Talk:Ogden, Utah/Archive 1

Archive 1

External links

The following two lines need to be added back to the External links section. I had to remove them to push through a big update I was working on. The spam filter must be broken. Gah I can't even add them here with the nowiki tag, replace .___ with .com. and h__p with http.

*[h__p://www.ogdencity.___/ Ogden City] web site	 
*[h__p://www.Untraveledroad.___/USA/Utah/Weber/Ogden.htm Photographic virtual tour of Ogden.]

—A 09:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Added back in, I was told that there was something wrong with the spam filter. —A 09:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Sports and Recreation

There should be a section on Sports and Recreation, much like the one found on the Salt Lake City Page. This is an important part of Ogden's make up, and includes some historically important aspects for Rock Climbing, and Skiing (Olympic Downhill and Curling) in the 2002 winter olympics.

JohnDilworth 02:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agreee, also do not for get the extensive trail system (Hypernick1980 05:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC))
• I also agree. There have also been some classic baseball players who played minor leagues in Ogden, namely Tommy Lasorda. (Ryskis 15:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

Herman Bang

The famous Danish author Herman Bang died in Ogden while travelling in the US. Perhaps this should be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.150.104.21 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 2 June 2007

Interesting tidbit, but without adding in a trivia section, not sure how to work this into the article. Feel free to be bold and add it in yourself! —A 01:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Include future plans and projects?

There seems to be a dispute between WBardwin, Jedidiavolo, and myself over whether it's appropriate to mention the proposed ice climbing tower and/or the proposed kayak park on the Ogden River. WBardwin claims that the ice climbing tower is under construction, although the latest news report (Ogden Standard-Examiner, January 22, 2008) says that the city is still seeking funding for the project. I would argue that until there is a firm completion date for a facility such as this, it probably shouldn't be mentioned in an encyclopedia article. Projects like these are often delayed indefinitely, or canceled due to lack of funding or some other obstacle. Also, I'm not convinced that these facilities will be particularly noteworthy even if they are completed. The existing kayak park on the (much larger) Weber River isn't used much and I hesitated over whether to mention it when I wrote the first draft of the recreation section. The ice climbing tower might be noteworthy just for its uniqueness, IF it gets funded and functions as promised and gets a reasonable amount of use. But even if others have inside information that I lack, it's not appropriate to put undocumented promises in Wikipedia.

I'd appreciate hearing others' opinions on this.

(As a minor matter: If the ice climbing tower is to be mentioned, it shouldn't be in the paragraph on water sports.)

Twobitter (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that if the ice tower is to be mentioned, it shouldn't be in the paragraph on water sports. What about if there is a section on planned, future projects, but be brief. They aren't "undocumented promises", they are documented promises. — Val42 (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear about "undocumented promise"; I meant that there doesn't seem to be any documentation that the resources are available to keep the promise.

I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a section on planned future projects. If it's something really big, and it's already reasonably far along (such as the FrontRunner commuter rail), then of course it should be mentioned. Otherwise, what's the point? Do other cities' articles include sections on future plans? It would be interesting to see other examples if they can be found. --Twobitter (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you're doing a good job of making your case. Where would you propose drawing the line? Would Peterson's idea of creating a year-round resort in Malan Basin be included? This is a project which has plenty of documentation of attempts to make it come to pass. Try to find a place to draw the line then you may be able to convince me. — Val42 (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure I can draw the line as sharply as you'd like--there will always be borderline cases. But again, I'd generally favor mentioning a future project if it's both large and reasonably certain to happen. So the FrontRunner qualifies because it's a major transportation investment, fully funded years ago, almost fully constructed, promised to be up and running this spring. The Malan's Basin development would also be a major project, but it doesn't qualify because it's highly speculative. However, if someone wanted to add a section on Ogden politics, perhaps the Malan's Basin proposal could be mentioned there as an example of what Ogdenites like to fight over! --Twobitter (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What about if we put in the politics section something like, "The political leaders have a goal of making Ogden a recreation center for the surrounding states. To this end, they have built several projects, have pursuing funding of others (ice climbing wall and a kayak park on the Ogden river), and have recruited recreation outfitters and manufacturers to locate in Ogden. The Peterson plans for a year-round resort in Malan Basin has been one of the most controversial." I know that this is very rough, but you get the idea. It is brief, to the point and covers these projects without saying that they are in the works, just being pursued. — Val42 (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to pass judgment on an isolated excerpt of a hypothetical section on Ogden politics--I'd want to see the whole context. Why don't you try writing the whole section? But remember there's a lot more to Ogden politics than the "recreation center" goal, and much of the recreation development isn't very noteworthy from a political perspective. --Twobitter (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the references right now, so it will be a while. But at least we've established where it should go if anyone wants to take on this project. — Val42 (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)