception" to apply. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Per Randy Kryn, WP:PRECISION is policy and the current title is tautological and looks silly. Why have Boston at the unqualified name that isn't the original but this one with the state? If disambiguation was needed it should be to Colorado Springs, United States per Lincoln, England. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:USPLACE In ictu oculi (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "City, State" is the standard formatting in the U.S. for cities. That's the reason why U.S. city articles are generally titled in this formamt. WP:USPLACE is currently applied universally across Wikipedia article titles, and if we make this one exception here, then there will be a flood of new move requests that will cite it as a precedent. It's just not worth it. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Good point Rreagan007, a flood may occur, but few would make sense and almost all would fall under the WP:USPLACE guideline, and then the flood would become a small stream and then diminish further. "It's just not worth it" as the oppose summary seems a WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning. In any case, this move does fall into the realm of "exception", even some of the oppose statements come close to saying that, and if guidelines specifically call for "occasional exceptions" which may apply, what better example is there to fulfill that slot than Colorado Springs. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
    • If we were going to make an exception here, then it would have to be demonstrated that "Colorado Springs, Colorado" is not the WP:COMMONNAME, and I have seen no attempt to do so in this proposal. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Good point. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The cities template is named {{Colorado Springs}}, without the qualifier. Probably most people in the US would recognize it as the name of the city in Colorado, similar to our article Oklahoma City, without the redundancy. Colorado Springs isn't as well known as other cities, at least in my perception, but it is probably recognizable as the common name of the city. That's just a guess though. Except for the U.S. Olympic Headquarters, and things like Pikes Peak and the yearly tracking of Santa Claus by NORAD, it doesn't cause much of a media ripple. But still the cities name, alone, seems like it would be the common recognizable descriptor. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I certainly would not make the assumption that Colorado Springs was located in the state of Colorado. Honestly it sounds like the name of a place that could be located anywhere along the Colorado River, which runs through a number of different states, and I could imagine a place called "Colorado Springs" being located in any of them. And there are multiple examples of cities with a state name other than the one it is located in, Kansas City, Missouri being the most famous. And there are a number of cities named after their state, should we move all of them? Rreagan007 (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  • It could also be the name of a mattress company. No, all of the cities on the list should not be moved, although Virginia Beach may be a good candidate. The main reason I'm supporting this move is the prominence of Colorado Springs, both for its large population and in what it contains (for city highlights see the template {{Colorado Springs}}, which uses the city name without the state descriptor). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The term used in the nav template seems completely irrelevant to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Why, because it supports the view that we should drop "Colorado" from this article title? You can't just yell "irrelevant" whenever someone raises a valid point that makes your argument weaker. Just yell "fake news" next time; it seems to be the thing to do these days. Amsgearing (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  • It's irrelevant because the name currently used in a Wikipedia nav template is not a reliable source. I could change the name in the nav template right now if I wanted to. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, I don't see any other article on something called "Colorado Springs". Therefore, the name is unambiguous. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 21:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
    • By that logic, every U.S. city for which there is no other article of the same name should also be moved. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Why not? This is Wikipedia. Wikipedia is constantly changing. We could easily decide to do that; "that's a lot of work" is not an excuse to not do something that makes sense. Amsgearing (talk) 11:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Ambiguity alone isn't why we have the convention; see WP:PERENNIAL. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
That's exactly right. Disambiguation is a nice feature of using the "City, State" format for U.S. cities, but it's not the only reason we use it. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
What? Seems like that's the only reason. Citing WP:PERENNIAL is a red herring; that's not even a Wikipedia guideline, much less a policy, and it hasn't been vetted by the community. It reads like a laundry list of the arguments being made here by people that are against the common sense renaming of this article, with no reasons based in actual policy or common sense. Amsgearing (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
What? The "only reason"? You must have missed these: "Reliable sources commonly append the state to placenames. Appending the state is common usage and sufficiently natural that it may be considered part of American English." Rreagan007 (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
And I explained to you why citing WP:PERENNIAL (which is where you got that quote) is worthless, but in case you missed it: "not a Wikipedia guideline, much less a policy, and it hasn't been vetted by the community." Amsgearing (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I understand it's not an official policy, but it's still contains very good arguments against this move which you have been unwilling to directly refute, instead choosing to dismiss the arguments without directly addressing them. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Amsgearing: I referred you to PERENNIAL because it helpfully summarizes some of the reasons that Wikipedia has long retained the USPLACE guideline. (Neither I nor anyone else ever claimed that PERENNIAL itself is why we follow the comma convention.) ╠╣uw [talk] 08:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
There is no question that Colorado Springs, Colorado is a legitimate commonly used name for that city. But so is Colorado Springs. In fact, they are arguably equal per all WP:CRITERIA, but one. Colorado Springs clearly is favored by WP:CONCISE. It's no contest. --В²C 20:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Per WP:COMMONNAME (1964 NY Times article, 2015 NY Times article), WP:CONCISE and WP:D - there is no disambiguation required here. Ignore WP:USPLACE per WP:IAR; as the nom Amsgearing notes, the current title is redundant on its face; getting rid of the redundancy improves WP. More generally, USPLACE creates a terribly disruptive precedent for WP title decision-making in that it effectively sanctions unnecessary disambiguation like this (adding description to unique and primary topic names in titles solely for the sake of making them more descriptive/recognizable), which underlies endless pointless bickering over titles all over the English WP, of which this is but one example. See WP:RM over the last ten years for myriads more. Ever since someone deployed a bot to disambiguate all US City articles - whether they needed it or not - we've been in this mess. Rolling back unnecessary disambiguation for primary topic cities on the AP list was a good start. Doing it for blatantly redundant ones like this one would be another positive step in the right direction. And no, we don't have to change the guideline first; to the contrary. See Shouldn't you get the policy/guideline changed, rather than try to subvert it one article at a time? --В²C 20:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
A few points, if I may:
  • Colorado Springs, Colorado is not redundant — see Idaho Springs, Colorado. A state name featuring in the base name does not reliably indicate the place's state.
  • As reflected by many reliable sources, notably including the Associated Press[1][2][3][4][5] whose pattern we follow, appending the state is common.
  • Our criteria encourage naturalness and consistency, not just conciseness. The name+state form reflects natural use and is consistent with >99% of US place titles, and so best meets those criteria for a good title.
  • Out of something like 40k US place articles, there are perhaps two or three a year where someone suggests removing the state, and often that's just due to unfamiliarity with the guideline or mistakenly thinking the state is appended solely for disambiguation. (This nomination, originating as it does from a contested technical request, is seemingly one.) IMHO that's remarkably stable.
  • It hasn't been shown how the proposed change would better serve the interests of the reader, which per policy should be our greater concern.
Thanks, ╠╣uw [talk] 14:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Huwmanbeing (talk · contribs), thanks for your thoughts. A few counter-points, if I may.
  • Colorado Springs, Colorado IS redundant — Idaho Springs, Colorado is not. Is that not obvious? When a state name is in the name of the city if the city is in that state then adding the state is redundant, if not, then not.
  • Referencing this city both with and without the state is common; on COMMONNAME it's a wash.
  • Yes, naturalness and consistency are also emphasized, and they're both a wash too. Both are natural (i.e, both are common names) and one is consistent with how most other US cities are named and the other is consistent with how most other articles including most cities outside the US are named (disambiguate only when necessary). CONCISENESS is the only WP:CRITERIA with which we have a clear undisputed "winner".
  • The US city title guideline is inconsistent with how other articles are titled and will remain a source for conflicts until this inconsistency is resolved. But the bigger problem is not the conflicts it creates within the sphere of US city names, but the effect it has outside of this sphere in appearing to sanction unnecessary disambiguation, a sanction that leads to a number of unnecessary week+ long conflicts documented at RM every single day, a problem to which my user page is dedicated.
Thanks, --В²C 18:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
What makes a piece of information redundant is whether it's already been conveyed. The base name "Colorado Springs" by itself does not convey the state that the city is in — just as "Idaho Springs" does not, or as "Virginia City" does not, or as other base place names do not.
If you disagree, we can easily test it: take the unique name "Tennessee Township". Without looking it up, can you reliably determine simply from the base name the state that it's in? If you cannot, then appending the state is not conveying redundant information, regardless of whether it turns out to be in Tennessee or not. Again: one cannot assume the state from the base name.
As for consistency, titles are not consistent simply because they're generated by a singular rule (like exceptionless minimum disambiguation); they're also consistent if they exhibit a singular pattern. Currently >99% of US place articles, including this one, share a single pattern. A policy of minimum disambiguation would leave the state on most but remove it from a large but scattered minority for reasons that likely would not be apparent to (or appreciated by) the reader — and per policy it's the reader's interests we put first. IMHO one cannot dismiss such criteria as "a wash". ╠╣uw [talk] 09:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per USPLACE. The AP Style provides for a stable, quality-source-consistent dividing line between universally recognised US cities and the majority really only known non-internationally. "City, State" has considerable advantages of consistency and recognisability, with more than sufficient COMMONNAME support. No other line would be less disruptive. These regular article title battles are a complete distraction and have zero regard for reader issues. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, re user В²C, particularly WP:CONCISE. WP:USPLACE seems silly if we are disambiguating completely unambiguous titles. I'd vote for a full reform of that guideline if possible. Common sense should always prevail. Loeba (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion regarding the AP Style Guide[edit]

I wish to point out that since there are numerous cities (Atlanta, Boston, etc,) that don't have the state name attached, and some of these cities are actually smaller in population than Colorado Springs, the Oppose votes keep pointing to the AP Style Guide as the dividing line. To me, this is a completely arbitrary choice, as Wikipedia is supposed to be written for a global audience (or at least, the English Wikipedia for the global English-speaking audience) and the AP Guide is a strictly American source. The guideline even explicitly states that the guidance within is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. The city of Phoenix is even treated as an exception in the OTHER direction (and I agree with that choice). It's a good example of treating this on a case-by-case basis. In this case, there's absolutely no reason to include the state name other than saying "But the AP Guide says!" - even though there are exceptions to that guideline. So that argument, to me, holds no water. Amsgearing (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Amsgearing: Please see the various reasons to retain the state that have already been raised in the discussion immediately above, as well as those noted in the FAQ, summarized in PERENNIAL, and explored in other similar discussions. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I think the best reason to oppose this RM is one I raised myself, that Colorado Springs might be confused for a mattress company. Besides that I can see no actual reason to keep the redundant descriptor other than a force of habit guideline suggestion which, as Amsgearing points out, is geared towards (and only towards) an American format while serving on an international platform. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Explicitly U.S.-related articles should use a U.S. format. This is similar to how we use American English for U.S.-related articles, British English for British-related articles, Australian English for Australian-related articles, etc. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh really? where's it say that? I'm aware that British English is used in British-centric articles, etc, but extrapolating that to the AP style guide for how to refer to city names in Wikipedia articles came straight out of thin air. Amsgearing (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Rreagan007: Exactly so. Insofar as name, state is the widely-used natural form favored by US speakers, that's the form we follow, per WP:TITLEVAR. (It's also why we simultaneously have a US Department of Defense and a UK Ministry of Defence.) ╠╣uw [talk] 21:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Randy Kryn so could Colorado Springs, Colorado be a mattress company, the state only tells you where, not what it is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Kind of like Hope Springs, Eternal. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Union Printers' Home (Colorado-Springs)[edit]

To whom it may concern: One of the iconic Colorado Springs' landmarks is the Union Printers Home. I am very surprised that no one has taken a photograph of this beautiful place and uploaded it here, in this article. I would highly recommend that if there be any Wikipedians out there, in Colorado Springs, and if they've got a digital camera, that they'd do us this one big favor by uploading an image of this eloquent place on our encyclopedia. All the best!Davidbena (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)